Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Dawkins a sexist?

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:02:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This probably doesn't belong in religion, but idk where else to put it.

Full article is here: http://gawker.com...

Convo is here: http://scienceblogs.com...

Here's an excerpt, Dawkins posts 3 comments but the situation is rather simple.

Here's what happened.

Here's what happened. In Dublin last month, Rebecca Watson attended a conference and spoke about sexism in the skeptical community. (It was technically an atheist gathering, but it was probably attended mostly by skeptics.) Now, you should know that Rebecca Watson is the founder of the Skepchick blog and a very big deal to skeptics; and that the "skeptical community" is a bunch of people who, on their good days, strive to live their lives and structure their beliefs according to rational, evidence-based thinking. They're big on the physical sciences, on atheism/agnosticism, on social libertarianism, and pretty dim on things like homeopathy, faith healing, psychics, and hell.

So Rebecca Watson does her spiel on feminism vis a vis the skeptical community, and wants to party with the conferees. Suddenly it's 4am, and she's closing down the bar with fellow skeptics. She's sleepy. She says she's gonna go to bed. She gets on the elevator, and a guy from the bar hops on, too. From Rebecca's description of the encounter, he's pretty nervous. (For a certain kind of skeptic, sharing an elevator with Rebecca Watson is a very big deal.) Maybe he's constitutionally awkward. This is a likely bet, as male skeptics are not known for their suavity. According to Watson, the guy on the elevator says: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"

Rebecca rebuffs him. Eventually she flies home, and posts a video on her blog. Most of it's devoted to the nicer bits of her trip. She briefly recounts her elevator adventure. She does this in a calm, measured voice, before saying in an equally calm, measured voice:

Just a word to the wise here, guys. Don't do that. I don't know how else to explain how this makes me very uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out: I was a single women in foreign country in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Fair enough. Don't sexualize Rebecca Watson. Or, if you must, don't do it in an elevator, one-on-one, at 4am. Not because you're a creep, but because if you hit on her that way, you're behaving in a way that's indistinguishable from creepiness, and it's apt to make folks antsy. Flirt in the open. Rebecca's a progressive gal; she probably won't be morally scandalized by your desire to hook up. (And if she is, well, fcuk it. Not your fault.)

But some people—perhaps people who've never been propositioned in a pre-dawn elevator—thought her point was a little weird. The blogosphere debated. Righteous uglinesses were exchanged. Accusations of sexism were flung. And then, on the very famous science blog Pharyngula, Richard Dawkins made his thoughts known. In a comments section, he wrote:

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

------------------------

This is the first of 3 comments by Dawkins, and it's certainly not argued in the best way, but I guess the main question is whether we condemn the awkward suitor in the elevator? It honestly seems to be he seemed like a nervous guy and once he rejected him he stopped. The feminists have been chewing up Dawkins since he failed to condemn the hapless suitor. Thoughts?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:14:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dawkins would have been better off not making those comments. They added nothing worthwhile to the discussion. I don't know that I would characterize Dawkins with the word "sexist" from these comments alone, so much as I would characterize him as a privileged white male who is utterly clueless. He's a mansplainer.

If he were a woman who ran in circles most often frequented by men and he had just given a talk, to mostly men, about how he didn't like to be treated in certain ways by men- only to be treated in that way by a man shortly thereafter- he would probably be a bit frustrated. He may be smart, but he certainly doesn't know everything. And he obviously doesn't care to understand what it's like to be a woman.

Rationality all around... except when it comes to gender.. It's a shame, really.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:19:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:14:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
Dawkins would have been better off not making those comments. They added nothing worthwhile to the discussion. I don't know that I would characterize Dawkins with the word "sexist" from these comments alone, so much as I would characterize him as a privileged white male who is utterly clueless. He's a mansplainer.

If he were a woman who ran in circles most often frequented by men and he had just given a talk, to mostly men, about how he didn't like to be treated in certain ways by men- only to be treated in that way by a man shortly thereafter- he would probably be a bit frustrated. He may be smart, but he certainly doesn't know everything. And he obviously doesn't care to understand what it's like to be a woman.

Rationality all around... except when it comes to gender.. It's a shame, really.

As I see it, Watson would have been uncomfortable in that elevator regardless of whether the man spoke or not. There's a power imbalance and it's 4 am, so I don't blame her for being a little on edge. Obviously you just can't live like that though. If he spoke aggressively then I would blame the man, but it seems like he was only being a little awkward and I'm sure some women would have taken it as a compliment.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:19:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If it is sexist to assert that being flirted with in an uncomfortable manner is better than having your clitoris chopped off, then call me a sexist as well.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:28:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:19:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/11/2012 9:14:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
Dawkins would have been better off not making those comments. They added nothing worthwhile to the discussion. I don't know that I would characterize Dawkins with the word "sexist" from these comments alone, so much as I would characterize him as a privileged white male who is utterly clueless. He's a mansplainer.

If he were a woman who ran in circles most often frequented by men and he had just given a talk, to mostly men, about how he didn't like to be treated in certain ways by men- only to be treated in that way by a man shortly thereafter- he would probably be a bit frustrated. He may be smart, but he certainly doesn't know everything. And he obviously doesn't care to understand what it's like to be a woman.

Rationality all around... except when it comes to gender.. It's a shame, really.

As I see it, Watson would have been uncomfortable in that elevator regardless of whether the man spoke or not. There's a power imbalance and it's 4 am, so I don't blame her for being a little on edge. Obviously you just can't live like that though. If he spoke aggressively then I would blame the man, but it seems like he was only being a little awkward and I'm sure some women would have taken it as a compliment.

