So here’s a hilarious atheist joke for you all:
Two atheists at a conference get into an elevator at 4 AM. The dude atheist, apropos of nothing, invites the chick atheist to go to his room with him. The chick atheist, who’s never even spoken to the dude before, is creeped out by this. (She says no.) She mentions the incident in a YouTube video. A shitstorm erupts in the atheist-o-sphere because, like, how could she possibly call an atheist dude a creep and aren’t women treated worse in Islamist Theocracies?
Then Richard Dawkins says,
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard
In a followup comment, Dawkins tops that bit of hilarity with this:
Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.
Damn. That joke didn’t turn out to be really very hilarious at all. Maybe I told it wrong?
In any case, as you might already know (or have gathered), this whole thing actually happened over the past weekend. The atheist chick in question is Rebecca Watson, a popular blogger who calls herself Skepchick. The conference in question was the Center for Inquiry’s Student Leadership Conference. The part of Richard Dawkins was played by, well, Richard Dawkins. (You can find both of his comments quoted here.)
The incident has been hashed and rehashed endlessly in the atheist-o-sphere (and even out of it), but I think it deserves a tiny bit more re-rehashing. Mainly because it illustrates that some really creepy, backwards attitudes can lurk deep in the hearts of dudes who think of themselves as enlightened, rational dudes fighting the evils of superstition and, yes, religious misogyny.
The strangest thing about the whole incident is how supremely mild Watson’s comments on the creepy elevator dude were. Here is literally all she said about him, in passing, in her video (transcribed here):
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.
That’s it. That’s the whole thing. You would think that most guys would be well aware that accosting a woman you’ve never met before in an elevator at 4 AM is, you know, kind of a no-no. But, no, Watson’s comments suddenly became an attack on male sexuality and men in general. One critic put up a video lambasting Watson, ending it with the question:
What effect do you think it has on men to be constantly told how sexist and destructive they are?
Never mind that she didn’t, you know, actually do that at all. Nor did she even remotely suggest, despite Dawkins’ weird screed, that creepy dudes on elevators were somehow equivalent to genital mutilation or the general denial of women’s rights in Islamist theocracies. She merely suggested that guys might want to think twice before hitting on women who are alone with them in an elevator at four in the morning. Pointing out the creepy behavior of one particular dude is not the same as calling all men creepy.
Now, the atheist movement tends to be a bit of a sausagefest, pervaded by some fairly backwards notions about women. (Prominent atheist pontificator Christopher Hitchens, you may recall, seems to sincerely believe that women just aren’t funny. Not that he’s exactly a barrel of monkeys himself.) But some of the most vociferous critics of Watson have been other atheist women – including the one I quoted above.
Watson responded to this in the first of several posts she wrote about the whole weird controversy:
I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”
In a followup post, she noted:
When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had a hazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that other people worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that had transcended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rational atheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.
And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.
Watson began hearing from other women in the skeptic/atheist community who’d met far too many of that second sort of male atheist.
They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door.
And then, as her blog garnered more attention, she faced a virtual invasion of creepy dudes being creepy:
I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists. More and more people telling me to shut up and go back to talking about Bigfoot and other topics that really matter.
She didn’t shut up.
So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists. I believe that day has nearly arrived.
Go read the rest of her post. Despite the creepy dudes and the misogyny and Richard Fucking Dawkins’ patronizing little screed – which led Watson to a moment of despair much like that of virtually every movie hero(ine) at the end of act two in the story arc — Watson ends it fairly hopeful. It’s kind of inspiring, really.
Wow, I anticipated his response xD I somehow knew he’d be comparing it to the n-word xD
OK MRAL, but “n*gger” certainly isn’t more “politically correct”. It’s actually offensive due to its history of use in oppressing people. Can you tell me when the term “USian” was used to oppress you or others? I can understand having a personal preference not to be called that, and that’s fine, but this isn’t in the same universe as the n-word.
@MRAL:
There are some things that just aren’t derogitory. For instance, calling “indians” Native Americans. We’ve picked up and held on to a lot of prejudicial language from the past, and there’s no shame in trying to change it to be accurate. I guarantee that, had you grown up thinking USian was the correct term, you would be complaining that calling people American was to confuse them with other countries in the Americas, and therefore they were profoundly unpatriotic. Or something.
You probably won’t understand this point, but the whole “zie/hir” thing with creating gender-neuteral pronouns are along the same lines. When you don’t know the gender, you probably shouldn’t be saying “he.” It’s not accurate, and (here’s the part you won’t get) it further reinforces the idea that everyone is male by default until proven otherwise. I doubt you want to live in a world where being male was exceptional, and everyone was considered female by default. New pronouns are useful in that regard, to make it clear you are talking about a single person of any gender.
What if certain black people don’t have a problem with the word “n*gger”? Some definitely don’t, but a lot of blacks dislike it when other blacks use it. That’s their right. And I would agree. It sends a bad message.
Why do you believe they dislike it?
Really, MRAL? Really?
You’re comparing the term “USian” to a racial slur?
