Atheism and Misogyny

[Gravlen]

I don't think anyone, anywhere would want to have any sort of sexual contact with an MRA... That's totally deluded. Show me examples of Watson supporter's rape threats?

Show me, first, an example of a rape threat against Watson's set that meets your criterion. Then I will look for, and doubtlessly find, something comparable from Watson's side.

Honestly, I find it silly to debate what someone said as more or less an aside several years ago, and rehashing the debate that followed. But since I'm curious about the supposed threats from Watson supporters (I haven't heard of any), I'll offer you this:

[Grave_n_idle]

You mean, it's fine to laugh at males being stupid.

Surprisingly I'm not laughing at you, Ostro. Female comedians like Sarah Silverman and Tina Fey do the same thing, it has nothing to do with it being okay to laugh at men but not at women. Comedy is male dominated and has been male dominated since its recorded history, even when society believed men to be inherently more intelligent than women.

If you look at the transition in British comedy, from music hall (similar to America's "vaudeville") to film (popularised by artists like George Formby, Gracie Fields and yes, even Chaplin), the bumbling idiot character is a comedy staple, and certainly not gender-specific.

The simple fact is that men are far more prevalent in the field in which the bumbling archetype is most common.

[Kaylea]

Male victims tend to deny having been victimized. Symptomatically, however, they show evidence of harm. Seriously.

The fact that male victims tend to express stoicism does not mean they are not harmed; and does not mean they are not wronged.

You've shown me that before. It's not a study of adult male rape survivors. It doesn't directly make your claim.

I'm not saying they're not harmed or wronged. But it's hard to reliably understand the needs of people who choose to not advocate for themselves.

Show me, first, an example of a rape threat against Watson's set that meets your criterion. Then I will look for, and doubtlessly find, something comparable from Watson's side. I'm not interested in wasting time with moving goalposts, and that's what's going to happen any other way. Set your standard, find your example.

http://skepchick.org/page-o-hate/

Just show any.

Fear of rape is gendered. Women are taught to fear more than men are taught to fear. This means only that women are taught to fear more. It does not even mean that women ought to fear more.

I don't think it's right for men to tell women how afraid of rape they should be, or vice versa. Especially not MRAs.

They do... when the rape jokes are about a woman being raped. Both men and women object to misogynist rape jokes. Men and women generally both allow misandrist rape jokes a pass. Because men are disposable and women are treasured.

This is evidence of widespread sexism of the misandrist variety.

It's not man hating because men themselves choose not to object. If they did and women decided to do it anyway that'd be sexist. It has nothing to do with "men being disposable and women being treasured. Bawww." Haha.

Men who show sympathy for male victims of rape are also making it up, because men don't have real feelings. Therefore, MRAs are motivated by spite and pettiness when they show concern over male victims of rape. Does that about cover it? Men aren't real humans with real feelings, ergo I'm motivated by petty spite?

Because that is some really misandrist shit right there.

I refuse to take someone seriously when they trawl the internet for rape threats and present people that are really just joking without any malicious intent, in order to insist that men are being persecuted, and minimise any claims by women.

Men are great. MRA loony tunes, not so much.

[ALMF]

Now, is it just me, or is the atheist "movement" associating itself more and more with anti-feminism? Three popular figureheads of the movement, Bill Maher, Dawkins, Amazing Atheist, have all expressed misogynist attitudes. Has anyone else noticed this trend amongst anti-theists? Is atheism being appropriated for male empowerment?

Input, please.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean the anti-theist movement, which is unfortunately labeled as the "atheist" movement by the mainstream, and even anti-theists themselves.

As an ardent member Ali is the top leased and the "fore horsemen" are next: well 3 now. There is a lot of media stories on the right sporting your clams. I always wonders witch of slander, bies, or apparition (fox et al are anti-feminist) it was.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Many here seem to be relying on a characterization of Ms. Watson's statement that (1) ignores what she actually said and (2) relies primarily on the assertions of a single poster with a known agenda.

Again, here is Ms. Watson's controversial statements:

The response at the conference itself was wonderful, um, there were a ton of great feminists there, male and female, and also just open-minded people who had maybe never considered the, um, the way that women are treated in this community, but were interested in learning more. So, thank you to everyone who was at that conference who, uh, engaged in those discussions outside of that panel, um, you were all fantastic; I loved talking to you guys—um, all of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because at the bar later that night, actually at four in the morning, um, we were at the hotel bar. Four a.m., I said you know I’ve had enough guys. I'm exhausted. I'm going to bed. So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, "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?" Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and – 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. So, yeah. But everybody else seemed to really get it and thank you for getting it.

In regard to the above, we have been told:

• "Like the Elevatorgate bit. Rebecca Watson flipped out over something that wasn't even rude, let alone threatening - a man asking her if she'd like to talk further over coffee. She went on and on about it." link
  
  For a blogger and video blogger who regularly posts rambling videos about her experiences and opinions, making a 73 second or 104 second comment in total out of an 8 minute video is not going "on and on" about something. Nor was her mild statement an example of "flipping out."
  
  
• "Watson asserted a normative statement, along the lines of: "MEN! THOU SHALT NOT ASK WOMEN TO HAVE COFFEE WITH THEE WHILE ELEVATING!" She described this as a grievous sin. She said it was a sign of the severity of the problem with the atheist community. This was, in other words, not at all reasonable as a reaction. So she not only made a mountain out of a molehill; but she built the molehill in the first place." link
  
  Ms. Watson made no such normative statement. Not expressly or "along the lines of." She did not say EG's actions (let alone asking any woman to have coffee while in an elevator) were a "grievous sin." She did not say this was a sign of the severity of the problem with the atheist community. It is not Ms. Watson who is making paranoid, delusional statements here.
  
  
• "at a major convention, at 4 am, there are still people everywhere. You will run into them in the hallways. You will run into them in the stairs. You will run into them in the elevator." link
  
  Even if this unproven assertion were true of a "major convention," it is not necessarily true of the World Atheist Convention in June 2011 which had about 300 attendees. Nor have we been given an account by anyone at that convention that such was the case.
  
  
• "And you will use the same elevator as the people that you were just at the bar talking with, because there's one working elevator and everybody is staying at that hotel and the two of you waited for four minutes for the elevator to show up." link
  
  This nice little fantasy has no connection to the facts as set forth by Ms. Watson.
  
  
• And if you want off the elevator, you push the damn button that makes the doors open on the next floor. In seconds. link
  
  I was unaware that all elevators in all hotels stop and allow you to exit within seconds. Nor have I seen any evidence this is true of the elevator or hotel in question. I was also unaware that the ability to flee a situation means that one cannot reasonably feel uncomfortable about said situation. To the contrary, one would ordinarily not flee an elevator unless one was threatened or uncomfortable about being in it. Finally, apparently nothing bad has ever happened to anyone in a matter of seconds. No one who is not paranoid and delusional would ever contemplate such a thing.
  
  
• Watson "was making the claim that this sort of behavior constituted a significant oppression of womankind." link
  
  Such language appears nowhere in her video comments.
  
  
• Watson and EG "were continuing a conversation they were having before getting onto the elevator. They then continued to talk on the elevator. He then suggested continuing that conversation." link
  
  That Ms. Watson and EG conversed at all prior to being in the elevator is one possible inference from a single word in her "rambling, unscripted" statement that is somewhat contrary to other parts of her statement. The rest is rampant speculation at best and most likely convenient fiction.
  
  
• "'The middle of the night' sounds relevant until you remember 'oh, this is at a major convention.' There are more people walking around at 4 am in the con hotel at a major con then there are in the middle of the day at a typical hotel on a typical day." link
  
  Bizarre, incredible assertions without any support. Moreover, this was not "a major convention" and no one attending the conference has made such assertions. They are the product of a desperate mind.
  
  
• Ms. Watson "was in a bar. She was drinking things other than coffee at the bar. She was also having a lively conversation with a dude. . . . The dude decided to go up to his room. This happened to be in the same hotel as the bar and everything else, because they're at a convention. It's not even clear that she left first... or that he knew she was going to the same place when they both left the bar.
  . . .
  He did talk to her at the bar. Then they continued talking while waiting for the elevator. Their conversation continued on the elevator. Hence why he asked her to continue their conversation elsewhere, rather than inviting her out of the blue to have a conversation." link
  
  Again, almost all of this is pure fiction. We know Ms. Watson was in a bar, was conversing with attendees, that EG and Ms. Watson ended up in the elevator alone, and that he made his "invitation" to coffee in his room. There is a speck of basis for inferring EG may have talked to Ms. Watson -- along with other attendees -- in the bar before she said she was exhausted, had enough, and was going to bed. The rest of this little story is not only without basis, but contrary to what little facts we have.
  
  
• We know EG wanted merely coffee and conversation and was not proposition Ms. Watson because "he explicitly told her otherwise; because the bar may not have been serving coffee any more; because he would rather not pay $5 a cup of coffee instead of brewing up a pot in his room; because the bar was noisy and not conducive to good conversation . . . " link
  
  The "don't take this the wrong way" disclaimer hard proves the lack of a come on. It even tends to show the opposite. We have an account from attendees that the bar was serving coffee. The rest may be true, but is pretty weak speculation that assumes that EG who was "interested in [Ms. Watson]" had some basis for assuming she wanted conversation and coffee despite having declared she "had enough" conversation, being "exhausted," and "going to bed."
  
  
• 4 am at a convention "is like 8 or 9 PM in the regular world."
  link
  
  
  
  
• EG could not have "magically" known whether Ms. Watson was "tired at a con and conking out, or tired but up for four more hours of shenanigans? Because people never can tell when [TJ is] about to go conk out until I go fall over on the bed and start snoring. It is not unusual to have a lively animated conversation that starts at 4 or 5 am ... at a convention."
  link
  
  This either assumes that -- contrary to the above -- EG was not involved in the conversation with Ms. Watson where she said: "you know I’ve had enough guys. I'm exhausted. I'm going to bed." It does not take magic or the ability to read minds for one to be on notice that Ms. Watson was tired, conking out, and wanting to go to bed. It may be there are more factors of which we are unaware that would make EG think Ms. Watson was making a pretext to be alone with him, but we have no basis for so speculating. And that is contrary to what Ms. Watson reports.
  
  
• If EG "had been Dawkins, [Watson] would have jumped his bones." link
  
  
  
  
• "Not a trivial percentage . . . if not necessarily remarkably high" percentage of "women would have taken some men [like EG] up on the offer . . . under the same circumstances." link
  
  An interesting, unproven assertion that, even if true, says nothing whatsoever about how either Ms. Watson or any reasonable person should react to a proposition like EG made. This also specifically ignores the context of Ms. Watson publicly discussing prior to the encounter with EG that such propositions made her feel uncomfortable and creeped out.
  
  
• "But politely asking people for coffee - hell, asking people if they want to go upstairs and fuck like rabbits - isn't 'everyday sexism.' . . . It's an act of everyday human sociability." link
  
  
  
  
• "Some dude she was having a length animated conversation with asked her up for coffee and a continuation of the conversation they'd been having." link
  
  Speculation at best. See above.
  
