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?
Has anyone wondered what would have been Watson’s feeling if it was a woman asking her back for coffee? If that has been asked already disregard this. I was too lazy to read all the comments.
That’s an interesting question. Since women are, by definition, perfect, who would be wrong? Probably the male who designed the elevator. 😛
Hey, Ion, the “perfect princess” bit belongs to NWOslave. Don’t go stealing it!
@vacuumslayer
I wouldn’t say afraid but this big, pink bunny ears are kind of intimidating. On a second thought, you and me in an elevator, yes I would be afraid. On a third thought, pink bunny ears are a great idea for an identification for angry feminists. Though, Hugh Hefner might sue you, which is actually hilarious. Angry feminists vs. Hugh Hefner, most awesome law suite ever.
@Joanna
Yes. Johanna sounds like “Yo! Hanna, what’s up?” (without the “what’s up” obviously but it adds to the context). If you ever become a rapper you should call yourself “Yo! Hanna” written in a speech bubble.
@Ami
I think I agree. I’m still unsure if it’s always wrong to argue like Dawkins did (don’t you have bigger things to worry about, others have it worse). Admittedly, his tone was shitty and I believe sarcasm is generally a bad form of communication, because it pisses people off, even worse on the internet. Though, I’m often guilty of using sarcasm myself. Anyway, I believe arguments like that are sometimes valid, especially if they are targeted at someone with a very self-centered perspective. On the other hand I don’t like the idea of building a hierarchy of victimization or trauma or pain. It also doesn’t make much sense, because this is highly personal and experiences one person might shrug off without a second thought might deeply bother another person.
I also agree with your second part. This whole story is driven through a lot of miss-communication. Watson’s initial remark on the video was fine. I personally think the elevator anecdote is not very helpful in terms of what she’s trying to accomplish. As far as I understand, she wants to make the atheist movement more welcoming for women. This is an old problem many male dominated spaces had and still have to face. Anyway, she was annoyed about EG and called him out. What almost always happens if you tell an anecdote rather vaguely is that people will fill the gaps in their heads. Now, the discussion about EG (sinister creep vs. socially awkward, good guy) overshadows her actual point about sexism and a women friendly atheist movement. Then MRAs jump in the discussion, feminists strike back, Dawkins adds fuel to the fire, white knights come to rescue the damsel, etc. Maybe the whole story was even helpful for Watson’s career, kind of a happy ending 😉
Annoyance at the semi-stranger asking her to take stimulants at 4 in the morning when she wanted to sleep, I imagine. Further annoyance that this person waited all night and followed her into an elevator to hit on her when she’s been in the bar (i.e. a more appropriate place to approach someone) all night, so now neither of them can exit the situation gracefully if she says no.
Probably a bit of concern, since following someone into an elevator at 4 a.m. to ask them back to your room is just plain creepy behavior, but probably less so than with a man, since there’s a lot less precedent for lesbians physically attacking women who reject them than there is for heterosexual men (though I’m sure there’s some – people can be evil).
Did you really think the answer would be different?
Has anyone wondered what would have been Watson’s feeling if it was a woman asking her back for coffee?
I’m imagining an awesomely sexy catfight, complete with hair pulling and clothes tearing. Sadly, if it happened in an elevator we would be denied such a spectacle. Further proof that an elevator is a poor venue for such an invitation.
Dave, were you planning on raping all of us, or only those in the Chicago area?
Did you really think the answer would be different?(Seraph)
Actually, I question if there ever would have been a blog post about that. Somehow I dont think she would have been “Creeped out” by someone of her own gender.
Feeling that a stranger has boundary issues is not gender specific. I have fairly distinctive hair and a lot of women will stop me to give me compliments about it and/ or ask me what kind of products I use. If I’m not in a hurry, I don’t really mind. Some of them want to touch it. That’s weird as fuck; especially if they don’t ask first.
So, you’re speculation is wrong.
But since the avenue is open: how would you feel about being in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man who asks you back to his room for coffee?