I think USian is still implicitly derogatory because AMERICANS already have a term that refers to them, and you are taking it and spitting in their face. That’s not at the level of “n*gger”, but the principles are the same.
“Cracker” is kind of a joke slur, and no one really cares, but if you used it constantly with deadly seriousness, it would start to piss me off. “USian” is similar in that respect.
@MRAL,
“Creepy Stalker Girl” by the Arrogant Worms. 🙂 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RBhNIo79JE
Clarification: “used amongst themselves by people with less social and cultural power ABOUT THE DOMINANT group”
I think they dislike it because it’s derogatory.
Note I’m not saying the situations are comparable. But it’s baffling to me that you people cannot see the obvious parallels.
MRAL, can you tell me why having more than one term that accurately describes a group of people is, in itself, offensive? Can you maybe give me another example of that happening? Like, if we can refer to people as “Black” or “African-American”, is that offensive?
Men’s Rights Activist Lieutenant | July 6, 2011 at 11:16 pm
I think USian is still implicitly derogatory because AMERICANS already have a term that refers to them, and you are taking it and spitting in their face. That’s not at the level of “n*gger”, but the principles are the same.
What are the principles that are the same? I don’t think you understand WHY the n-word is offensive… so I’m curious :3 Plz explain, you made the assertion.. what’s the principle behind why USian is offensive to you, and why the n-word is offensive to black ppl and how are they “the same”? :3
@Alex:
I love that anime! It’s so twisted, yet so brilliant!
Men’s Rights Activist Lieutenant | July 6, 2011 at 11:17 pm
I think they dislike it because it’s derogatory.
WHY is it derogatory? xD
I basically asked you why something is bad and you responded by saying it’s bad…
[…]used amongst themselves by people with less social and cultural power ABOUT THE DOMINANT group […]
What’s your point? You’re right, but that doesn’t mean we should be encouraging that shit.
I don’t know why, Ami, you tell me. It just is.
@kirbywarp,
Never actually watched it, but I love The Arrogant Worms, and that anime definitely seems to work with that song! lol
You’re right, but that doesn’t mean we should be encouraging that shit.
Why not? what damage do you believe will be done to USans who are okay w/ it?
I think what it comes down to with some guys is this:
When they hear a woman say “you’re sexualizing me” they hear instead “It’s wrong to be attracted to women without permission to do so.”
When they hear a woman say “You’re creepy/you’re making me uncomfortable,” they hear instead “You’re probably a violent predator.”
They let their own misapprehensions confuse the issue and try to shove it down womens throats instead of sitting down, LISTENING, and getting empathy for the fact that women need to be careful.
If nothing else, you would think that the fact that even some MRA types agree with the Schrodingers Rapist thing (i.e. they agree that women need to be careful around strange men) would clue them in that women are right to be wary.
Anything else is insulting and unpatriotic.
Black and white thinking, MRAL. People can seek to be sensitive to those from other countries and still be patriotic. It doesn’t harm you, and you can choose to continue calling yourself an American.
Frankly, I find USian to be an awkward construction, and I can’t see it catching on. I think “American” is probably here to stay, just like people from the UK call themselves British, even though Ireland is technically part of the British Isles.
Men’s Rights Activist Lieutenant | July 6, 2011 at 11:21 pm
I don’t know why, Ami, you tell me. It just is.
I alrdy told you why they were derogatory xD
So basically your answer is “it just is” to why the n-word is offensive? Correct? xD
I just want to make sure you’re gonna hold to this :3
WHY WHY WHY you’re so annoying! I just find the term USian to be offensive. OK?? Haha. Everyone is allowed their quirks.
I think what MRAL is trying to get at is that pretty much all people from the US already refer to themselves as American, and therefore that’s the only thing they want to be called. Us evil feminists here are trying to force the label USian upon everyone by using it on ourselves (don’t ask me how this works) and therefore it is derogatory. How close am I?
So therefore your reasoning to why USan SHOULD be offensive and MUST be offensive to America and individual Americans is… “it just is”?
Correct? (if not, plz clarify :3 )
MRAL: What if certain black people don’t have a problem with the word “n*gger”? Some definitely don’t, but a lot of blacks dislike it when other blacks use it. That’s their right.
So why is it not okay that some Americans want to use “USian” to describe themselves?
*comes out of lurk mode*
Hey! I always thought Feminism was just kind of cool, but not something I was a part of of, until i started getting into other things too. I remember getting into punk rock and thinking we were all just cool until people started talking about women should or should not play heavy, angry music. These were liberal fucking dudes! And suddenly they’re talking about how girls need to be aware of the situations they put themselves in and that the music scene is only for chicks who act like dicks. I didn’t even realize everyone was such an asshole until I actually casually brought up woman’s issues, like why they kept referring a certain band as a “female fronted band” or a “girlband” and suddenly it became all about how girls shouldn’t drink or hang out past 10 and how their instinctual girly-ness made them inadequate candidates for expressing rage.
I thought punk was all about breaking norms and changing conceptions and making a song out of three guitar chords, loud drums and a dirty fucking bass, but apparently I was wrong. I guess it’s really about white dudebros and their stupid Danzig vs Blag rhetoric.