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.
“I feel like the feminist push here is to get this guy convicted of attempted rape. He probably thought about it, right?”
You feel ridiculous things. No one ever said anything about this guy other than ‘creepy’ (the heinous insult).
“I always have to laugh at songs like Super Bass or Taylor Swift’s stuff, movies like Bad Teacher. Like that dynamic ever happens in real life.”
You don’t believe women hit on men? You should meet some of my friends…
Oh, MRAL. Sometime, somewhere, a female person has hit on you. And probably, your self-loathing prevented you from noticing. That’ll get better. Your self-awareness is shot at this point; it cannot be relied upon.
Look, I don’t think Ion is saying this guy made a prime decision. It was pretty stupid, I mean, she had just basically said she didn’t want to be hit on. It’s pretty funny, actually. Did the guy have Asperger’s? It wouldn’t surprise me. But the point is that he has a moral right to approach her, even if it’s at a really weird time. She has the right to say no. They both exercised their rights. But people are bitching and moaning at him for no reason.
Yeah, should she just have kept quiet? Because it’s so evil to describe behavior as creepy.
As always the level of misandry to my comment intensifies further enforcing your indoctrination. The comment’s to my scenario range as always range from strawmen to ad hominem’s, to should she have fucked him, to social dynamics of men beieving rape is acceptable.
The correct response should have been, the woman was “wrong” to feel frightened or uncomfortable. The man was merely walking, existing in time and space. That was his crime.
Ion, have you noticed how most of the commenters here engage you as though you were arguing in good faith, even though they know you aren’t? That’s what makes this blog a special place.
There’s a distinct empathy gap in guys who can’t understand why a woman would be afraid of a stranger in an an elevator at 4 AM asking her to come back to his room… but can totally understand why a man would be afraid to have some very mildly mean words said about him.
Hmm, let’s see… guy labeled a creep for politely and respectfully expressing interest in another human being versus woman who felt ‘uncomfortable’ because a guy expressed interest in her. Who should I feel bad for?
The man was merely walking, existing in time and space. That was his crime.
If he’d been merely walking, there would have been nothing to talk about. Asking someone to your room is not how I walk.
At least Ion and MRAL are vaguely talking about things in reality. You’re just off in MEN ARE CASTRATED AT BIRTH BY THE FEMOCRACY fantasy wankland.
Ion, have you noticed how most of the commenters here engage you as though you were arguing in good faith, even though they know you aren’t? That’s what makes this blog a special place.
What I did notice is how most of the commenters are ignoring parts of my posts, misreading me, or responding to things I didn’t say. And that’s what makes this blog a “special” place…
MRAL: They are “bitching” (nice sexist slur there btw) because it should not be a given that a man is ever entitled to a woman’s attention. Your point about it being a moral right to approach is wrong.
Hmm, let’s see… guy labeled a creep for politely and respectfully expressing interest in another human being versus woman who felt ‘uncomfortable’ because a guy expressed interest in her. Who should I feel bad for?
Frankly, both if his intentions were pure. I feel bad for both of them that they live in a world where sexual assault and harassment so prevalent that male sexual attraction often *is* a threat. It would be nice if the story could have ended with “he asked me, but I was tired and didn’t feel like it, so I said no, and we both went on with our lives, no big deal.” The reason it didn’t, however, has more to do with our culture than with evil women not giving men the benefit of the doubt.
However… we have no proof that his intentions were pure, and that when the room door shut behind them, he’d be gracious about giving her some coffee and letting her go on her way if that’s what she wanted.
MRAL, you insist on assuming that Elevator Guy didn’t know that what he was doing was creepy, that he didn’t know better. You refuse to consider the alternative: he did know that what he was doing was creepy. He did it on purpose, because he thought the creepy way was the way to go.
You’re basically making excuses for Elevator Guy.
Nope! The feminist push is that he made her uncomfortable, he shouldn’t have done that (but it’s a “tsk tsk” shouldn’t, not a “legal action” shouldn’t), and she had the right to say he made her uncomfortable.
Now tell me what the MRA (or at least your) push is for–how she should have acted, so I won’t have to guess and maybe guess wrong.
