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.
Shit, you got me saying “demand.” It’s not a demand anyway. It’s just letting you know that propositioning strangers in a threatening way isn’t nice and doesn’t work. If your heart’s desire is to make women unhappy and not get laid, then please, elevator-accost away.
There’s no requirement to make women happy. We just want you to know that if you don’t make us happy, we, well… we won’t be happy.
As I said in a previous post that prolly nobody read xD We make judgments all the time about where our “breaking points” are, what’s important to us to respect and what’s not, and ppl make judgments on OUR judgments too, and that’s going to happen also… xD
My previous post was on Amanda Marcotte, and the reason I don’t read Pandagon, so I’ll use that as an example… b/c of her problematic issues regarding race and feminism in the past, and that she hasn’t apologized/acknowledged them, I (and others) don’t read her nemore, or don’t feel she’s somebody worth reading. Now others saw nothing wrong with what she wrote, OR agreed with her OR had a problem, but continue to read her.. and that’s fine xD But some ppl might judge them for it (“you read her therefore you are ok w/ what she said!”) or judge ME for it (“you’re overly sensitive!”) or etc… and that’s fine.. I mean that’s life…. I can’t control what ppl think of me… I can explain myself, they can say it doesn’t matter … etc etc…
in the same way, there are ppl who wouldn’t care what Skepchick tells them to do, or say “you’re going too far!” and not respect the advice she gave… or the feelings she expressed… but at the same time would respect MY feelings about treating trans ppl as the gender they ID as, and ppl can judge them on that too… I mean there’s all sorts of stuff out there, and we make decisions ALL the time about what’s important to us, what’s a “breaking point” and what’s not.. what’s a big deal and what’s not.. and we also make decisions about other ppl based on that too (some ppl make more decisions than others, I tend to not assume that somebody liking a site means that they know or even support the issues that site may have had… ) like I like Stargate SG-1 which has huge issues w/ racism xD I’m aware of it, yet I still watch it and enjoy it… it’s not a breaking point to me… it could be for others… and they may look at me and go “OMFG YOU SUPPORT THEIR RACISM!” or they may be ok w/ me being aware of it and still like it, or they may not care that I like something they find offensive…
and then ppl may say “how can you be okay w/ her liking something you find racist! that makes you a bad person!” and on and on xD
i mean that’s life… xD as long as ppl aren’t committing crimes or hurting each other.. we get advice, and suggestions and “please don’t do that it hurts my feelings” all the time, and we get judged as being bad ppl all the time.. and it’s up to each of us to determine where our breaking points are, and if the breaking points of others are issues for us or not :3
@ithiliana
“If you did not share the privileged attitude that women OUGHT to be nice to you (at least the ones you think worthy of notice– srs. doubt you want a friendly approach by a 55 year old fat pagan queer person coffcoff), then you would not be so mad and prone to cussing and violent fantasies when the women you choose to honor with your notice do NOT live up to the pervasive expectation that they be nice and sweet! ”
Well, I’m a young man and I’m much more inclined to approach a 55 year old, fat, woman in public than a 25 year old hottie. The funny thing is older women are generally much nicer than younger ones. They don’t assume I’m only talking to them because I want to get in their pants. I never got any strange reations from an older woman because I asked her at the train station if she needs help with her luggage, but I certainly did from women my age. Believe it or not, many young, attractive women actually do have a chip on their shoulder.
If we ever meet in public please strike up a conversation. I’m 20-something, 6 foot tall , 190 pounds, dark blond hair, blue eyes, German accent.
If your heart’s desire is to make women unhappy and not get laid, then please, elevator-accost away.
There’s no requirement to make women happy. We just want you to know that if you don’t make us happy, we, well… we won’t be happy.
Exactly xD Like I said we all have our own breaking points about things, our own things that are important and that aren’t… and other ppl do too… she said she’s uncomfortable, if ppl don’t care and hit on her neways, she’ll say no to them… xD and that’s it… i dun see the problem :3
The problem with just letting people think what they want is that the atheist/skeptic movement will never become fully inclusive using that mindset. This is the issue that the movement has, a lot of guys who are otherwise pretty thoughtful and openminded have a pet issue, their attitudes towards women, that they simply will not change.
If this never happens, women will never be included in the movement, and that’s a pretty sad and pitiful state of affairs. This is a case where changing minds really matters, which is why I can’t accept the “just let them think how they think” attitude. Obviously you can’t force people to think the way you want them to (like NWOslave thinks we all want), but that doesn’t mean you drop the issue or stop trying when people don’t take to your point on the first go.
