Summations Only

Well that seems to be a long standing issue with feminism, rather than just Atheism+ - and much of Atheism+ is the Pharyngula community, which is notoriously lion's dennish. They have consciously adopted the tactic of angrily denouncing opinions, people whatever, that they view as being problematic for their goals. This tactic is reinforced when someone claims to have had their mind changed not by mere dispassionate argument, but when they called a fool or accused of harming the movement or the like.With that said, I have an anonymous username at the Atheist+ forums - but I've never posted there because I really don't like that if you haven't familiarized yourself with the results of all the major (in their minds) discussions that they have already had - then you should be berated. And given the attitudes from some other atheists I've read, this is not an uncommon perception. So the movement might have growth problems.

Maybe this happened, but the best source for this quote I could come up with is Catherine MacKinnon who claims it was a false quote designed to undermine her credibility, possibly manufactured by the pornography industry - of which she was a vocal opponent.There was a similar case in the 80s, Andrea Dworkin:

quote:

---

She argued that this kind of depiction enforced a male-centric and coercive view of sexuality, and that, when the cultural attitudes combine with the material conditions of women's lives in a sexist society, the experience of heterosexual intercourse itself becomes a central part of men's subordination of women, experienced as a form of "occupation" that is nevertheless expected to be pleasurable for women and to define their very status as women.

​

Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting the book as claiming "all" heterosexual intercourse is rape, or more generally that the anatomical mechanics of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. For instance, Cathy Young says that statements such as, "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women,"are reasonably summarized as "All sex is rape."

---

I think Dawkins' point was that elevator guy wasn't just being mildly problematic in comparison to the cultures of (say) the near east, but that he was not being problematic at all:

quote:

---

I sarcastically compared Rebecca’s plight with that of women in Muslim countries or families dominated by Muslim men. Somebody made the worthwhile point (reiterated here by PZ) that it is no defence of something slightly bad to point to something worse. We should fight all bad things, the slightly bad as well as the very bad. Fair enough. But my point is that the ‘slightly bad thing’ suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story.

​

But not everybody sees it as end of story. OK, let’s ask why not? The main reason seems to be that an elevator is a confined space from which there is no escape. This point has been made again and again in this thread, and the other one.

​

No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here’s how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.

​

No, I obviously don’t get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.

---

(I can't find the original, but I remember reading it once. It is on many blogs as a quote now but the links are to another blog post where Dawkins commented. It can be seen Here for example)

I guess this discussion should actually belong over at Message 51 in Anyone ever heard of Rebecca Watson?, should you feel the desire to respond.

Those sluts should be ashamed! Wait, weren't we living previous to this in a Social Contract where only men were granted the right to shame-free Sexual Licence? I mean who are these dirty, filthy, licentious women frolicking with but men? Sounds like corporatism to me. Or were you suggesting legalizing prostitution? Which is the whore-mothers fault, apparently. Is this a Republican argument for contraception and family planning resources? I think you might be onto something there.Furthermore - more than your whole Military Budget? Are you sure about that? There are what, about 10 million single mothers in the USA? And they claim more than 900 billion dollars a year? Isn't that like $90,000 each per year?I appreciate you want to tie this together with feminists or 'gay sympathizers' but can you make this relevant to the divisions within the atheist community? Because I think we're in danger of losing sight of the topic. Maybe, if you feel particularly strongly you can propose a new thread where you can really let loose with telling us about the depraved libidinous shameless whores and the consequences of feminism and Sexual Licence on our Social Contract

Anybody that claims to find Rebecca Watson 'interesting', should surely know enough about her to infer that sexually propositioning her away from witnesses might make her feel uncomfortable. Paying attention to what Watson talks about, might have clued him in. It should have been clear to him that 'wanna come in for coffee?' is a common signal of sexual intent, and he certainly could reasonably know this, by participating in culture for a few years. Give he could reasonably know that it advertises sexual intent, he might have reasonably concluded that someone who hasn't spoken with him is not going to feel 'complemented' when cornered in a close space out of sight of witnesses, but rather is going to be in the position of having no polite 'outs', and having to essentially deny a strange man from his sexual desires. And that, had he considered his impact carefully, he could reasonably conclude that could make her feel like little more than an object rather than as a person. Her concerns were ignored as if they were irrelevant.And for those guys that weren't aware of how this might make someone feel - now they've been told. Some of them have not taken kindly to it, and are asserting that they have a right to proposition women as they see fit. Which they more or less do - but the feminists are perfectly entitled to criticise their behaviour too. Am I alone in being able to tell if a woman is not welcoming my advances? Am I alone in being able to tell that approaching a woman for the first time, in a context where there are no witnesses or easy escapes, is a bad idea?It doesn't require the capacity to read minds. Just the ability to have empathy for women. I'm not claiming perfection in this regard, but it's hardly quantum electrodynamics to show a bit of restraint. To first talk to the woman while she's in the bar, engage in some flirting and using some empathy in reading the signals, if the two of you are getting along well, and flirting is being reciprocated, then maybe you could say 'Say, how do you fancy coming back to my room for some coffee?'. Not just jump to the not all that plausably deniable social etiquette for sexual propositioning. To avoid talking with her until she's alone and cornered just seems, when it's looked at from the woman's point of view, quite crass.

