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?
Thomas-I think it was Dawkins’ original comment that caused the blogsphere to go coo coo for coco puffs.
There was no reason for him to say “oh because there are bad things happening in the world you should not give out dating advice to Elevator Guys.”
Ion
This one is for you man. 😉
Tit for Tat, how would you feel about a strange man asking you if you’d like to come back to his hotel room, in an elevator, at 4 o’clock in the morning?
What about asking to touch your hair?
Nobi
Depends on how cute he is. 😉
Ion, are you actually interested in meeting women? I notice in your CSI-style re-mix of my comment you didn’t have any real objections to what I wrote.
Are you? Interested in meeting women and pursuing them romantically?
I’ve asked before, please don’t shorten my name. I don’t shorten yours.
And, hey, you’re the person who speculated about gender being the determining factor in Rebecca Watson’s description and analysis of the encounter. You put it out there and I pointed out that feeling that a stranger has boundary issues is hardly gender specific.
So, what happens if the guy is cute?
So, what happens if the guy is cute?
Hey, Im not asking you about your sex life…….Sooooooo
You know what’s irritating about your Tit for Tat? I mean, aside from your passive aggressive, faux avuncularity that barely covers your kinda nasty streak, and your dishonest concern trolling?
You display, time and time again, one of the three tenets of what I like to call “The Asshole Trifecta.” You aren’t funny but you think you’re hilarious. Now, this is only one out of three possible tenets. You may not, in fact, be an asshole. But the fact that you are so unbelievably corny, with such turgid ideas about humor -like that pathetic double entendre about you and your wife switching positions- while insisting that everyone else just doesn’t have a sense of humor… I’m guessing that you display the other two as well.
How would you feel about a strange man, in an elevator, asking you back to his hotel room at 4 o’clock in the morning, if he was cute?
Ok Nobinayamu
Answer me this and I will answer your question.
Did you think the video was humorous?
Ion, are you actually interested in meeting women? I notice in your CSI-style re-mix of my comment you didn’t have any real objections to what I wrote.
Are you? Interested in meeting women and pursuing them romantically?
I am, though now I’m aware of the possibility that no matter how politely I try to make my interest known to a woman I’ll be publically labeled a creep.
T4T: For what it’s worth, I think you’re pretty funny. Claiming that nothing you say is funny or worthwhile while at the same time pretending to laugh their asses off at every lame, corny or just stupid line spouted by one from their own camp is a feminist trait I am quite well acquainted with, not only from this blog.
Ion
Thanks, I will sleep better tonight knowing someone loves me. Even if you are a misogynistic MRA. 😉
So did you think the vid was funny? I thought the Kids in the Hall guys were freaking hilarious
Tit for Tat, this is not one of my preferred Kids in The Hall skits. I loved the sketch show, own Brain Candy on DVD, and thought Foley was hilarious on News Radio.
This bit? Didn’t really have a lot of layers and was kind of one note. It also didn’t really go balls to the wall, and lacked the kind surreality that a lot of their other stuff had. I still laugh to the point of tears at the “crushing your head,” sketch. And, yeah, I were dresses so I don’t think that “dude in a dress” is the height of hilarity.
So, now: strange man in an elevator asks you back to his hotel room at 4 o’clock in the morning. How do you feel?
It was, actually. Pretty catchy too. 🙂
Nobinayamu
I would have told the man that I was tired and going to bed. If he persisted I would have said I am not generally into guys. If he continued, well, something else might have happened. If it was a woman and I was single I may have been energized for a cup of coffee if I found her attractive, afterall you know us men, we always want sex with a good looking woman.
@Elizabeth
Lol. That’s entirely possible. I like to picture Dawkins as a catalyst, he lowered the activation energy and the blogosphere goes booom. I guess as a biologist he would prefer to be an enzyme, but enzymatic reactions don’t make booom!
Yeah, Ion, I didn’t ask you what you would have done. I asked you how you would have felt. Rebecca Watson said “no thank you” and indicated, after the fact, that the encounter was a little creepy to her.
I asked you how you’d feel? For example, would you be flattered?
