Here, found on Men’s Rights Reddit, is a “demotivational” poster that illustrates just why Rebecca Watson’s comments about that now-famous elevator incident, and the ensuing discussions that erupted amongst feminists online (and here, in our longest thread ever), were actually, you know, necessary: whoever made this evidently thinks that the very notion that a RAPIST would ask someone out for coffee first is so inherently and self-evidently hilarious that you don’t even have to explain why it’s so hilarious.
Never mind that, er, rapists often DO invite their future victims out for coffee, to the movies, out for a kebab, etc, etc first. Never mind that if some hypothetical woman had accepted a 4 AM “coffee in my room” invite and been raped, many of the very same guys now ranting about how she’s calling all men rapists would be blaming her for being a “slut” who “was asking for it” by agreeing to said “coffee” date.
(And I’ll just note that Watson did not in fact accuse her admirer in the elevator of being a rapist or even a creep; she simply mentioned that propositioning someone in an elevator at 4 AM is a creepy thing to do.)
And yes, that is Richard Dawkins in the picture. I’m not sure why someone who presumably agrees with what Dawkins said about the case would want to feature him in a poster next to the word “rapists,” but what do I know? In any case, Dawkins is now being hailed as a hero by more than a few of the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit — not for his scientific work, or his science writings, or even his atheist activism, but for his douchebaggery towards Watson. The Flying Spaghetti Monster works in mysterious ways, I guess.
Speaking of which — the mysterious ways thing, I mean — can anyone explain the logic behind this comment to me?
Specifically, could you explain the bit about “smack[ing] the shit out of” feminists who’ve stood up for Rebecca Watson? It seems to me that if you’re trying to make the point that Watson and her supporters are reacting hysterically to an innocent invitation to coffee, and that women have no reason to be fearful or concerned or even just mildly creeped out by men propositioning them in elevators at 4 am, it does not exactly help your case to talk about doing physical harm to feminists (or children, for that matter). Doesn’t that suggest, rather, that women should be concerned about strange men in elevators — because of the off chance that one of these strange men could turn out to be, you know, the sort of dude who posts shit like that on the internet?
So Richard Dawkins is at an atheist convention, where he’s on a panel about how activists can encourage more people to join the community. He argues that atheists may chase away new recruits by acting inappropriately and getting into people’s personal space, adding that he doesn’t like it when people he doesn’t know act overly familiar with him. Some of his fellow panelists disagree, but Dawkins feels like he makes some good points. Afterwards, he holds court in the hotel bar for hours, expounding on the same subject.
At four in the morning, Dawkins announces that he’s tired and wants to go to bed. A man follows him out of the bar. Dawkins vaguely recalls that the man was watching his group at the bar and may have been at the panel before that. The man follows Dawkins down the hall and into an elevator. As the elevator door closes, the man steps up as close as he can get. It suddenly occurs to Dawkins that he’s alone at night in a city he doesn’t know very well. The man probably isn’t dangerous, but it wouldn’t be the first time a prominent atheist was targeted for attack.
The guy says, “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?”
Depending on the guy’s size, build, and demeanor, Dawkins may be frightened, or he may just be annoyed. Didn’t he spend the past six hours explaining that he doesn’t like this type of behavior? Either way, there’s no way in hell he’s going to this man’s hotel room. He excuses himself and hurries to his own room.
The next morning, it occurs to Dawkins that the incident could be a teachable moment. It’s a perfect illustration of exactly the off-putting behavior he complained about at the panel. Reporting on the convention, he devotes a brief paragraph to the elevator incident, without including any identifying details, and advises his readers not to act creepy toward strangers.
The atheist community erupts in rage. How dare Dawkins hurt that poor anonymous man’s feelings by calling him creepy? Where does he get off telling someone how to act around people? And how paranoid is he, thinking everyone who gets in an elevator with him is going to attack him? Why, he all but called the guy a murderer and demanded that he be thrown in prison, just for offering Dawkins a cup of coffee! What was Dawkins doing in an elevator at four in the morning, anyway? And hey, why couldn’t he go back to the guy’s hotel room? Didn’t he consider how much his rejection would sting? He probably would’ve done it if the guy had been good-looking enough, which proves that Richard Dawkins hates ugly people!
And for the love of nothingness, why does he think he has the right to complain when there are Islamic countries where people have no hotel bars at all?
It just proves that atheists are a bunch of stupid, hysterical misanthropes who want to have you thrown in prison for drinking coffee. He used the word “creepy,” after all. The nerve!