I'm pretty sure I didn't claim to know what a woman is thinking. Indeed, I seem to emphatically deny mind reading capacities. Just faulty empathy. And not all women are you, either. I think its more moral to err on the side of caution. If its an environment that could make some women very uncomfortable, then don't do it. I mean, I'm very pleased that you are apparently confident enough to handle yourself against unwanted advances, and feel no more threatened by propositions in dark alleyways than you would at a dance. But I think its right to avoid cornering women when they're alone and letting them know you want to fuck them...And it's not your poor little female feelings, I'm worried about. It's the perfectly justified human feelings. I'd be pretty nervous if some man much larger than me propositioned me in certain contexts, why would I want to potentially subject someone else to that fear?As you say: And its not actually all that difficult to ameliorate someone's perfectly justified fears by being sensitive about how and when they advertise their sexual interests.

I believe in the context, however, we're talking about a person who had given, I believe it was this talk where she talked about how she doesn't see sexual emails from strangers as a compliment (skip to about 8:15). She has apparently been talking with those who are basically interested in her for some hours before she went to bed. If you didn't realize that propositioning feminists in that kind of context, won't get you far, then now you do.(Incidentally, I think it was this kind of hijacking of discussions (since she was so barely on topic its crazy) that got Dawkins annoyed enough to stick his oar in later on) In your hotel room? Before you were acquainted with them? At 4am? In an elevator? On her way to bed? After she had spent time (knowing what I do of RW, probably some hours) about feminism and sexism? He could reasonably have inferred that she might feel objectified when he ignored her stated desires in order to establish his sexual interest in her and essentially demand that she respond to it.I mean, some guys are ignorant of this stuff, I get it. I think RW has educated at least some men on something. That's exactly the problem! His first advance should have been in the bar, and it probably shouldn't have been 'wanna get some coffee in my room'. Jumping straight to the 'final question' out of sight of witnesses in an enclosed space...that's the problem. Do you approach many women where they are alone and immediately ask them back to your hotel room?It doesn't require mind reading capabilities, it requires you gather some evidence that the proposition you might want to make 'come back to my hotel room', would be welcomed. Ask her how she is first, for example. Maybe exchange names. And some funny stories. You know, that kind of stuff. Right and maybe Elevator Guy simply had a d'oh moment. But the fact we make mistakes is no reason to avoid calling them mistakes. Elevator Guy made one. At 4am, when she wants to go to bed. I'm afraid you should just concede that if you had a shot, you missed the opportunity. Maybe next time.Or you know, you could pursue her and hope that your natural sexual charisma can win her over by asking her back to your hotel room when there's nobody around.

My increasing sense of empathy is a work in progress, I don't claim to have been born with it - though I would agree I was born with a certain capacity for empathy, but I'm willing to concede I'm actually probably below average in natural empathy all round (I find myself working very hard when empathy might be required). When I was in my late teens I was more frequently a dick to women than I am now. That's why I don't think these men are uneducatable. It's just their education of attracting sexual partners, by culture, has often largely consisted of something like 'persist and be pseudo-aggressive'. It comes with a side order of guilt We can teach people to be more considerate, though it's much easier to get them when they're kids, I'm sure. So perhaps we can teach them to engage their empathy. Sure, but I'm sure we also agree that that doesn't give one licence for one to be negligent in considering the effect one's words or actions might have in the context they are being spoken. I was exaggerating for effect, but I see that that didn't really read how it was meant to come across. I kind of figured you wouldn't like being approached in dark alleyways and that you might concede that there is some territory sexual advances should be limited in. Then it all becomes a question of whether an elevator crosses the line, or if it does so enough times to warrant extreme caution with your approaches. The exaggeration was meant to mirror your exaggerating about me being kind to your 'poor little women's feelings' and the bravado of essentially claiming thicker skin than RW et al which I realize may have been in part, Satan's Lawyering I am always fine with a bit of Devil's Advocacy. For the sake of ease, I will still respond to the arguments as if they were sincere beliefs of the hypothetical person who might hold them who I will assign the convenient personal pronoun of 'you'.