  
• Ms. Watson's "paranoid delusions" and her subjective feeling of discomfort are no more reasonable than that of "a white supremacist" who "is a closet case with a fetish for black men," perceives that "every situation involving a black man is sexual," and "anything a black man does makes him uncomfortable. Accommodating Ms. Watson's desire that men "don't do" to her what EG did is the equivalent of saying "all black men are morally obligated to avoid Bob and to assume an unthreatening submissive posture when they find themselves in the room with Bob, addressing him as 'Massa' and bowing repeatedly if required to speak." link
  
  

Who here is being delusional and unreasonable?

[Gravlen]

Why? It's completely irrelevant to my point.

No matter what issues there's been clashes about (and disregarding any misrepresentation of those issues served up by you), the statement that "Equality has gone too far" is not justified.

The idea that equality has gone too far is something that very few people agree with.

Might be, but that minority can be very vocal about it. Disturbingly so. If they can't blame feminism, they have to find something else to blame.

The idea that the pursuit of equality has gone too far and is generating actual inequality is another matter entirely

But not what these people actually say they're complaining about. We could talk about what we think they should be complaining about, but that seems like a waste of time.

Which idea is it that you're actually objecting to?

The former. The idea that the equality has gone to far, which is what these people are complaining about. Wanting to roll back rights for women is objectionable to me.

We deny differences between male and female sexualities because we mistake sameness for equality (and move farther from true equality than ever).

The researcher says that he sat was peppered with thanksgiving messages from men who thank him. - Fight for gender equality to women has been justified, but now they have gotten so much rewarded the pendulum has tilted over. What we need now is a man fight.

If I am not greatly mistaken - and I have heard quite similar phrases in English - the second idea is certainly present even in those strange Norwegians you spend so much time assuming all MRAs are uniformly exactly alike with, particularly in the second link.

Removing the right for women to have abortions without the consent of the potential father... Yeah, sounds like an MRA position. It also sounds like a complaint about how equality has gone too far, and not that the pursuit has generated inequality.

(Your first link is someone who calls A Voice for Men's crew, who are hardly moderate in their message, "manginas," and who claims that Breivik "... seems lamentably politically correct in some ways and at times spouts feminist drivel of the worst kind." I am justified in saying that this is someone who wants to be considered an extremist of an unusual stripe.)

I have no doubt that he wants to be considered an extremist - in fact, he was an excellent example of the extreme contrasted against the more rational researcher. That said, it is interesting how this " extremist of an unusual stripe" is embraced by the likes of The Spearhead and TheAntifeminist.com

It could also be worth noting that he's not the only extremist. Breivik was an anti-feminist, and his main inspiration Fjordman still is as well.

I think you object to both ideas

Wrong.

But the simple fact is that in some cases, the pursuit of equality does not result in the situation moving towards equality.

And if and when that happens, it should be fixed. But alas, that won't stop many people from complaining, because it's clear that this isn't their main concern.

You said that MRAs believe that equality itself has gone too far.

Wrong. I said some MRA's complain that equality has gone too far. I said that changing the name won't do anything, because people will still complain - if not about feminism, then about equality. Many people complaining about feminism are in reality complaining about women having equal rights.

To back this up, you provided two links to obscure Norwegians, one link being entirely in Norwegian, and the other being a Norwegian who has deliberately positioned himself as an extremist. To deny your claim, I listed a catalog of subjects which NSG's resident gender-equality activists (such as myself) frequently talk about. And on those subjects, it is by and large those who most vigorously claim the label "feminist" who are defending standing inequalities; and those who are critical of feminism who are demanding equality.

So you failed, since your attempted counter doesn't adress my claim.

Reproductive rights, job market discrimination, discrimination in the assignment of child custody/support/alimony, enforcement of the masculine gender role upon men, stereotyping of men as perpetrators and women as victims, and discrimination within the school system? All issues on which the people you're angrily objecting to the existence of are fighting on the side of decreasing existing inequalities; and all issues on which feminists often excuse, defend, or deny the true nature of the status quo.

You have failed to grasp the context of my previous posts.

As a final note, you should not get particularly far claiming Norway as a special case where everything is fixed and unlike the rest of the civilized world (as you do with respect to the issue of parental obligations, which are either de facto or de jure entirely optional for women in the clear majority of the civilized world but not for men)

Actually, that's you. I'm not saying everything is fixed in Norway, I'm just pointing out that the system there is one you'd like to see. It is according to your standards and demands for equality. Of course, you refuse to accept that... Most likely that's because you don't want to find a solution which best ensures equality.

while at the same time claiming that Norway's feminists and MRAs are representative of feminists and MRAs in other countries and show precisely how feminists and MRAs in other countries would act and talk if feminism had the name "equalism."

So if we were to agree that not everything is fixed - The Norwegian governmental "men's panel" found several areas where challenges remained back in 2008 (none of which, curiously enough, were blamed on the fight for equality) - would you change your mind? Of course not...

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

EDIT: In hindsight, this is getting off-track and likely will invite more "men good/women bad" or "men bad/women good" back-and-forth silliness.

Please source these claims.

Department of health and human services. In spite of that organ being sometimes viewed as biased against fathers and likely to classify things as abuse when fathers do them as opposed to mothers doing them, they show mothers abusing children most often:

Perpetrator	Number	Percent
Mother	253,107	36.8
Father	130,670	19.0
Mother and Father	129,793	18.9
Mother and Other	38,927	5.7
Father and Other	6,150	0.9

Thanks. I'll peruse this more carefully later, but I note this appears to include primarily neglect as perpetrated by mothers. That is a serious form of abuse, but it is distinct from violent or sexual abuse.

Part of the reason I would like to see sources is I wonder at exactly what you mean by these assertions. Is this a comparison of total cases by gender of the perpetrator (men commit X, women commit X+Y) without regard to the amount of children in the care of women or the amount of time spent with women compared to men?

Given that I have repeatedly asserted that this difference is likely to disappear into equivalence once the difference in contact time is controlled for, it in fact is such a case; and this, in fact, is consonant with my position that there is no difference.

In sum, you are repeating an assertion that -- although technically defensible -- you know is misleading. Got it.

Please source this claim. With specificity.

Would you like me to link, again, to the set of NOW press releases which conflate more men getting custody with more abusers getting custody, as if abuse is something only men do?

Go ahead. Because those "NOW press releases" both do not say any such thing and do not support your premise. In fact, I dare you to point to where exactly NOW has asserted that women do not abuse children or that child abuse by women is not a problem.

Further, I dare you to quote the allegedly relevant portions of those press releases -- because they actually state an opposition to mandatory joint custody of children regardless of child abuse by one parent or cite to independent studies that fathers are more likely to get custody in a disputed case where he is accused of child abuse (even where the charge is substantiated). Whether or not one agrees with these assertions, they are supported by reasonable evidence and, on their face, both should be fairly unobjectionable to anyone with the slightest interest in the welfare of children.

There is no evidence to support the view that women are as abusive as men. All the large scale studies on sexual abuse, including ours, find that 90% or more of sexual assaults - on girls and boys - are committed by men and boys. The studies which record higher figures for abuse by women define abuse differently; for example, mothers have been classified as abusers if they failed to report abuse when they knew about it.

These five points form the basis of all work undertaken in CWASU.

(i) To work from, and extend, a feminist perspective, which recognises the complexities of, and interactions between gender, race, ethnicity, class, age, sexuality and disability.

(ii) To explore the connections between various forms of assault and abuse experienced by children and women, their short and long term consequences, and how the public, the media, government and agencies respond.

(iii) To conduct independent research which creates useful knowledge for policy makers, practitioners, survivors, supporters and activists.

(iv) To develop training programmes, provide consultancy, enhance networking, and disseminate our work in spoken and written forms.

(v) Through all of these activities to be part of a national and international network that, in the short term advocates for sanctuary for children and women who have been victimised and sanctions for perpetrators, and in the longer term seeks to eradicate violence and abuse.

Note three things. One, in answering a question about abusers, and in an organization whose mission statement does not restrict it to the study of sexual abuse, they field the answer as one about child sexual abuse, sweeping the more general question of abuse under the rug. Second, their answer dismisses a wealth of recent literature showing that, in fact, the percentage of sexual abuse by women has been grossly underestimated, and misrepresents how those results have been arrived at. (The key towards finding a much higher percentage of child sexual abusers to be women has been victim surveys; the key to minimizing it has been using criminal convictions). Three, this is a feminist research organization, as demanded.

You cite a one-paragraph blurb from the website of one feminist research organization from the UK that I have never heard of and I know nothing about and claim that it is misleading and inaccurate based on disputed studies and conclusions. Further, you remove the context in which the blurb is an answer to the question: "Isn't there increasing evidence that women are as violent or abusive as men?"

You were supposed to cite specific evidence that "Feminists have simply been complicit in continuing to deny that" "Mothers being the group who most often commit child abuse, and that mothers abuse sons more often than daughters" is "a problem." You failed.

Of course, you know full well that "initiation" and "mutuality" are simply one -- particularly unimportant -- way to measure violence, especially among intimate partners. (Your assertions about the motivations behind and context of violence are questionable at best, but I'll leave that aside for now.)

Are they? As I pointed out, Kimmel specifically attacks studies that come out with high rates of female perpetration for ignoring the question of who initiated the violence. This factor does not actually help his case, as women initiate violence no less often than men, and most studies which come out with high rates of male perpetration also ignore initiation.

I do not give a fuck about your half-assed quibbles with Kimmel. My point was clear that "initiation" and "mutuality" are only two of many lenses by which to view IPV. Few serious experts in the field deny they are relevant factors -- although, contrary to your assertion, the evidence as to initiation and mutuality is still disputed. What is far more important is patterns of violence, frequency of violence, context of violence, severity of violence, injuries resulting from violence, and other serious impacts of violence.

As I noted, sources you routinely cite (and proponents of the "gender symmetry" meme) concede that considerations of the latter factors are critical and way heavily towards women being more victimized by intimate partners than men.

As I have pointed out before: Although there has long been evidence that -- depending on how defined and measured -- men are victimized by IPV and women perpetuate IPV at rates very roughly comparable to the rate women are victimized by IPV and men perpetuate IPV, almost every study shows the severity of the violence against women/by men and the injuries & consequences suffered by women is far, far greater. They ain't equivalent.

Not "far, far greater." Generally greater, yes, but the ratio of injury & consequences at every level follows the same basic patterns, ranging from simply asking after abuse, period, all the way up to to measuring the rate at which spouses kill each other.

In general, when you focus on recent events instead of asking after any time in someone's lifetime, the ratio shifts, as recollections have had less time to become biased; when you focus on trying to objectively measure severity, and ask both men and women about both perpetration and victimization; et cetera; the ratio shifts.

There are many confounding factors; and the more you work to control for the known confounds, the less dramatically lopsided the injury rates are. For example:

• Women are more likely to seek treatment for injuries.
• Men are much more likely to deny having been victimized as time passes.
• We are much more likely to frame men as blameworthy, even given the exact same circumstances.