Yeah, I can't say I really blame the guy.. Rebecca Watson is a very intelligent, well-known, and attractive person. But the fact that she was just saying that she didn't like that kind of thing- it's like, dude, were you listening to what she said? He seems clueless just like Dawkins. I think it really comes down to clueless dudes not considering what life is like from a female perspective. He didn't think, "I'm asking a woman who is a stranger, in an elevator(i.e. small, exit-less space where sexual assault happens a lot), at 4am, if she wants to come to my hotel room with me. Wait- that might come off the wrong way. Maybe I should just ask for her number or ask if she wants to have breakfast together later on." He just didn't consider the impression he was giving.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:37:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:02:33 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
This probably doesn't belong in religion, but idk where else to put it.

mmmm...

I guess either News or Entertainment would be about right..

I can't see how anybody cares about this... But, as with other worthless scandals of celebrities, some people apparently do..

I suppose, from the explanation and comment you posted, his talking of Muslim women and their issues was completely separate from, and irrelevant to, his saying the girl was overreacting because of being too sensitive, or through Demanding such a High level of sensitivity from others who she might deal with...

In a sense, in addressing 'muslima' in that way, I suppose he was trivializing all such Western Feminist issues as being akin to this particular, suggested, overreaction..

ok... but who cares?
He apparently thinks this woman, and most feminists, over-do the feminist thing.. and
Being annoyed by this person's elevator example... he, apparently speaking rather quickly, falsely characterized all western feminist concerns..

Sure, not so nice.. But he probably wouldn't argue for what he implied, and wouldn't even have said what he did if he'd thought about it more..

The fact that people are all interested in this seems more like an interest in celebrity scandal than anything else.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:39:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:02:33 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
This probably doesn't belong in religion, but idk where else to put it.

Full article is here: http://gawker.com...

Convo is here: http://scienceblogs.com...

Here's an excerpt, Dawkins posts 3 comments but the situation is rather simple.

Here's what happened.

Here's what happened. In Dublin last month, Rebecca Watson attended a conference and spoke about sexism in the skeptical community. (It was technically an atheist gathering, but it was probably attended mostly by skeptics.) Now, you should know that Rebecca Watson is the founder of the Skepchick blog and a very big deal to skeptics; and that the "skeptical community" is a bunch of people who, on their good days, strive to live their lives and structure their beliefs according to rational, evidence-based thinking. They're big on the physical sciences, on atheism/agnosticism, on social libertarianism, and pretty dim on things like homeopathy, faith healing, psychics, and hell.

So Rebecca Watson does her spiel on feminism vis a vis the skeptical community, and wants to party with the conferees. Suddenly it's 4am, and she's closing down the bar with fellow skeptics. She's sleepy. She says she's gonna go to bed. She gets on the elevator, and a guy from the bar hops on, too. From Rebecca's description of the encounter, he's pretty nervous. (For a certain kind of skeptic, sharing an elevator with Rebecca Watson is a very big deal.) Maybe he's constitutionally awkward. This is a likely bet, as male skeptics are not known for their suavity. According to Watson, the guy on the elevator says: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"

Rebecca rebuffs him. Eventually she flies home, and posts a video on her blog. Most of it's devoted to the nicer bits of her trip. She briefly recounts her elevator adventure. She does this in a calm, measured voice, before saying in an equally calm, measured voice:

Just a word to the wise here, guys. Don't do that. I don't know how else to explain how this makes me very uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out: I was a single women in foreign country in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Fair enough. Don't sexualize Rebecca Watson. Or, if you must, don't do it in an elevator, one-on-one, at 4am. Not because you're a creep, but because if you hit on her that way, you're behaving in a way that's indistinguishable from creepiness, and it's apt to make folks antsy. Flirt in the open. Rebecca's a progressive gal; she probably won't be morally scandalized by your desire to hook up. (And if she is, well, fcuk it. Not your fault.)

But some people—perhaps people who've never been propositioned in a pre-dawn elevator—thought her point was a little weird. The blogosphere debated. Righteous uglinesses were exchanged. Accusations of sexism were flung. And then, on the very famous science blog Pharyngula, Richard Dawkins made his thoughts known. In a comments section, he wrote:

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

------------------------

This is the first of 3 comments by Dawkins, and it's certainly not argued in the best way, but I guess the main question is whether we condemn the awkward suitor in the elevator? It honestly seems to be he seemed like a nervous guy and once he rejected him he stopped. The feminists have been chewing up Dawkins since he failed to condemn the hapless suitor. Thoughts?

Well, first off, it is generally accepted by the skeptic community that Dawkins is a huge dick.

He's being largely ironic is an @sshole way about genital mutilation and such.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:51:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:19:30 PM, WriterDave wrote:
If it is sexist to assert that being flirted with in an uncomfortable manner is better than having your clitoris chopped off, then call me a sexist as well.

It's not sexist to make the comparison between those two things. It might be sexist to trivialize the experience of a woman by pointing out how much worse other women have it. "Ohhh, a man made you feel uncomfortable in an elevator at 4am? waaah! Well, shut up whiner, because it could be worse. You could be getting your genitals cut against your will."- that is essentially what he said. It was an arrogant and unnecessary thing to say. "You got to a point in society where people can't force you to have your clitoris cut off, stop asking for more consideration of your experience as a woman from people. Aren't you satisfied?"
He trivialized her experience (an experience which he will never know) by making the comparison with women's situation in the Arab world as if RW were saying she has the worst situation. She wasn't saying she has it the worst. She was just saying, "That is bad. Men probably shouldn't do that."