She should have said ‘no’ and thought no more about it. If she’d done that, this whole conversation wouldn’t exist. Although maybe it’s a good thing it does, because it really exposes the “eww, get away from me, creep!” attitude that many women have towards guys who express interest in them.
How does he have a “moral” right to approach her? What the fuck?
Luke, Ion, unreal- remember, the Book of Mordred forfeited the debate. He should be ignored until he decides to resume the debate with a response to our lengthy posts that were ignored.
Nobody’s under any obligation to answer your idiocy.
And that doesn’t automatically give your idiocy value.
But it does seem instructive that in a lengthy comment thread discussing why a guy might want to re-think his attitude that he is entitled to a woman’s attention in a time, place, and manner that is a bit off-putting (not to mention after she has spent quite some time articulating her dislike of this behavior), we have a cadre of defenders of this behavior….arguing that they are entitled to have their petulant whims satisfied.
MRAL, there’s a ton of “reason” behind it… but at this point, most of the discussion (in places other than here, which is most places) is about Skepchick’s response to his behavior. I’ve seen very few people defending the elevator guy’s behavior (other than here, interestingly).
So Ion, that suggests that virtually everyone involved in this discussion does understand that it’s inappropriate for a man to corner a woman in a tiny space in the wee hours of the morning and proposition her. For that matter, I think you understand it too.
You refuse to consider the alternative: he did know that what he was doing was creepy.
What possible motive could he have for purposely being creepy? Since he accepted rejection gracefully, it makes no sense. Being creepy is guaranteed to drive away women.
Ion, have you noticed how most of the commenters here engage you as though you were arguing in good faith,….
well, I don’t.
mediumdave, I may have been too hasty in acribing bad faith to Ion’s arguments. Thinking it over, it seems to me that Ion genuinely doesn’t understand the woman’s reaction, because he is incapable of putting himself in her place. That’s also why he and the others keep making excuses for Elevator Guy’s behavior. They identify with him, but are incapable of identifying with Watson.
Holly, I think what NWOSlave was referring to earlier was his theoretical “man meets woman” scenario:
“A woman gets a flat tire and pulls over after dark, she gets out to look at the tire. A man is walking down the street towards her, they are the only two people within earshot, she begins to “feel” uncomfortable and frightened. His very existence has made her “feel” uncomfortable and frightened.
“Should the man immediately turn around and walk the way he came?
Should a mans every action be determined by the comfort level of any woman within his presence?
“Are you sure you haven’t been indoctrinated into accepting misandry as a way of life?”
The interesting thing about this situation, NWOSlave, is that the person being approached already has the problem of a flat tire after dark. That’s not a great position to be in, whether you’re male OR female.
Now, if your scenario was more like this:
“A woman was standing in line to get a coffee around noon…”
or “A woman was feeding pidgeons in the park…”
The person being approached wasn’t already at a disadvantage in both of those scenarios, and thus feeling afraid of whoever approached them would be a little much.
Context is what’s important.
I did say “most”.
As if that were even possible! When people are boorish toward you, do you just forget about it? Probably not. What you probably mean is, “she should have said nothing about it, i.e. should’ve let the boorish person off the hook to spare his feelings. And by extension, all other atheist men, or whoever else might be crying over this situation.
If all these men would simply follow the cardinal rule of “If you want to talk to a woman, do it in a way that she has an escape route,” things would go a lot better.
Holly Pervocracy, Trying to justify your misandry still makes it misandry.
Your comment was in direct response to my comment for the scenario I presented. Her response was wrong. She felt afraid and “creeped out” because he was a man. This is misandry, the fear and hatred of man.
You justify you misandry with more misandry, strawmen, ad hominem’s and such nonsense as, “You’re just off in MEN ARE CASTRATED AT BIRTH BY THE FEMOCRACY fantasy wankland.”
Your approval of her “feelings” of him being a creep are justified by the dictates of her approval of time/setting. His “feelings” of not being a creep for the time and setting are inconsequential.
She is justified in considering him a creep by her dictates.
He is not justified to not being considered a creep.
Misandry. She is right by whatever she feels about any man at any point in time. She felt he is a creep, she is justified by you in judging a man by whatever standard she puts forth at any time.
I see zero point arguing in good faith with the willfully obtuse.