Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He doesn't fully understand what I'm saying. At least he's not attacking the woman in my scenario the way Dawkins did by saying if you want to be in a position to testify don't get drunk. I don't think your all that unusual especially considering how old you are. That first woman tried to explain something that was creepy to her and a lot of women should have been listened to and not attacked with "you don't have it so bad."
I'm not sure who He is. But I don't think it's doing your case any good to ignore or dismiss the points on the pretext of not understanding or I'm old. That's the sort of argument that theist use - personals and dismissal, rather than addressing the points.
This is supposed to be about atheism having a sexism problem. I don't think it has, particularly beyond the atheists and into the community at large, which really means it's a social problem, not an atheist problem.
Pointing to my venerable age is a bit grubby. In fact I reckon I'm more progressive in thought than a lot of younger people. Particularly in how to deal with the sex industry. Freedom of choice, freedom to work, rights, protection and support the way any other worker should have. The view of too many women is 'shut it down! It's violence towards women' (and the men say it's against the Bible). This is just prejudice talking not a progressive view. So maybe some of those women need to get a bit older.
If that is what he said then he is 100% wrong. I guess I misunderstood what he had said.
A drunk naked woman should be able to walk through a room of men without being groped, assult ed or raped. And if she was raped she has the same rights to testify as a woman raped in her own locked home while wearing flannel pajamas.
The only thing you ended up doing wrong in your situation was trusting your so called friend. You should have been perfectly safe in his spare room. And Dawkins must not understand that ladies like to have fun too.
I am not sure it's a generational thing though as I may be even older than Dawkins however I grew up in a small farming community where seeing impaired girls and women was not totally unknown. My own father was a sexist , grew up in a city and probably would have agreed , at least partially, with Dawkins.
I rather thought long ago, when women were making a big deal about being able to dress sexily and still be ignored by men, were being unreasonable. Women should be able to walk naked into a roomful of men ad they wouldn't think anything of it? Suppose a man walked naked into a roomful of women? Would the women think nothing of it?
'That's different. We know men are predatory sexists; women aren't always putting out'.
'Well, maybe you are being prejudiced in your assumption that all men are after it and the women are not. The woman who walks naked into a room of men may be looking for some fun and the man who does it is not. The fact is that the appearance sends signals'.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but making unreasonable demands is not going to solve it.
It's always harrowing to hear stories of assaults on women. There are a few horror -stories about women too, not predatory sex, but the drip, drip of continual denigration of men, and it isn't recent. It was a feature of liberation in the 70's even though I was all in favour of it.
Bot sexes should work together to approach the problem; but it isn't going to help by insisting that women whip out a list of 10 thing they they do not want men to do and they have to sign it or be denounced as sexist.
What Dawkins has to say about the broader issue is not Dogma for atheists. It would on topic (which we have drifted a bit from) to post the whole thing about what Dawkins said so we can see the context. And if he is being unreasonable and an unsympathetic, I'll be the first to say so.
I'll post a summary of 'elevatorgate' which was mainly about some dude trying to hit on a woman in an elevator (atheist conference) and Dawkins not being very diplomatic about it.
The remark about not testifying if she's drunk - I'd need to see the context.
In fact I see the two things are connected. Basically it's the hit in an elevator, and Dawkins posting a 'poor and cold' (unsympathetic) blog which I didn't approve of and, as seen below, he apologised and tried to make some improvements. So he pretty much admitted that he was in the wrong or that everyone thought he was.
"Things generally devolved from there with some of Watson's defenders repeatedly calling Dawkins a misogynist.[12][13][14] A lot of big names, attempting to show off their credentials, came out in support of either Watson or Dawkins. The opinion of the lowly peon commenters was mixed, and sometimes quite sexist. Most of those involved agreed people were overreacting, but each blamed the opposite side.[4]
He was also disinvited from a conference after sharing a video mocking feminists.[15] He has also been criticised for "mansplaining" feminism to Muslim women, who have assured him they have things in hand.[16]
The resolution
“”Guys, don't do that.
