Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery evil women misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men penises rape rapey reactionary bullshit we hunted the mammoth

A man and an old lady get in an elevator

Those "sweet" old ladies are anything but.

Another elevator joke for you all:

So Pierce Harlan of the False Rape Society blog gets into an elevator ….

Well, OK, not a joke. In his latest post, Harlan offers a reaction, of sorts, to the whole atheist elevator incident –- by relating an anecdote of a recent elevator experience of his own.

EDITED TO ADD: Harlan has now deleted the post in question. It can still be seen, at least for now, in Google’s cache of the original page, which you can find here. Grab screenshots! Back to the story:

Seems he was riding a hotel elevator with a sweet old lady. Neither one said anything to the other (Harlan apparently hates talking to sweet old ladies) but when he got off the elevator – well, let’s let him explain:

I glanced back at her and saw that … she was immobilized with fear. In fact, she was practically cowering in the corner. Her eyes couldn’t have been wider if I had whipped out my dick and lathered it up with Grey Poupon.  Hers was the face of utter, unbridled fear, and she was watching me like the scardest of scared deer. She said not a word but her demeanor practically pleaded, “Please don’t rape me, sir!”

Now, Harlan seems to have what you might call a taste for overstatement. He describes feminists as “screeching banshees” and “extremist loons allied with the sexual grievance industry.” I doubt he could describe a chicken-salad sandwich without resorting to angry hyperbole. (That was a little bit of overstatement on my part.) But let’s just assume that there is at least a kernel of truth here: this woman was creeped out by Harlan.

So what was Harlan’s response to this woman’s obvious discomfort?

 [N]o one has more empathy for his fellow human beings than I do. The first thought that came to my mind in response to the obvious fear on the face of this pathetic, sweet looking, older woman — who probably never hurt anyone in her entire life — was fuck you!

Obviously we are supposed to ask just what it was that drove Harlan – the self-described world’s most empathetic man – to say something so seemingly callous? Well, as is usually the case with those we write about here, it all comes back to man-hating ladies and their male allies, with their evil insistence on sexual assault education (sorry, “indoctrination”) and their callous demands to “’take back the night,’ although the night has always been theirs.”(I don’t quite know what that means, but it sure sounds selfish of these women to want a whole extra night just for themselves.)

Ours is, Harlan says, “a culture marked by crass, hysterical fear-mongering about male sexual predation and violence.” (Evidently some guys haven’t gotten the memo on this.)

But all this evil misandry seems to have left poor Mr. Harlan in an uncharitable mood towards, well, almost everyone — though he directs his worst opprobrium at sweet old ladies.

Fuck them all. The paranoia of the woman in the elevator is her problem, not mine. Ironically, the elevator, the hotel itself, the car she rode in and the roads she rode on to get to the hotel were all undoubtedly conceived, designed, and built by men — men she’d fear just as much as me if they were standing in that elevator with her. I felt no guilt or shame or bewilderment over the fact that she fears me because of my birth class. Let her fear me. I can’t change it, and I have too much to do to worry about it.

And maybe, just maybe, it’s good that some people fear us. Maybe we should exult in the power we wield by reason of their paranoia. One thing I know: I will never do anything to alleviate their paranoia. In fact, I’m just fine with it, thank you very much. If someday, my riding the elevator causes some old woman to have a heart attack, that, too, is not my problem.  Blame it on a culture that I don’t approve of. Blame on sweet looking, older women who give in to the paranoia.

Truly the world’s most empathetic man.

Harlan goes on to talk briefly about the Rebecca Watson elevator incident. Needless to say, he adds nothing interesting to the discussion.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

434 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Awww. Harlan hasn’t come back, and Marc is playing with my quotes! Without even involving me! Unfair! *sniffle*

Seriously, Marc? You’re not even worth it . Your frivolous, persnickety word-parsing is simply tedious, and I’m not going to bother.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Oh God, please! You get something very wrong, I’m not the nitpicker here, I am the victim of constant, tedious, boring, substanceless nitpicking.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

And if someone can prove the existence of privilege… I’m still interested in that!

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

That’s terrible… maybe there’s an ointment for it.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Marc: yes, me again. Why? Because you can’t argue. Because the things you say, aren’t what you think you say.

In general doesn’t mean always. To take your hospital example. The question of the “good/bad” nature of a hospital isn’t one case. It’s the totality of cases.