Sorry, that was meant for Tit for Tat. The unfunny guy.
Nobinayamu
Well you need to flip the scenario. Afterall, wouldnt it be a woman asking me? If so, then I would probably be somewhat flattered and baffled considering Im not the best looking guy out there. Also, creepy is not a word I would use. I may have said fucking weird and obviously that has a very different context.
By the way, you dont need to keep insulting me, I may be slow ,but I am aware you dont like my humour.
So now we’re speculating even more on this whole situation xD If it’d been a girl, she’d have done X! It’s bad enuf we have ppl who think she thought he was a rapist, and ppl who think that he was thinking “assault” on his mind… how about we speculate if Watson was a guy? o_O Or if elevator guy was a trans man? Or if Watson was a trans woman? o_o
There’s an entire cottage industry that can be created out of speculating about EG and Skepchick! xD
Hrm… other suggestions? :3
What if… Watson were an decepticon and EG was a autobot? 😀 Then it’d be awesome! Or if Watson were actually Baroness and EG was one of the GI Joes!
Tit for Tat, you speculated -one thread page ago- that Watson’s reaction may have been entirely different if a woman had asked her back to her hotel room at 4 in the morning for coffee. It was completely baseless speculation and I and other posters provided examples and reasons why boundary issues are not gender specific.
You asserted that gender was a likely factor. I asked you to back that up by telling us how you’d feel, in the same situation as Watson, if it were another man.
I don’t need to flip the scenario. I’m directly addressing your assertion about gender.
As for “creepy,” vs. “weird”… you can’t be serious. What’s the substantive difference between the two?
And I don’t think you’re slow. I just think you’re not funny.
Weird means strange to me or unusual. ‘Creepy’ has a dangerous component to it. Like creeping into my room. Night prowler kind of idea. BIG difference.
Thomas: No offense, but I see you are proud of being a dishonest person.
Ok, less serious now.
You don’t get to define creepy for other people. It doesn’t matter if Mother Teresa would have thought it not creepy; that doesn’t change that for Rebecca Watson, it was.
And people get to talk about what creeps them out.
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.
That’s an acceptable out, if you know the person and have some social credit to spend in making a comment that might be taken the wrong way.
That Marcotte, and Meyers, see the lessons to be learned differently is perfectly normal. People are the sum of their experience.
I remember those conversations with MRAL too. The difference was this: he was saying his hardships were worse than other peoples.
Watson didn’t do that. She didn’t even say it was horrid, just creepy. Moderately offensive.
That’s where Dawkins went off the rails. He brouhgt the issue of relevant hardship intot the equation.
Seriously?
Main Entry: weird
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: odd, bizarre
Synonyms: awe-inspiring, awful, creepy*, curious, dreadful, eccentric, eerie*, far-out, fearful, flaky*, freaky, funky*, ghastly, ghostly, grotesque, haunting, horrific, inscrutable, kinky*, kooky, magical, mysterious, occult, oddball, ominous, outlandish, peculiar, preternatural, queer, secret, singular, spooky*, strange, supernal, supernatural, uncanny, uncouth, unearthly, unnatural
Creepy has a slightly different connotation. Slightly. But it’s fascinating how finely you’re willing to parse this in order to keep from admitting that you pulled the whole (and I’m paraphrasing) “Watson wouldn’t have felt this way if it had been another woman”-thing out of your ass.
She wouldnt have. You know it and I know it. The post would NOT have been written had it been a woman. Of that I am sure. I dont know if she was scared or freaked out but obviously she did not like his advances. I have no problem with her account. My initial remark was only about how I believe that if the gender of the person was the same we wouldnt even be talking about this shit.
titfortat: You asked a question*: “What if it had been a woman”.
Nobinayamu posed the same question to you, “What if someone of the same sex asked you?”.
You dodged. Your dodge, however, is actually quite revealing. You imply that were he to be pushy, you would have attacked him.
So we can see that were it a guy, you’d have been at least a little bothered. So we see that you interpret the interests of men as being different to the interests of women.
*and all of us knew your answer in advance, and your probable reaction to anyone who didn’t give one in a similar vein