With the array of confounds in play, it is difficult to make more than a handful of positive assertions about gender asymmetry in IPV.

We can assert that men are generally more likely to cause severe injury or death, by ratios that sometimes exceed 2:1, even with many confounds controlled for; we can assert that women are generally more likely to engage in unreciprocated abuse, by ratios that sometimes exceed 2:1, even with many confounds controlled for.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

You can say such things as many times as you like. Repetition does not equal accuracy.

Your "analysis" of the issues of "confounding factors" is all very nice, but disputed in the expert literature and generally irrelevant given what you concede.

Your own sources do not tend to support that women engage in unreciprocated abuse by a 2:1 ratio. Moreover, your simplistic "men are generally more likely to cause severe injury or death, by ratios that sometimes exceed 2:1" is (1) extremely vague and not particularly accurate and (2) proves my point!

As to the first, men are more likely to engage in severe IPV, they are more likely to engage in a pattern of IPV, they are more likely to use violence as one of many means of control of an intimate partner. More to the point, men are more likely to cause injury by IPV and the injuries caused by male IPV are more severe. Your vague "2:1" ratio captures little of this. It is unclear what it means at all.

However, to the extent you are conceding that male-perpetrated IPV is twice as likely as female-perpetrated IPV to cause severe injury or death, then "injuries & consequences suffered by women [victims of IPV] is far, far greater" than the injuries & consequences suffered by male victims of IPV. And that is without considering the greater harm to female victims in terms of psychological harm, fear, and other consequences.

My point is not to vilify men, deny IPV by women, deny that many men suffer severe IPV perpetrated by women, and men can and are severely harmed by IPV. And -- regardless of what some NSG posters may opine -- serious scholars on this subject -- including those you call "misogynist" -- recognize this as well.

My objection is to the false equivalence (particularly that of the CTS) of IPV perpetrated by men and IPV perpetrated by women. This is not only substantively incorrect, but (especially outside academic circles) it is usually tied either to an attempt to downplay the seriousness of IPV overall or to attempts to block attempts to prevent serious IPV and its victims.

The NISVS conducted by the CDC (that you cited above) is rather clear on this

Note all the difference in their IPV figures is - like sexual victimization - due to the reliance on lifetime figures, instead of 12 month figures, for their big-picture conclusions. Which means their difference is generated by selective forgetting, rather than actual behavioral differences.

In other words, the same source you cited is -- based on asserted "confounding" factors you have failed to prove exist -- is only useful for the purposes you happen to wish to champion and all other data and conclusions of the study conveniently can be dismissed.

Also, I note you complete ignored my quote of your own post citing one of your favorite (and MRA biased) sources saying essentially the same thing I asserted about severity of and injuries caused by male-perpetrated IPV.

Most importantly, the discrepancy in the impact or seriousness of intimate partner/domestic violence by men against women and women against men is well established in the relevant literature. In case you wish to dispute this, here some (rather randomly selected) sources in no particular order:

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

Shows an adjusted odds ratio for the gender difference of 1.3. That is to say, it says that being male adds 30% to the risk a perpetrator causes injury, once we control for other factors. This is a statistically significant but relatively small effect, in line with what I'm talking about.

Are Physical Assaults by Wives and Girlfriends a Major Social Problem? A Review of the Literature; Equal Victims or the Usual Suspects? Making Sense of Domestic Abuse Against Men;

Methodological papers; as I have demonstrated, I am quite willing to talk about methodology in detail. If you think there is something I have not already addressed, bring it up specifically and I will talk about how the evidence actually relates to that methodological point. (E.g., Kimmel's methodological claims relating to initiation and forgetting, both of which are actually points which harm his case when you examine the available evidence on those subjects, rather than helping his case.)

Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review;

This is another paper that agrees with things I've said, generally speaking. The sex differences are not particularly large (the review describes them as ranging from "very small" to "medium"); women and men have different weapon preferences; the use of general-population samples instead of ones selected via biased means, e.g., crime reports and domestic violence shelters, show much higher rates of male victimization/female perpetration, etc.

Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s Confirmation of the Feminist Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence: Comment on “Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States”

Not an empirical paper, more the academic version of an editorial letter.

Violence and Injury in Marital Arguments: Risk Patterns and Gender Differences;

This is another paper that agrees with me a great deal of the time. In this case, it shows the higher end of a roughly 2:1 injury ratio I point to as being present once you control for common methodological variables; they asked both men and women about both causing and receiving injuries, and voila, 2:1 ratio:

Women reported higher rates both of
being injured and of causing injury (data
not shown): three times as many women
as men indicated that the husband was
injured (6% vs 2%) and that the wife was
injured (13% vs. 4%).

Note also the line in the conclusions:

(Few gender differences were found.)

Uncovering Gender Differences in the Use of Marital Violence: The Effect of Methodology;

This paper is arguing that subjective classification of oneself as victimized is more important than what people actually do to each other. It is, in a backhanded way, agreeing with me completely about what the data shows.

Women's Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships: Working on a Puzzle.

This is a study that uses, as a sample, couples drawn from the criminal justice system for interventions on domestic violence, and interviewed in that context. In other words, a heavily biased sample, rather than a general population sample. The fact that many of its finding contradict specifically surveys conducted on the general population (such as - as mentioned in several of the above studies - women being more likely to throw objects at their partners) illustrates very little except that a biased sample is qualitatively different from the general population.

Now; you just threw a bunch of papers at me, probably not expecting me to read them. A number of those papers agree with me, in some cases very explicitly, in saying that gender differences are not terribly large; that, while there are a few of them, those effects worth noting, e.g., non-reciprocal violence being the domain of women, are not huge. (Around 2:1 ratio for the most dramatic differences after controls.)

I was not sure you would dispute such a well-established contention, but I grabbed a few studies that happened to be near the top of a large pile I have on IPV. As I said, they were rather randomly picked. All support my assertion (even the ones usually cited by those claiming gender symmetry in IPV). They are not, by any measure, the best sources or only sources I can cite. They were -- along with the CDC study and your own source -- more than sufficient, however.

I did not "throw a bunch of papers at you" or count on you not reading them. That claim ought to be beneath you. I trying to decide, however, if I should be impressed or skeptical that you apparently read, analyzed, and were able to dispute or draw different conclusions from over 150 pages of peer-reviewed published articles and studies within about 120 minutes -- while also post two long posts during that time.

I could cite scores of more studies to support my assertion, but there clearly is no point. The evidence is already there -- even in your own sources. You have already partially admitted my assertion was true. Beyond that I am sure you could nitpick and dissent endlessly with an infinite amount of evidence.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

It is increasingly worthless to reply to someone who only addresses little bits of your posts out of context. Particularly when they avoid your main points. Diminishing returns set in long ago. Nonetheless:

1. It is not surprising that an anti-feminist would not only discount how a particular individual (especially a woman) actually felt about a situation but also deny that anyone could react to a situation differently than the anti-feminist assumes he or she might (despite never having been in precisely the same situation).

If you want to claim that Watson felt threatened, back up that claim with Watson saying she felt threatened. Not simply uncomfortable at being sexualized, which is what she actually said.

As I never alleged Ms. Watson felt threatened, I do not need to back up such a claim. Nevertheless, that a woman in that situation could reasonably feel threatened makes Ms. Watson's feeling of discomfort even more reasonable.

It is not surprising that an anti-feminist refuses to consider that a sleepy (perhaps somewhat intoxicated) woman alone in a hotel elevator in a foreign country at 4am with a stranger

I considered that. Then I recalled that she'd just been at the bar with said "stranger," and that said "4 am" was at a convention, where 4 am is not in fact a time at which you can expect nobody else to be around.

Um. You ignore the sleepy, perhaps somewhat intoxicated, and in a foreign country factors.

You are assuming that "she'd just been at the bar with said 'stranger.'" That is possible, but nothing in her statement in more than weak evidence either way. And having been in the same bar with someone is not the same as knowing him, trusting him, or have reason not to object to his behavior.

It was 4 am, she was exhausted, and going to bed. The notion that large groups were active throughout the hotel is pure fiction and is unrelated to Ms. Watson's encounter with EG. Your personal experience with conventions is not only anecdotal, but also flawed. You have referred to the World Atheist Convention in question as a "major convention" several times in this thread. It is no such thing. Reports bragging about the Convention say there were "more than 300 attendees."

So, 4 am and alone (at least in the elevator) are both objective facts and, although the first may not carry the same connotations at a convention as elsewhere, they are relevant circumstances.

So, we are back to you discounting Ms. Watson as either having made up the encounter (which makes no sense) or that her discomfort as she actually expressed it was so unreasonable as to make her "paranoid" or "delusional" or any of the other nasty labels you have applied.

(Although concern over sexual violence perpetrated by strangers is vastly exaggerated

Yes. It is vastly exaggerated. To the point of generating unreasonable paranoia; which is why some people are implying that Watson was reasonable, on the grounds that Watson felt threatened (which I have not at any point noted Watson actually claiming).

Wow, way to dodge the point.

Exaggerated does not mean non-existent. The myth of "real rape" being stranger rape of a female by a male should be denounced. But it is still true that the probability of a man physically attacking or threatening a woman for the purposes of sexual violence is far, far greater than the probability of a woman physically attacking or threatening a woman for the purposes of sexual violence. This is even more true when the two individuals are strangers.

Ms. Watson did not feel threatened and it turned out there was no threat (at least when she declined to go to EG's room). She was creeped out and uncomfortable. That is a lesser reaction than feeling threatened. Given that women have reasonable justification to feel threatened in a variety of circumstances not dissimilar to Ms. Watson's encounter with EG, Ms. Watson's mild reaction is very reasonable.

3. Your trivialization of Ms. Watson's feelings is exactly what she objects to on behalf of women. She has specifically said about this controversy that:

[There is a] "difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. The former is great -- be attracted to people! Flirt, have fun, make friends, have sex, meet the love of your life, whatever floats your boat. But the latter involves dismissing a person's feelings, desires, and identity with a complete disinterest in how one's actions will affect the 'object' in question. That's what we shouldn't be doing. No, we feminists are not outlawing sexuality."

The suggestion that a woman cannot have certain feelings or (heaven forbid!) express them unless they are considered "objectively reasonable" by others takes this objectification to a whole new level!

I am not suggesting that she cannot have certain feelings, and I never have suggested that. I am suggesting that demanding that others behave carefully to account for your feelings is only reasonable to the degree that those feelings are, in and of themselves, reasonable.

Be honest.

Your permission for Ms. Watson to have "paranoid delusions" is meaningless condescension. You will allow her to have feelings (as apparently you will not apply extreme medical treatment to prevent them), but they are without consequence unless you agree with them.

When you say someone is "paranoid," is "delusional," is making a "bullshit complaint," likely fabricated her entire story, has a "'fake' problem," her problem is "entirely in her head," etc., you are doing more than recognizing someone's feelings but denying that those feelings must be accommodated because they are unreasonable. You have expressly said, repeatedly, that no reasonable person could have felt the way that Ms. Watson claims to have felt. And you have more than once suggested she did not actually feel what she claims. You have, therefore, dismissed her feelings, desires, and identity. Moreover, you have concluded that no one need heed Ms. Watson's suggestion of "don't do that" -- even to her. Thus, you suggest others should interact with Ms. Watson with a complete disinterest in how one's actions will affect her.