As I said, in general people who play against the house in Vegas lose. Lots of people play. I can probably find several thousand a year who have a good run at the craps table, or hit a jackpot in the slots.

How many play craps, or the slots? The house, over time, always wins. In the situations where that advantage doesn’t exist, the house changes the rules (poker, where they charge a fee to play).

And this shit… “What he meant was…” No. What he said was. That’s what you have to work with. Why? Because that’s what’s there.

Anyone can play the, “What he meant was.” Here, I’ll show you.

Oh no, you again.

What you meant was something like, “shit, now I have to actually try to defend my weak ass arguments

It’s easy. Anyone can do it. And it’s not valid.

What you said was, “Oh no, you again.” I don’t know what you meant by it. All I have are ideas (based on how you went on in other threads about what you see as, “nit-picking”, given that pretty much the only person dissecting logical fallacies is me. If you want to call someone out, listen to PZ Myers and use names. Passive aggressive is for cowards. Don’t make the audience guess. You can do better than that. Stand behind your words. Be proud of them. When you want to insult someone do it so they know. Don’t shilly-shally behind deniability. It makes you look wishy-washy). To tell people what you meant, would be to lie, unless there was supporting evidence I could quote from elsewhere.

All you have to do to not get this treatment is put together well structured arguments. Spearhafoc can worry about grammar, but you have a handle on that. So you are a couple of steps above NWO on the visually difficult to read scale. A little more work and you could actually be a powerful sort of trollish figure.

But you’ll have to bring better game than this if you want to move on to the big leagues.

And I’m here to help you.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Maybe I should not have the image of that “lady” from Little Britain in my head when thinking of Mr. Harlan’s flouncing.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Maybe I should not have the image of that “lady” from Little Britain in my head when thinking of Mr. Harlan’s flouncing.

I totally want that image in my head! Where is it?

Pecunium, thank you, thank you, for doing what I lack the heart to do.

(David, I think we killed Mr. Harlan’s post, or near enough. Its skin is mounted on the wall of my messy library/office/cat box room now.)

Pecunium
9 years ago

mediumdave: I don’t really have a heart anymore not sense the Army took it out. Interrogation training makes one a bit hard-hearted, but to be an instructor you have to be ruthless.

I keep thinking of having it put back in… but it’s easier this way. Sometimes I wear it on my sleeve, but mostly I just look at it and ponder what it would be like to have it warming me from the inside again.

Then I I go back to tormenting things, and I realise there are other pleasures; which don’t need that sort of thing.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

In general doesn’t mean always. To take your hospital example. The question of the “good/bad” nature of a hospital isn’t one case. It’s the totality of cases.

Go back and read the my post again.

The hospital example had absolutely nothing to do with the general/never distinction.

The platypus example was about general/never distinction. Of course you ignore that because you don’t know what to say against that.

What you meant was something like, “shit, now I have to actually try to defend my weak ass arguments

It’s easy. Anyone can do it. And it’s not valid.

No, I don’t mean that, I just hate your boring and wrong stuff you write.

“Oh no, you again” = disappointment. Nothing less, nothing more.

What you said was, “Oh no, you again.” I don’t know what you meant by it. All I have are ideas (based on how you went on in other threads about what you see as, “nit-picking”, given that pretty much the only person dissecting logical fallacies is me.

No, you are a parody of someone who tries to dissect logical fallacies.

If you want to call someone out, listen to PZ Myers and use names. Passive aggressive is for cowards.Don’t make the audience guess. You can do better than that. Stand behind your words. Be proud of them. When you want to insult someone do it so they know. Don’t shilly-shally behind deniability. It makes you look wishy-washy). To tell people what you meant, would be to lie, unless there was supporting evidence I could quote from elsewhere.

Oh I have an advice to you as well:

Don’t annoy me any further or I’ll say Rebecca Watson that you think SEX is a not a bad reason for the male atheists to hope more women participate in their atheist conferences.

A little more work and you could actually be a powerful sort of trollish figure.

But you’ll have to bring better game than this if you want to move on to the big leagues.

And I’m here to help you.

That’s always the funniest part, when you try this psycho manipulating stuff. Like the “wouldn’t it be great if you would be the guy that could prove us all wrong” stuff.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

“I’m a LADEEE”

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Pecunium:

“Hoping to get more SEX is not a bad reason to be a feminist.”