I bet Mr. T wouldn’t complain if the doo came from a really handsome dog.
So true shaenon, so true. *nods sagely*
Shaenon
Very well thought out and I will also tag in the say so true.
I’d also like to point out, re “I remain convinced”: so what if a hot guy could get away with creepy behavior?
That would simply show that some people have unfair advantages that allow them to bend social norms. Big. Fucking. Whoop. It doesn’t mean that everyone holding those social norms or even promulgating them is a hypocrite: some flexibility is implicit.
Consider, for example, a restaurant a no free refills policy. Could someone attractive, or young, or vulnerable-looking, or old, or whatever tugs on the waitstaff’s heartstrings get around that policy? Sure. That doesn’t make the policy somehow dishonest. If a waiter gets on their vlog and says “hey guys, don’t ask for free refills if we’ve got the sign up. seriously. It’s annoying.” then that waiter is a fine person making a reasonable point, EVEN if they themselves have stretched the policy in the past.
So: suppose that it is true that if EG had been stunningly handsome, or obviously comically-well-endowed, or if he’d propositioned Rebecca by reference to a fetish that she’d never admitted to anyone before (Coffee at night? Take me now!). Even in this strange nega-world, Watson’s response to EG is thoughtful, accurate, honest and reasonable.
Can I just say that Dawkins totally looks like a rapist? Or some kind of malevolent alien entity. His eyes are a weird color.
As I am reading through the comments left by Dawkins defenders (mainly Ion’s) all that’s running through my head is a particular quote.
On YouTube there is a series called ‘The Joker Blogs’ that tells the story of the Joker in Arkham Asylum after the ending of ‘The Dark Knight.’ At one point the Joker says, “You have lovely eyes! I’d like to pop them out of your skull and wear them on a keychain. … It’s a compliment.” This quote basically illustrates everything I think about the EG incident. Just because someone says, “It’s a compliment” or “Don’t take this the wrong way” doesn’t entitle you to say/do whatever you like. It also doesn’t mean that whatever you say/do won’t set off alarm bells in someone’s head. I guess it just breaks the brains of these guys that women have *gasp!* thoughts! And *doublegasp!* propositioning someone doesn’t entitle you to sex/coffee/conversation!
And on another note, Ion will be going on my “List of Creepy Individuals I Hope Never to Meet Ever.” Seriously Ion you’re coming off pretty creepy yourself in your comments here.
@katz
Maybe he’s wearing yellow colored lenses to look more creepy. Watson should use them, too. I bet if she stares with creepy yellow eyes at a dude he suddenly loses all interest in”coffee”.
@clio
I agree. Offering to poke someones eyes out and offering a cup of coffee is roughly the same.
Serious suggestion: You angry feminists could agree on some kind of identification, for example a funny hat or purple trousers or something. So every (privilege denying, white) dude could easily distinguish and avoid you. Win win!
Thomas: You miss the point. It’s not the eye-gouging, it’s the idea that some magical phrase (e. g. No offense, I mean this in the best way, etc.) will somehow make a creepy thing not creepy.
I’m amused that you think someone saying that = angry, but telling someone they ought not be bothered by something which happens to them personally, because somewhere someone else is being tortured, that’s just a reasonable response to unwarranted provocation.
@Thomas: I realize that popping someone’s eyes out of their head does not equal offering coffee. It was what was honestly going through my head and I thought it was kind of funny. I’m also kind of exhausted so I realize that my explanation came out very incoherent. Sorry for that incoherency.
On another note if reading comments by “angry feminists” bothers you so much. Perhaps you should avoid this site. That way we could avoid each other! Win, win!
@Precunium: Thanks for explaining that. I’m glad I made some kind of sense lol
“whoever made this evidently thinks that the very notion that a RAPIST would ask someone out for coffee first is so inherently and self-evidently hilarious that you don’t even have to explain why it’s so hilarious.”
And whoever made this blog evidently thinks that the very notion that a RAPIST would make a profem blog with the intent of sucking up to feminists and later inviting them to in-person get togethers to get it on with them is so inherently and self-evidently hilarious that you don’t even have to explain why it’s so hilarious.
Well, I guess you’ve foiled my plans.
@Percunium, Clio
I did understand Clio’s point, but I have a hard time to comment on this thread in a non-sarcastic way. No offense, but I can be an asshole sometimes 😉 .