Any doubt about this is dismissed by your comparison of Ms. Watson's simple request that a stranger not invite her to coffee in a manner reasonably interpreted as a come on at 4 am when they are alone in a hotel elevator after she has publicly informed people (likely including the stranger) not to behave in that matter to "Bob":

Bob, here, is a closet case with a fetish for black men. He's also a white supremacist who dresses up in white sheets on the weekend. Due to his intense sexual feelings towards black men, his perception is that every situation involving a black man is sexual; and due to his intense racial hatred, anything a black man does makes him uncomfortable. By your logic, all black men are morally obligated to avoid Bob and to assume an unthreatening submissive posture when they find themselves in the room with Bob, addressing him as "Massa" and bowing repeatedly if required to speak.

It is true that unreasonable demands for accommodation may be disregarded, but you apply a bizarre and lopsided analysis. You do not ask "what are the accommodations requested, why are they requested, what burden to they place on others" and then evaluate the reasonable of these factors. Other than making wild claims that Ms. Watson is trying to "regulat[e] male sexuality" and the "ability of men to interact with women," you have not explained how accommodating Ms. Watson's feelings in interactions with her places any unreasonable burden on anyone. Instead, you -- exactly contrary to what you admit -- assess only the reasonableness of the feelings that create the "need" for accommodation. You are, therefore, directly saying who can and cannot "reasonably" have certain feelings.

And guess what? Telling someone that you find them interesting and would like to talk to them more over coffee might be an indication of sexual attraction, but it cannot reasonably be taken as an indicator for sexual objectification as contrasted to sexual attraction.

There is not a visible good reason for Watson to consider herself sexually objectified on the basis that a man asked her up for coffee and conversation. If you want to claim to be in favor of people flirting, having fun, making friends, and meeting the love of their lives, you cannot do what Watson appears to have done, and treat any attention as being sexual because it comes from a man; and treat that attention as objectification because it is sexual.

Give one good reason why, based on what this man supposedly actually did, Watson has a reason to believe that she is sexually objectified, as opposed to sexually attracted.

Okay.

If we start from the rather obvious premise that Ms. Watson could reasonably believe that EG was propositioning her, he was -- as she said -- behaving precisely in a manner she told the convention (and people at the bar) that creeped her out and made her uncomfortable. Thus, regardless of whether a reasonable person would be "creeped out" or feel uncomfortable, she made it clear that those were her feelings.

Under multiple reasonable theories, Ms. Watson had reason to believe EG knew of her public statements about her feelings. Thus, by behaving as he did, he -- in pursuing his sexual attraction -- was directly dismissing her feelings and disregarding the affect of his actions on her. This is precisely what Ms. Watson defines as sexual objectification. (And disagreeing with her definition is different than contending she had no reason to believe EG's actions met her definition.)

Additionally, as I posted long ago, EG's saying "don't take this the wrong way" is not a mitigating factor, but actually an aggravating one. It indicates that he knew his proposition would cause discomfort, but proceeded anyway. No one actually believes that saying "don't take this the wrong way" ensures that the listener will be reassured and not take what follows the "wrong way."

*snip* I find it bizarre that it is being argued a woman in such a situation could not reasonably feel uncomfortable when the very phrase "don't take this the wrong way" indicates the speaker knew the question could be reasonably taken "the wrong way." The "logic" of such assertions is ass-backwards.

If two or more people are in a situation where "person X" asks a question or makes a statement prefaced by "don't take this the wrong way," then "person X" is acknowledging others in the situation could reasonably be made uncomfortable, feel threatened, be offended, etc., by the question/statement! For a third party not present to contradict the assessments of both "person X" and the party made uncomfortable and argue no one reasonable person would be uncomfortable is beyond the pale.

And the disclaimer itself does not necessarily negate either the reasonableness of a negative response by the listener or possible ill intent by the speaker. (Although the later is really irrelevant here.) Offensive, threatening, rude, sexist, etc., statements are often prefaced by meaningless disclaimers ("I'm not a ____, but . . ." or "I do not mean to ____ you . . .") that are actually red flags. Particularly in the context of how the listener could reasonably feel the instruction not to "take this the wrong way" is not objectively reassuring and it is subjectively reasonable to react more negatively because of it.

So, again, from her perspective under the circumstances, Ms. Watson could very reasonably conclude that EG -- in pursuing his sexual attraction -- was directly dismissing her feelings and disregarding the affect of his actions on her. Thus, Ms. Watson reasonably believed his actions were sexual objectification.

No one is saying -- and Ms. Watson has been clear that she is not saying -- that you cannot ever proposition someone (including women). Or that you cannot proposition a stranger. Or that you cannot proposition someone late at night. Etc.

Propositioning a stranger late at night at a convention hotel elevator during a convention is, contextually, like propositioning someone in broad daylight in the lobby of a multi-story office building when the two of you walk in and find a "Be back soon!" sign sitting on the receptionist's desk. You happen to be briefly alone and briefly together but you can expect to see other people very soon, and someone could walk in at any time with non-trivial probability.

This analogy is so clear absurd and baseless as to require no response -- other than this statement about it being absurd and baseless.

at is entirely different from saying that the combination of a number of factors can make a reasonable person more than trivially uncomfortable with being propositioned.

The combination of factors that she describes, taken in appropriate context, are not in fact such a combination.

If one does not deny the combination factors she reasonably considered and one does not deny how they could reasonable affect her, then her feeling more than "trivially uncomfortable" was totally reasonable.

1. She made it perfectly clear that she was exhausted

Had she? I would say not. She said she'd announced that she'd had enough and was going to bed. It suggests she might be exhausted - to those she was currently talking to - but saying you've had enough is essentially a use-all excuse for leaving the bar.

So, we are to presume she lied when she told those she was talking to "you know I’ve had enough guys. I'm exhausted. I'm going to bed." You are contending that her statement was not clear and EG could reasonably interpret it to really mean that she wanted to go to his (or someone's) hotel room -- either to have a more private conversation or for sexual purposes? Are you sure Ms. Watson is the delusional one?

She had just spent the day explaining that she finds advances at these events highly annoying. So doing something that can easily be construed as a come-on, such as inviting her back to your room at 4am, is a no-no. If your intent really was to just have an engaging conversation, then you should have simply said that you hope you can discuss it further tomorrow morning, she is exhausted after all (see point 1).

The fact that she had been giving talks on this suggests an extra reason why someone might preface any statement they didn't want to be taken the wrong way with "Don't take this the wrong way" if they didn't want it to be taken the wrong way.

We already covered the meaning of the "false disclaimer." You even said the disclaimer was irrelevant (although you are now backpedalling). But again, how could EG reasonably believe that, although Ms. Watson would otherwise be put-off by an invitation like his, it was innocuous if prefaced with "do not take this the wrong way"?

If you did have something else on your mind besides coffee, that’s nothing to be ashamed of and it’s not a crime. However, this was obviously not the time or the place, especially since you had not spoken so much as one word to her all evening prior to this. You had several hours to engage with her in conversation in a setting that was much more comfortable. If instead, you had spoken with her and others around her throughout the night and THEN asked her on the elevator if she wished to carry on the conversation, at least there would have been a conversation to carry on. As it was, however, the invitation came out of nowhere and immediately and understandably put her on the defensive.

This outright contradicts Watson's original description of the event, in which the man said that he would like to talk more with her; and also contradicts your foundational claim that Watson had made it perfectly clear that she had been exhausted. Had the man not been precisely who she was already talking with at the bar at the time she announced her departure, he would in fact have very little reason to believe she was exhausted; just bored with the bar. (4 am, but convention with attendees from a wide range of time zones.)

Note that you are quoting me quoting someone else. Although I agree with them, they are not my words.

1. Regardless, you rest a rather heavy burden on the slim read of the word "more." EG said: "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?" This could indicate he just had been talking to her at the bar. It could indicate he had talked to her earlier in the day or at the bar. It could indicate he was interested in her and "talk more" did not literally mean "more than we already have" -- that would not be an unusual usage.

More importantly, Ms. Watson does not indicate she had been previously talking to EG or had ever talked to EG before. Thus, this third party interpretation does not "outright contradict[] Watson's original description of the event." At most this interpretation contradicts other possible interpretations of Ms. Watson's statement.

2. There is no "foundational claim" to contradict, but rather independent points. Moreover, it is quite possible -- reasonable to consider even -- that EG was present in the bar without having been speaking to Ms. Watson but still able to hear her say she was exhausted and going to bed. Perhaps he was listening to the conversation, but had not participated. Or this particular point by the third party is a bit of a stretch.

But the more important consideration is that either EG had not been speaking to Ms. Watson or she had told him and others she was exhausted and going to bed. You wish to pretend they were engrossed in conversation, but she had not conveyed she was exhausted and going to bed. Again, this presupposes some hidden communication or is simply absurd.

Of course, you are presuming Ms. Watson was suffering from "paranoid delusions." Thus, EG had been talking to her, she wanted to talk more, but suddenly "flipped out" over the offer of coffee as "sexual objectification." If one entertains the notion that her perceptions -- particularly as conveyed by her in her statement -- could be reasonable, it is much more likely that this is not what happened.

It showed complete thoughtlessness in terms of how the other person would most likely perceive the situation. Lets assume for now that EG’s motives WERE completely honest and innocent. Is there anyway, bar telepathy, that Ms. Watson could have been expected to know that? Or, is it more reasonable, given the setting, for her to consider the likelihood that “coffee” meant more than just coffee.

This again contradicts the original description, which has the man prefacing the statement with "Don't take this the wrong way," which shows that he has considered that the statement could be taken the wrong way.

We have been over this. Repeating a stupid argument does not remove the stupidity.

• Alone,

Very temporarily.

in an enclosed space,

On a very temporary basis with a door, an emergency call button, in a highly public facility.

with a man she didn’t know,

But had, evidently, been conversing with already.

in an unfamiliar location.

As was he; which is to say, "neutral ground." And highly public neutral ground.

So, if one ignores obfuscation, you admit she was alone, in an enclosed space, with at least a relative stranger, in an unfamiliar location. You otherwise "assume facts not in evidence" and selectively ignore the rest of both my arguments and those I quoted.

You sure make a great case that Ms. Watson's less than two minute statement about this encounter was unreasonable. In fact, it was a sex-negative, delusional paranoid's making a mountain out of a fake molehill and going on and on to regulate men's sexuality based on entitled discomfort.

OR . . . you disagree with Ms. Watson's feminist views in general, reflexively oppose anything a feminist says, and will go to absurd lengths to try to turn any claims of sexism against women into proof of misandry.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Before I quit my filibuster for the night, I want to remind people that I already disputed the view of the OP. And, other than regards this event and the aftermath, I know nothing about Ms. Watson. I am not defending her view or statements on any other matter. I am merely defending the possible reasonableness of her statement regarding the elevator incident in the context of immediately preceding and proceeding events.