Your speculation. Not “you’re.” Stupid iPhone.
captainbathrone: How dare you objectify women, you misogynist pig! I’m sure that if they decided to have a hair-pulling, clothes-ripping catfight ending in a sweaty, passionate makeout session, they’d do it for themselves! Not to be objectified by the male gaze, but as strong individuals who own their bodies and their sexuality! It’d be empowering, I say!
Thanks for admitting it.
BTW, kudos for not coming across as nearly as deranged as your counterparts here. The humorous shtick–while I think it’s meant to disguise and/or provoke anger–is still more pleasant to read than the usual MRA verbal stew of vomit and diarrhea. Here’s a tip, though: if you want to do the “hey, I’m just a funny guy teasin’ you uptight feminists thing,” try not to refer to us as monolith of “angry young feminists.” First of all, not everyone here qualifies as young, second of all it kind of belies the whole casual “i’m just playin’ devil’s advocate” thing.
You know, finding a woman attractive, sexy even, and wanting to get to know her better is not objectification. Fantasizing about a woman is not objectification. Trying to figure out a way to talk to/ask out/ have sex with a woman you find attractive is not objectification.
Forgetting, and especially not giving a shit, that the woman in question is entitled to her own feelings and opinions about you, your intentions, and your approach? That’s objectification.
@Nobinayamu: Well said. I also share your hair related experiences. I get girls that are like “I just spent an hour ironing my hair straight but I wish it could be curly like yours.” And then I get hit on instead of them and they’re like “Pfft! Poodle haired freak.” God I hate gender politics.
Let me fix that for you, CSI Miami-style:
Forgetting, and especially not giving a shit, that the woman in question is entitled to her own feelings and opinions about you, your intentions, and your approach?
*puts on sunglasses*
That’s objectification.
YEEEAAAHHHH
@Thomas: Haha! I’ll certainly consider it XD
David, will we be getting coffee before raping? Or at least a signed copy of The God Delusuion?
@vacuumslayer
I actually regret using the word “angry”. It’s think it’s too harsh and I honestly don’t want to offend anybody. Just poking a little fun on certain kinds of feminist arguments. I realize that there’s a fine line between being funny and hurtful and I try to stay on the funny side. Maybe snarky feminists would have been better. You certainly already noticed that English is not my first language, so nuances get lost in translation, easily.
Regarding the age thing, I know that. In fact, I already made friends with Ithiliana . She said she’s an older woman (of course, I wouldn’t call a woman older unless she’s like 70). We both love Viggo Mortensen and she calls me honey, which is a bit patronizing, but whatever.
Last but not least I have a tip, too: The small penis insult really gets old. I heard that one too many times 😉 Though, the word needle-dick is creative. I suppose it’s the superlative of pencil-dick?
I can’t speak for her, of course, but I certainly would be.
Besides, wasn’t she there at least partly for the purpose of explaining how more women could be brought into the atheist movement? But she gives an answer they don’t like (“Don’t hit on us at 4 in the morning when we’re trapped in an elevator with you, m’kay?”), and this shitstorm begins.
Oh dear, Ion. If you don’t want to be seen as “creepy” or “rapey” then demonstrating that you understand the difference between…
1) Meeting someone you like in a public place and at some point “getting it on” (assuming that both parties are good with this), and
2) Raping an unconscious woman after gaining her trust by pretending to be a feminist
…would be a crucial first step
Wait, what? have we reached the ‘making things up about me out of thin air’ stage already?
edit: Oh, you mean the link I posted. I just thought it was funny, in response to EWMA’s comment, to point to an article detailing the wacky adventures of another self-styled ‘male feminist’ blogger. To which you predictably responded with “Oh BUT it’s not really the same because blah blah blah I’m boring”. Let me guess, when somebody makes a joke about a talking muffin, you’re the type who has to explain for 20 minutes that it’s not actually funny because muffins don’t talk, lacking vocal apparatus and so on and so forth, right?
Muffins aren’t all that funny, but they’re a lot more funny than rape.
*facepalm*