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.
Oh and my therapist told me not to use the term “mangina” anymore, haha. He said it’s very negative and will make women angry even if that’s not the intent and they’re not the target. Something about utilizing “vagina” as an insult. I decided he was right, I don’t want to offend women who haven’t done anything to me.
So what you’re saying, unreal man, is that it’s up to the woman to avoid unpleasant situations. The man has no responsibility to avoid putting the woman in an unpleasant situation.
Also, the woman should simultaneously assume that the man is a threat and that he is not a threat.
Also too, gratuitous insult noted.
mediumdave, you remind me that breakfast beckons.
“Luke: You said: she was obviously ineffective in bringing accross her message in a way that is is accepted. And that is not the fault of the audience.
The the gentleman’s in the elevator failure to “bring across his message in a way that it is accepted” is NOT her fault either, but his? Am i correct?
If I’m not correct, why does he get a pass and she doesn’t?”
Why does he get a pass. Both were ineffective. I was pointing out just how inappropriate her own reaction is. She is just as maladjusted as the elevator guy. Seeing the speck in her brother’s eye but failing to see the plank in her own eye and all that. Pot, kettle, black.
It only took 600 odd comments before someone came out and said not to use an elevator at 4am by yourself, and to take any scrap of male attention no matter how uncomfortable it may make you as a compliment. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad.
Well, MRAL, that’s eminently civil of you. Good job.
Anyway, to answer your question, of course it is not misandry. Don’t get mixed up with false egalitarianism that says that actions done by both genders are the same.
mediumdave: I’m actually in central/eastern Europe so not really. 🙂
The man has no responsibility to avoid putting the woman in an unpleasant situation.
Well, within reason, no. Women have created a situation in which men are forced to do 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the approaching, the risk-taking, and the exposure. Men have to approach all the time, and- here’s a shocker, ladies- not all men are James Bond-suave. There will be mistakes, weirdness, awkwardness. As long as a “no” is respected, there is no problem in my mind, no matter how awkward an approach may have been. Deal with it.
Not to mention that as I have said, a woman’s judgment of whether a situation is “creepy” or “unpleasant” has less to do with the actual actions of the man and more to do with how wet her pussy is.
Wow… after the last few responses, I vote for caseymordred being a troll too. He’s just too ‘textbook self-hating male feminist’ to be real. 🙂
Anyway, to answer your question, of course it is not misandry. Don’t get mixed up with false egalitarianism that says that actions done by both genders are the same.
So essentially, women are entitled to be as rude and unpleasant as they want and cannot be questioned about it, while men must accept that and in addition be polite and courteous at all times?
I really think that a not of liberal feminists would disagree with you here, buddy. Maybe you should go hang out with the radfems.
MRAL, you are wrong. You know this, but you wanted to get your cheap shot in. You’ve been told several times that looks have nothing to do with being a creep.
Maybe you should stay away more often.
“Complaining about it to your readers is nothing but cheap attention seeking.”
Yes, she is either an attention whore, getting off on an all the reactions she generates, or she’s just not the sharpest knife in the drawer if she doesn’t realize that if you create a public drama about nothing it backfires.
I’m liking the MRAs here. It’s nice to have a non-feminist around other than that fucking weirdo slave guy.
You obviously conflate radical feminism with liberal feminism, otherwise you wouldn’t be an MRA.
To you, any woman who has An Existence Apart from you, by being female and not accountable to male standards, and making no bones about it by letting you know she doesn’t exist for your pleasure, is a feminist, a whore, an alpha cock carousel riding slut who will use betas for money on the day of her 30th birthday.
Also, what the fuck is up with that? As a friend of mine once said, it’s kind of weird that now we consider liking women over 25 to be a fetish.
@ Johny Pez
“So what you’re saying, unreal man, is that it’s up to the woman to avoid unpleasant situations. The man has no responsibility to avoid putting the woman in an unpleasant situation”
Now you are effectively saying that it’s a man’s responsibility to know what any stranger considers to be unpleasant. For all we know, he thought she wanted to be talked to. Being alone with a stranger in an elevator without any word spoken can be awkward in itself.
