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.
Firebee, I pointed that contradiction out to Ion, that he believes that a woman should simultaneously fear for her safety and not fear for her safety.
He didn’t seem to understand.
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
Man + darkness + empty parking lot = fear. Excellent indoctrination.
Forget it, you all win again as usual. With all my privilege I guess I’ll never be able to see it. The answers I get are excuses. I guess men should be feared and hated for the fear they instill.
Good night.
Slaveman: This is just me, but if I have to tell a guy more than twice that I’m not interested, I’m gonna be irritated. No matter how nice he’s being about it. I didn’t want to write a dialog where the guy is being a complete idiot, because then you’d be saying, Oh sure … I guess Bee thinks all guys are creeps who talk about penises and blowjobs to women they don’t know. Which I don’t.
Anyway, I’m willing to buy that the guy didn’t quite understand me the first time. If I say, “I’m not interested,” I’ll accept that a not-creepy guy could plausibly hear “I want to play hard to get.” Make me repeat myself a third time, and it’s really fucking clear that you are not listening to me, or that you don’t think that what I want matters. And that’s a HUGE warning bell.
My point — and it’s alarming that you are unable to grasp it — is that IF A WOMAN SAYS SHE’S NOT INTERESTED — NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON OR HOW NICELY SHE’S SAYING IT, THEN THE PERSON APPROACHING HER SHOULD RESPECT THAT SHE IS NOT INTERESTED AND LEAVE HER ALONE.
I feel like maybe the all caps helped. Did the all caps make it more clear, slaveman?
I’m sorry if I’m wrongly giving that impression, Ami. What am I saying that gives the impression?
There’s currently a comment on the original video that mentioned the elevator incident that describes, in horror-movie-style detail, how the author of said comment wants to rape and torture Skepchick.
And they wonder how being on an elevator with a man could be scary.
This is terrorism.
I think I’ve officially given up on NWO. He doesn’t think about the things we say except in the “which part is easiest to twist and rebut?” sense. He’s not here to learn, and he’s not here to talk. He’s just here to say… the things he says… until his keyboard breaks.
And then he will declare victory over his keyboard, that stupid keyboard that thought it could resist him.
Hey NWOaf-my dad once threw me at a wall so do *I* get to fear men?
Bee, maybe if you used some smileys. That seems to get Silly’s attention. 🙂
But srsly… xD Since he’s back to his “this is so super serious real men are being harmed but not serious enuf for me to not make this a Q&A game” xD I’ll ask in the third person to everybody xD everything seems to be about her thoughts. she SHOULD have not thought he was making her uncomfortable, she SHOULD not have been creeped out…
so.. therefore if her thought process was wrong and should be changed… therefore.. how SHOULD she have acted there? (cuz she didn’t tell him he was creepy, he didn’t even punch him or run off screaming xD she was polite I think? o_O)
how should she have acted to the guy in order to prove that she’s not indoctrinated? xD
Holly Pervocracy | July 7, 2011 at 9:56 pm
I think I’ve officially given up on NWO. He doesn’t think about the things we say except in the “which part is easiest to twist and rebut?” sense. He’s not here to learn, and he’s not here to talk. He’s just here to say… the things he says… until his keyboard breaks.
And then he will declare victory over his keyboard, that stupid keyboard that thought it could resist him.
I think you got it in one xD
Holly, a couple of people (including me) have asked Silly why he posts here, and he pretty much said, “I’m here to troll this blog.”
Oh wait a sec, I see. I misunderstood your point, slaveman. My mistake.
Yes, I think that in Watson’s specific case, the guy in question wasn’t AS BAD as he could have been. She turned him down in the elevator, and presumably he said “OK” and went on his way.
It’s that he even asked, after listening to her talk ALL DAY about how sick she was of being hit on in atheist circles, and after hearing her say that she wanted to go to sleep, that kind of tips the balance here. Clearly, he wasn’t paying attention to what she was talking about, or thought that he was exceptional, or didn’t really care what she said — or something.
And that’s annoying.
I think she should trust her own judgement regarding her own personal safety. Erring on the side of caution is probably prudent.
You know, I have no problem not cornering people I am talking to/prospective dates in such a way as to prevent their escape.