[Galborg]

Before I quit my filibuster for the night, I want to remind people that I already disputed the view of the OP. And, other than regards this event and the aftermath, I know nothing about Ms. Watson. I am not defending her view or statements on any other matter. I am merely defending the possible reasonableness of her statement regarding the elevator incident in the context of immediately preceding and proceeding events.

Her statement was reasonable in the context of the TRANSCRIPT. Mostly, she squees about enjoying the Congress. There is the throwaways whinge about That Guy chatting her up.

The unreasonable was the Interwebz xploding "All Atheists are rapists LOL."

Summer eh?

[Forsher]

People already complain about that?

Yes.

On reflection, I should have put at the start of that "question".

wait who does and are we talking strictly gender equality "going too far" or equality in society in general, because generally speaking on measure say of income inequality has been increasing if i'm not mistaken.

MRA's, Anti-Feminists, politicians, celebrities, bloggers, value conservative Christians and muslims... (Yes, there may be some overlapping categories)

Generally people who feel equality has led to men losing power and their rightful places in society, and wishes to roll back the rights of women. Also some women who approve of the traditional system of men being breadwinners and women raising children, and wanting their ideal solution to apply to everyone.

They're talking about both in general and concerning specific things, everything from the rabid anti-feminist and MRA complaining about how the push for equality has led to the definition of rape being expanded to include non-consensual sex, to the researcher complaining about how men are systematically repressed due to equality going too far (and how an example of this is that men can't legally have a say on the question of abortion.)

And with a straight face, they complain that the struggle for equality - not feminism, but equality - has gone too far.

This is also not limited to gender equality. It happens with racial/ethnic equality as well.

Equality cannot go too far, however, specific actions/policies/whatevers can fall in to the "nice job fixing it" category. I'd say that the Tender Years Doctrine would be an example of this. The original intent was to even up custody but the result was just to flip the current state of affairs. It's worth pointing out that when I first came across it on NSG, no-one was in favour of it.

For Watson et al, "other people" tends to include a large number of men, and in some cases all men as a class. Interestingly, applying your argument to women involved with atheism; it would predict that women who use their lack of religious belief as a soap box to boast of their superior intelligence are assholes who think they are superior to men.

That is to say, your theory should predict extra misandry among atheist women. Do you really intend to stand by that, or do you think that there's something magical about being a woman that prevents you from being misandrist?

"Misandry" is not a real thing, at all. It was made up by an MRA with hurt feelings who had a poor grasp of classical Greek. There is no baseline of "misandry" to tap into at any point in time, while making jokes about sandwiches and raping women are very often socially acceptable.

The only rape jokes that I frequently come across involve, usually, the word soap...

Regardless of what you think of the word "misandry" and its origins, it describes a real thing. "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex)." exists in the world we live in, to deny that is to deny reality.

To claim that feminism is misandrist, however, is not really fair. Perhaps you're confusing the two states?

Sure. One is a joke about how "oh lol men are dumb" and the other is a joke about "oh lol she should totally be raped."

Men are not being discriminated against for being men. That does not happen. Pretending otherwise is absolutely silly beyond belief.

That's actually not true. There are coffee houses and restaurants (non-chain, mostly) that seem to have a staggering proportion of female employees. While I don't have any studies to back it up, I have a strong suspicion that there is a preference going on. Police are also waaaay more likely to profile guys.

Now you could say, "Oh, well they hire women for sex objects," and that, "Cops see women as passive," sure. I won't argue with these assumptions, and I'm not about to say Hooters or some shit like that is a sign of how tough male job seekers have it.

I daresay that this is the mainstream feminist position (i.e. the Patriarchy results in sexism towards men).

Ah, but why is the male lead so much more often stupid than the female lead?

In modern cinema, if I sit down and discover the leading couple consist of:

1. A scientist or other intellectual.
2. Someone who doesn't understand fancy words, but is good at their job.

#1 will be female, #2 will be male. 90+% of the time. I enjoyed the 2008 "Get Smart" immensely because it was a breath of fresh air. (Naturally, it got bad reviews. Male lead is a smart intellectual? And willing to deploy sexual wiles to confuse the hell out of the [male] enemy double agent who betrayed them? How horrible!) When I watched it, I realized I couldn't remember the last time I'd seen a male intellectual lead role like that on the big screen partnered with a non-intellectual female lead (it's not that she was incompetent; she was an experienced and capable agent, just not an intellectual type). You see it so often the other way around, even in movies marketed to men.

Or in movies with less focus on doing and more on relating, if one lead is smart and the other one is dumb but loyal (they have to be lovable if they're dumb) it's now always the man who's dumb but loyal.

What you're failing to take into account is that your primary source of the Dumb Male and Competent/Hot female dynamic are sitcoms.

Sitcoms, which are A) Overwhelmingly centered around a known stand-up comic B) Who is commonly a producer and writer as well C) Incorporating his stand-up comedy routine.

I would not generalize our attitudes about anything based on the increasingly hackneyed conventions of sitcoms. Sitcoms anymore are largely interchangeable, and their based overwhelmingly on the personal experiences of stand-up comics or those who aspire to be them (their writers). These are people who tend to fit the "class clown" role, and tend to have both low self-esteem as well as poor-performance academically or in their careers.

Sitcoms are a very specific group of men pouring their soul out for your amusement, and there are a lot of strong trends that emerge among people in this kind of work.

You don't see this dynamic much outside of sitcoms. Dramas, soap operas, mysteries, crime shows usually focus on intelligent, skilled characters in various settings, and in these shows its usually the man who is more skilled and in charge. In the recent American modernization/adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, for example, they genderflipped Watson, not Sherlock Holmes, and Watson in Sherlock Holmes adaptations can at best hope to have physical skills that Holmes lacks, but more commonly acts as the audience surrogate, wowed and shown up by Sherlock's intellect. (The recent movie series starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law is a notable exception). In the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, in spite of being a futuristic sci-fi show, is entirely conventional in its gender mores. The male cast members tend to outrank their female counterparts, and the one exception is the President, who is only there by virtue of the rest of the line of succession being killed. In House MD, it's a man who is almost always the smartest person in the room. House constantly outwits his supervisor/love interest Dr. Cuddy, Cameron is almost always the one being shown up either by House or Foreman. Thirteen is an emotional wreck dealing with the prospect of having an incurable terminal illness, so we'll let her slide. In NCIS, while the male and female cast members are roughly balanced in terms of skills, spotlight and screen time, nonetheless, it's the old-fashioned Marine Gibbs who is in charge of everyone, and pretty much plays the role of the wise old sensei to them.

Chalk it up to whatever you want, ratings, audience expectation, most writers are male...there is a definite trend towards men being more competent and in positions of authority, even in supposedly "forward thinking" sci-fi shows.

Here's the general rule, the main character will be better at the point of the programme/film/book/whatever than all the other characters.

Your treatment of House is strange. It's ridiculous to think that Cuddy would not be outwitted/manipulated by House. House does this to everyone... especially his supposed best friend the volleyball Wilson (which sounds similar to Watson also). In fact, this is rather the point of the show. House is, of course, deeply flawed with his addiction, reckless decision making and limp among other things. If House wasn't going to always be the smartest person in the room the programme would've been called Foreman (probably, Foreman was the character they used to show that House's approach wouldn't really be acceptable in other hospitals).

Sherlock Holmes is another example of this. Poirot again. These are stories, like House, centred around the brilliance of a single figure: the main character. Watson, is used to provide skills that Holmes doesn't necessarily have himself. Watson, for example, is the one with the revolver in (if memory serves) The Red-Headed League. Many adaptions also tend to use him to humanise Holmes as well. I have not seen Elementary but imagine the only real difference is that a man became a woman (in terms of Watson). In fact, pretty much every single character in such programmes exists because a) the main character needs to be have something to do and b) people have difficulty accepting that even the most brilliant individuals can go it alone. I think this opening sequence of a Holmes adaptation shows that quite well.

NCIS is a different beast altogether with a more multi-polar dynamic. Although, yeah, if the main four aren't the main characters then it is Gibbs who is the main character in much the same way that Callen or all four of them are the main characters in NCIS: LA. Gibbs' age/experience is probably why you're getting a sensei vibe off him, not his maleness. You've got to remember that up until Vance's predecessor was murdered, Gibbs' boss was a woman as well.

There are only so many stories that willing use "duller" characters to build the story around because they're that much easier to use comedically. Harry Potter's not particuarly bright but he is competent. Ron is less competent and not quite as smart and is more comedic as well (even in the much more serious movies -- the emotional range of a teaspoon bit, perhaps?). In The Almighty Johnsons, Axl is not really good at either his divine or human aspects and is certainly not clever but Mike is competent enough for both of them. It's also a dramedy. This is not say that less able characters (in terms of brains and competence) aren't the main characters of their stories sometimes, it's just rare for them to be so in more serious settings.

However, if the main is competent (i.e. the last three Blackadders) then the rest of the cast will not be ("a lump of purest green" anyone?). If the main is incompetent then the rest of the cast will be variable depending on what episode one has at hand.

If this looks a bit confused, it is because it is. I was mainly concerned with how you treated these programmes rather than what your point was in doing so. I think I've largely just ended up reinforcing some of the things you've said.

[The Parkus Empire]

I daresay that this is the mainstream feminist position (i.e. the Patriarchy results in sexism towards men).

And I concur with that. While there are non-patriarchal forms of misandry, the vast majority are patriarchal.

[Tahar Joblis]

Ms. Watson made no such normative statement. Not expressly or "along the lines of." She did not say EG's actions (let alone asking any woman to have coffee while in an elevator) were a "grievous sin." She did not say this was a sign of the severity of the problem with the atheist community. It is not Ms. Watson who is making paranoid, delusional statements here.

She said "don't do that." She described the behavior as "creepy." She assigned a value judgement and told people to do (or in this case, not do) a thing. Both of those characteristics make it a normative statement.

Even if this unproven assertion were true of a "major convention," it is not necessarily true of the World Atheist Convention in June 2011 which had about 300 attendees. Nor have we been given an account by anyone at that convention that such was the case.

[*]"'The middle of the night' sounds relevant until you remember 'oh, this is at a major convention.' There are more people walking around at 4 am in the con hotel at a major con then there are in the middle of the day at a typical hotel on a typical day." link

Bizarre, incredible assertions without any support. Moreover, this was not "a major convention" and no one attending the conference has made such assertions. They are the product of a desperate mind.

[*]4 am at a convention "is like 8 or 9 PM in the regular world."
link

[*]EG could not have "magically" known whether Ms. Watson was "tired at a con and conking out, or tired but up for four more hours of shenanigans? Because people never can tell when [TJ is] about to go conk out until I go fall over on the bed and start snoring. It is not unusual to have a lively animated conversation that starts at 4 or 5 am ... at a convention."
link

Watson, and others, have stated that there were other people still at the bar when she left and that things remained quite lively.