😀 😀 😀

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

That’s terrible… maybe there’s an ointment for it.

I think it’s terrible that people like Pecunium rather make this their own crusade instead of recognizing that attacking people that actually support their cause like me, won’t help them. Just because we had some disagreement on minor things he suddenly doesn’t care anymore about the principles I believe in. So the greatest ointment would be if we just could put this minor quarrel aside and again concentrate on the things that matter.

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

I guess I’m not surprised that our law hotel lawyer designer friend didn’t answer my question, but Pierce Harlan, if you’re still around, I would still love to know what your qualifications and/or expertise is in rape and CJ. For example, I have been a rape-victim advocate for several years, including within the prison system. I have worked with victims of rape/sexual assault as well as people who are in prison for rape; I’ve worked within the state legal system as well as with alternative justice groups; and I’ve volunteered with victims’ rights clinics also.

Please, I’d really love to know where you’re getting your perspective on rape/false rape accusations from.

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

Whoa, Beth. That show takes some pretty cheap shots at trans people and crossdressers.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

yes, very offensive material!

Pecunium
9 years ago

Marc: And Rebecca Watson is going to care? I must confess, I am shaking in my boots that you went all boldface and warned me not to annoy you. I think I need some smelling salts. I am getting a case of the vapors. that you would misrepresent me, as you have misrepresented other people. I’m sho

Now, as to the hospital/platypus. They are the same example. but we’ll go back to the source.

It’s like when you say “XY is a good hospital” and I present a case where a patient suffered from an easily diagnosable and curable disorder, went to this hospital but then was treated very poorly by ten different doctors and ultimately died.

Of course, mistakes will always happen. But one mistake of this magnitude would cast serious doubts on the claim “XY is a good hospital”.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Marc: And Rebecca Watson is going to care? I must confess, I am shaking in my boots that you went all boldface and warned me not to annoy you. I think I need some smelling salts. I am getting a case of the vapors from the idea that you would no more be unwilling to stoop to misrepresenting me than you have been of anyone else.

So feel free to write to Rebecca Watson. If you need her contact info, let me know.

Now, as to the hospital/platypus. They are the same example. but we’ll go back to the source.

It’s like when you say “XY is a good hospital” and I present a case where a patient suffered from an easily diagnosable and curable disorder, went to this hospital but then was treated very poorly by ten different doctors and ultimately died.

Of course, mistakes will always happen. But one mistake of this magnitude would cast serious doubts on the claim “XY is a good hospital”.

That is you, right after you said,

Did he say “Yes, false allegation happen sometimes but in general they are rare”? No, of course not!

What he meant was something roughly like “Though black men and some other groups of men are not privileged, men in general are. So the chance that someone falsely accuses a man (who’s not from one of those discriminated groups) of rape is low because even genuine rape victims know the courts would probably not believe them and only convict him if there’s extremely strong evidence. So few women would try something as futile as a false rape accusation against a privileged white man.”

So the direct “refutation” you offered is the hospital.

On to the monotremes:

Nitpicker: “The Platypus and the Echidna are mammals and lay eggs. But in general mammals don’t lay eggs.”
Me: “But what about this animal we lately discovered, it breastfeeds it’s youngs, lays eggs and is not a Platypus or an Echidna?”
Nitpicker: “So what? I only said in general! In general mammals don’t lay eggs, not never. What’s your problem?”

There is nothing here. It’s true. In general mammals don’t lay eggs. If we find a dozen more of those, that won’t change that, in general, mammals are placental.

That one case in a thousand is contrary to the general state of being doesn’t invalidate the general state of being. In general children are less than 5′ tall at ten years of age. Even if some sub-group of the human race was prone to attaining adult height at the age of nine the general rule applies.

What you are trying to do is nonsense. Generally men don’t leave a promising career, with a multi-million dollar annual paycheck and join the Army. Pat Tillman did. It does’t change that people don’t generally do that.

That’s why they are general rules, not absolute rules (e.g. if I drop an object in a 1G fiedl it will accelerate until it either attains terminal velocity to it’s denisty, surface area and surface condition or hits the source of the 1g field). Absolute rules are invalidated when a single contradictory instance occurs.

My problem with you isn’t that we had a disagreement. I’ve had disagreements with other people (e.g. MRAL). Disagreements are transient. My problem with you is that you are dishonest.

