Categories
creepy feminism hypocrisy misogyny oppressed men patriarchy rape reactionary bullshit sexual harassment threats

Two atheists get in an elevator

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.

1.7K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ithiliana
13 years ago

1500!

AHAHAHAHA! It certainly should. And I’m now convinced she has a tiger’s tail as well…(um see comment on some other post)

Bee
Bee
13 years ago

I don’t know anymore … are we commenting on the slaveman’s garbage comments and why they’re garbage, or just letting him rage himself to sleep these days?

ithiliana
13 years ago

I’m mostly ignoring NWO. But then I think I always have, mostly.

But since we’re not a hive mind heh or a hive anything else, I think some people are responding.

Pecunium
13 years ago

ithiliana: But Lj/DW are blogs.

ithiliana
13 years ago

@Pecunium:

Ignoring first impulse to jump up and down and go lalalalal I can’t hear you, that’s actually something that’s been debated quite a lot.

It all depends on how you define “blog” — and at least in the fandom and academic circles I um circle in, the people who have BLOGS (mostly but not entirely men) make a huge deal about LJ/DS being NOTblogs, and mostly for those silly (young) girls, and a sink of fandom cooties, and to be totally avoided, and omg, they do things differently.

LJ started in 1999, well before the other social networking sites–and I do think that it’s possible to distinguish it and other social networking sites as being perceived as different from “blogs” (although I don’t know enough about the different sites that offer blogging services).

It may be just semantic-but very few people in my corner of fandom talk about their blogs–they talk about their JOURNALS, which has some very different connotations (especially in considering of discourse and gender).

My reason for liking LJ/DW is that they allow for various levels of privacy and filtering which the blog services don’t seem to have; and OMG I love the threaded discussions, they ROCK. Do blogs offer threaded discussion options?

In some technical or umbrella aspect, it might be possible to call the two things by the same term, and the distinctions people make might have blurred in recent years, but my sense for a lot of years is that those of us (in online media fandom) considered blogs different–people often had blogs as well as journals, like they now have FB and Twitter and Tumblr, but use them differently and perceive them differently.

So when you say LJ is a blog, how are you defining the term?

ithiliana
13 years ago

p.s. not to mention LJ/DW allow for communities as well as individual journals–do blog sites have that option?

Bee
Bee
13 years ago

Not a hive mind! Well, I never!

*buzzes away to find pollen*

Pecunium
13 years ago

I’ve had an Lj since 2003. I refer to it as, “my blog”. It’s a bit like an aggregator (and I can put up with the evil that is threaded discussion, but if I could kill it, at least on mine, I would).

Is it like this blog? No. But I don’t think all blogs are exactly the same, in the same way I don’t think all communities are the same. I did Usenet,and BBSs (I never got into Prodigy, Genie, etc.).

A blog is a place one can spout off, on the net. It’s findable location, which belongs to one person. I’d say it’s an individual, or a small group of individuals (see Making Light, or Orcinus, before it went moribund). Comments are not required to be a blog.

I wouldn’t say Kos is a blog, because it’s not consistent in it’s nature. Steve Gilliard had a blog, but I don’t think the people that took over when he died managed to keep it a blog. Majikthise was a blog, which had guest posters (I was one, from time to time).

Little Green Footballs, The Spearhead, Firedoglake, TPM, Mediaite, and HuffPo, aren’t blogs. Ta-Neise Coates, is a blog. So is Andrew Sullivan.

It’s a bit less subjective than Potter Stewart on Pornography, the lines are gray, but those are what I think a blog is.

Ami Angelwings
13 years ago

Okay this is the first open-card question! 😀

Should Thundercunt be an instant/sorcery card (i.e. a spell.. like Thunderbolt!) or should it be a creature.. like a Thundercat! or is it an artifact? like a cunt that you hold to call down thunder? 😀 You make the call! 😀

ithiliana
13 years ago

If weblog simply means a place an individual can control to post whatever they want (as long as it doesn’t break the service’s TOS), then, yes, LJ/DW are blogs.

But so are a whole slew of internet sites, including YouTube accounts.

I’m working purely within the online media fandom perspective — though LJ/DW are not solely for fans, they were early adaptors at LJ and have a pretty big presence there.

I’ll agree that to an outsider, there’s no difference between LJ/DW and the blog you mention–but at least for some there are pretty major differences in function and discourses around them.

Might be interesting to see who on my current flist/rcircle distinguishes or fails to distinguish bewteen blog and journal….

ithiliana
13 years ago

I’d also bet a nickle that when people in the bogosphere talk about the blogosphere they would not include LJ/DW (or in many cases have even heard of them)!

Bee
Bee
13 years ago

Isn’t the Spearhead a blog? I keep making fun of MRAs who come here and call it a publication, and its posts articles.