[*] "And you will use the same elevator as the people that you were just at the bar talking with, because there's one working elevator and everybody is staying at that hotel and the two of you waited for four minutes for the elevator to show up." link

This nice little fantasy has no connection to the facts as set forth by Ms. Watson.

It has every connection to the fact that people have used the word "follow." There is no indication, in Watson's account, that:

A. The man left the bar after she did.
B. The man left the bar in response to her leaving the bar.
C. The man went anywhere he was not already going in order to ask her this question.

Which in turn means that "follow" is a word of questionable value in describing the situation. From her description, it is entirely likely that he could describe her as having followed him.

[*]And if you want off the elevator, you push the damn button that makes the doors open on the next floor. In seconds. link

I was unaware that all elevators in all hotels stop and allow you to exit within seconds. Nor have I seen any evidence this is true of the elevator or hotel in question. I was also unaware that the ability to flee a situation means that one cannot reasonably feel uncomfortable about said situation. To the contrary, one would ordinarily not flee an elevator unless one was threatened or uncomfortable about being in it. Finally, apparently nothing bad has ever happened to anyone in a matter of seconds. No one who is not paranoid and delusional would ever contemplate such a thing.

As I never alleged Ms. Watson felt threatened, I do not need to back up such a claim. Nevertheless, that a woman in that situation could reasonably feel threatened makes Ms. Watson's feeling of discomfort even more reasonable.

If you press the button corresponding to the next floor, the elevator will stop at the next floor. Most elevators are not terribly slow. Excepting being shot or being stabbed, there is very little she was vulnerable to in the elevator that she would not be similarly vulnerable to while opening the elevator. Finally, there is, as I've stated, no indication from Watson that she actually felt threatened; the claim is made by proxy by her defenders.

So "she felt threatened" does not explain her reaction. Because, by all appearances, she did not, in fact, feel threatened. Just awkwardly sexualized.

Such language appears nowhere in her video comments.

Such language appears all over her comments outside of the video; and such is quite reasonably inferred from the context which she put it to.

That Ms. Watson and EG conversed at all prior to being in the elevator is one possible inference from a single word in her "rambling, unscripted" statement that is somewhat contrary to other parts of her statement. The rest is rampant speculation at best and most likely convenient fiction.

[*]Ms. Watson "was in a bar. She was drinking things other than coffee at the bar. She was also having a lively conversation with a dude. . . . The dude decided to go up to his room. This happened to be in the same hotel as the bar and everything else, because they're at a convention. It's not even clear that she left first... or that he knew she was going to the same place when they both left the bar.
. . .
He did talk to her at the bar. Then they continued talking while waiting for the elevator. Their conversation continued on the elevator. Hence why he asked her to continue their conversation elsewhere, rather than inviting her out of the blue to have a conversation." link

Again, almost all of this is pure fiction. We know Ms. Watson was in a bar, was conversing with attendees, that EG and Ms. Watson ended up in the elevator alone, and that he made his "invitation" to coffee in his room. There is a speck of basis for inferring EG may have talked to Ms. Watson -- along with other attendees -- in the bar before she said she was exhausted, had enough, and was going to bed. The rest of this little story is not only without basis, but contrary to what little facts we have.

It is contrary to no part of her statement. One can consider someone a stranger after having talked with them for a few hours at a convention. It is advisable to contradict nothing of the account she actually presented in evaluating her reaction to the event in question.

[*] We know EG wanted merely coffee and conversation and was not proposition Ms. Watson because "he explicitly told her otherwise; because the bar may not have been serving coffee any more; because he would rather not pay $5 a cup of coffee instead of brewing up a pot in his room; because the bar was noisy and not conducive to good conversation . . . " link

The "don't take this the wrong way" disclaimer hard proves the lack of a come on. It even tends to show the opposite. We have an account from attendees that the bar was serving coffee. The rest may be true, but is pretty weak speculation that assumes that EG who was "interested in [Ms. Watson]" had some basis for assuming she wanted conversation and coffee despite having declared she "had enough" conversation, being "exhausted," and "going to bed."

This either assumes that -- contrary to the above -- EG was not involved in the conversation with Ms. Watson where she said: "you know I’ve had enough guys. I'm exhausted. I'm going to bed." It does not take magic or the ability to read minds for one to be on notice that Ms. Watson was tired, conking out, and wanting to go to bed. It may be there are more factors of which we are unaware that would make EG think Ms. Watson was making a pretext to be alone with him, but we have no basis for so speculating. And that is contrary to what Ms. Watson reports.

Um. You ignore the sleepy, perhaps somewhat intoxicated, and in a foreign country factors.

You are assuming that "she'd just been at the bar with said 'stranger.'" That is possible, but nothing in her statement in more than weak evidence either way. And having been in the same bar with someone is not the same as knowing him, trusting him, or have reason not to object to his behavior.

It was 4 am, she was exhausted, and going to bed. The notion that large groups were active throughout the hotel is pure fiction and is unrelated to Ms. Watson's encounter with EG. Your personal experience with conventions is not only anecdotal, but also flawed. You have referred to the World Atheist Convention in question as a "major convention" several times in this thread. It is no such thing. Reports bragging about the Convention say there were "more than 300 attendees."

So, 4 am and alone (at least in the elevator) are both objective facts and, although the first may not carry the same connotations at a convention as elsewhere, they are relevant circumstances.

So, we are back to you discounting Ms. Watson as either having made up the encounter (which makes no sense) or that her discomfort as she actually expressed it was so unreasonable as to make her "paranoid" or "delusional" or any of the other nasty labels you have applied.

So, we are to presume she lied when she told those she was talking to "you know I’ve had enough guys. I'm exhausted. I'm going to bed." You are contending that her statement was not clear and EG could reasonably interpret it to really mean that she wanted to go to his (or someone's) hotel room -- either to have a more private conversation or for sexual purposes? Are you sure Ms. Watson is the delusional one?

Do you know what should be inferred from "had enough" at a bar? That she has had enough alcohol to drink. That she found whoever she was presently talking (not necessarily EG) boring.

Again, that he was talking to her before does not mean he was actually talking to her at the time she announced her departure; or that he was even still at the bar when she announced her departure; nobody else actually witnessed this event, and her original account does not indicate anywhere that he followed her (as mentioned above).

[*]"Not a trivial percentage . . . if not necessarily remarkably high" percentage of "women would have taken some men [like EG] up on the offer . . . under the same circumstances." link

An interesting, unproven assertion that, even if true, says nothing whatsoever about how either Ms. Watson or any reasonable person should react to a proposition like EG made. This also specifically ignores the context of Ms. Watson publicly discussing prior to the encounter with EG that such propositions made her feel uncomfortable and creeped out.

I hate to break it to you, but casual sex is a thing which exists and happens.

Thanks. I'll peruse this more carefully later, but I note this appears to include primarily neglect as perpetrated by mothers. That is a serious form of abuse, but it is distinct from violent or sexual abuse.

All indications I have seen is that this pattern extends to violent behavior as well, and fatalities.

I would in particular call your attention to Exhibit 4-E, which implicates mothers in 61.4% of child fatalities caused by abuse or neglect, and fathers in 38% of child fatalities; with boys dying selectively 39.5% more frequently. Note that women are proportionately more likely to abuse boys than girls, as opposed to men. Similar ratios are visible in pediatric homicide rates in other publications.

Men can and do kill children by blunt force trauma, but in spite of substantial bias against men and in favor of women in every step of the criminal justice system from suspicion to conviction, which affect all of these studies, women appear to commit more actual child abuse, up to and including the level of killing children; not simply neglect.

In sum, you are repeating an assertion that -- although technically defensible -- you know is misleading. Got it.

I would not call it misleading, particularly since usually I include that particular caveat (that women's greater abuse is likely due to greater contact time) explicitly.

Go ahead. Because those "NOW press releases" both do not say any such thing and do not support your premise.

Further, I dare you to quote the allegedly relevant portions of those press releases -- because they actually state an opposition to mandatory joint custody of children regardless of child abuse by one parent or cite to independent studies that fathers are more likely to get custody in a disputed case where he is accused of child abuse (even where the charge is substantiated). Whether or not one agrees with these assertions, they are supported by reasonable evidence and, on their face, both should be fairly unobjectionable to anyone with the slightest interest in the welfare of children.

The language used treats fathers gaining custody as abusers gaining custody.

This Special Report of the NOW Family Law Ad Hoc Advisory Committee focuses on the
destructive ability of abusive parents (usually the father) – aided by fathers’ advocacy groups or
fathers’ rights groups – to deny the protective parent (usually the mother) custody of minor
children. Discussed in this issue is how abusers deny custody, and the damage it causes to a
half million or more children exposed to continuing physical, psychological and sexual abuse.

Report states, incorrectly, that abusive parents are usually fathers. Report implies, also incorrectly, that measures designed to eliminate pro-maternal bias mean that more abusers will gain (or deny) custod.

We agree with the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, as well as
other anti-domestic violence and child welfare organizations that this phenomenon constitutes a
national public health crisis. Discussed in this issue is how abusers are using family courts to
deny custody to protective parents and the damage this causes to a half million or more children
exposed to continuing physical, psychological and sexual abuse.

In the context of the above, implies that protective parents are mothers.

FAIRNESS IN COURTS DEALING WITH FAMILY MATTERS
1996
WHEREAS, an estimated 40% to 50% of men who frequently abuse their spouses also
seriously abuse their children (Finkelhor, 1990; Gondolf and Fisher, 1991; Walker and Wolovick,
1994); and
WHEREAS, nearly three-fourths of all spousal assaults nationwide involve separated or
divorced victims (House Hearing, Violence and the Law, 1987); and
WHEREAS, abusive fathers often ask for custody in order to gain control in divorce cases
(American Psychological Association Study on Family Violence, 1996); and
WHEREAS, women seeking relief from domestic violence through divorce are often required to
give primary or joint custody of their children to the abuser due to gender bias in the courts
(Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Rosalie E. Wahl, 1993);
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that state and local National Organization for Women (NOW)
chapters are encouraged to take steps to make the justice system and the public aware of this
trend by working with existing women’s shelters and court advocates to establish court watches,
document cases of court gender bias, document cases of abusers gaining custody and issue
press releases;
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that state and local NOW chapters be encouraged to take steps to
change the justice system, protect women and children from domestic violence by calling for
review of suspect judges, work to recall or defeat judges that do not treat domestic violence as a
serious issue, and lobby for laws that require courts to take domestic violence into account
when determining custody

Again ignores that a majority of perpetrators of child abuse are women; and that those abusers may also ask for custody. Reading that release, you would think that only men commit spousal abuse or child abuse.

Groups Differ in Focus - First, a note of clarification: fathers’ custody activists or fathers' rights
groups focus on divorce, custody and alleged gender discrimination in the courts; as opposed to
the men’s liberation groups who contend men are victims of gender inequality in general as the
women's rights movement has grown. In our view, the term "fathers' rights" is misleading as no
legal rights are denied to men because they are men or fathers. Additionally, we question
calling the activism of those who promote fathers' custody a "movement." It is essentially a
collection of small groups and networks across the U.S. and abroad who communicate primarily
through the Internet. Activist numbers are relatively small, but their impact in family court
proceedings has become significant and harmful to women.

