Just 'cause I love it so much
2 Likes
I am of two minds on this.
One is that, yes, if you want to get your ideas across to people you have to be very careful of their emotions. But the other is that if āLook, you are a nice person but a stranger might not know that because they donāt know you, and consequently has to wonder if you are a rapist,ā is too emotionally damaging to be able to read on then maybe reaching the person wasnāt even a possibility to begin with. Imagine someone wrote an article that said, āLook, strangers might be wary of you because for all they know you are a thief or a con artist.ā I donāt see it getting the same kind of pushback.
To me, the idea that someone else might see me as a threat seems natural enough, depending on the circumstances. But obviously sex is a very charged issue, and I think a fear of being perceived as a sex offender probably runs a little high in some men. I know someone with a similar experience to your father in the park. I recall when a friend of mine was disappointed his wife was taking their daughter to see the LEGO movie because he had wanted to see it. His wife said, āWell, you can just go on your own.ā She really didnāt get that male experience anymore than men get the female experience of being afraid to go out alone at night.
But when you talk about some societies practically quarantining men, is that really true? Is there a space that a rich man in a business suit couldnāt go? I think men who notice the emotions of those around them probably become very sensitive to the perception that they may be sex offenders and try to minimize it. It is a bit of a burden on them, but trying to be sensitive to other people is a burden that all of us ought to be shouldering. Men who donāt notice (or maybe donāt care) about those emotions just carry on with their privilege. So maybe the biggest problem with a blog post like that one is that the people who really need to understand it are never going to bother, and are going to either spit out a few reasons why she can be dismissed (if they can be bothered) or just mumble something about stupid feminists.
And maybe thatās why my sympathy for those riled by the article is a little low. Like I said, if you are trying to communicate with someone then you should be sensitive to their emotions. But the world has a lot of people whose opinions just need to be waited out. Next generation will be better and so on.
4 Likes
I have very little sympathy for a lot of the people who are reacting badly to this. As far as Iām concerned, the guy was probably waiting for her to finish talking with the other group before approaching her. Iāve found Americans in general to be much more vigilant about this kind of thing than Irish people, so there may have been crossed wires and some cultural difference going on. My parents cared about me, but I didnāt get the stranger danger talk drilled into me and people seemed much more comfortable with strangers than Iāve seen in the US. Like I say though, it still wasnāt a good idea to approach her and even if Richard Dawkins is used to this sort of thing happening to him, he didnāt add anything by dismissing fears that he has no occasion for.
ETA: Hereās another article using the analogy of dogs - many people love dogs, but would avoid getting into a vulnerable situation with a dog they didnāt know. I think it goes a bit farther to focus on the context rather than seeing any man you donāt know as a Schroedingerās rapist (especially as most actual rapists have already gained your trust to some extent). Itās from a guy whoās relating his wifeās impression of the situation and commenting about doing what is necessary to minimise your perception as a threat (crossing the road rather than overtaking someone from behind, taking the next elevator etc.). He also takes context into account (e.g. in some cultures, crossing the road would itself be suspicious).
āDo people get it?ā she asked me, kinda freaked out (as noted).
āGet what?ā I was distracted and unclear on the point she was making.
āDo people get what it is like for a woman to have a man join her on an elevator in the middle of the night? Do they understand that this is ALWAYS something that raises oneās stress level, even if just a little?ā
āHuh?ā
āSometimes more, sometimes less, it depends on your state of mind, the time of day, all sorts of other factors, but if Iām in a hotel somewhere in the middle of the night and some guy I donāt know gets on the elevator, my stress level goes up and stays there until one of us gets off. If he says something to me other than ānice weather weāre havingā I get much more stressed. Thatās true to some degree for all women.ā
1 Like
Why is it an absurdity? Donāt tell me that you still believe that organisms are the primary unit of selection?
I mentioned North America because it seems like his rhetorical style, whilst pervasive and culturally attuned in Britain, is seen as unconscionably rude in North America.
Similarly, people speaking from a place which inherently values religion and religious drives would tend to find fault with Dawkinās invective because of his employment of that rhetorical style heās directed toward what he sees as the greatest evil.
To say that you believe that religion has value for people and societies could be missing my point slightly. You donāt have to believe it, you can categorically know that this is true through observation. Religion obviously does have value for some people and even for some societies. What I was asking is whether you attribute any value to it. Now, you might say that you attribute value to it because it has value for other people and you feel that finding value in other peoples attribution of value is a tenant of empathy or something similar but thatās not what Iām asking.
Do you personally find value in religion? Do you feel some deep personal connection to the thing which would cause you to defend it in the face of angry criticism, apart from your acknowledgement that it has value to other people?
I donāt believe that many atheists in the UK are willing to show such generous empathy towards religion. Not to say we canāt recognise the good in a religious person or society, but it seems like the culture is less prone to find value in that which they find value-less, even if their brothers and sisters find a font of riches in the thing.
Because, from my perspective, in North America a lot of people do value religion and do seek to defend it in the face of such criticism, seemingly even if they think the whole thing is delusion themselves. And they seem to specifically seek to defend it from the attack of a critical style which seems to be more natural to the UK and which grows from deep cultural roots of a rhetorical invective.