If I had one thing to say to Richard Dawkins, I would say,
"Ohhhh! You want more respect from society for your atheist viewpoint? You want the Western World to acknowledge that religion is super awful? Well, atheists in other countries are stoned to death for voicing their beliefs. Maybe you should just shut up about the horrors of religion and be thankful you're not dragged through the streets and murdered by an angry English Christian mob."

Does that make sense? I'm rambling again.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:02:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:51:41 PM, Oryus wrote:
He trivialized her experience (an experience which he will never know) by making the comparison with women's situation in the Arab world

well.. Trivializing that one experience isn't that bad... It's just his saying she was overreacting in that particular situation..

What I could understand people having a bigger problem with is the implication he gave that All western feminist issues are, generally, as trivial as he's calling this one. I'd say there are some gender issues in the west which people can have legitimate concern about.. and which are worth talking about... and his implying that All western feminist concerns are so trivial as the one he was annoyed by isn't very nice, or accurate..
though people often talk in such ways when they're responding to something which pisses them off :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:07:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The implication's not too obvious.. but in using her issue as the epitome of an American Feminist issue.. it's there

Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:11:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know if you could call him sexist, but the comment certainly was, and from what I've read of this, he's been rightfully condemned for making such a bone-headed statement. Not only that, the statement just would backfire on most of his website's material. Every second or third story is about how atheism/secularism is under attack. It's obviously pure nonsense to dismiss these stories by pointing out that heresy used to punished by death, so who cares about creationism in schools, for example?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:25:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 10:02:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/11/2012 9:51:41 PM, Oryus wrote:
He trivialized her experience (an experience which he will never know) by making the comparison with women's situation in the Arab world

well.. Trivializing that one experience isn't that bad... It's just his saying she was overreacting in that particular situation..

What I could understand people having a bigger problem with is the implication he gave that All western feminist issues are, generally, as trivial as he's calling this one. I'd say there are some gender issues in the west which people can have legitimate concern about.. and which are worth talking about... and his implying that All western feminist concerns are so trivial as the one he was annoyed by isn't very nice, or accurate..
though people often talk in such ways when they're responding to something which pisses them off :/

Yeah, it could be worse. He could have explicitly insulted all of Western Feminism. That doesn't make what he said any less arrogant or useless.
Have you seen the video of her explaining what happened? It's pretty damn calm and brief... She says "guys, don't do that." And explains that she was by herself, in a foreign country, in an elevator with one person, after just having talked publicly (with this particular man in the audience) about the fact that she didn't like that kind of thing. Her reaction was hardly an overreaction- a brief, calm recounting of a story ending with- "guys, don't do that" does not come off as an overreaction to me. Dawkins reaction to her story, on the other hand- a major overreaction. A passive-aggressive, inconsiderate, disrespectful, and useless overreaction which (ironically) spurred a storm of actually blatant sexist blog/video comments and emails aimed at Rebecca Watson.
A more reasonable reaction to her story would have been something along the lines of, "ugh, that is annoying. What a clueless guy." or if you're of the Dawkins camp, "I don't see how that guy did anything wrong." And the world keeps spinning.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 10:29:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 10:11:44 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I don't know if you could call him sexist, but the comment certainly was, and from what I've read of this, he's been rightfully condemned for making such a bone-headed statement. Not only that, the statement just would backfire on most of his website's material. Every second or third story is about how atheism/secularism is under attack. It's obviously pure nonsense to dismiss these stories by pointing out that heresy used to punished by death, so who cares about creationism in schools, for example?

exACTly. I'm sure Dawkins wouldn't appreciate lifelong Christians trivializing his concerns about religious freedom in western countries by pointing to genocide in Africa or theocracy in the middle east, etc. In fact, I'm sure he would dismiss that critique for what it is: illogical and useless.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
warpedfx
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 6:33:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
no. WAH SOME DUDE MADE A PASS AT ME I FEEL RAPED. how is THAT not sexist? He was asking her for coffee, does she think every guy is a rapist now?
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 7:02:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:02:33 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
This probably doesn't belong in religion, but idk where else to put it.

Full article is here: http://gawker.com...

Convo is here: http://scienceblogs.com...

Here's an excerpt, Dawkins posts 3 comments but the situation is rather simple.

Here's what happened.

Here's what happened. In Dublin last month, Rebecca Watson attended a conference and spoke about sexism in the skeptical community. (It was technically an atheist gathering, but it was probably attended mostly by skeptics.) Now, you should know that Rebecca Watson is the founder of the Skepchick blog and a very big deal to skeptics; and that the "skeptical community" is a bunch of people who, on their good days, strive to live their lives and structure their beliefs according to rational, evidence-based thinking. They're big on the physical sciences, on atheism/agnosticism, on social libertarianism, and pretty dim on things like homeopathy, faith healing, psychics, and hell.