Ok, serious now:
It’s obvious that you can’t make a clearly creepy or rude remark acceptable due to adding some kind of disclaimer. But creepiness or rudeness work on a spectrum. A remark can be from slightly creepy to extremely creepy. Also, creepiness is perceived differently. In the case of EG some atheistic women claimed such an offer would be acceptable for them. So this is not a case of clear cut creepiness like telling a women “ I can smell your cunt”, to cite the uber-creepy cellmate of Hannibal Lector.
In the gray area of what’s socially acceptable, saying something like “I don’t want to be rude, but…”, “Don’t takes this the wrong way, but…”, actually shows good social skills. It shows that the speaker is aware of the social rule he’s about to bend. It’s less awkward if he points it out.
The part about angry feminist wasn’t directed specifically at Clio. I’m just a little surprised at the overall reaction from the feminist blogosphere to the elevator gate. It’s a bit like Chinese whispers, every time someone retells the story it gets altered and EG looks worse and worse. For example in Marcottes version EG corners Watson and there is a whiff you threat in the air and Marcotte implies that EG implies that he might rape Watson if she says no. On another site an elderly professor and popular blogger, who’s married forever, gives pick-up advice for Atheist Conferences. I mean, seriously?
@Percunium
I remember the lengthy discussions with Men Rights Lieutenant on this blog. A lot of people told him that his problems are minor compared to real hardship. That’s essentially the same argument Dawkins made. And yes you can always argue that way, because someone else always has it worse. Still, I think it has some merit to put things in perspective once in a while. That’s what Dawkins did, though in a very sarcastic way.
Am I on moderation now because I suggested that angry feminists should wear funny hats?
Cmon David, the batshit crazy trolls get away with much more here. Isn’t there a law that all trolls must be treated equal. After all this is a feminist blog.
Sorry, I realized it’s probably because I used a vulgar term for the female genitalia. In my defense I cited a movie.
Thomas, yeah, I filter comments with the c-word (and a few other nasty epithets), to keep people from using it to attack other people. In a movie quote, it’s fine, and your comment is up now.
@Thomas I think the difference is that MRAL said that his problems were some of the worst ever and said they were worse than all sorts of other things and situations (incl downplaying assault victims) that is why Pecunium and others responded. xD Watson did not. (also the retelling of what she said has been rly broken telephone w/ her critics to, to be fair xD and also that the feminist blogosphere was reacting to the reaction to her, and as I said, I think everybody is overreacting since she didn’t do nething but turn him down then say that the situation was creepy and gave advice xD )
‘
Hey, if that’s his aim, why are so angry? Shouldn’t you be cheering us on?
Hey, ladies. Did you know that all this time your bloghost was just tryin’ to rape you? What a a cunning plan!!!
It sounds like you’re afraid of us. Are you afraid of us? I’m not afraid of you. So this is unnecessary. It’s also unnecessary because the vast majority of men I encounter are pretty lovely people and not hateful, needle-dicked, insecure, petty, childish dumbfucks like you.
Misandrist! Assuming all men are potential rapists!
Oh, don’t you fucking it HATE it when you’re hoisted on your petard?
Thomas: In Germany the “j” is also pronounced as a “y”, so it’d sound like Yo-hanna. lol
And ladies I think it’s time to come clean here. The incident in the elevator is no coincidence. Us women are only seeking the finest of mates so that we have perfect offspring and thus perfecting the human race for future generations. In fact, we plot to eradicate the seed of guys like creepy elevator dude because we can’t risk impurities in our species. There’s no point pretending anymore. Ion was right all along.
=D
The part about angry feminist wasn’t directed specifically at Clio. I’m just a little surprised at the overall reaction from the feminist blogosphere to the elevator gate. It’s a bit like Chinese whispers, every time someone retells the story it gets altered and EG looks worse and worse. For example in Marcottes version EG corners Watson and there is a whiff you threat in the air and Marcotte implies that EG implies that he might rape Watson if she says no.
Thank you. It wasn’t even Watson’s own post as much as the hysterical reaction from the fems and their male lapdogs that annoyed me. And BTW, I love how people here are starting to call me creepy and ‘rapey’. Because personal attacks are such an effective form of argumentation. It’s all part of the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us! we think this guy is a rapist, and if you disagree, YOU must be a rapist!” feminist mentality.
We only question your mentality Ion.
And whoever made this blog evidently thinks that the very notion that a RAPIST would make a profem blog with the intent of sucking up to feminists and later inviting them to in-person get togethers to get it on with them is so inherently and self-evidently hilarious that you don’t even have to explain why it’s so hilarious.
Indeed.