In a show of good faith, Dawkins arranged to provide childcare at future atheist meetings, a move generally praised by the community.[17][18]
Three years after, Dawkins apologised for the "Dear Muslima" letter, in passing, on another blog post.[19] Watson accepted the apology as better than nothing, saying "Eh I'll take it""
The whole thing here on Rationalwiki, which seems to treat it pretty fairly.
I'm not sure who He is. But I don't think it's doing your case any good to ignore or dismiss the points on the pretext of not understanding or I'm old. That's the sort of argument that theist use - personals and dismissal, rather than addressing the points.
This is supposed to be about atheism having a sexism problem. I don't think it has, particularly beyond the atheists and into the community at large, which really means it's a social problem, not an atheist problem.
Pointing to my venerable age is a bit grubby. In fact I reckon I'm more progressive in thought than a lot of younger people. Particularly in how to deal with the sex industry. Freedom of choice, freedom to work, rights, protection and support the way any other worker should have. The view of too many women is 'shut it down! It's violence towards women' (and the men say it's against the Bible). This is just prejudice talking not a progressive view. So maybe some of those women need to get a bit older.
Sure, make sex trafficking legal. Not a single country that has made it legal has stopped illegal trafficking of minors, girls and boys, nor has it protected the violence against sex workers. Same argument about slavery, that you trott out. You have weired idea about progressive, not surprisingly. But dont attack religion, only the god.
I'm not sure who He is. But I don't think it's doing your case any good to ignore or dismiss the points on the pretext of not understanding or I'm old. That's the sort of argument that theist use - personals and dismissal, rather than addressing the points.
This is supposed to be about atheism having a sexism problem. I don't think it has, particularly beyond the atheists and into the community at large, which really means it's a social problem, not an atheist problem.
Pointing to my venerable age is a bit grubby. In fact I reckon I'm more progressive in thought than a lot of younger people. Particularly in how to deal with the sex industry. Freedom of choice, freedom to work, rights, protection and support the way any other worker should have. The view of too many women is 'shut it down! It's violence towards women' (and the men say it's against the Bible). This is just prejudice talking not a progressive view. So maybe some of those women need to get a bit older.
He would be you. I agree with the underlying societal problem.
I'm not doing my case any good? What exactly should I be trying to prove? If a person (in this case Rebecca Watson) wants to point out where some boundaries are then attacking her for it is inappropriate. Another person is not allowed to cross another's boundaries. People who feel entitled to cross boundaries are deserving of no respect.
I'm pointing to your age because of the society you were raised in the I don't think you've rewritten all of that. Even my what'swrongwithgrabbinga woman husband was watching an old 007 movie with Sean Connery and remark how rapey he was. I think I heard him say WTF as Bond pushed his way into a woman's house after she asked him to come back later giving her a chance to get dressed. I am 52 and raised in a cult. I have immersed in women are beneath men and have had to work very hard to override it. It takes effort and I've been called sexist many times along the way. When I have been I've asked to have it explained to me. I listened to where I was getting it wrong and I changed.
I noticed in another post you wanted the context of Dawkins comments that a woman who is drunk should not be able to jail a man. There is no context where that is OK.
I hate to do this. But its one of the premises of everything I post. How would a person that didn't get away talk about this topic? Of the accusations of men in power? When they say that "drunk women shouldn't testify." How will they react?
I hope someone comes along and can answer that. From what I've seen they know better than to make an accusation because then they will become some villain.
In addition to fighting racism and sexism, I think there is a lot of this* thrown into the mix. In my own personal life, I've noticed the people who don't get that something is racist or sexist also generally try and figure out why someone deserves the treatment they are getting.
Sure, make sex trafficking legal. Not a single country that has made it legal has stopped illegal trafficking of minors, girls and boys, nor has it protected the violence against sex workers. Same argument about slavery, that you trott out. You have weired idea about progressive, not surprisingly. But dont attack religion, only the god.
You need to be careful about what you write. It sounds if you suggest we legalize slavery.
Maybe us good ole boy atheists are not part of a "Jocks Club", but secretly meeting to do a little down-lo activity? Just say in.....
Bros before...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