So Rebecca Watson does her spiel on feminism vis a vis the skeptical community, and wants to party with the conferees. Suddenly it's 4am, and she's closing down the bar with fellow skeptics. She's sleepy. She says she's gonna go to bed. She gets on the elevator, and a guy from the bar hops on, too. From Rebecca's description of the encounter, he's pretty nervous. (For a certain kind of skeptic, sharing an elevator with Rebecca Watson is a very big deal.) Maybe he's constitutionally awkward. This is a likely bet, as male skeptics are not known for their suavity. According to Watson, the guy on the elevator says: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"

Rebecca rebuffs him. Eventually she flies home, and posts a video on her blog. Most of it's devoted to the nicer bits of her trip. She briefly recounts her elevator adventure. She does this in a calm, measured voice, before saying in an equally calm, measured voice:

Just a word to the wise here, guys. Don't do that. I don't know how else to explain how this makes me very uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out: I was a single women in foreign country in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Fair enough. Don't sexualize Rebecca Watson. Or, if you must, don't do it in an elevator, one-on-one, at 4am. Not because you're a creep, but because if you hit on her that way, you're behaving in a way that's indistinguishable from creepiness, and it's apt to make folks antsy. Flirt in the open. Rebecca's a progressive gal; she probably won't be morally scandalized by your desire to hook up. (And if she is, well, fcuk it. Not your fault.)

But some people—perhaps people who've never been propositioned in a pre-dawn elevator—thought her point was a little weird. The blogosphere debated. Righteous uglinesses were exchanged. Accusations of sexism were flung. And then, on the very famous science blog Pharyngula, Richard Dawkins made his thoughts known. In a comments section, he wrote:

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

------------------------

This is the first of 3 comments by Dawkins, and it's certainly not argued in the best way, but I guess the main question is whether we condemn the awkward suitor in the elevator? It honestly seems to be he seemed like a nervous guy and once he rejected him he stopped. The feminists have been chewing up Dawkins since he failed to condemn the hapless suitor. Thoughts?

Coffee is now sexist? It seems that there is sexism here but it is in the idea that asking to talk over coffee means something other than talk and coffee.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2012 8:31:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dawkins is not being sexist, but he's taking this the wrong way, methinks.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
EPRdebate
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 8:17:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm sorry but rebecca was more of dick in this situation, If a man asks to talk over coffee with someone who he obviously finds attractive/interesting and will not get another chance to talk to it is not an act of sexism (no matter how inappropriate or socially awkward he is). Did he assualt her did he try to blackmail or pressure her in other ways? no. Yes he was a bit of a creep, but thats not sexism.

Women need to stop taking trivial situations out of proportion. If I took offense to as many things as alot of women do then I would be knee deep in court cases.
Romanes eunt domus
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 11:50:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/16/2012 6:33:08 PM, warpedfx wrote:
no. WAH SOME DUDE MADE A PASS AT ME I FEEL RAPED. how is THAT not sexist? He was asking her for coffee, does she think every guy is a rapist now?

Yup. That's actually, VERBATIM, what she said.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 12:12:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 8:17:28 PM, EPRdebate wrote:
I'm sorry but rebecca was more of dick in this situation, If a man asks to talk over coffee with someone who he obviously finds attractive/interesting and will not get another chance to talk to it is not an act of sexism (no matter how inappropriate or socially awkward he is). Did he assualt her did he try to blackmail or pressure her in other ways? no. Yes he was a bit of a creep, but thats not sexism.

Women need to stop taking trivial situations out of proportion. If I took offense to as many things as alot of women do then I would be knee deep in court cases.

It's super obvious you're not a woman. I think you kind of missed the point here. Women have to worry about a lot of things men don't have to worry about nearly as much. One of those things is being raped in an elevator in a strange city at 4 am in the morning. Another one of those things is having the work you put all of your energy into dismissed by a man who just wants to bone you. In that situation, she was concerned with both. And I agree it wasn't sexist of him, and he was seriously being a creep, but how do you go from "he wasn't being sexist" to "She shouldn't have taken offense"? Seriously. Do some men really think that rapists begin assaults with tell-tale rapist signs? If it were true that rapists begin assaults with blackmail and overt and obvious signals that they were about to assault someone, assaults would probably happen A LOT less.

If a woman is attempting to use her better judgment in a sketchy situation with a stranger, NOBODY has a right to say she was making mountains out of molehills. Her physical safety is worth WAY more than that guys feelings. Sorry. He really should have thought twice before approaching a strange woman in a strange country in a cramped elevator at 4am and asked her to go to his room for "coffee." That was pretty dumb. And honestly, if there was a woman who did accept that offer and go to his room, and then was raped, she'd have a damn hard time convicting that rapist because the same people who think Rebecca shouldn't have taken offense would be out there yelling, "well that was stupid! What was she thinking? She should have known better!" And the people with the utmost nerve would blame her for it outright.

Offense at sexism is one thing but concern with safety is quite another. I think Rebecca is conflating the two by calling behavior by a man that could be viewed as threatening to a woman "sexist." What he did was stupid, but it wasn't sexist.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 12:26:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is the first of 3 comments by Dawkins, and it's certainly not argued in the best way, but I guess the main question is whether we condemn the awkward suitor in the elevator? It honestly seems to be he seemed like a nervous guy and once he rejected him he stopped. The feminists have been chewing up Dawkins since he failed to condemn the hapless suitor. Thoughts?:

I think Dawkins is a douchebag personally, but I think this is a bit of a stretch from the feminist community.

It sounds to me like this was his poor attempt at humor. It was obviously insensitive to Muslims (intentionally so), but I'm not sure it was intentionally designed to be against femininity, rather a jab at fundamentalist religions.