Take, for example, your misuse of the Gruber quotation. You cited it as if it meant one thing, when it fact it said quite the opposite.

You also say I ought to be treating you as if we were some sort of allies, working to the same ends. I fail to see it.

What you seemed to be doing with the Gruber quote, from both the ways in which you framed it, to the dishonest way in which you used it, was to say that false allegations of rape are a large problem. That they can’t be measured. Contextually you were implying that arguments of their being common need to be given some credence.

That’s not supporting my position. My position is that false rape allegations are wrong. That intentionally false allegations of rape (as with any other such crime) need to be investigated, and prosecuted. But I don’t think their is some vast number of such allegations out there, and I most certainly don’t think they are anywhere near the equal of rape denial.

Now, it’s possible you are in agreement with me. If so, you have utterly failed to convey this. If it is true then your logical,and rhetorical, skills are in even worse shape than I thought.

But being in agreement with me, in that case, is almost worse than not. You are lazy, dishonest, and weasel-worded. I’d rather not have people like that on my side, thank you very much.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Summer_Snow, British comedy in general takes cheap shots at everything. This show holds nothing sacred in particular.

That is why I liked Smack the Pony.

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

Yes, but there’s a difference between being crass and deliberately playing on transphobia. I’ve seen some hilarious Smack the Pony skits that didn’t reinforce bigotry.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

I must confess, I am shaking in my boots that you went all boldface and warned me not to annoy you.

Oh please, that was just a joke, don’t take everything so serious.

Take, for example, your misuse of the Gruber quotation. You cited it as if it meant one thing, when it fact it said quite the opposite.

I’m sorry where have I quoted Gruber, where? Please quote me so I know, I really cannot remember ever quoting Gruber.

You also say I ought to be treating you as if we were some sort of allies, working to the same ends. I fail to see it.

Have I, in the end aside from some minor differences not always supported what you believed in? Just because I can’t support your “support participation of woman – you get more sex”… (something I will never support) how can you be that unforgiving?

Now, it’s possible you are in agreement with me. If so, you have utterly failed to convey this. If it is true then your logical,and rhetorical, skills are in even worse shape than I thought.

Honestly I don’t know what I could be in disagreement of and I hope this unfortunate misunderstanding will clear up soon.

But being in agreement with me, in that case, is almost worse than not. You are lazy, dishonest, and weasel-worded. I’d rather not have people like that on my side, thank you very much.

Don’t you think that you might hurt me with these accusations. The “lazy” and “weasel-worded” thing… I can live with that. But dishonest — no!

Pecunium
9 years ago

Marc: Sorry: I misread Harlan as you: My mistake. In that case you weren’t dishonest.

So yes, I made a mistake (not the first, not even the first here). But that doesn’t change the rest of it. Disagreements are transitory. We might be in all sweet accord on something else. But how you agree, and the patterns of your past, those matter. What you’ve done, by way of making your point, colors how future arguments from you are judged. That’s one’s reputation.

What I’ve said is that were men to be attentive to women’s interests, needs, fears, that the odds of women being more interested in them would go up. That is likely to lead to more sex. That would be a win-win.

What you didn’t support was that Rebecca Watson* had the right to call out a guy for being creepy.

But when you say that “getting more sex is a good reason to be a feminist” is my position…. that’s a lie.

When you say that your analogies aren’t what they are, that’s dishonest.

*I know that was an attempt at humor. It failed. I made fun of it. Don’t take it so seriously.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I know Summer-that is why I liked the show when I found out about it. Unlike Little Britain, they were able to get laughs without being cruel.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

What you didn’t support was that Rebecca Watson* had the right to call out a guy for being creepy.

Something that probably known for is my radical approach to problems… to get down to the root of the trouble. You must interpret everything I say in that context otherwise it doesn’t make sense. So as I said many times before, if we assume the final aim still would be the multi-phased elimination of the male sex, we can say: Watson can complain as much as she wants but what for? Anything she would achieve would just be like treating the symptoms.

What I’ve said is that were men to be attentive to women’s interests, needs, fears, that the odds of women being more interested in them would go up. That is likely to lead to more sex. That would be a win-win.

OK.

When you say that your analogies aren’t what they are, that’s dishonest.

I’m sorry for what I’ve written. I’m ashamed of it, now, how can I ever correct what I’ve said?