Backlash Against Social Change - The so-called fathers’ rights or men's rights movement
began as a backlash against what some fathers perceived as unfair sole custody awards to
mothers and the assignment of child support responsibilities to non-custodial dads. Additionally,
the expansion of shelters, social services and legal aid for battered women, together with better
job opportunities for women, made escape from a violent marriage easier for women, enabling
many to obtain a divorce and seek custody of minor children. As with other major societal
revolutions, gains made by the feminist movement and women’s bid for equality prompted a
backlash by men who felt threatened by changing roles. 4
Fathers’ custody advocacy or "fathers' rights" groups first organized in 1960 with the founding of
Divorce Racket Busters in California. This was a protest against California state laws which the
organizers said discriminated against men in alimony and child support and in the presumption
of maternal custody. These groups soon expanded into other states, changing their name to
Divorce Reform in 1961. More recently, there are a number of different names the groups
organize themselves under - a quick Google search will turn up quite a few websites of fathers’
rights or men’s right activists.

To dismiss the idea that men may be discriminated against in court is not justified. Note that in 1960, when the document says father's rights groups began to get off the ground, many states still had "tender years" doctrines on the books which involved presumptive maternal custody. NOW is, by attacking those who attacked maternal presumption, implying that the "tender years" doctrine and maternal presumption of custody was superior to the "best interests" standard which replaced it.

Essentially, according to the PAS
promoters, the protective parent who accuses her/his ex-spouse of harming their child(ren) is
deemed mentally ill

A rare (exceptional) case of NOW acknowledging that child abuse knows no gender.

It is abusive ex-spouses (usually fathers) who pursue
these courtroom tactics, often to discredit accusations of domestic violence and child abuse.

... and then back to implying that abusive parents are usually fathers; leaving unaddressed the problem opened by abusive mothers who do not need to work nearly as hard to get allegations of abuse ignored.

It is most often that a father who is violent
and/or controlling -- frequently lacking in conscientious and responsible behavior -- that is the
more powerful partner in family court.

Remember that NOW lives in a delusionary world where the courts are actually biased against women. Again, see here.

In contested cases (where
settlement agreements are not reasonably reached), most fathers get custody due to their
financial advantage.

To my knowledge, there has been only very small studies of contested cases showing fathers gaining an advantage in contested cases, conducted in locally, meaning that it is more of a study of that locality's behavior than nation-wide behavior. See again above; and bear in mind that the methodology of these studies is highly vulnerable to selection effects.

Summaries of more than 150 studies of child custody cases in numerous states compiled by the
Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence reveal that over several decades
an alarming trend has emerged. That is, for cases in which child custody is challenged, it is
often the father who is ultimately given sole or joint custody of children – including cases where
there is evidence of domestic violence and child abuse. The Leadership Council list, Are “Good
Enough” Parents Losing Custody to Abusive Ex-Partners?”, includes studies that find fathers
are awarded sole custody even though they were not involved in child care activities prior to
divorce. In many cases, the accusation by the father of the mother alienating the child(ren)
figured in courts awarding the custody to the father.

Again implies that fathers gaining custody means abusers are gaining custody, again glosses over the issue of abusive mothers receiving custody by default.

You cite a one-paragraph blurb from the website of one feminist research organization from the UK that I have never heard of and I know nothing about and claim that it is misleading and inaccurate based on disputed studies and conclusions. Further, you remove the context in which the blurb is an answer to the question: "Isn't there increasing evidence that women are as violent or abusive as men?"

I cited the context. The fact that the answer to a general question about abuse, on a website whose mission statement deals with child abuse and spousal abuse of both physical and sexual variaties, immediately shifts to an answer about child sexual abuse, is very important.

You were supposed to cite specific evidence that "Feminists have simply been complicit in continuing to deny that" "Mothers being the group who most often commit child abuse, and that mothers abuse sons more often than daughters" is "a problem." You failed.

I have succeeded. The question on the FAQ was, point blank, asking about abuse in general. The response was a shell game.

I do not give a fuck about your half-assed quibbles with Kimmel. My point was clear that "initiation" and "mutuality" are only two of many lenses by which to view IPV. Few serious experts in the field deny they are relevant factors -- although, contrary to your assertion, the evidence as to initiation and mutuality is still disputed.

Everything is "disputed" - politically. However, reviewing methodology puts the data in perspective.

What is far more important is patterns of violence, frequency of violence, context of violence, severity of violence, injuries resulting from violence, and other serious impacts of violence.

As I noted, sources you routinely cite (and proponents of the "gender symmetry" meme) concede that considerations of the latter factors are critical and way heavily towards women being more victimized by intimate partners than men.

And of all of those features, we have as the primary feature favoring the "women-are-the-victims-that-need-help" assertion that women are injured somewhat more often. Not overwhelmingly more often; merely somewhat more often.

You can say such things as many times as you like. Repetition does not equal accuracy.

Your "analysis" of the issues of "confounding factors" is all very nice, but disputed in the expert literature and generally irrelevant given what you concede.

Your own sources do not tend to support that women engage in unreciprocated abuse by a 2:1 ratio. Moreover, your simplistic "men are generally more likely to cause severe injury or death, by ratios that sometimes exceed 2:1" is (1) extremely vague and not particularly accurate and (2) proves my point!

It proves my point. These ratios only sometimes exceed 2:1 when the methodology is sound. This is not as dramatic a difference as the arrest ratio (5:1 or 6:1), which means that, disproportionately, we are ignoring male victims.

As to the first, men are more likely to engage in severe IPV, they are more likely to engage in a pattern of IPV, they are more likely to use violence as one of many means of control of an intimate partner.

Those three assertions come from studies with a selective sample rather than a general population sample, IIRC.

More to the point, men are more likely to cause injury by IPV and the injuries caused by male IPV are more severe. Your vague "2:1" ratio captures little of this. It is unclear what it means at all.

However, to the extent you are conceding that male-perpetrated IPV is twice as likely as female-perpetrated IPV to cause severe injury or death, then "injuries & consequences suffered by women [victims of IPV] is far, far greater" than the injuries & consequences suffered by male victims of IPV. And that is without considering the greater harm to female victims in terms of psychological harm, fear, and other consequences.

2:1 is not "far, far greater." 5:1, 6:1 - the arrest ratio - is far greater. And injury ratio appears to be mainly driven by physical differences; that men are larger, tougher, and stronger; rather than by the intent to injure or control.

As far as psychological harm, I again point to the literature showing that men display symptomatic harm in spite of stoic self-evaluations, e.g., with child abuse.

My point is not to vilify men, deny IPV by women, deny that many men suffer severe IPV perpetrated by women, and men can and are severely harmed by IPV. And -- regardless of what some NSG posters may opine -- serious scholars on this subject -- including those you call "misogynist" -- recognize this as well.

My objection is to the false equivalence (particularly that of the CTS) of IPV perpetrated by men and IPV perpetrated by women. This is not only substantively incorrect, but (especially outside academic circles) it is usually tied either to an attempt to downplay the seriousness of IPV overall or to attempts to block attempts to prevent serious IPV and its victims.

There is very much less of a difference than widely asserted between female-perpetrated and male-perpetrated IPV. Repriocity, choice of particular weapons, injury rates, and biased sexist judgements are the main differentiating factors. Frequency is similar, initiation seems to favor [mostly younger] women but not all that much, but most of the perceived difference is caused by the fact that all of us (including the participants) view this violence through a highly sexist lens.

In other words, the same source you cited is -- based on asserted "confounding" factors you have failed to prove exist -- is only useful for the purposes you happen to wish to champion and all other data and conclusions of the study conveniently can be dismissed.

No. The source is useful to the degree that its methodology is sound. Where the methodology is flawed, there are flaws in the conclusion; and where the analysis is flawed, e.g., in making a dramatic rhetoric by using lifetime rates to show asymmetry when the 12 month rates are a more accurate measure due to less gender bias in forgetting, the analysis is flawed.

I know a great deal about scientific methodology. That I use this knowledge to discern between apparently conflicting results should not be surprising; and there are apparent contradictions in the data that require expert attention to resolve.

Also, I note you complete ignored my quote of your own post citing one of your favorite (and MRA biased) sources saying essentially the same thing I asserted about severity of and injuries caused by male-perpetrated IPV.

I was not sure you would dispute such a well-established contention, but I grabbed a few studies that happened to be near the top of a large pile I have on IPV.

And most of them either agreed with what I was actually saying, or demonstrated the flaws that I had already mentioned as problematic. Thereby demonstrating that I know exactly what I'm talking about.

It also demonstrates that we are, to a degree, talking past each other; there are some matters of fact which we are both familiar with, but disagree on how to subjectively frame. For example, you see a ratio of injury rates of 2:1 as being a very dramatic difference. That's double, and you seem to be greatly impressed by that.

I, on the other hand, am comparing this to the sort of figures thrown around by feminist organizations, such as the arrest ratio, conviction ratio, etc, ratios which are often in the range of 5:1, 10:1, or (in the case of rape) as much higher as 100:1 at times. A 2:1 ratio means that one in three people injured, one in three people killed, etc is of the "wrong" gender for your stereotype, and means that the population of male victims is seriously underserved.

Particularly when they avoid your main points

I assure you, we are writing amply long replies to each other. That you have replied to some of my points with nothing more than smilies or sarcasm is something I have noticed. That much of what we say is repetitious, I have also noticed.

Wow, way to dodge the point.

Exaggerated does not mean non-existent. The myth of "real rape" being stranger rape of a female by a male should be denounced. But it is still true that the probability of a man physically attacking or threatening a woman for the purposes of sexual violence is far, far greater than the probability of a woman physically attacking or threatening a woman for the purposes of sexual violence. This is even more true when the two individuals are strangers.

Ms. Watson did not feel threatened and it turned out there was no threat (at least when she declined to go to EG's room). She was creeped out and uncomfortable. That is a lesser reaction than feeling threatened. Given that women have reasonable justification to feel threatened in a variety of circumstances not dissimilar to Ms. Watson's encounter with EG, Ms. Watson's mild reaction is very reasonable.

A very low-probability event is one which it is not reasonable to worry about. "Creeped out" and "uncomfortable" is not a form of feeling mildly threatened; it is a distinct issue.

Note that a mild discomfort is not a particular cause to consider a behavior as noteworthy and worthy of public vilification. We are, at this point, to the "chewing gum" analogy used by Dawkins. Causing someone mild discomfort is perhaps a little rude, but not part of a major social problem, as Watson implicitly contends by using this as a specific example of the "problem of women in the atheist community," the subject she was talking about in terms of "the way that women are treated in this community" and which has been the main focus of many of her panel discussions.

Again, this is context that her critics were full well aware of when they began to object.

Be honest.

Your permission for Ms. Watson to have "paranoid delusions" is meaningless condescension. You will allow her to have feelings (as apparently you will not apply extreme medical treatment to prevent them), but they are without consequence unless you agree with them.