In short, it was a rude, but I think the more fundamentalist feminists took it the wrong way.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 12:30:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 8:17:28 PM, EPRdebate wrote:
I'm sorry but rebecca was more of dick in this situation, If a man asks to talk over coffee with someone who he obviously finds attractive/interesting and will not get another chance to talk to it is not an act of sexism (no matter how inappropriate or socially awkward he is). Did he assualt her did he try to blackmail or pressure her in other ways? no. Yes he was a bit of a creep, but thats not sexism.:

Yeah, I tend to agree. I understand that she probably felt uncomfortable, and that's fine, but why she automatically assumes the man was marginalizing her is more likely a manifestation of her own insecurities than it was a case of him looking at her as if she was a walking vagina.

Where was the sexism in that encounter?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 12:40:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's super obvious you're not a woman. I think you kind of missed the point here. Women have to worry about a lot of things men don't have to worry about nearly as much. One of those things is being raped in an elevator in a strange city at 4 am in the morning. Another one of those things is having the work you put all of your energy into dismissed by a man who just wants to bone you.:

So when is it safe for a man to ever express an interest without being presumed to be a rapist or a sexist? I completely understand that she may have felt uncomfortable, but once it was evident that she wasn't raped, was it vitally important long after the fact to write a "f*ck off" commentary on her blog? She was a little snarky about it, like he was an @sshole for expressing an interest in her. Short of licking his lips and eye-f*cking her, what did he do that was so egregious?

If a woman is attempting to use her better judgment in a sketchy situation with a stranger, NOBODY has a right to say she was making mountains out of molehills.:

So, again, why did she feel compelled to write a scathing critique long AFTER the fact when she was clearly safe? I understand her reticence IN THE SITUATION, but once removed from that situation, I fail to see the usefulness.

Offense at sexism is one thing but concern with safety is quite another. I think Rebecca is conflating the two by calling behavior by a man that could be viewed as threatening to a woman "sexist." What he did was stupid, but it wasn't sexist.:

Agreed. He was probably a huge d-bag.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 2:52:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 12:40:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's super obvious you're not a woman. I think you kind of missed the point here. Women have to worry about a lot of things men don't have to worry about nearly as much. One of those things is being raped in an elevator in a strange city at 4 am in the morning. Another one of those things is having the work you put all of your energy into dismissed by a man who just wants to bone you.:

So when is it safe for a man to ever express an interest without being presumed to be a rapist or a sexist? I completely understand that she may have felt uncomfortable, but once it was evident that she wasn't raped, was it vitally important long after the fact to write a "f*ck off" commentary on her blog? She was a little snarky about it, like he was an @sshole for expressing an interest in her. Short of licking his lips and eye-f*cking her, what did he do that was so egregious?

If a woman is attempting to use her better judgment in a sketchy situation with a stranger, NOBODY has a right to say she was making mountains out of molehills.:

So, again, why did she feel compelled to write a scathing critique long AFTER the fact when she was clearly safe? I understand her reticence IN THE SITUATION, but once removed from that situation, I fail to see the usefulness.

'Why' is a good question. And I don't know this woman personally, obviously, but from her comments I'll take an educated guess at the reason this was brought up.

#!
@1:20 She says she went to an atheist conference in Dublin.
@ 2:21 She explains the main part of her day- she was on a panel.
@2:40-3:50 She explains why Paula Kirbys comments about sexism (or the lack thereof) inspired her to talk about the treatment of women in the atheist community instead of about "atheism, blogging",etc.
@4:00 She begins to describe the response at the conference to what she had to say on the panel and she says a lot of people were interested and 'got it'- "all of you except for the one man who didn't really grasp what I was saying on the panel because at the bar later that night.... etc etc"
@5:04 "just a word to the wise here guys, don't do that. I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly comfortable, etc. etc."
She lists the things I said- single woman, foreign country, 4am, hotel elevator, etc. She's basically sending the message "that was dumb, don't do that- here's why you shouldn't."
Throughout the whole story, these are the terms she used which described him or implicitly described him:
"man" "guys" "it creeps me out when men sexualize me" So, perhaps she is calling him creepy- maybe. And maybe, the fact that she said he was sexualizing her is an implication that she thinks he is a misogynist. I don't know, but I think that's a stretch. I certainly don't see how you could honestly call it a "scathing criticism" or believe she is being "snarky" or conclude from what she said that she thinks he was an "a$$hole." Honestly, I don't really enjoy her videos most of the time because she is so monotone and not very expressive. I think she is making an earnest attempt at bettering the atheist community and making it more comfortable for women- that they are viewed as fellow atheists and not just potential fvck buddies.

Of course it's possible that he was not sexualizing her and really did want to just have a cup of coffee and talk. Someone brings this up:
http://skepchick.org...
"Not sure the guy in the elevator thing was an instance of sexualizing you, just an example of a bad way to approach someone."
She responds:
"There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone's hotel room to have it. Sure. There's a chance.

But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long."

This is the point. She had spoken publicly at a conference specifically about this topic and he had attended it. As part of her story about that day at the conference(via this vlog), this man was an example of someone who didn't hear what she had to say- he didn't get it. This was a vlog about some exciting things she did. She makes vlogs like this pretty often. She spoke about the topic and someone disappointed her by not taking her advice. I don't see why that detail shouldn't be included in her story. It's pertinent.

On a broader note,
And in a move that thickens the plot, I'd have to say that the passionate offended reaction to the video was far more of a knee-jerk and offensive (not you personally; the reaction in general- especially on youtube) reaction than Rebeccas reaction to the man in her story.

I see a lot of "what is wrong with a man asking a woman for coffee?" "So men can't ask women to have coffee now?" etc. etc. It's hardly about the coffee and MUCH more about the: 4am in a foreign country proposition to come back to hotel room with stranger in an exitless small room after just being told that this is something which makes women (and if nobody else, her) uncomfortable and that it is exactly what is wrong with the atheist community's treatment of women. The coffee aspect is an extraneous detail barely worth mentioning if you are to get to the core of what she is trying to say.