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

Why would you drop that Little Britain clip in this thread, though? It relies on hateful stereotypes of trans people for all of its gags. That’s not funny, and it’s not okay.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

That’s supposed to be funny.. how? o_O

The entire joke seems to be “haha cross-dresser/tranny!” -_-

It’s like the Katt Rigg rule:

When someone tells a joke about Asian people and there’s no actual joke–the joke is the Asian people.

There doesn’t appear to be an actual joke in the video outside of “it’s a man dressed up as a woman claiming to be a woman!” -_- The thing where he says he’s a woman and the person goes o_O are things that actually happen to trans women : Unless somebody can explain another reason to me why that’s supposed to be funny? -_-;;

I get that they “pull no punches”… but…it still doesn’t change how I feel about this >_> I’d feel the same if it was a joke about how Asian ppl talk… or a guy with tape on his eyes, etc :

Pecunium
9 years ago

Marc: I’m sorry for what I’ve written. I’m ashamed of it, now, how can I ever correct what I’ve said?

Taking you at face value… own up to what you say.

Something that probably known for is my radical approach to problems… to get down to the root of the trouble. You must interpret everything I say in that context otherwise it doesn’t make sense. So as I said many times before, if we assume the final aim still would be the multi-phased elimination of the male sex, we can say: Watson can complain as much as she wants but what for? Anything she would achieve would just be like treating the symptoms.

Let’s take the first part (it relates to almost all of the problems between us, as regards rhetoric and logic). It’s possible that your approach, isn’t rhetorically wise. When a significant number of people don’t see what you are trying to say, in the way you are trying to say it; esp. what that number is the majority of your respondents, your approach is counterproductive.

Now to the second part, why should we assume that the final elimination of the male sex is anyone’s final aim?

I’d rather take Watson at face value (see above, re what people say, vs. what you impute them to mean). Watson said she wanted to go about making it more pleasant/comfortable for women to attend atheist/skeptic conferences (which I said ought to be something male attendees might also want to foster, as; among other things, the odds of some of those women, when comfortable, being in the mood for, “coffee in my room” goes up. A win-win-win).

I don’t see any reason to leap from that, to “the multi-phased elimination of the male sex.”

Magical Laura
9 years ago

Oh I hate little Britain… It thinks it is ‘edgy’ because it makes fun of transpeople, the disabled, the mentally handicapped, fat women…it never ends.

For a really edgy black comedy British show I’d reccomend Big Train. Or possibly Jam, but Jam is freaky as hell a lot of the time. The difference is that even tho these shows make jokes about uncomfortable subjects, marginalised people are never the butt of the joke.

katz
9 years ago

I’m sorry for what I’ve written. I’m ashamed of it, now, how can I ever correct what I’ve said?

It’s NWOSlave!

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Because Mr. Harland reminds me of Emily Howard-he pretends to be something (someone who believes in honest debate) and then gets mad when people refuse to go along (by actually honestly debating him.)

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

You do understand that the whole character is composed of nasty myths about real life trans people, right? Myths that trans people are pretending to be something that they are not? And that they’re wrong to get mad when people call them impostors and liars for, you know, existing?
It’s entirely possible to call someone a mendacious hypocrite without saying by extension that real life trans people are mendacious hypocrites.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

(Back in for a quickie! ;D )

Please, Marc. You are fooling no one. You’re on the side of no one here other than the MRA’s… like Mr. Harlan. If that bothers you, look in the damned mirror.

Do you think that your pseudo-polite facade is convincing? It is not. So pick a side, already… either you’re with us, or you’re with them.

(Elizabeth, summer_snow, Ami, Laura, et al: I’ve seen, I think, exactly one clip from Little Britain… Anthony Stewart Head, best known over here as Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was in it. Come to think of it, the clip did make fun of gay men and Italians. It sure was, funny, though. I’d have to see more skits to see what you’ve seen, I guess. Anyway, if I offended anyone with my comment, it was purely from ignorance.)

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

mediumdave: We’re talking about this one specific clip of Little Britain that Beth posted in this thread. We are talking about the character of Emily Howard in that clip. You don’t need to go researching anything else. You can scroll back and watch that clip. There’s plenty of transphobia right there in plain sight.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

summer_snow:

You can scroll back and watch that clip.

So… I did that. Yeah. You’re completely right… not the slightest bit funny.