I wonder if, twitter death-rampages notwithstanding, Dawkinās rhetorical identity just isnāt made for North American ears, and he is too insensitive to either notice or care.
It seems that the cultural response to Dawkins in North America leaves open this gap in the armour of his defence. People seem less likely to defend him and perhaps this provides an opening for his arguments to be more met with and less defended against the kind of nonsensical arguments that would precipitate the questioning of whether he should have used the word āImmortalā over āSelfishā. To anyone who cares to try, even for a moment, to understand the idea he was using āSelfishā to promote, it seems like a clever and amusing use of language.
The fact that we are even having this discussion echoes the sentiments of Neil deGrasse Tyson in the video I linked above, when he questioned Dawkinsā approach to proliferating his ideas. Tyson seems to think that someone in Dawkinsā position should be bending over backwards to make himself understood in the face of a climate of misunderstanding. In a climate which seeks to misunderstand at every possible opportunity.
And whilst Dawkins didnāt actually say it himself I have to agree with the sentiment of the editor of the New Scientist publication he quotes; if people would seek to take any opportunity they can to mischaracterise and misunderstand the truth of what heās saying, they certainly donāt need to be defended, they can fuck off.
2 Likes
Iām a British atheist, Iāve read The God Delusion, have little to no respect for any religious beliefs beyond respecting peopleās right to hold them, and I still think heās a rude blowhard.
Mind you, I guess Christopher Hitchens was too, but he was witty with it.
8 Likes
Iāve not heard that one before either, itāsā¦ brilliantly framed for how awful a thing it labels.
It does seem like common sense made explicit but then I am, as are I would assume most men, constantly analysing other people for likelihood of attack in most situations. Not necessarily for rape, but certainly for robbery and/or murder.
I guess that echoes the Schrƶdingerās sentiment, it takes a fair amount of time before I consider a person to not be potentially crazy and life threatening. Strangers have to earn that and I donāt think itās in any way an unusual behaviour to posses.
2 Likes
Yup, itās what I enjoy about his public persona. I hope people donāt think Iām making the argument that Dawkinsā isnāt an asshole, rather that heās our asshole.
Waitā¦
That doesnāt sound quite right.
4 Likes
This is one of the biggest differences I see when I go to America (or at least the Midwest). Paid service staff are too fāing friendly. Itās bizarre and it freaks me out, TBH. On the other hand, thereās also this assumption that anyone outside your circle of friends is a potential sociopath/rapist/paedophile until proven otherwise. Itās weird and I feel very uncomfortable living in a place where I donāt feel I can have a normal relationship with people I havenāt met. Thereās this obsession with sex that I find very unhealthy. Women complain about their bodies being sexualised, but you should have seen the looks when I went to a swimming pool with tighter fitting swimming clothes (not speedos, much less revealing than that, but still better than sea anchors board shorts for swimming lengths). Yes, you can see that I am a man. I can see that women have breasts too. NBD. In Germany, I can walk into the family showers with my kids and meet a completely naked woman and her completely naked daughter. Thereās no sharp intake of breath or sign of fear at meeting a potential rapist. I donāt stare and just focus on getting my own kids ready without looking in that direction, but Iāll talk with her if she talks to me.
Thatās the big difference for me - I have a right not to be seen as a threat and to be treated as a normal person. Sorry, but I do. I have a responsibility to act in a way that makes other people as comfortable as possible in my presence, and not to push this trust at all. I will be aware of culture and contexts that will raise stress levels, so I will make an effort to signal my lack of a threat - not approaching people, making my intentions clear, going out of my way to give people space if necessary. I donāt get naked in family shower rooms and I bought board shorts in America. Not propositioning strangers in a confined space at night is kind of basic, as far as guidelines go. I cannot possibly ensure that the other person has a 0% risk from anyone, but non-sexualised interactions with strangers are a normal part of my life and do not increase anyoneās risk, where they are handled correctly and actual abuse is not tolerated.
4 Likes
Seriously? Iāve only ever done that if I come across someone whoās acting aggressively, or otherwise suspiciously. Canāt say itās a feeling any friend or family member has ever talked about to me about either. That sounds like youāre either paranoid, or live in a very dangerous neighbourhood.
1 Like
Yup. Mind you, I walk everywhere and am out āin the wildā a lot more than I think most people in the more car-centric America ever are.
Iāve been attacked on the street a couple of times and been injured reasonably badly (burst the back of my eye socket) in an unprovoked and out-of-nowhere attack. I and my friends have been threatened many times and threatened with knives several times. I even know a guy that had to fight for his life in a machete attack, pulling the blade out of his face to fight off his attackers with.
Shit happens. You can be prepared for itā¦ or not. I donāt live my life in fear and I give people a lot of leeway in their behaviour but I sure as shit am not unaware that any seemingly reasonable person can snap at any moment.
I can only imagine that the vast proliferation of guns in America makes this a very difficult and consuming endeavour over there. Perhaps just ignoring the possibility is easier for some people, especially if theyāve never experienced violence themselves?