Holly Pervocracy
Men and women are different, heresy, I know.
Women want to not feel physically threatened, right? Fine and Dandy.
Men want women to not be socially abusive. Your tongue’s are quite sharp it would seem. This women used her tongue, or keyboard in this case to slander an unknown man. Who of course will be identified by the people at the gathering.
You see, you want physical security, while offering only social aggresion in return. All of you women have jumped on the team woman bandwagon to attack this man as you so eloquently put it “cornered her.” So the sleightest affront to her “feelings” is met by, and it’s on feminite as well, women gathering like a pack of hyenas going in for the kill. All based on her word to socially attack him. Nice.
Marc – There are two definitions of “troll” that are relevant here:
1. Someone who goes on a website to announce that they disagree with the entire premise of the website. Posting “CATS SUCK THEY ARE STUPID ANIMALS” on a cat forum, because you’re a rabid dog partisan.
2. Someone who posts inflammatory things they don’t actually believe, just to get a rise out of people. Posting “CATS SUCK THEY ARE STUPID ANIMALS” on a cat forum, not because you actually have anything against cats, but just because you want the cat people to get upset and pay attention to you.
You’re definitely a Type 1, at least. And the jury is out on Type 2, frankly.
Why Type 1, just because I said something that could make MRAs angry?
You don’t nothing about trolls and use the word in an very broad and sometimes odd way. Like Ami Angelwings who accused me being a concern troll!
I share your goals, but have I ever expressed “concern”? No! When I disagreed with you I stated it clearly and honestly.
I didn’t say that nobody should try to change ppl’s minds, but a lot of ppl (like NWO) are acting as if simply thinking negatively about a person is some sort of assault on them, or law… that if Skepchick thinks you’re a creep or women give advice to men, it must be obeyed o_O the conflation of suggesting and dictating for instance xD so that’s what my thing was about… we all make decisions all the time about what’s important to us… and how ppl might judge us, but that’s on US… :] and if we dun like it we should try to change minds, as you said… but it’s not a “dictate” if creationists think you’re a sinner for instance Kirby, it’s up to you to decide if that matters to you, and if it’s important to change their minds, but it doesn’t mean that they’ve said you CAN’T believe something :3 (is my point if that clarifies it)
I thought he went to bed xD
Actually, NWO is already a dickhead, so this surgery would merely be a logical conclusion. Good luck to him, I say.
I mean you want acceptance of women telling men how to act so “they” will always feel comfortable around men.
Yet you won’t accept men telling women how they should act so “men” will always feel comfortable around women.
Do you believe all men should do whatever all women tell them to do, and all women should do whatever all men tell them to do? o_O
or should they decide to take the advice that makes sense to them and that they want to take?
if you don’t think Skepchick’s advice makes sense, or not something you want to do, don’t take it xD
if ppl continue to hit on her in elevators, she can continue to tell them no…and think of them as creeps
Same with your advice… if ppl continue to be mean to you in Feministe, you can continue to not go to Feministe (or however you deal w/ it) and think of them as jerks (or w/e you think of them) xD
@Ami:
I think it would be “CAN’T NOT believe something…” 😛 But yeah, I get your point. Giving advice is not dictating, and the person being given advice is still free to ignore it. Doesn’t mean the advice shouldn’t be given in the first place.
@Marc:
I disagree actually, you are pretty clearly type 2. You say pretty much whatever shit suits you on a day to day basis, just to try to get a rise off of us. And technically, you succeed, because we make the mistake of thinking you are trying to be even the tiniest bit honest in your dialog. But of course you’re just saying whatever you want, who knows what you actually believe.
@NWO:
I suggest you listen to the actual video Watson made, then rethink your charge of being “socially abusive.” Here’s the link I gave Marc, just before he stated that in finding out what happened, we should ignore the person who was actually part of the event. Go about 3 minutes in, and tell me exactly how Watson is being “socially abusive,” or whether she has a “sharp tongue,” or any of that other nonsense you were spewing.
No, no, I really want to help her, not to insult her, this poor little ugly duckling… so insecure and stuck up, it feel really sorry for her!
xD
Oh goodie, we found someone to pick up Ion’s slack while he’s off doing cool things with cool people and not gracing all of us losers with his presence.
However it appears we still have no contender for NWO’s glass-licking batshit wackiness.
I thought he went to bed xD
Who said that?
If you see a “no peeing in the pool” sign, do you immediately rip it down because “I DON’T PEE IN POOLS HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A POOL PEEING PERSON I AM INSULTED”? If you’re already treating women decently, then congratulations, this isn’t about you.