Which sucks, because when I saw the clip with Anthony Stewart Head, I thought: “This is hilarious! A Brit TV comedy show I’ve never heard of, and it’s really funny. Not your fault of course, just… arrgh. It was like the times that I thought I’d like a certain SF author, and then found out that (s)he was personally an asshole. Kinda kills the old enthusiasm.

And no, not comparing my disappointed feelings to those of people who feel personally attacked by TV shows or books, etc. Well, I should go to bed.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

You were not the one offending MediumDave-I was by posting the clip but that is what I saw in my head when reading Harlan’s last post. A man who is flouncing off while trying to pretend to be something he is not.

Although, Summer_snow, I think the character is actually more about Eddie Howard’s ridiculous assumptions about what a “Victorian Lady” was like rather then his being a cross-dresser.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Well, I guess I didn’t make it to bed after all…

Elizabeth, not to pile on you, but having seen the clip I agree with the critics. It’s their ox that’s being gored; you and I aren’t the best people to be making that judgement.

And for that matter, “feminizing” Mr. Harlan (even in your own head) isn’t terribly helpful here. We want to combat sexism, not perpetuate it… right? Feminizing is a weapon that the MRA’s use (not to great effect, but it does amuse them) all the time. Why should we play into that? Mr. Harlan tries to present himself as a swaggering macho guy, when he’s obviously a cringing coward. There’s no need, and no benefit, to using gendered insults against someone like him.

PosterformerllyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerllyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

Yyou wanted to know who I was referring to MediumDave and if you do not want to pile on, why are you doing just that?

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Because I spoke in ignorance, Elizabeth. Now I’m less ignorant. Examining privilege is never a comfortable process… but it’s so worth it.

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

Beth, I get that the clip is dressed up in parasols and crinolines, but that really isn’t the meat of the joke. Look at the jokes about using the wrong bathroom, trying to get a doctor to call you by the right name and pronouns, having a voice that makes people misgender you, trying to get surgery to make your body conform to your gender, trying to get accepted in public by strangers as someone of the right gender. These are not jokes that have anything to do with Victorian ladies. These are jokes about modern trans people.
I’m sorry that you’re feeling attacked here. That’s not my intention at all. Please just think a little harder about the clip.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Guys, I think Beth has thought about it. She said she offended, and why she thought it was topical. She also said she didn’t see the problems in it before, and does now.

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

Pecunium, I’m not trying to badger Beth for an apology, and I’m sorry if it comes out that way. I’m trying to help Beth understand what was so hurtful about that clip.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Pecunium, Beth can speak for herself, and she has. I’m through with being defensive about this; others can do what they want. I’m moving on…

Because I had a wonderfully wicked thought early this morning… what if Pierce Harlan fabricated the entire “elevator” anecdote? Other people have already suspected him of embellishing the incident, but what if it never happened at all, and the “elevator lady” never existed? It is rather convenient, after all. Mr. Harlan “needed” an anecdote to counter Rebecca Watson’s, and *bing* he suddenly has one! Maybe that what his freakout/banning/post deletion was really about… he was afraid of being exposed as a liar! That wouldn’t do, especially in front of his sycophants at the FRS.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I thought the meat was the Victorian lady part honestly Summer_snow, I never even thought about it making fun of transvestites. I see it now that it has been brought to my attention.

MediumDave, If you want me to change the way I think, feel free to do what Summer_snow did which is explain why I was not seeing what I should have seen-not tell me you are not trying to tell me how to think then turn right around and tell me how to think.

And this has been beaten to death. Let us move on.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Please, Marc. You are fooling no one. You’re on the side of no one here other than the MRA’s… like Mr. Harlan. If that bothers you, look in the damned mirror.

No, I don’t want to fool anyone, as I said many times before I am NOT a MRA.
I don’t know how often I need to repeat this?
Maybe it’s a language problem that you don’t understand me, mind you, I am not a native speaker. Though I don’t know what one can get wrong in the sentence “I am not a MRA”.

I was always supporting your goals, and I still do — more than ever before — please, just because we had this minor quarrel… don’t blow this out of proportion.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Do you think that your pseudo-polite facade is convincing? It is not. So pick a side, already… either you’re with us, or you’re with them.

I picked my side long ago, I am with you, with nobody else.

I have to admit that sometimes it happens that other things I believe in can conflict with my other standpoints. But does that make me “dishonest”? If you really can say “YES!” to this answer… it would make me very sad.