Living in the real world, you learn that meeting people means that they are likely to talk to you. If you don’t like that then stay away from people. In this case it meant not getting on the elevator with a stranger.
The way people are arguing this shows the misogyny in modern feminism. Any truly empowered woman would be insulted by it.
To you, any woman who has An Existence Apart from you, by being female and not accountable to male standards, and making no bones about it by letting you know she doesn’t exist for your pleasure, is a feminist, a whore, an alpha cock carousel riding slut who will use betas for money on the day of her 30th birthday.
What does this fantasy have to do with anything? I’d rather you get back to reality by explaining to me why women are entitled to be rude and men aren’t.
Let’s ask the feminists here, actually, they’ve been avoiding the issue as feminists are wont to do. Do you guys think that women are entitled to be as rude as they want, and (here’s the kicker) NOT thought of as rude?
So essentially, women are entitled to be as rude and unpleasant as they want and cannot be questioned about it, while men must accept that and in addition be polite and courteous at all times?
Pretty much. It’s like, as a man, you are responsible for not making women feel uncomfortable and/or being a creep. If a woman considers you a creep for any reason, you’ve failed and it’s your fault. Meanwhile women can talk/act however they want, and to question that is misogyny…
No one in this thread has said that women are entitled to be rude. What has been said is that women do have the right to turn a man down. How you handle that is on you.
I’ll leave you to your echo-chamber sausage-fest.
Exactly Ion.
And that’s why modern feminism is deeply misogynist, It treats women like infantile helpless victims. The exact opposite of empowerment.
Camille Paglia had it worked out and that’s why she left mainstream feminism long ago.
What you call “fantasy” is the shared reality on the MGTOW boards, where those terms are thrown around like so much confetti at the Macy’s Day Parade.
But yeah, sure, let’s see what others might say about it.
No one in this thread has said that women are entitled to be rude.
Mordred said:
To want pleasantness and to disapprove of unpleasantness from a woman is misogyny.
Let’s zoom in:
to disapprove of unpleasantness from a woman is misogyny.
“No one in this thread has said that women are entitled to be rude.” ”
Women are entitled to be rude – everyone is. That’s freedom.
“What has been said is that women do have the right to turn a man down. How you handle that is on you. ”
Who has said that women don’t have the right to turn a man down????? Please give us a quote or shut up about it.
I don’t visit the MGTOW boards, so I don’t know or care, nor is it relevant to the discussion, it’s just a non-sequitur that you threw in for reasons I can’t guess at.
Timeline:
Afternoon: Woman participates in talk at conference, discussing the problems women face in atheist circles — namely exclusion and being hit on all the time — in front of a group of presumably interested people.
Later: Talks to some of the conference goers in informal setting at hotel bar, at least partially on same and related subjects.
4 a.m.: Man who attended conference and was part of discussion at the bar hits on woman in confined space, saying how interesting he found the talk he obviously wasn’t paying attention to.
He insulted her intelligence. He disrespected her time and participation in the conference. And he showed really bad judgment all around. And yet she’s whiny and privileged and awful for pointing out that he was in bad form.
I kinda hate to draw universal conclusions from one specific situation that involves three people, but MAN it seems to me like there’s a problem with women being listened to and taken seriously.
“Oh and in my circle people from the USA are sometimes referred to as merkins which derives, I believe, from a Terry Pratchett novel and is thus totally gorgeous.”
And of course has the double meaning of being a pubic wig, so SCORE.
Alrighty then, MRAs, it’s time to play YOU MAKE THE CALL!
Rebecca Watson is a speaker at an atheist/skeptic conference in a hotel in Dublin. She gives a talk one day about how being constantly hit on at such conferences is getting to be kind of a drag, and that if the atheist/skeptic community wants more women to participate, they ought to be mindful of that sort of thing.
After the day’s events are over, you find yourself part of an informal group in the hotel lounge that includes Watson. Apart from that, you don’t know Watson and she doesn’t know you.
She announces that it’s been fun, but she really has to get some shuteye before the next day’s events. She gets up and leaves. You think she’s kind of cute, and it occurs to you that you can ignore what she said in her talk, follow her out of the lounge, follow her across the hotel lobby, follow her into the elevator, and put the mack on her there.
Do you go for it?