1 Like
Iāve been mugged twice, both as a teenager, one time I just ran off, the other time they had syringes and threatened to inject us with AIDS, the cops intervened on that occasion. Both times during the day in the middle of town, not down some side alley or anything. Iāve seen plenty of drink induced violence out on the street at night, and have had occasional personal experience though luckily it never escalated too far. None of that really made me view the world any differently, unless someone is acting in a way that would make me suspicious, Iām not going to treat them as anything other than another normal human being.
Didnāt mean you, was referring to the way in which people present themselves as per āschroedingers rapistā. As in how can people assume they arenāt presenting a threat.
Sorry to hear about your troubles but Iām not suggesting you view the world any differently than your avowed suspicion of people presenting themselves to you in an unusual fashion. Seems weāre referring to two sides of the same coin.
1 Like
Didnāt mean you, was referring to the way in which people present themselves as per āschroedingers rapistā. As in how can people assume they arenāt presenting a threat.
You do that by simply doing that. An assumption is something you have to choose to make about someone. Unless someone gives you good reason to think otherwise, or you are in a particularly risky situation where it makes sense to be cautious (walking home by yourself late at night for example), thereās really no good reason to treat someone as a potential mugger/rapist/murderer.
Apart from the fact that I made it quite clear that I give people a lot of leeway in their behaviour, how exactly is it you imagine that Iām treating people who arenāt random strangers who introduce themselves to me?
Do you imagine that Iām paranoidly sizing up everyone I pass on the street, sitting with my back to the wall, sweating over glances?
I get it, your magnanimous empathy transcends all unjust attacks on your person and doesnāt impact your treatment of other humansā¦ Except when they present themselves to you in a way that you perceive as threatening. Which is the exact same scenario Iām presenting.
In the same way that Iām not assessing pensioners who ask me the time, I am wary of leary or drunk or otherwise intrusive people who pop up out of nowhere for seemingly no reason. Equally Iām not ignoring context or content.
I thought I made it quite clear that I was āout in the wildā a lot. Feel free to continue to ignore what Iām saying and amplify other parts in an attempt to persist with whatever it is youāre trying to achieve with this interaction.
*suspicious appraising glance
1 Like
Glasgow?
I walk everywhere, mostly 'cos I hate the cost of cabs.
In Seattle, I donāt find myself looking over my shoulder much. In Savannah, I definitely did. I did not feel comfortable on the streets round there.
Back home, I used to walk all around the rough parts of Leicester, Brum and Reading without a care. Apart from the one time I was walking back home from a night out, and being a smart chap, I avoided the rough area of Cemetery Junction by taking the back streets behind it (used to like walking along the canal, too). Became aware that someone was following me. Eventually they caught me upā¦and asked for directions. Theyād been following me for about a mile trying to catch up to me. Going completely the wrong way.
4 Likes
Sorry, I didnāt mean you āyouā, i meant the plural āyouā. 
My point was about the linked article, one doesnāt start from a position of treating everyone as a potential evil doer, and work back towards normality as they establish their good intentions through each successive interaction. Thatās not a good recipe for social cohesion.
I think a large amount has to do with the context and your perceived vulnerability in the situation. I could show no stress increase at seeing another guy walk past my car while Iām alone in an otherwise deserted car park. If my car and my appearance made me more likely to be a target, it might increase a bit. Maybe the guy looks sketchy and doesnāt seem to have a good reason to be that close - a bit more. Maybe Iāve heard that there have been a number of attacks on car owners in this area at this time of night. I still see people I meet as generally good, but Iām not completely comfortable in this situation and Iāll feel much better when the probably innocent guy moves on. If I were a woman and had experience of being put into very uncomfortable or dangerous situations by strangers who didnāt necessarily look sketchy at all, and all my female friends did too, my assumption of this guyās friendliness is going to take a back seat to the hope that he doesnāt bother me. Anything he can do to show that Iām safe would be nice - staying at a reasonable distance, not attempting to approach and start talking etc. Any social benefits of interaction are outweighed by the risks in this context. Living in a situation with too many interactions like that would have a big effect on your peace of mind, even if the vast majority are uneventful.
I think articles like this can help to highlight that, and if the takeaway is that men should also be aware of these contexts and try to avoid giving women unnecessary concern rather than being defensive and asserting their personal goodness (or that giving women space in these contexts can go a long way toward demonstrating your personal goodness), itās a valuable lesson.
3 Likes
Of course context is important, if that was all that article was talking about (and in a reasonable manner) then it might have a point, but instead it starts off with the premise that every man is a potential rapist, and that random sexual assaults are a common threat faced by women, so common that every interaction with a man not known to woman needs to be viewed with the utmost suspicion (despite the fact that, statistically speaking, itās the men she already knows that are the real potential problem, comparatively speaking).
This article is no different from the āstranger dangerā scaremongering of the 90s, when there was never actually a real significant threat of anyones children being abducted by roving pedophiles.
Someone didnāt read the essay, or at least didnāt understand it.
3 Likes