Please, think about this and you might understand me!

I give you an example (sorry, it will be long):

I am also a supporter of the anti-nuclear movement. In northern Germany we had a nuclear plant called Krümmel (boiling water reactor type) which was shut down after a short-circuit in a transformer for a year.

Though this and other problems with the reactor, the operator decided to make the plant operational again — that was last year, .

The head of the plant now should be a woman (Ulrike Welte). Can you imagine? She should be the first woman in Germany who is the director of a nuclear plant, which would of course be a major step, a woman in such a position of responsibility (who would hold more direct responsibility than even people in the highest political offices), a position where only people with profound technical skills and experience would be qualified.

Now everything came out differently:
She failed the final practical exam.

That’s a test where a reactor failure is simulated on the exercise control stand.
To pass the test one has to bring the reactor to a safe state within 30 to 60 minutes. But she was not able to do this in two hours.

So that came to a surprise to all, to the local population as well to the operator of the plant.

On the positive side: In the end it was clear after this setback: the reactors would not be switched on so soon.

And also her failure gave new ammunition to the protest-movement against Krümmel: How can we trust a company who wants to appoint someone incompetent to the director of a nuclear power plant?

But of course her failure confirmed the prejudices that many people still hold that a woman is just not fitted for a job like that.

Of course, I was happy when she failed the test. But is this so wrong? I was happy for the right reasons!

Now, after the tragedy at Fukushima it was possible to finally make it come true: This plant will never return to service. It stays shut down and later will be dismantled.

Would it have been operational before Fukushima, probably the decision would have been different…

So you could me call dishonest to be happy how a woman confirms all possible prejudices, but in reality I was just in conflict about my different ideological standpoints.

Sorry for this long off-topic example, but I hope it makes clear how, if you don’t know people very well, you shouldn’t judge them too quickly.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

I am NOT a MRA.

Yes, you are. You are not my friend, and I don’t want your friendship. You’re no different than Mr. Harlan… and this is not a minor quarrel. You massacred my words, and I do not forgive that. Now go fuck yourself (please).

summer_snow
summer_snow
9 years ago

Thank you, Beth and mediumdave.
Now, there’s a new post full of Manboobery demanding to be mocked. Moving on!

Pecunium
9 years ago

Marc: This story doesn’t help in thinking you are honest.

We aren’t saying you are a fellow traveller of MRAs because you dislike nuclear power. We are calling you a fellow traveller of MRAs for things you have said here.

You misrepresent people. You say false things. You argue, for whatever reason, in parallel with MRAs. It’s not a case of “with us or against us”, there are lots of people who just don’t care. So long as they aren’t going about saying feminism is things it’s not, or arguing against equality, they are neutral.

You aren’t doing that. You are posting ad absurdem arguments, and then getting offended when it’s pointed out that your arguments are nonsense. You are making weak, or non-relevant analogies, and defending them.

Then you turn around, having vehemently defended what you said, and claim the misunderstandings are because you aren’t a native speaker of English.

That’s dishonest. You can’t have it both ways: that your grasp of English is so great that you can design irrefutable arguments by analogy, and that your English is so weak it’s causing the “misunderstandings” you say are the root cause of the problem.

As I said, you want to get less in the way of detailed takedown? Be honest, and own your words.

oldfeminist
oldfeminist
9 years ago

“But put the prevalence issue aside: why must every discussion of false rape claims with you people always to come back to “rape is a worse problem.” Assuming for the sake of argument that’s true: SO WHAT? Does that make false rape claims unworthy of discussion? Seriously? ”

I never said that we can’t discuss false rape claims. I said what the woman did was wrong and it was a false claim.

Explaining why this happens doesn’t make her blameless, it just explains why she’s doing it. Just like explaining why a guy hits his wife (to control her) doesn’t excuse it.

“Women’s groups have rightfully insisted for decades that women are at least as capable as the guys in every sphere of life — in the law, medicine, the military, government, you name it. Everywhere — except the boudoir, where it’s 1950 all over again, all the time, and women are as helpless as the most distressed of Disney damsels.”

Nope. There are bad women out there just like there are bad men out there. I don’t think I’ve ever met a feminist who denies this.

But bad women who falsely accuse men of rape tend to be the excuse men use to disbelieve good women and bad women who actually did get raped.