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.
Data acquisition and signal processing. Honestly, in a lot of ways it’s overkill for what we’re trying to do but the “subject matter expert” in my group recommended it and the customer bought it so that’s what I’m using.
What is nice about it is that I can write my test scripts and hand it over the customer and say “run this script” and the don’t have to know any MATLAB to use it to test.
Thundercunt should be a sorcery card.
Has Marc turned into my best friend’s annoying little brother or the smartest kid in fourth grade? I honestly can’t tell.
It’s actually making me a little sad, though. Oh, we used to have such fine trolls, back in the day, with marvelous pelts of troll hair and long strands of incomprehensible misogynist gibberish. And now, well, the smartest kid in fourth grade dropped by to try to insult us, but it just isn’t the same, you know?
*strokes beard thoughtfully, looks into the distance*
Again, you just prove that you have absolutely no decency. Have you ever thought that you might hurt me with your baseless and malicious accusations? Of course not, I think you’re an evil person!
*gives Marc a troll cookie*
I dunno, Marc. I feel like the originality and the passion are gone, and all that’s left is a tedious urge to pester. What’s up? Is everything okay at home?
Yes, YOUR tedious urge to pester.
Oh I know. What he’s doing is yet another stale routine from the troll playbook. Starts out pretending to be supportive of an idea but then exaggerates the idea to the point of the ridiculous in order to show all us dopes how much smarter he is. It doesn’t matter that nobody’s suggesting separation but him, he’ll argue that it’s the only logical extension of the idea.
25% of college women are raped.
With these numbers, how is it “exaggeration” to believe in an idea that would end this victimization very efficiently?
and rickrolling? That doesn’t work anymore, I only get a “This video contains content… copyright blah Sorry about that”-Message.
Marc wants to bring the onus onto the victim to change her behavior, rather than trying to get the offenders to change theirs.
No, no, you get it all wrong!
We don’t know who the offenders or potential offenders are, because we can’t prove their guilt or they haven’t yet done anything.
But if we catch someone of course we’re trying to change their behavior, for example we punish them! We don’t say to convicted rapists “Just keep doing what you’re doing”.
And we appeal to the people who are possible victims to change their behavior not because “we want to bring the onus onto the victims to change their behavior”, but instead because there is a much better chance that they’ll listen, you know, it’s in their own interests.
Sometimes it happens that we appeal to the general public in the hope that we might discourage somebody we don’t even know yet, from a certain criminal activity. But imho that’s an inefficient approach and also rarely used for serious crimes.
Do you think it’s possible to make some programs appealing to burglars not to break into other peoples homes and after a while “every criminal got it” and significantly reduce burglaries?
No, that’s futile.
We use locks and alarm systems. And we give potential victims information how to protect themselves.
And of course we punish the burglars if we catch them. We try to change their behavior.
But I don’t know of any PSAs against burglaries.
We do exactly the same thing with rape, but there you suddenly all start complaining.
Zing! Snap!
The smartest kid in fourth grade sure got me there. No, you’re the elusive yeti!, etc.
Marc, I’m honestly concerned. And a little bored. You started out somewhat strong, what with the bizarre evopsych theories and you wrapping yourself in knots to defend them, and now you’re just picking on women’s appearances and chuckling to yourself about computer languages. Ho hum.
Raise your game, clown shoe!
“We try to change their behavior.”
You really don’t know anything about the CJ system, do you?
Heterosexual women who want to have sex with men might find that lifestyle less than appealing, and it was never more than a minority movement within feminism. But it exists, and your ignorance of it proves..you are ignorant.
I’m not ignorant, even David has posted something about lesbian separatism, just because I don’t mention it, it doesn’t mean that I don’t know it.
Are not nearly all women bisexual, how many kinsey-0 straight women do exist at all?
It’s just so….bizarre…when you trolls sneer “well if you don’t like X, why don’t you do Y,” when in fact Y has occurred for decades if not more, and you all didn’t even know about it.
Sorry, but that’s ridiculous, of course I know all that, and because it existed already to some extent it’s further proof that my suggestions are not “utopian” or “crazy”, I just say: this is the way to go, we have to push further in this direction. Separate colleges for males and females.
It’s misandry, as has been pointed out in the past; men aren’t capable of being decent human beings, no sense in trying to get them to change their minds
At the end of the day, I don’t care if anything is misandry (or misogyny)… if it only is the truth! To this day we don’t know what the rapists drives. But if it’s just a chemical, how can you change the mind of such a person?
Czech sex offender Ludek Jirak said in an interview with The Sun:
“I had constant dreams about abusing little boys and girls. I asked to be castrated in March this year and the dreams stopped.”
How could you change the behavior of such a person?
, better make the women protect themselves.
It’s not clear that if guys don’t wear t-shirts with rape jokes (I’ve never in my whole life seen such a thing, but ok) anymore and if “rape apologists” keep their mouth shut, we will have that much less rapes. People like Ludek Jirak would still be raping.
But it’s pretty clear that my approach would work, not perfectly, but it would be a start.
Marc, I’m honestly concerned. And a little bored. You started out somewhat strong, what with the bizarre evopsych theories and you wrapping yourself in knots to defend them
I’m fighting against superior numbers, sometimes I just have to relax.
There are so much things that I could say about the evo-psych theory (which I still think is totally true and not bizarre) like:
1. If unwanted pregnancy or the risk of STDs is the reason rape is punished that bad, why is sexual molestation still punished pretty harsh?
2. And to the person, that said “sometimes rapists get suspended sentences”… yes, haha, what “rapes” were those rapes? A man trying to have sex with his sleeping girlfriend or something like that. Or statuatory rapes.