When you say someone is "paranoid," is "delusional," is making a "bullshit complaint," likely fabricated her entire story, has a "'fake' problem," her problem is "entirely in her head," etc., you are doing more than recognizing someone's feelings but denying that those feelings must be accommodated because they are unreasonable. You have expressly said, repeatedly, that no reasonable person could have felt the way that Ms. Watson claims to have felt. And you have more than once suggested she did not actually feel what she claims. You have, therefore, dismissed her feelings, desires, and identity. Moreover, you have concluded that no one need heed Ms. Watson's suggestion of "don't do that" -- even to her. Thus, you suggest others should interact with Ms. Watson with a complete disinterest in how one's actions will affect her.

Any doubt about this is dismissed by your comparison of Ms. Watson's simple request that a stranger not invite her to coffee in a manner reasonably interpreted as a come on at 4 am when they are alone in a hotel elevator after she has publicly informed people (likely including the stranger) not to behave in that matter to "Bob":

It is true that unreasonable demands for accommodation may be disregarded, but you apply a bizarre and lopsided analysis. You do not ask "what are the accommodations requested, why are they requested, what burden to they place on others" and then evaluate the reasonable of these factors. Other than making wild claims that Ms. Watson is trying to "regulat[e] male sexuality" and the "ability of men to interact with women," you have not explained how accommodating Ms. Watson's feelings in interactions with her places any unreasonable burden on anyone. Instead, you -- exactly contrary to what you admit -- assess only the reasonableness of the feelings that create the "need" for accommodation. You are, therefore, directly saying who can and cannot "reasonably" have certain feelings.

Watson proclaimed that being sexualized made her uncomfortable. Watson perceiving herself as being sexualized seems to require very little; and the rule she expresses refers not to her specifically, but to women in general. The fact that she had been talking about it before is, as it were, "icing on the cake," and also explains exactly why the man would attempt to assauge her concerns by telling her not to take it the wrong way.

What Watson is normatively describing as bad is sexualizing women.

Okay.

If we start from the rather obvious premise that Ms. Watson could reasonably believe that EG was propositioning her, he was -- as she said -- behaving precisely in a manner she told the convention (and people at the bar) that creeped her out and made her uncomfortable. Thus, regardless of whether a reasonable person would be "creeped out" or feel uncomfortable, she made it clear that those were her feelings.

Additionally, as I posted long ago, EG's saying "don't take this the wrong way" is not a mitigating factor, but actually an aggravating one. It indicates that he knew his proposition would cause discomfort, but proceeded anyway. No one actually believes that saying "don't take this the wrong way" ensures that the listener will be reassured and not take what follows the "wrong way."

That she said she doesn't like being propositioned at conventions means that "don't take this the wrong way" is a considerate statement, intended to help her realize that she is not being propositioned.

Mind you, her group is also responsible for throwing raunch-themed parties at conventions. So it's not really a case of entirely consistent messaging, and it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that, like most people, Watson likes sexual attention from some people and dislikes sexual attention from other people.

Under multiple reasonable theories, Ms. Watson had reason to believe EG knew of her public statements about her feelings. Thus, by behaving as he did, he -- in pursuing his sexual attraction -- was directly dismissing her feelings and disregarding the affect of his actions on her. This is precisely what Ms. Watson defines as sexual objectification. (And disagreeing with her definition is different than contending she had no reason to believe EG's actions met her definition.)

So, again, from her perspective under the circumstances, Ms. Watson could very reasonably conclude that EG -- in pursuing his sexual attraction -- was directly dismissing her feelings and disregarding the affect of his actions on her. Thus, Ms. Watson reasonably believed his actions were sexual objectification.

I also disagree with the way she describes and defines sexual objectification; however, as indicated above, the disclaimer shows directly the intent to try to accommodate her dislike of propositions. It acknowledges that she may take it the wrong way and turn it down for that reason.

This analogy is so clear absurd and baseless as to require no response -- other than this statement about it being absurd and baseless.

That analogy is precisely explaining the context. The context, as you recall, being important.

If one does not deny the combination factors she reasonably considered

See above.

and one does not deny how they could reasonable affect her, then her feeling more than "trivially uncomfortable" was totally reasonable.

If one misunderstands the context, then one could infer reasonable discomfort, but your premises are wrong in the first place.

We already covered the meaning of the "false disclaimer." You even said the disclaimer was irrelevant (although you are now backpedalling). But again, how could EG reasonably believe that, although Ms. Watson would otherwise be put-off by an invitation like his, it was innocuous if prefaced with "do not take this the wrong way"?

We already covered the meaning of the "false disclaimer." You even said the disclaimer was irrelevant (although you are now backpedalling). But again, how could EG reasonably believe that, although Ms. Watson would otherwise be put-off by an invitation like his, it was innocuous if prefaced with "do not take this the wrong way"?

I have said that had the purported proposition been a direct proposition, her complaint still would not have been reasonable.

Note that you are quoting me quoting someone else. Although I agree with them, they are not my words.

1. Regardless, you rest a rather heavy burden on the slim read of the word "more." EG said: "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?" This could indicate he just had been talking to her at the bar. It could indicate he had talked to her earlier in the day or at the bar. It could indicate he was interested in her and "talk more" did not literally mean "more than we already have" -- that would not be an unusual usage.

More importantly, Ms. Watson does not indicate she had been previously talking to EG or had ever talked to EG before. Thus, this third party interpretation does not "outright contradict[] Watson's original description of the event." At most this interpretation contradicts other possible interpretations of Ms. Watson's statement.

Ms. Watson doesn't indicate he was lying to her, either, which would very likely have come up as a factor in why she felt uncomfortable; ergo, the absence of that evidence is also evidence of the absence.

As to when they talked, yes, it could indeed have been at any time, from earlier in the day to minutes ago. See "follow" and "had enough."

I am judging her on the factors she actually cited as justification; not the factors that her defenders have invoked out of ignorance.

2. There is no "foundational claim" to contradict, but rather independent points. Moreover, it is quite possible -- reasonable to consider even -- that EG was present in the bar without having been speaking to Ms. Watson but still able to hear her say she was exhausted and going to bed. Perhaps he was listening to the conversation, but had not participated. Or this particular point by the third party is a bit of a stretch.

But the more important consideration is that either EG had not been speaking to Ms. Watson or she had told him and others she was exhausted and going to bed. You wish to pretend they were engrossed in conversation, but she had not conveyed she was exhausted and going to bed. Again, this presupposes some hidden communication or is simply absurd.

Your claim that he knew she was exhausted is centrally located within several of your arguments. Review them if you need to, but there it is.

Of course, you are presuming Ms. Watson was suffering from "paranoid delusions." Thus, EG had been talking to her, she wanted to talk more, but suddenly "flipped out" over the offer of coffee as "sexual objectification." If one entertains the notion that her perceptions -- particularly as conveyed by her in her statement -- could be reasonable, it is much more likely that this is not what happened.

I doubt she visibly flipped out in the elevator. I expect she probably just politely waved off the offer while silently fuming. "Flipping out" more describes her online behavior.

So, if one ignores obfuscation, you admit she was alone, in an enclosed space, with at least a relative stranger, in an unfamiliar location.

In a larger context in which this is not, in fact, something to be alarmed about.

As opposed to, say, waking up and finding yourself in an unfamiliar basement with an unfamiliar person, finding yourself in an elevator with another conference attendee is a rather unalarming situation to be in.

All you're doing is engaging in a very selective framing of the context. Not really much more than lying by omission.

Before I quit my filibuster for the night, I want to remind people that I already disputed the view of the OP. And, other than regards this event and the aftermath, I know nothing about Ms. Watson. I am not defending her view or statements on any other matter. I am merely defending the possible reasonableness of her statement regarding the elevator incident in the context of immediately preceding and proceeding events.

Understood.

I feel it is the context of her statement which renders it inflammatory in nature; the fact that she claims to speak for women as a class, the fact that she presents it as a specific example of what she was talking about in the panel, her discussion of sexual objectification in previous (and subsequent) blog posts, and her singling out being "sexualized" as what makes her uncomfortable.

I feel the larger context of her statements is more problematic than the specific complaint. People make normative statements that they really haven't justified all the time. The fact that she complained about being sexualized is neither novel nor special. Viciously attacking critics who politely disagree with that statement; framing being asked up for coffee as an exemplar of what she has described as a problem with the atheist community; or even just the way she tries to hide behind the label of sex-positivity while treating "being sexualized" as a horrible trauma.

[Tahar Joblis]

Might be, but that minority can be very vocal about it.

Less vocal, IMO, than misandrists' attacks on men as a class.

Removing the right for women to have abortions without the consent of the potential father

Is that what he's advocating for?

... Yeah, sounds like an MRA position.

It demonstrably isn't. And, in fact, support for abortion rights correlates positively with support for men having control over their own parental rights.

I have no doubt that he wants to be considered an extremist - in fact, he was an excellent example of the extreme contrasted against the more rational researcher. That said, it is interesting how this " extremist of an unusual stripe" is embraced by the likes of The Spearhead and TheAntifeminist.com

The Spearhead is viewed as more extremist than AVFM. And AVFM, in turn, is viewed as fairly partisan by most of NSG's MRAs.

I mean, the dude in question is positioning himself to have fewer MRA fans than Valerie Solanas has feminist fans. Not Dworkin; Solanas. Understand?

Wrong.

Then you should not object to me.

And if and when that happens, it should be fixed.

It is "when." Sometimes it is fixed, sometimes it isn't.

But alas, that won't stop many people from complaining, because it's clear that this isn't their main concern.

Oh? Do you think most people who complain do so without grounds?

Wrong. I said some MRA's complain that equality has gone too far. I said that changing the name won't do anything, because people will still complain - if not about feminism, then about equality. Many people complaining about feminism are in reality complaining about women having equal rights.

If nothing is changed, then all of the people who complain about feminism would complain about equality.

At this point in time, many people complaining about feminism are not complaining about women having equal rights; they are complaining about men having inferior rights.

So you failed, since your attempted counter doesn't adress my claim

What is your claim?

That having the name "feminism" and focusing only on women in remedying inequality isn't a problem?

You have failed to grasp the context of my previous posts.

The context was you defending the use of the name "feminism." You seemed to think that the name "feminism" wasn't problematic, and that having an "equalist" (egalitarian) named movement was pointless.

Actually, that's you. I'm not saying everything is fixed in Norway, I'm just pointing out that the system there is one you'd like to see.

I am dubious of that; and I am also dubious that it is de facto as you describe it being. Child abandonment by mothers and single mothers unilaterally giving children up for adoption are nominally against the rules in a number of places in which it is in actual fact permitted.

So if we were to agree that not everything is fixed - The Norwegian governmental "men's panel" found several areas where challenges remained back in 2008 (none of which, curiously enough, were blamed on the fight for equality) - would you change your mind? Of course not...

I would change my mind about you, actually. Thank you for admitting that not everything is fixed, and that men have real issues that need to be addressed.