Offense at sexism is one thing but concern with safety is quite another. I think Rebecca is conflating the two by calling behavior by a man that could be viewed as threatening to a woman "sexist." What he did was stupid, but it wasn't sexist.:

Agreed. He was probably a huge d-bag.

I recant after my little dissection. I don't even believe Rebecca Watson is necessarily accusing this man of being sexist.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 9:07:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Personally, I fail to see the need anymore for Western Feminism.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 12:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought his comment was hilarious, and he was aiming to be critical of the aforementioned bitchface in a humorous matter. Granted, maybe it was the wrong place to make a comment like that, but how the fvck was he being sexist?
I miss the old members.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:37:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 9:07:26 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Personally, I fail to see the need anymore for Western Feminism.

What is Western feminism?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 9:12:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Feminism doesn't even have a consistent definition. Nor does Sexism.
Leaving very its claimablity very arbitrary. Its definition is often described as. To Judge something based on Sex which is not related to it. But the definition is open to alot problems. One reason being that what doesn't appear to someone as being related, can appear to be related to someone else. Thus by ignorance it will always seem sexist to a person which doesn't perceive a relation.

Racisms and such isms are overgeneralizations. When things have been commonly over-gerneralized they are called stereotypes. But most people thing that because its a stereotype is must be wrong. But this is a fallacy.

A lot of people think that because its a stereotype is must be false. But this is a fallacy. But as I have been saying, its impossible to tell. So we should just really be saying that we should take it with a grain of salt.

That is the more ignorace someone is(I mean in a neutral sense not connotive) as in the lack of experiences in something there generalizations will always tend to be over-generalizations. But the person making them, doesn't know they are.(that is its always out of ignorance, but we don't want it to be because then blaming people becomes complicated. That is the best there mind can derive with limited information. aka a small set of sample.

Another major problem is that we only learn by induction. That is all learning is based of generalization from a set of experiences. That is the only we our mind gets new information. Logic is deduction from a set of already known premises. but new premises is always by induction. So we could never say don't ever generalize, because then it would be impossible to know anything.

That is why the solution everybody is equal is a highly flawed and oversimplitic idealogy. Because to see things purely equal is to be IGNORANT of any differences.
and so ultimatly its saying the solution is to be ignorant. Hmmmm. That is to ignore and delete information. This should be taken with serious reservations. We are equal, in worth. Aka are feelings are equal. But not in this crazy extreme egaltarinistic way. This everything is equal. Its just false, some people are just smarter by nature, some people are bad, some are good, some people are more or less better at certian things then others. It not all subjective, Merit is important and real.

What we have done out of our own selfishness have created this all equals things, just so we can't percieve that someone is better then us is some trait. No body can be more intellegent or beautiful,or any highly advantage trait. Right? if anybody shines we have to beat them down, look for the flaws to why its not true. The entire tabliod system is based of this. People pay to see celebs having problems so we could feel that they are not special. They couldnt survive with out the hate. Right? we want to cut them down to size. No body is better then anybody at least in a significant way. right? Or is it really that nobody is better then us. hmmm Well as long as we can keep the perception anyway. If somebody says they are great, we all hate them for saying it. right? They are now the bad guys. Right? Everybody goes against then. What does this guy think, he is special or something. But just think. what is the motivation behind that hate. Right?

Its seems in many cases all we have done really is made a rule that we are not allowed to say it.

Somebody could be good, or bad. But just don't say it!!

Someone could be a complete azzhole, but just don't say it. If somebody says it and the person it is said to shared or traits or values. We all gang up to protect our own selfish aspects and we try and frame them as bad. But it is really because of threats to our ego. We live in a pretend imaginary world. (but just don't say it)

But the Truth is the Truth and a Spade is a Spade!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 12:55:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 9:12:14 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Feminism doesn't even have a consistent definition. Nor does Sexism.
Leaving very its claimablity very arbitrary. Its definition is often described as. To Judge something based on Sex which is not related to it. But the definition is open to alot problems. One reason being that what doesn't appear to someone as being related, can appear to be related to someone else. Thus by ignorance it will always seem sexist to a person which doesn't perceive a relation.

Racisms and such isms are overgeneralizations. When things have been commonly over-gerneralized they are called stereotypes. But most people thing that because its a stereotype is must be wrong. But this is a fallacy.

A lot of people think that because its a stereotype is must be false. But this is a fallacy. But as I have been saying, its impossible to tell. So we should just really be saying that we should take it with a grain of salt.

Why do you think it is impossible to tell? A stereotype is based on a generalization which is not warranted, as you said. For many of these things, we can tell when a generalization is warranted or not through scientific inquiry- and we do. For example, the stereotypes about women being bad at math, bad at driving, and bad at... pretty much everything women do now besides nurturing tasks were, at some point, thought to be true. Numerous about men as well. But we now know through experience and scientific inquiry that these are simply untrue. The simplistic stereotype that men want sex because A, B, and C and women want sex because X, Y, and Z is untrue- and we know that through scientific inquiry. It is when we base our judgments on knee-jerk reactions, anecdotal evidence, and gut feelings that we stereotype. By definition, stereotypes are unwarranted generalizations- they are always untrue. But I think I see what you mean- some differences are actually there. Yes, the joke about "throwing like a girl" is about the only sexist insult I can think of which is based on fact. But it's a dumb one. Men might as well brag about being able to easily pee while standing up. Whoop-di-doo. And I can grow a human being from your ejaculate.