But we will discuss all that in the forum!
You really don’t know anything about the CJ system, do you?
Then you will enlighten me?
Oh, also: People like Ludek Jirak would still be raping no matter whether college campuses were coed, single-sex, or wiped off the face of the earth entirely. The goal is not making guys not wear t-shirts with rape jokes and making rape apologists keep their mouths shut. The goal is that all people see their sexual partners and desired sexual partners as people, that all people respect others’ bodily autonomy, and that people learn to talk about consent. If those things were different, guys wouldn’t want to wear t-shirts with rape jokes, and rape apologists … well, they wouldn’t be rape apologists. You’re arguing against changing the effect; I agree that that would be a cosmetic change at best. We have to address the cause — and the cause isn’t that men and women go to school together.
“Then you will enlighten me?”
Well, quickly, in the US prison system, little meaningful work is done to make positive changes in inmates lives, and what is done is almost immediately undone by prison life itself, or by attitudes and prejudices held by people outside of prisons. At least, this is my opinion, based on what I’ve seen and experienced as a volunteer in prisons. That’s not to say that no helpful groups — or groups that want to help — work inside prisons. It’s just that reformation is not the primary job of the prison system. Locking criminals up and keeping them from harming the public at large (and the guards) is.
And it’s not entirely the fault of the system. It’s a huge system, with a lot of different people who have a lot of different needs. They can set up some programs — addiction programs that inmates go through right before they’re released, or GRE/ESL/associate’s degree classes. Sometimes those are held out as privileges, so that someone who could really benefit from art therapy won’t, because of a disciplinary problem. Most of the programs on offer are run by unpaid volunteers without a lot of experience, who are constricted by hundreds of regulations and a limited budget. It’s just not set up to work as rehab for every prisoner who goes through it. To the guys who accomplish any kind of inner peace or advance to a higher state inside — my congratulations. It’s not like no one does it, but it’s not fucking easy, especially considering what there is to work with.
tl;dr We don’t lock criminals up to help them change; we lock them up to get them away from us. (I’d like to help change that, but that’s a whole nother post.)
Who’s the more “obviously here to troll” troll? xD Marc or Arks? xD
Bee, he doesn’t actually believe in nething he says (not rly neways xD ) he just wants to get ppl upset >_>
Marc, if you do show up to the forum, I’m actually a mod there and there are different rules also… xD you can’t derail or be dishonest… or turn discussions into something they’re not, etc :]
w00t xD we’re at 1540!
I suspect there’s a PA concern trolling “what are you talking about i don’t do that” coming xD
Is this the longest thread so far?
Seriously why don’t we get to 2000
*takes out troll food*
Here trolly trolly
Every time I participate in debate, I worry that I might sound like Marc.
Christ, I hope I don’t.
@Ami Angelwings…”Marc, if you do show up to the forum, I’m actually a mod there and there are different rules also… xD you can’t derail or be dishonest… or turn discussions into something they’re not, etc :]”
Many, many years ago when men held the reigns of power they knew their duty. Holding all the power meant they held the disenfranchised above themselves, (the captain went down with the ship, the general led his men into battle). They were respected because they earned respect. They showed no favoritism. Dishonesty was exposed reguardless of personal bias. Historical men of note are honored because they were honorable, fair and impartial.
This thread exploded!
All right, time for personal anecdotes.
I was at a coffee shop once – two years or so ago – right after my therapy session, and I got a nice big cup of hot chocolate. I went to sit down and there was a man at a table nearby who was just getting ready to leave. He was much older than me, and I probably wouldn’t have dated him in a million years. Well, he engaged in small talk with me, just as he was leaving which ended with him telling me that I was “drop-dead gorgeous.” Well, amazingly enough, even though I would never have dated this guy and even though I had just come out of therapy for a sexual assault, he was not creepy! Why? He was genuinely pleasant, on his way out (so I clearly wasn’t trapped in any way), and it was in an open public space. So I smiled and said a cheery, “Well, thank you very much!”
Fast forward to today. I was standing outside a Tim Hortons, iced cap in hand, doing sudoku as I was waiting for a call on my cellphone. A group of young men came by, about my age group, and locked their bikes up near me. They walked away a bit, but then turned to stare at me and talk with one another about approaching me. That was very creepy. Even though they were reasonably good-looking, even though they were in my age group. Why? I was standing against a wall and thus didn’t have much of an exit, there was a group of them and thus I could easily be overpowered, and they were staring at me and talking about me. My heart was pounding in my chest. They seemed to decide against it and walked away, and I actually let out a sigh of relief. (In case Mr. Slave would like to comment on what he assumes I might have been wearing, I was actually in work clothes, i.e. a large, paint-splattered T-shirt and knee-length shorts.)
Seriously, how a man approaches a woman makes all the difference. When I approach people I don’t know (rare unless I need information or something), I always try to be considerate. I would like it if more men were considerate with me.
“Historical men of note are honored because they were honorable, fair and impartial.”
Which would explain why people like you attract no honor whatsoever.
Very well Alex, I will comment. You said, “My heart was pounding in my chest.” Yet nothing happened, you were never in any danger. Your anxiety was for naught. Your “feelings” had no basis in reality. Your indoctrination to “fear” men was an illusion. What you should be doing right now instead of posting about a feeling of fear, is laughing at yourself for being so foolish as to believe there was any danger. Right now you should be saying, “holy shit, the slave was right.”
Please don’t say, “I could’ve been in danger,” or “some stat says x amount of assaults happen.” I could be run over by a car, I could win the lotto, my house could burn down. None of that happened. Break the cycle of misandry.
By the way, Tim Hortons rocks.