Also, I know of no woman who has not been harmed by a man or threatened with such harm. Does such a woman exist? If she does, she is certainly not in the majority.
PS, if you need directions, it is a bad idea and a creepy threatening behavior to approach people who are alone in a parking lot late at night. Consider, instead, going inside and asking the bartender or clerk for directions, assistence, or use of a phone.
@Fuck MRAs ok you know I dun agree w/ you that this is terrorism xD
But in terms of a woman on the internet receiving rape threats when attn turns on her, it’s unfortunately something that happens so often : Like female comics bloggers got it… Liss from Shakesville got it SEVERAL times (incl when condemning rape xD ), even I’VE gotten it when I wrote a satire piece that vegetarians took seriously and got offended by. xD The comments there (annd my inbox) were FILLED w/ rape threats -_-
My addition to the How Not To Be Creepy instruction manual:
11. In general, unless you are hiring a sex worker or in a milieu expressly dedicated to casual sex (something like the sex club from Eyes Wide Shut), you will probably have to get to know a woman before you have sex with her. This can be as simple as a few sentences back and forth followed by “So…?” *suggestive eyebrows* or it can be multiple dates, depending on what both of you are looking for.
When you are holding this/these conversation(s), TALK TO THE WOMAN LIKE SHE’S A PERSON. Don’t sit there thinking “What can I do to get her to have sex with me?” Listen to her and respond appropriately. Have a genuine interaction with her, even if it is very brief.
(Seriously, every non-creepy proposition I have ever received has followed this rule. Even when they do it makes me a bit uncomfortable, because it’s awkward turning people down, but at least it doesn’t make me feel like an inconvenient obstacle blocking some guy’s access to pussy.)or.
Slave
Besides your mental illness issues and because you are not blood Uncle Victor would have a party with you.
Can you picture that like I can?
@darksidecat that’s why I’m wondering what he means by “harm” xD I suspect he doesn’t mean “no bad exps ever” I think he means “has not been violently raped”
I’d say “give him a blowjob, right then and there,” but I don’t think that would be quite enough to satisfy Slavey.
A permanent position in the guy’s harem, perhaps?
I think the reason NWO gets such a reaction out of us–even out of me, even when I know it’s really no use at all, is that he hits the Emmanuel Goldstein Zone perfectly.
That is:
“Goldstein was delivering his usual venemous attack upon the doctrines of the Party – an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it.”
(George Orwell, 1984)
Everyone–shit, even MRAL and Ion–know NWO is wrong, but he’s just sincere enough in his wrongness as to stir this sense of worry, this sense that he shouldn’t go unanswered.
He’s not convincing anyone of anything–he’s not even trying to convince anyone of anything, most of the time–but he’s a great troll in terms of sheer reaction provoked.
NWO doesn’t hit nething w/ me xD I just want him to elaborate on his worldview to put it all out there so I can see it cuz I suspect it would be hilarious xD
@ Holly
This leads me to repeat a question I asked when the possibility of either unmoderating or permanently banning Silly was raised: are the thread derails by trolls a bug or a feature?
Ami – That’s good. I might be losing perspective; sometimes I see what he writes and think “oh god, what if someone, somewhere, actually believes this?”
But even he doesn’t believe most of what he writes, so yeah.
MRAL vs NWO would be something I’d watch xD (i’d be cheering for MRAL, esp after he admitted that upon new information his conclusion about Skepchick has changed, even if it’s still kinda negative, it impressed me a lot :3 So if you’re reading MRAL *thumbs up* )
Actually I wonder what would happen if a troll happened to be on the “side” of something we agree w/ xD
I remember once in my former comics blogging life, 2 of the worse trolls got into it about abortion xD And one of them who was pretty bad happened to be on the side pro-choice and he used the analogy of “if you mix salt and water it is a new substance and cannot be separated and so it’s like a mother and her fetus” and I was like -_-;;; okay shut up.. stop helping
xD
Ami, do you have a better term for it? It’s a silencing tactic that’s meant to threaten and instill fear in an entire population of people. It’s not the same as a bomb, obviously. But it is a form of terrorism.
“the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. ”
Yup. Terrorism.