I’d call it a blog with posts rather than a publication with articles largely because it’s opinion written by amateurs. It’s not a money-making, professional site, like HuffPo and the other non-blog sites you listed. I’d also call Shakesville a blog for the same reasons (although Liss gets donations from the site). They’re both group blogs, or multi-contributor blogs, but blogs nonetheless. I think.

ithiliana
13 years ago

I don’t ever go to the Spearhead, but yes, I think there’s a useful distinction to be made between online sites where content is generated and controlled solely by the user/owner of the site (blogs), and online sites where content is generated by writers whose work then undergoes some processes of editing (level may vary), i.e. factchecking, etc. There can be collaborative blogs where multiple people agree to post–but not necessarily to edit each other’s work. Of course, the we get into what is a wiki debate vs say the online versions of TIME. If it comes to that, there are an increasing number of peer reviewed academic journals existing solely online!

As I tell my students, you cannot assume all internet content is the same level of quality, and you need to evaluate every site and every text critically.

Ami Angelwings
13 years ago

@Ithiliana I think that’s true in general but for the feminist blogosphere 😮 when I was involved in it, DW/LJ was regularly being linked too… maybe it’s cuz we were all geeky girls and a lot of us had LJs too? xD

Bee
Bee
13 years ago

Oh yeah, ithiliana, that’s a good point. I think that’s one of the primary distinctions (in my head, anyway) between a blog and an online publication. A person writing for a blog will just plop their work up online without any kind of structured process for checking it, but a publication would almost certainly have some kind of editorial procedure. I worked for an online publication a million years ago, and it wasn’t like I fact checked every single thing (since a lot of what we were publishing was expert opinion), but there was definitely a process that each article went through.

As for the LJ/DW/blog distinction, I’m less clear. I’ve had a Blogger blog, which I’ve let die, and I signed up for a LJ account a few days ago, but couldn’t quite figure out how I’d use it. That’s the only distinction I’ve come across: One confuses me, one doesn’t.

Ami Angelwings
13 years ago

That was supposed to say “feminist comic blogosphere”

Plymouth
Plymouth
13 years ago

BTW I just wrote this up on a friends’s google+ when someone asked what this whole flap was all about and I thought youalls might be amused:

Shorter faster atheist gender flamewar:
Rebecca: I’m tired of people hitting on me and I just wanna sleep.
Elevator Dude: Wanna get coffee in my room at 4am?
Rebecca: That was rude and creepy, don’t do that!
Internet Womens: Hells yeah!
Internet Mens: Saying that was creepy is mean, don’t do that!
Internet Womens: Don’t tell us what we can’t say!
Internet Mens: Don’t tell US what WE can’t say!
Rest of Internet: OMG why are you all overreacting???

Plymouth
Plymouth
13 years ago

I guess I should have inserted in there somewhere:

Richard Dawkins: I R Expert! Bow before me!

Marc
Marc
13 years ago

In completely off-topic news, ahhhhh, I am beating my head against a metaphorical brick wall. I am trying to reteach myself MATLAB, which I haven’t worked with in over 10 years and it is not coming back as fast as I hoped. I need to learn it by next week. Funtimes!

So what’s so difficult about MATLAB? It’s one of the easiest programming languages… you’re really don’t seem to be the smartest… yeah smartest… _what_?
You avatar looks female…

But PLEASE do yourself a favour and do not use matrix inverses

female way to solve the linear equations A x = v, A y = w:

x = inv(A) * v;
y = inv(A) * w;

male way to solve a linear equations A x = v, A y = w:

[L, U] = lu(A) ;

x2 = L v;
y2 = L w;

x = U x2;
y = U y2;

Marc
Marc
13 years ago

Atheist logic:

Richard Dawkins said it,

I believe it,

That settles it!

You’ve no chance against the combined might of the atheist online community. This time you’ve gone too far. The atheist nitpicking-warmachine will crush you under it’s treads!!

ithiliana
13 years ago

I’ve een more of the feminist blogs I follow (fewer these days than a couple of years ago) link to LJ/DW in recent years–so that may be changing, thank heavens.

ithiliana
13 years ago

Ami AHA feminist comic blogs, well, sure a lot of the fans I know are on multiple platforms (pulls covers over head and ignores Google plus like she’s ignored fb, twitter, tumblr).

LJ is probably v. dfferent from the blogging platforms — it’s gotten simpler these days. When I first joined, you had to learn basic html to do a bunch of stuff that is now more built nito the program.

there was a sort of self defiant geekiness about LJ back in the day that I liked (it was started by a computer science guy in college and then took off, now ended up corporate, but, oh, well).

Marc
Marc
13 years ago

When I first joined, you had to learn basic html to do a bunch of stuff that is now more built nito the program.

Even html? Oh my god! HTML…!! That’s so geeky!!

Plymouth
Plymouth
13 years ago

Uh, I didn’t say MATLAB was inherently difficult. I said trying to reteach it to myself in a week when I haven’t used it in 10 years is being challenging. I am not, by trade, a programmer, so it’s just not something I do on a weekly basis.

Also, your example is irrelevant to what I’m trying to do with it, but, whatever.

Marc
Marc
13 years ago

What are you then doing with it?

MATLAB is an acronym for matrix laboratory not for math laboratory.

Therefore I gave you an example with matrices…

1 59 60 61 62 63 69