Basically, what I'm saying is, it is possible to objectively identify when something is sexist. Saying "you're bad at math because you're a woman" is a sexist thing to say because it is based on an unwarranted assertion. Saying "you're a man so you would have sex with anyone at any time" is sexist because it is based on an unwarranted assertion. When you control for all other factors and find that men are still hired more than women in a given profession, you can be sure that sexism is afoot- as sure as scientific inquiry will allow.

That is the more ignorace someone is(I mean in a neutral sense not connotive) as in the lack of experiences in something there generalizations will always tend to be over-generalizations. But the person making them, doesn't know they are.(that is its always out of ignorance, but we don't want it to be because then blaming people becomes complicated. That is the best there mind can derive with limited information. aka a small set of sample.

Lord forgive them, they know not what they do.
I just don't know that I buy that. How much leeway do we give people for their ignorance? Is sexism defined by consequence or intention of actions? What happens when someone's ignorance is explained to them and they deny the explanation? This happens quite often. "It wasn't sexist because it didn't feel sexist. I don't feel sexist."
Another major problem is that we only learn by induction. That is all learning is based of generalization from a set of experiences. That is the only we our mind gets new information. Logic is deduction from a set of already known premises. but new premises is always by induction. So we could never say don't ever generalize, because then it would be impossible to know anything.

That is why the solution everybody is equal is a highly flawed and oversimplitic idealogy. Because to see things purely equal is to be IGNORANT of any differences.
and so ultimatly its saying the solution is to be ignorant. Hmmmm. That is to ignore and delete information. This should be taken with serious reservations. We are equal, in worth. Aka are feelings are equal. But not in this crazy extreme egaltarinistic way. This everything is equal. Its just false, some people are just smarter by nature, some people are bad, some are good, some people are more or less better at certian things then others. It not all subjective, Merit is important and real.

You've said there is no consistent definition of modern, western feminism- and you are correct. So, I'm confused that you would characterize it as an ideology which espouses the simplistic idea "everybody is equal and there are no differences between men and women." I can assure you that the bulk of mainstream feminist discourse does not assume that premise whatsoever- quite the contrary. They are great advocates of finding real differences because many women have suffered in the past without knowledge of them- for instance in medical science. Tests were (and still often are) done only on men so when the results came back that X happening to the human body causes Y, we assumed it was true also for women. Upon further inspection we actually found out that X happening to the human MALE body causes Y and X happening to the human FEMALE body causes something different altogether. This changes things. And as it has to do with equality of care in medicine, feminists will be the first to rally around the cause to find the real differences between men and women. The idea that feminism is some simplistic ideology based on a mythical equality at the expense of acknowledging differences is just a strawman. People hear the word "equality" and all like to tack their definition on it and trail that with their hypothetical conclusions from that definition, not bothering to look at what the feminist movement is actually doing in the world- and it's really not so wild at all. People seem to demonize feminism but, in reality, feminism has been, is, and will be winning. Women wear pants, they vote, they work, they earn money, they go to college, they take birth control, they marry who they want, they are successful in positions of power, etc. Everybody just takes it for granted without recognizing the source. It's so normal now-and becoming more so. Indeed, it is normal- and should be considered as such.
What we have done out of our own selfishness have created this all equals things, just so we can't percieve that someone is better then us is some trait. No body can be more intellegent or beautiful,or any highly advantage trait. Right? if anybody shines we have to beat them down, look for the flaws to why its not true. The entire tabliod system is based of this. People pay to see celebs having problems so we could feel that they are not special. They couldnt survive with out the hate. Right? we want to cut them down to size. No body is better then anybody at least in a significant way. right? Or is it really that nobody is better then us. hmmm Well as long as we can keep the perception anyway. If somebody says they are great, we all hate them for saying it. right? They are now the bad guys. Right? Everybody goes against then. What does this guy think, he is special or something. But just think. what is the motivation behind that hate. Right?

Its seems in many cases all we have done really is made a rule that we are not allowed to say it.

Somebody could be good, or bad. But just don't say it!!

Someone could be a complete azzhole, ......[cut]........ (but just don't say it)

But the Truth is the Truth and a Spade is a Spade!!

Indeed
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 1:12:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As a striking example of just how far we've come-

Less than 150 years ago, bed rest was prescribed to women by trained doctors for depression. When a woman was depressed, it was often thought to be the result of overwork. Women were assumed to not be able to handle any amount of intellectual or physical labor without suffering from it because it was not in their "nature." It was thought that the womb moved around the body causing insanity and anxiety if the woman thought too much or got an education. It was thought that physical labor would cause the womb to heat up and become defective. This was detrimental because, obviously, a woman's only purpose was to have children. She was the womb. Now look at us. We are considered fully fledged persons (most of the time). But we are still fighting for the right to control our own bodies. We are still fighting for the right not to be considered walking wombs at the state level and, maybe soon, at the federal level. We still have to deal with ignorance, as you say. There is no real reason to stop pointing it out and every reason to continue squashing the nonsense.