No, I wouldn’t but that’s a flawed analogy. A good analogy would be, if a black man would be insulted by a sign that would read “Please, black people, don’t pee in the pool!”.
Also, “separate but equal” treatment has a really, really bad history in this country.
Yes, ok, that’s an argument. But I really didn’t think about making gender separation mandatory, I’m sorry if I didn’t state that clearly… that would even be against human rights.
But I would encourage gender separation it, it should become easier for the people that want to be only with their own gender?
What do you think, if 1 in 4 women get raped on campus, making it possible and easy for women to study on female-only colleges seems to be the best option? What women wouldn’t want to study on a female-only college if the risk that high?
Of course there would still be a risk, but avoiding a risk of 25% by a very simple method? It would be the most effective rape-prevention-program ever.
@Marc:
Yeah, you’ve got it. Instead of, oh say, men attempting not to act creepy, if women don’t like it, they can just giiit out. Cause improving yourself is for wusses.
Cuz I’m honestly curious, should trans ppl and cis ppl be separated too? o_O Queer and straight ppl? (would cut down on the homophobic attacks)
And if ppl choose not to separate, and ppl then saw those ppl as choosing to take a risk of rape/assault/etc? Or if they happened to go onto a mixed campus for other reasons? And should that have any effect on the way society and the legal system treat what happens? :]
@Ami:
“The victim has been found guilty of putting themselves in a bad situation. They could have just stuck with their own kind. The victim is sentenced to a fine covering the assailent’s court costs, and 2 years in jail. Next case.”
I have a much better idea. How about we just separate from the rest of society all the people who can and do blame rape victims for being raped?
Where would trans women go? o_O What about intersectionality? xD If we start hiving off populations based on risk from the “privileged” population (clumsy word xD ),what happens when you belong to conflicting groups? xD
This sounds like it’d be a v fun world… xD
Marc, I know you’re trying your best, but you are not living up to the Manboobz standard of trolling. We expect our trolls to display 37 pieces of flair, and you have only a paltry 14. Also you lack the bugfuck weirdness of NWO or the single-minded tenacity of MRAL. I’m afraid this will negatively affect this quarter’s performance review.
@Ami – Silly girl, in Marc’s separatist utopia, trans people won’t exist! Neither will intersex or genderqueer people! Jeez, it’s almost like you think you’re people or something.
If Marc is feeling *very* magnanimous, you might get an island or something, but it won’t be a nice one! All rocks and poisonous snakes. So THERE!
Cuz I’m honestly curious, should trans ppl and cis ppl be separated too? o_O Queer and straight ppl? (would cut down on the homophobic attacks)
Every person is allowed to associate with whoever he wants, male, female, cis, trans, gay, straight, …
BUT, BUT…
I’m for “save havens” for some groups, the possibility for some groups to have their own colleges, schools etc.
Though it’s probably not totally super-correct, we would start with colleges for female bodied humans = cis women.
Please don’t be a nitpicker like Pecunium, we’re talking about the most effective rape-prevention in US history.
It’s true, that we could separate other groups, and there would be a justification to do so (like homophobia), but we have to start with something simple, with the most urgent.
And if ppl choose not to separate, and ppl then saw those ppl as choosing to take a risk of rape/assault/etc? Or if they happened to go onto a mixed campus for other reasons? And should that have any effect on the way society and the legal system treat what happens? :]
No, it shouldn’t have any effect!
That would be like victim blaming…
As you probably increase your chances of being raped if you stray around naked in the city park at 3 am, it’s of course not your fault.
Though it’s probably not totally super-correct, we would start with colleges for female bodied humans = cis women.
why? o_O
Obviously there is only one conclusion Marc’s idea leads to. Separate everyone on every possible axis, to prevent any possibility of offense. Maybe we could build robots that will put us all into little boxes, maybe storing them in big warehouses. They can give us food and water and so forth, and we’ll be perfectly safe from anybody assaulting our sensibilities.
Oooh, this could be a great short film! Maybe people end up trying to talk through the boxes to their neighbors! Love interests, rebellion, daring escape! Rumors of a secret society beyond their four walls where people are free to interact with each other, to offend and be offended, to change and grow, to strive ever forwards into a brighter tomorrow!
Or the robots kill anyone who escapes. Either way, it would be epic.
If it’s filmed as a lowbudget SyFy/Space movie or something in Toronto, I want to be the hot girl who can’t act! XD