For centuries, men have had the world on a silver platter. Women gain the right to convict their husband for raping them in only the past 50 years (in the U.S.) and some people still think we have achieved perfection and have no work to do or fight to continue. Hardly. We're in the midst of revolution- not in the post-revolution era. If people think that centuries of oppression can be undone in just one, and no more work needs to be done, they are kidding themselves.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 1:09:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Remember the Feminist foundation is based that sometime 3000 years ago(whatever time history cuts off.) There was this huge male conspiracy. All men came together, combined and decided we are going to form The Great evil patriarchy. We even commutated with the men from the America. (Must have been by using penises as antennae) It is in this great get together without of course no woman knowing. We decided that the only purpose in life is social power relations against woman. ;) Forget everything else, its just about power relations. Get it. POWER RELATIONs. I admit that is all I really think of and all men. is that we just can`t do without POWER RELATIONS . Let me remind you that POWER, in feminism also has no consistent definition. Hmmmm.!

Let me remind that Feminist theory also has no consistent definition as well!. Hhhmmmm!! Its just a pile of random opinion that are against men in some form or another. There is no relation to what we mean by theory in any sense of the matter at all. EVER!

But like the bible, the things keep getting reinterpreted and twisted to keep it making sense with the world over time. Did I mention that Religion is because of The Great evil patriarchy. ;)

"everybody is equal and there are no differences between men and women."
The Fool: Unfortunately this is not my sentence so you might want to refute mine which tends to gravitate away from feminism at this point to general egalitarianism. Which is why I longer say anything about feminism after that point. (So the rest of what you are saying is rant. But I will address it for fun.

‘ I can assure you that the bulk of mainstream feminist discourse does not assume that premise whatsoever- quite the contrary. ‘ (bold assertion fallacy)

The Fool: No actually you can`t assure me that. Secondly the bulk of mainstream feminist is all over the map. Many radical feminist groups should be considered hate groups as any. But they are not why, because they are woman.

‘They are great advocates of finding real differences because many women have suffered in the past without knowledge of them.' Fallacy of equivocation (these are not in the same sense of differences)

The Fool: NO they don`t only difference when it serves to their advantage only, which is sexist! never the other way around. When it to biology and evolution the Feminist might as well be Calvinist Priest, every finding against their unspecific theory is false. And the reason is always the same. Its because of The Great evil patriarchy. Just as for the Calvinist the reason is always God.

'- for instance in medical science.

Tests were (and still often bold assertion fallacy') done only on men so when the results came back that X happening to the human body causes Y, we assumed it was true also for women.

The Fool: I think you are behind on your facts. Much more research now a days are focus on woman only. We even only advertise helping for Woman's cancer alone. You feminist view is dated. This is basic University social sciences. I am quite educated on the issues.

'Upon further inspection we actually found out that X happening to the human MALE body causes Y and X happening to the human FEMALE body causes something different altogether. ‘

The Fool: I am pretty educated on the facts.. lol. ;)

The Fool: and the reasons of course Great evil patriarchy!! Owhh. (come on guys lets get those POWER RELATIONs. Hhm wahh haha ahah a anyway we can. We DIG Em!! Yah power.. alright. Relations even better hhmm can't wait to get them! Lets get them boys.

'And as it has to do with equality of care in medicine, feminists will be the first to rally around the cause to find the real differences between men and women. Fallacy of equivocation (not the same equality)'

The Fool: It has to do for what is better for woman only!! And that's it. ONLY . NOTHING ELSE!!.

'The idea that feminism is some simplistic ideology based on a mythical equality at the expense of acknowledging differences is just a strawman. ‘

The Fool: You mean what you are saying is a strawman. Strawman reversal!! ;)
'People hear the word "equality" and all like to tack their definition.:' bold assertion fallacy

The Fool: I don`t think the word equality has much room for alternate definitions. It's pretty straight forward. IF anything others need to explain how it means equality and not equality at the very same time.

;People seem to demonize feminism but, in reality, feminism has been, is, and will be winning. bold assertion fallacy'

The Fool: there has been lots of good, but that doesn't mean there is lots of demons about it. I think it one already.. you are a little behind.

‘Not bothering to look at what the feminist movement is actually doing in the world- and it's really not so wild at all. bold assertion fallacy'

The Fool: I am studies well above average in Feminism. You should watch you bold assumptions more carefully.

‘Women wear pants, they vote, they work, they earn money, they go to college, they take birth control, they marry who they want, they are successful in positions of power, etc.' Strawman fallacy

The Fool: unfortunately this has nothing to do with the conversation. In fact it hurts your position. Mind you I don`t share an opposite position to you at all. That was all made in your mind.

In fact if I took what you are saying seriously it shows that woman are completely dependent on a system which grants them extra rights, extra Funding , extra protection, extra social program, extra healthcare and the discrimination of other just keep them at an equal position. That is nothing to be proud about. !! The discrimination comes in the form of that every new male generation is a fresh set of individuals which get less help and opportunities from a system which intentionally does that to them. Not a mythical conspiracy theory that started from nonsense. That is men who are not yet born are already convicted as guilty and there live is to be considered as collateral damage(with less benefits from other), based on theory which can no longer be considered rationality tolerable.

' Everybody just takes it for granted without recognizing the source. It's so normal now-and becoming more so. Indeed, it is normal- and should be considered as such. bold assertion fallacy'

The Fool: No, I am much more educated on the issue then you think. I have studied the history of feminism and I have noticed the inconsistency, and I am able spot out problem after problem. You are taking a Naive feminist perspective; which always says that others are just altering the truth, anyone who disagrees is because they not educated on the issues, or it's because they are working for the EVIL patriarchy,OR if they say otherwise it's because they don`t know they are …(LOL.) Or they don't know about sociology, or its just anecdotal, or it's because their men. Or its just because they are generalizing. And of course POWER RELATIONS,. (I am sorry that is my favourite one.)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL