Pharyngula

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 9:53 AM

PZ:

This thread is closed due to excessive length and prolonged stupidity.

Thank you for that. I might not be so thankful for this one, though. It's not nice, swimming in stupidity.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 3, 2011 9:53 AM

Unfortunately, the PUA / MRA / whiner types view every potential sexual partner as a conquest and gazelle in a hunt as evidenced by the comments in the other thread.

The DHB status isn't of concern to them. The prey is.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 9:55 AM

Thanks for shutting that down, PZ. The level of stupidity really was about to make me lose it. I really appreciate how thoughtful you've been about why some women avoid atheist conferences or atheist social things in general, rather than just making the token "why don't women come to our Old Boy's Club?! Grumble grumble grumble!" comment I've seen other places, which is really just atheist dudes using this problem as an excuse to complain about women.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 9:56 AM

I am having trouble keeping up with these acronyms.

MRA I know, also DHB. But PUA escapes me.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 9:59 AM

Feminists telling women that have given consent to sex that it's actually rape? That's news to me. I didn't know us feminists were that nefarious, nor that we had the power to induce some kind of false-memory syndrome.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:00 AM

Justicar,

Why not answer the question I asked you ?

I asked you if you think EG acted like a decent human being. It should not be a hard question to answer.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 10:02 AM

So after the creationist-bashing book, and the children's how to be a scientist book, PZ needs to write a relationship guide book. :)

Posted by: pteryxx | July 3, 2011 10:02 AM

Hmm, well in my limited experience and tendency to Asperger's, I'd just freakin' ask. "I'd like intimate contact to happen here. How's that sound to you? I brought lube." ... Or I would have, if the TSA hadn't confiscated it. Jerks.

Posted by: Wazza | July 3, 2011 10:04 AM

In my experience, the best way to start, once you're drinking the coffee (or beverage of your choice), is with simple, non-sexual physical contact. If you're both sitting, maybe brushing your shoulders together or similar. Only once you're both comfortable with touching one another in a non-sexual way can you move on to touching one another in a sexual way, and a good experience with someone is an important factor in whether you're going to be asked back for another cup of coffee at a different time.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 10:06 AM

Justicar, you had a nice post just for me? I appreciate that, but given that you just said this:

Yeah, apparently, not agreeing that someone's emotional unease actually makes the guy in the situation de facto van-by-the-river-man

Let me ask: are you capable of nuance? Do you see the difference between something someone saying or doing being creepy, and that person being a creep? You've given me the impression that you're not, since you think a woman commenting on the inappropriateness of a man's action is tantamount to her blowing a rape whistle.

Posted by: Wazza | July 3, 2011 10:08 AM

Though I should also point out that if the other individual is showing signs of not being comfortable, that is an absolute sign that either you need to slow down and pay more attention to them, or that you're not getting laid tonight (as PZ says, in the latter case, no blame attaches. In the former case... well, it's your sex life you're sabotaging if you don't work with your partner).

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 10:09 AM

Wazza, this really isn't about how to get laid. It's more about how not to be a complete and utter idiot who needs to hand in their "I'm a human being" papers. Take a look at the thread PZ linked to in the beginning of his post for more info.

Posted by: unaudio | July 3, 2011 10:12 AM

The graceful handling of a "no" is in my humble experience the most important thing in sexual relationships. Not only it is a decent thing to do but it also may increase your desirability due to the "hey he does not seem to care that much that I rejected him, I'll show him" factor at work.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 10:14 AM

Cinnamonbite:

From the pictures I've seen from these conferences--ain't nobody getting nuthin'.

Again, with this crap? For fuck's sake, didn't you learn jack shit the last time?

Oh, PZ, I know your short list is a long list, but I'll take the chance of recommending Cinnamonbite for a short walk off the long list, as xe can never manage a single comment which doesn't have to do with personal judgment about people's appearances.

Ugh.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 10:16 AM

Do we really want to dehumanise people

Not an honest interpretation of anything Caine said.

Liar.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:17 AM

@23: Actually it is about being a "decent" human being. Unless you made a mistake, I find your attitudes to be slightly worrying. Do we really want to dehumanise people, no matter how much we might disagree with them?

I suggest you go and read the comments on the original thread. No one needs to "de-humanise" some of those commenting, they did a perfectly adequate job of that without anyone aiding them.

Posted by: jlxn | July 3, 2011 10:18 AM

You don't get to whine about being called out. It's what we do. Join a cult if you'd rather have rules of silence and obedience.

I second Caine, Fleur du mal's Hallelujah!

If you publically speak on a topic, expect people to publically comment about what you've said.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 10:20 AM

N:

@23

My name is Caine. It's above every post I make. I worry about your reading comprehension, N. It seems to leave a great deal to be desired.

Posted by: PoxyHowzes | July 3, 2011 10:21 AM

There's probably a zeroth law here:

If you're at the Atheist conference because you think atheists are all amorally wanton (since they lack a "source" of morals), then you are already in negative territory on the DHB scale.

Check out of your hotel room and go home. NOW. Do not pass "GO," do not "check out" one more atheist body.

Posted by: Philip Legge | July 3, 2011 10:22 AM

... shred of empathy for anyone other than privileged people like themselves.

Failed to preview. I should know not to do this by now.

Posted by: Beriaal | July 3, 2011 10:24 AM

This is retarded...

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:26 AM

This is retarded...

You need to be more specific.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 10:27 AM

Jadehawk:

and on that note, I'm out. It's fucking late

No shit it's late. I should get a clue and head out myself.

Corkscrew:

Have I understood the term "privilege" correctly? As per the previous thread, I'm not trolling, I genuinely am this clueless.

Yep, you've done a pretty good job at grokking things.

What am I doing wrong.

Someone with a google login which isn't fucked up will have to answer that one, but you might try going here and clicking 'register' and go with a movable type login.

Posted by: No One | July 3, 2011 10:28 AM

It's been my experience that intelligent, self assured women will let you know if "they would like to".

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:29 AM

So what the original guy did to deserve being called out in front of an audience and on RWs blog? Seems to me it wasn't him who broke the decent human being rules.

Was it because it was in the elevator? That is a rather specific anxiety to be aware of. He asked, he was told no, should have been end of story.

Well over 1000 posts and you have no idea ?

Stop being a fucking idiot.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:31 AM

I really don't feel the need to. My comment applies to this whole discussion.

Not really. It apples to you, and to some others, but not the entire discussion.

Posted by: Thor - not as in Marvel, but part of my real name | July 3, 2011 10:37 AM

I want to say 'thank you' to all the empathic persons who get the point that Rebecca Watson was making in her video about the elevator incident.

I have to admit that at first I was among those people who were like: "What's the big deal? He just asked politely for sex."

How stupid I was.

Further reading of the comments changed my mind about this. Hell yes, asking a woman under this circumstances for sex IS fucking creepy and inappropriate, because of the total lack of balance of power, as some commenters have pointet out. In a crowded bar both persons, man and woman, are on the same level. In total isolation however, locked together in a small steelcage, the man gets the upper hand. On average, he's taller, heavier and stronger than the woman, who even cannot escape. This is a frightening situation, especially at 4 o'clock in the morning after hours in a bar and with a total stranger.
It doesn't matter HOW elevator-guy asked the question and WHAT his real intentions might have been and what the statistics say or don't say.
It's a creepy situation because you are to a great extend in somebody's mercy!

I cannot understand why, after tons of comments who explained the situation and the feelings of Rebecca in much greater details and in much better words than I do, there are still people who think it's all about a hysterical woman who just sees RAPE RAPE RAPE behind every corner and in every question adressed to her.
Or maybe I does not want to understand this because the answer to this question is pretty simple: There are a lot of stupid assholes out there, even in the skeptics movement, commenting here.

However, much thanks to all the non-asshole commenters here, standing their ground for so long, changing minds and battling stupidity.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 10:38 AM

Wazza, I hear you and it's all good. I agree with everything you said. Oh, by the way, douchebaggery is just fine.

Quagmire:

If Elevator Guy had known that that approach never works then he probably wouldn't have tried it. And it's not as though this happened at Brigham Young or Liberty University or some other such puritanical, anti-sex place.

Yes, of course, because this all about those stupid, hysterical, anti-sex wimmin! How old are you, nine? Just grand of you to utterly miss the point - coming on to a stranger in a closed elevator at four a.m. is not welcome. It's bloody stupid. It's privileged behaviour. In this case, it's worse than that, because elevator guy had just listened to a talk about privilege and feminism.

Try reading the previous thread. You might pick up a clue or three. Somite, I recommend you read the previous thread too. Better that than rehashing everything in this thread.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | July 3, 2011 10:38 AM

Scented Nectar:

When you realize along with a hangover the next morning that the guy who was lots of fun last night is actually kind of ugly and annoying of personality over breakfast, that's regret but not rape.

And as for telling a woman that she's been raped when she doesn't believe she has been, that's just fucking sick. Are you saying that she has no agency to figure out for herself whether or not she's consenting?

Conclusion: No women were raped. Seems like you can have your cake and eat it.

As for your accusations:
Nope, I totally think that womwn are capable of making decissions concerning their sexlives.
But I'm not so naive as to think that all decission that are made are made so freely without external pressure applied.
In the grow up world things are complicated. In this world women internalize blame.
Have you ever heard a woman say "oh, it wasn't his fault, it was mine, he's a good guy, really" when they are black and blue all over with broken bones?
So, you're saying that I'm victimizing those women.
And yes, taking a fake responsibility is a method of coping with events.
I've heard too many women on this very board relating stories of horrible abuse where they only realized afterwards that this was in fact abuse and rape.
Living in grown-up land I cannot ignore those facts.
As for statistics and studies: here's a nice summary. Now, either you claim that all those are fraud, or make some valid argument.

Posted by: Somite | July 3, 2011 10:43 AM

@Carlie you are right. I made a second post clarifying that I mean the issue, not the individual,

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:44 AM

I fail to see how according to this rules the "elevator guy" did anything wrong. He approached, was told no, and the process stopped. Was it because it was an elevator? Is any approach from an individual to another a potential attack?

OK, here goes.

It was 4am. RW was tired and on her way to bed. She was in a lift alone with a man who was a stranger to her.

Can you not begin to see the problem ? Try thinking about how RW would have felt in that situation.

And stop asking fucking stupid questions. This has been explained repeatedly.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 3, 2011 10:45 AM

Quagmire,
Jebus. The success or failure of the tactic is immaterial. What matters is that you have a woman alone with a man she doesn't know and no avenue of escape. Trying to initiate a sexual encounter under those circumstances is creepy precisely because it is LIKELY to feel threatening to a woman.

Got it?

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 10:46 AM

RahXephon231:
RahX, I don't wish to rehash points already covered. But go to the old thread. The charges of probably a rapist had already been let to fly hours, and hours, and hours before I said word one.

Impressed or not, I don't care about your imagined reaction to a post you haven't read. I tell you, psychic powers are common around here.

You asked if I had moments in my life where I felt less than safe, and if I ever checked to see if my cell phone were on, where the exits are and the like.

In short, and without checking this one for typos, I was a police officer. There were times when I wasn't just a little concerned; I was downright petrified. However, that did not give me a license to project my fear onto other people. My fear of what might come to pass was not a sufficient reason for me not realize that I was scared in part not by what was happening, but a reaction. That's one of the advantages we have, and even some of the posters here I'm told - we're able to think and control ourselves.

To make it more casual, I'm not a police officer anymore. Apparently, I was bad at it for never arresting a single person for asking another to coffee and accepting no as a response. However, when I leave the house: I am normally armed, I carry an extra stash of cash, a spare ATM card, make sure my cell is charged, there's air in my tires, oil's good, lights are operational, there's a note as to where I'll be and my expected time of return, I unplug unnecessary appliances and I make sure that I have a thing of fresh water in the car.

Now, when I arrive at wherever I'm going, I take note of the egress and ingress points, fire extinguishers if present, and even the little blue reflector in the middle of the road denoting a fire hydrant in case that might be later useful.

I note and keep a running total as to how many people are where I am, if anyone appears to be drinking too much, and try to pay attention to any bickering that might denote a good time for me to take my leave. If any trouble starts, I leave. If people start getting incoherently drunk, I leave. If anyone bothers me, I leave. If someone happens to follow me out and talks to me in the dark on my way to my car, so be it. If he happens to ask me if I want to fuck, I might be in a mood to take him up on it. I might not be, in which case I beg off. Provided he takes no for an answer, fine by me. This is true even when I'm being chatted up in an elevator by someone much bigger than I am; for what it's worth, I stand 5'4½" barefoot.

Now, a problem arises when "no" isn't taken as a no. Or if someone decides to gets handsy with me. Or whatever. That's when I take appropriate action.

Now, at any point along the way there might I have some concern? Sure. But it does not provide me with a reason to go running off deriding half of the human race in an incoherent ramble about my being single and vulnerable and how the rest of the free world is just supposed to know that they're assholes for even daring to ask me if I'd like to have coffee with them, hotel room or no. This is in precisely the same way that if I'm milling around downtown Tacoma, say, and I run into a young black teenager or two flying some colors I get concerned. Yes, I do make sure that I'm paying careful attention. No, I don't get panicked, or fearful. I become more alert on the remote, very, very remote chance that something unpleasant might be soon in the making. I don't, as it happens, go home and make a rant about those damned blacks all having to know better than to wear the wrong color clothing AND walk near me late at night.

This is, I am told, privilege. None of this matters. It is irrelevant that I'm prudent and preplan, leaving to myself as many residual safety options as I can reasonably workout without making it look like I'm a security freak of some kind. It is immaterial that I've trained in martial arts since I was a child, plus my police tactics classes. It's immaterial that I am usually armed. It is immaterial that I have for my whole life made it a point not to start becoming irrational because my emotions might be charged. No, I was born with a dick and therefore I am immune to all of these things.

Nevermind that I'm gay and, you know, gays get raped too. And drugged and raped. And there are rashes of gay bashings that happen from time to time - like when we had the gang of people knifing us fags coming out of some tragic club in downtown Tacoma. About 1 or 2 or week were being beaten and stabbed for, you know, being gay. No, none of that matters. I am male and thus immune by privilege.

It assumed by know-littles like Rebecca Watson that other people do not have the exact same safety concerns. You see, I know this because to have her same concerns, as she's argued, means you must agree with her conclusions. After all, not agreeing with them means you're really just oppressing the women.

Should women be prudent in their safety? Yes. So should everyone. Should being prudent entail denigrating half of the population, classing them as near rapists, definite sexists, absolute misogynists and oppressors of poor, defenseless women? I think not. She's free to take that view. I'm free not to become a victim of my own fears.

So, where in that is my "privilege" I keep being told I have?

Posted by: macrochelys chris | July 3, 2011 10:46 AM

from tactless elevator guy to RW to just about every commentator on this blog, this has been one painful downward spiral into stupidity, ignorance, cruelty, and multi-gender hateful asshole-ishness. did i miss the rules of this "game"? are we supposed to be fighting to be the last fool standing? what happened to rational thought? nothing gets solved when you confront someone in a hostile manner; in elevators, behind a podium, or cowering behind a distant computer screen. I can't tell if i am more sad or disgusted by the majority of comments here and I only hope we can all hit the reset button on our sensibilities and return to sanity and speak honestly, intelligently, and rationally to each other, and that goes for 'feminists" and "misogynists', real, perceived, self-described, or externally labeled, as well as the rest of us normal, human, humanists

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:50 AM

I note that Justicar is unable say if EG's behaviour was inappropriate or not.

Very telling.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 10:52 AM

macrochelys chris,

Your concern is noted. You can now fuck off. Decayed porcupines for insertion into the orifice of your choice can be picked up by the exit.

Posted by: vaeisenberg | July 3, 2011 10:55 AM

This is such win!. Not that my opinion is of any significance, but i don't think half the annoyed comments would have been in yesterday's thread if this was put up instead of blowing the whole thing out of proportion somewhat. (Rebecca's actual response in the video was appropriate to what the guy did, but neither is a big deal. Furthermore naming your opponent as a public speaker gives them an opportunity to react and unlike the vague "they" or "someone", doesn't allow strawmen as they can be called out.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 10:57 AM

I note that Matt Penfold apparently doesn't understand post limitations. I'll burn this one intentionally not answering question so that in the future he'll know that sometimes people can't answer questions immediately for reasons other than his "telling" understanding of the intellect or whatever.

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | July 3, 2011 10:58 AM

You don't 'just ask for sex' from someone, unless you have a good reason to think that such an invitation might be welcome. Even people with poor social skills don't ask strangers for sex.

The fact that violating this rule is not rape doesn't mean it's okay to do. There are many non-rape things that you shouldn't do. You shouldn't walk up to a stranger in a restaurant and ask for the rest of their fries. You shouldn't give cookies to other people's children in the park.

You should be aware of, and respect, the social boundaries that we share as a culture.

There's no social contract that prevents people from telling stories of their own experiences, and the best way to avoid being the subject of a cautionary tale is to be aware of, and respect, basic social boundaries.

What I've learned this week is that enough people who attend atheist conferences do not know this, that this is an actual controversy. If I were to attend an atheist conference, I am gathering from this 'controversy,' I would be likely to meet a significant minority of people who are either unaware of, or unwilling to respect, basic social boundaries.

This in an environment where, I'm already aware, there will be far more men than women.

I don't think I will attend an atheist conference. I can stay home and refrain from believing in the gods while finding social connections with people who are aware of, and respect, the basics of interacting with other human beings.

Posted by: QuantumSinger | July 3, 2011 11:00 AM

A_ray, I would agree it was disrespectful, and would go further to say that it was completely inconsiderate, but that still doesn't make it sexist/misogynistic.

Posted by: SC OM | July 3, 2011 11:01 AM

I've received variants of the "come up to my room for coffee" line from several women and one man. I did not find it at all creepy — it was extremely flattering, as you might guess — because in every case these were offers from intelligent people in reasonable contexts, that is, Decent Human Beings.

Well, if the propositioners knew you're married it wasn't so decent.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlMxzeSHD1FjFcwbptn0MPSffDJ0niJkUo | July 3, 2011 11:04 AM

Are you sweaty and rumpled? ... Are you drunk? Did the conversation just die because you're too tired to think straight?

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 3, 2011 11:05 AM

QuantumSinger: "A_ray, I would agree it was disrespectful, and would go further to say that it was completely inconsiderate, but that still doesn't make it sexist/misogynistic."

Um, yeah, actually, it does. The majority, privileged community feeling free to disrespect the minority, dominated community. That's sexist or racist. It's like a commentator feeling free to call the President a "dick", or a Congressman feeling free to yell out "You lie," when the President is black.

Privilege is what makes it sexist--and it should matter to us as men because it makes all men look like privileged assholes.

Posted by: Andyo | July 3, 2011 11:06 AM

Uh, *raises hand from the back of the class*, about this Dawkins guy...

Posted by: Philip Legge | July 3, 2011 11:06 AM

Justicar,

Matt Penfold understands perfectly that you simply won’t answer the question he has put to you multiple times. This far into the thread it doesn’t look very good.

You might be a Decent Human Being, but it’s very hard to tell. It’s sounds that while you don’t have the heterosexual privilege card, you feel quite entitled to play the male privilege card by belittling women’s rightful concerns about their own safety, and their right not to be treated as objects of sexual objectification at any inappropriate location or hour of the day by clueless dudes like Elevator Guy.

Where’s your empathy, man?

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 3, 2011 11:11 AM

PZ wrote:

You don't get to whine about being called out. It's what we do. Join a cult if you'd rather have rules of silence and obedience.

Scented Nectar, shut the fuck up and go away. Your faux-feminism is not only utter shit, it's harmful and toxic. The last thing anyone needs is to read your crap.

Feminists telling women that have given consent to sex that it's actually rape? That's news to me. I didn't know us feminists were that nefarious, nor that we had the power to induce some kind of false-memory syndrome.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 3, 2011 11:11 AM

Was it because it was in the elevator? That is a rather specific anxiety to be aware of. He asked, he was told no, should have been end of story.

(This is a repeat from the previous incarnation of the mysogyny thread.)

Yes. It was because of the elevator and the time. They question was perfectly appropriate (and far better than the first real contact I had with Wife). The time and the location, plus the events leading up to the incident, created a situation in which there was an appropriate question in an inappropriate milieu.

Why is this so hard to understand? Context matters.

I fail to see how according to this rules the "elevator guy" did anything wrong. He approached, was told no, and the process stopped. Was it because it was an elevator? Is any approach from an individual to another a potential attack?

Yes. It was because of the elevator and the time. They question was perfectly appropriate (and far better than the first real contact I had with Wife). The time and the location, plus the events leading up to the incident, created a situation in which there was an appropriate question in an inappropriate milieu.

Why is this so hard to understand? Context matters.

Shit, now I'm getting scolded by the teacher..

No. Someone whom I really respect is telling you that your behaviour, in this context, is not appropriate.

McGraw never questioned Watson's opinion that EV man was inappropriate, only her contention that it was sexist.

And it was sexist behaviour. The idea that a man can chat up a woman without regard to the environmental, temporal, or social context is an unfortunate, and toxic, result of having grown up in a sexist milieu.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 11:14 AM

Quagmire, you're just going to be insistent on being a complete douchebag about this matter, aren't you, no matter what?

It's quite simple: it's fucking stupid and a sign of privilege for someone to wait until they are alone with a woman in a small, enclosed space to decide to hit on her.

The fact that it was four a.m. and she had announced that she was tired and wanted to go to bed don't help elevator guy out much.

Read the previous thread, you dipshit. We had people on there saying things like "Well, did she say she was tired and wanted to go to bed as in 'oh, I'm tired and going to my lonely bed'" and other such assorted crap.

The fact that you cannot grok that it was privilege that brought about an uncomfortable incident speaks volumes. Women must always run risk assessment, it's part of daily life. No, of course being trapped in an elevator is a prime time to hit on a stranger. :eyeroll:

You have some serious stupid going on.

Posted by: oihorse | July 3, 2011 11:14 AM

This reinforces the need for piezoelectric keyboards. Every MRA-inducing thread produces enough typing to power whole cities.

Posted by: Vicky | July 3, 2011 11:17 AM

The first thing you must know is that you haven't failed when the object of your desire says "no".

So important. There are a few people in this thread who are arguing that anybody who is upset about elevator guy's behaviour is just viciously anti-sex; but if you (man or woman) make an overture in a non-threatening way and get turned down, nobody is going to call you a creep. It's not about wanting sex and asking for it, it's about the context of that particular invitation.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 11:23 AM

This is just a rough first draft.
Ode to dipshit commenters who don't even know how to respond to anything but the voices inside their heads:

Time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)

Now you always say
That your comments are key
But you'll knock strawmen down (said you would baby)
Rather than respond (I said so many times before)
To questions put to you previouslyyyy...

Time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)

You're trollin’ for good times
But just wait and see
You'll get banned someday (I won't have to read you no more)
For insipidity (spend the rest of the thread in peace, baby)
You'll get banned someday by PZeeeeee…

Go ahead, go ahead ignore the questions
And baby, be as obtuse as you can
Remember, we'll always be around
And we know, we know
Like we told you so many times before
You're gonna come back, baby
'Cause we know
You're gonna come back saying
Yeah, saying the same shit
Yes, yes!

Time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)

'Cause we’re talking about facts
The kind you won’t see
You'll be repetitive (said you would, baby)
You'll say stupid shit (we always said you would)
You'll ignore real discussion, for eternityyyyyyy…

Yes time, time, time is on our side, (hangin’ on!)
Time, time, time is on our side, (gettin’ bored!)
Oh, time, time, time is on our side, (same thing again?)
I said, time, time, time is on our side (close the thread!)
Oh, time, time, time is on our side (do you even read what you write?)
Yeah, time, time, time is on our side

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | July 3, 2011 11:25 AM

Harmless Eccentric #38 FTW

My only add is that I was a bookish teenager attending a rural Hight School so I did spend 4 years with a target on my back. Not the same thing as what women have to endure, I realize. But living subjected to the constant threat of violence (or now and then the violence itself - that's always fun) does - I would hope - enable a man to see situations from from the perspective of someone going through life with a target on her back.

I would have thought that more men in an atheist group of some kind would be of the bookish-nerd-geek-target-on-your-back-in-high-school type. Either that or high school has become a nicer, saner, warmer and fuzzier place than it was in my time (?!). Or, we have a significant minority of bullies. I hope it's the second one.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 11:27 AM

Oops, didn't realize it would come out quite so long. Apologies for the required scroll-pass.

I enjoyed it. Apart from the bad rhyme with Pee-Zed :)

Posted by: serendipitydawg | July 3, 2011 11:30 AM

Maybe Rebecca really needs to take a big, strong guy with her in future.

/irony

*facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* *facepalm* ouch

*headdesk*

ouch

*headdesk*

ouch

*headdesk*

I can see a rehash brewing so I am out of here.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 3, 2011 11:31 AM

I support Andyo and Sven in very much wanting to know who the commenter was who wrote this.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 11:33 AM

Carlie, I love the song. I'll hold it tight in certain cases. Like the ones we're currently dealing with.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 3, 2011 11:38 AM

Scented Nectar is to Feminism as Ayn Rand is to Communism.

I'm waiting for her Galt speech.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 11:41 AM

Anri:

Or am I missing the issue here?

You have most of it. Another part is that a good many people seem to feel that RW's spending two minutes on Stef McGraw's opinion about the whole thing was incredibly nasty and unfair.

A good many people are missing the fact that many young women grow up so soaked in the male privilege point of view, that they often parrot misogynistic viewpoints without realizing it.

It's important to call such things out, and it's equally important to be able to handle criticism.

In the previous thread, there were people stating that RW's calling out of McGraw was exactly the same as EG cornering her in the elevator.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 11:46 AM

Here is a fantastic description of privilege. I hadn't seen this one before (just read it at a link from Blag Hag), and am bookmarking it.

Caine - glad you like it. :) Matt - rhyming optional depending on dialect. :)

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 3, 2011 11:52 AM

Only caught up till my own comment 1155 on the previous subthread. No time to do more right now.

I would also call out PZ for a possible overlooking a different aspect of his own position of social privilege - not as a male, but among the married. Of course, it may be my jealousy as someone who has thus far been rather less successful in finding a mutually satisfactory relationship. However, (I presume based from the age of his daughter) it has been several decades since he was directly involved in trying to initiate a new such relationship, and the conventions have become less structured and more varied since then. Perhaps even before that his animal magnetism was such that no signal he ever made was ever declined; that every woman he ever asked to dinner or a movie said "yes"; that every kiss he ever offered was reciprocated with enthusiasm. If so, his department should immediately cage him for study, as such responsiveness is unprecedented in the world of biology. If (as I presume) not, then he should realize that he too has been guilty of applying some iota of unwanted pressure at some point in his life. The difference between presenting an unwelcome request for a date and less formal propositions is quantitative, not qualitative. As such, a categoric denunciation seems as foolish as any blind religious tenet of faith.

As it happens, PZ has talked about his love history at length. He has married his elementary-school sweetheart and, IIRC, has never dated anyone else.

But more to the point, why do you assume there has to be pressure? Why do you assume dates have to be sought from strangers? Why not become friends first?

(As an aside, some personal incidents leave some of my perspective potentially more subjective than objective. So, yes, I may be semi-blinded by bitterness. However, being told later that "you should have shut up and tore my clothes off" would seem an existence proof that excessive caution in interpreting signals is possible.)

Her fault.

Her fault that she didn't tell you to shut up and tear her clothes off right when you were in that situation.

A woman who expects you to be telepathic is too stupid for you. :-|

Or being subdued in the elevator and dragged off to a hotel room. All those saying this is no big deal don't ever think about just how much of a big deal it could turn out to be.

It must be nice to never have to consider such things.

It is indeed nice. Never once in my life have I been afraid that I might be raped. I hold male privilege.

Whoever you are, that was quite some letter you wrote to 'Muslima'. Moving like you wouldn't believe. You could sign it John Doe, or 'author unknown' and it would still be fucking profound. :)

The logical fallacy of believing one cannot care about more than one problem at once is not fucking profound.

Well, waded through the first 300 comments.

*blink*

WTF.

You, abb3w? You? You of all people comment on a blog post without reading the comments first?

I'm losing respect for you exponentially, and that only started half an hour ago.

if the standard is that (as PZ seeminly suggests) it is impermissible to ever apply unwanted pressure in the form of unwelcome social advances

What... the... fuck.

Where did you put your reading comprehension? You haven't even read the post itself.

Elevator. 4 am. Invitation to his room. After she said she was tired. After she had given a talk on this very topic and the guy apparently was in the audience.

*headdesk*

Again there is never this level of response on any other topic. What the hell? The closest I think was the Hiroshima one... so yes, you literally have to drop the F-ing bomb to match any given feminism thread.

:-D QFT.

Huh. And people think that Rebecca is the one blowing things out of proportion?

...Wow.

*Picard & Riker double facepalm*

I have heard the same thing about palaeontology conferences where, apparently, there are sometimes fears of fistfights breaking out.

I've watched a fight almost break out between two vertebrate palaeontologists, about the topic they work on, but not at a conference. It was at the party after a dissertation defense.

...then everybody who isn't American would be able to still pretend that they don't know she's married, since that's not where wedding rings are worn in (most of?) Europe.

Varies a lot between countries. I'm not even sure if men and women wear their rings on the same side in all of Europe.

doesn't matter; if he'd bothered to get to know her even a little bit before propositioning, he'd found out right quick that she's married.

That's the elephant in the room.

The guy wasn't violent, so the elevator fear is a fantastic leap.

How can you tell after a minute or three whether someone is violent?

I suspect her being married is of significance because, traditionally, married women "belong"belong to their husbands, and thus are off-limits.

It's significant because most marriages – and most other steady relationships! – are intended, by both participants, to be monogamous. Asking people in such a relationship is futile. Sure, there are exceptions (like this one mentioned in this thread), but, as I already said near the end of this comment, it's not a good idea to start from the assumption that such an exception is standing in front of you.

Of course, Elevator Guy probably has the perfectly good excuse of ignorance. But he could have, like, asked...

Aikido classes are another a good way to acquire the self-confidence that can allow you to suppress mind-consuming fear in situations where it is unwarranted and unhelpful.

Completely off-topic, but...

Aikido is a dance which only works if the attacker attacks in one of the circular motions that Aikido is all about.

Try Wing Tsun. That's not a martial art, it's self-defense.

Or did she only mean elevators in foreign countries at 4 am in crowded hotels with CCTV at the elevators?

1) 4 am, or crowded?

2) Nobody will look at the CCTV tapes before the next morning. Then it will be too late.

Some say "Well, she said she was tired", but is that brushing the guy off or playing hard to get? So much of courting in humans has so many layers it's difficult to untangle even with a straight head, let alone after a night of drinking.

If she's interested and is too stupid to say so, that's her fault and her loss. :-|

Yes means yes. Nothing else does.

Had he said "Can we have a chat at breakfast tomorrow morning," none of this would have happened. And maybe they would have started a chat right there in the elevator.

Bingo.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 11:53 AM

RahXephon23:
Well, great, you've eliminated four people, maybe five. I guess that means I'm wrong!
Demanding someone turn the page for you and highlight the relevant sentences is how evidence works in your world. Having it available to you isn't enough - no.

You asked those questions of me; I answered them. Are you now saying you did not ask them?

No one said I was a bad police officer for that? Really? You mean other than the one who said specifically that I must have been a bad cop because of some nonsensical fear thing; almost all cops understand fear and are in it most of the time or something? Yeah, other than that guy. Or some asshat saying that she highly doubts I could have been one because I don't agree with her. Or, oh, well, I guess other than those who did make reference, you're right - no one did.

So, you keep on telling a version of events that isn't congruent with what happened. Have at it.

Your reading problems somehow imply that I'm clueless. This is spiffy.

And many women (and men) disagreed that they'd feel creeped out. So, clearly the ones who disagree are the wrong ones. After all, you have The One Truth, and everyone else is a sexist.

Oh, I didn't have to wait long for that I see. The sexism comes in because of my assumption in how I'd react (listen, sweetcheeks, it's not an assumption; I know how I'd react because I know I've always reacted) is rational and valid and because I'm not a woman I'm too stupid to understand so therefore she's wasn't rational and valid.

Yeah, that's it. No, I don't know what it's like to be a woman. Therefore, I do not understand what it means to be in a "minority" and have to be alert. Therefore, she is rational and valid and it can be NO other way; it is IMPOSSIBLE for her to overreact. Just canNOT happen. All men are prohibited from talking to her in elevators because they're men, and I'm the sexist here?

Here's a tip: I'm a gay man and you made it about me when you asked me questions about me. You remember that whole bit about "trying it from a different angle" bit? If you don't want me to answer your fucking questions, don't ask them. You asked me if I had experienced these things. Do I take x, y, and z steps. Don't want to make it about what I'd do, or how I experience the world? Don't ask me questions about what I'd do or how I experience the world. This is not a complex idea.

Yes, she did do that. No man in the world is allowed to ask her to coffee if they're in an elevator because, you know, if she accepted, and he raped her, it's her fault. Of course, you'll probably keep on arguing that no one made that claim despite the many times it was made in the last thread.

She did do that. In her little speech even. Remember that tedious bit about calling out some bad feminist who is brainwashed by the men to think she's entitled to make decisions about her own levels of comfort? That this mindset oppresses women, is sexist and misogynistic? Any of that ring a bell?

Of course not - let's not let the mere matter of anything she's said get in the way of what you'll claim. Those pesky little details are trivial when you have a cause to champion.

Caine: yes, I suppose asking what my privilege is, and no one answering the question counts as an answer. Apparently, to have disagree with Rebecca, or you, I have to be a minority. Oh, I have to a majority, but of the women variety. Well, that one didn't go over so well either.

Apparently, Rebecca Watson is just right and anyone who thinks otherwise is just stupid. Charming argument.

Philip: I don't much care about Matt's estimation of me. He seems to expect that if I'm asked questions by more than one person, his must go first. Damn his privilege of demanding to be first.
Where exactly did I say women have no right to be concerned for their safety? Those words have never left my mouth. Belittling women's concerns for their safety. Yes, I can see that saying they, like I, should take reasonably and prudent measures to be as safe as possible clearly can be read that way.

Sorry, you have to do slightly better than imply that I have no empathy to convince me that your argument holds water. I have without reservation granted that anyone and everyone is entitled to their own feelings. That, however, does not make an argument that those feelings map the actual world.

Matt: no, I think the guy was a sleazebag, probably a rapist who just wants to probably oppress women.

Do, I think he's a decent human being? I have seen nothing which indicates he's not a decent human being. Do you have evidence not available to me? Although, I have noticed that the bar for being considered indecent is set fairly low. Indeed, all one has to do is not agree with a few people and suddenly the implications are made that one isn't a decent person.

But it's ok. I'm atheist; we have no morals anyway I'm told.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 3, 2011 11:55 AM

Shit. The links to comments in my comment probably won't work anymore because they refer to the previous subthread. I started writing before PZ ended the previous one, and now I have to run...

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 11:58 AM

Justicar,

Quit lying.

Quit being disingenuous.

Fuck off.

Posted by: Andyo | July 3, 2011 12:02 PM

#128 and #130, what are you going on about? PZ hasn't said anything yet, what am I missing?

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 12:04 PM

Justicar,

A simple no was all that was needed. The EG did not behave well. That you cannot see that actually makes you worse than him. He was probably just a dickhead who should have, but clearly did not, know better. You have no such excuse. You do know better, or at least have had it explained to you enough times that you have no grounds for being so clueless. Instead you see nothing wrong, and that makes you stupid and dangerous.

Posted by: Arkady | July 3, 2011 12:07 PM

I read a bit of the thread yesterday when it stood at ~600 posts, was looking pretty toxic then. Gave my own example of being propositioned by a taxi driver at 3AM, and how scary I found it.

Here's a more positive example: the time a guy hit on me in a bar while not being a creep! He struck up a conversation, in which he (at least gave the appearance of) took an interest in the answers. Effect was spoiled by his friend interjecting to remind him that he was married, but aside from that his 'technique' was fine and unthreatening, so it is possible! Wouldn't have succeeded in my case, (he seemed too normal and not a geek) but still nice to be hit on without the usual mental check for nearest exits and locations of friends.

Unlike my usual night-out experiences, where drunk guys start out straight away with the groping. I know some self defence, but it's not exactly fun to have to fight creeps off on a night out.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 12:08 PM

Is it hard, I wonder, taking offence where none is intended?

If that was supposed to be an apology, you did it wrong. So wrong it was insulting. And if it was not an an apology, learn some fucking manners.

Stop being an idiot. Go read the previous thread. Then come back, say sorry any maybe you will be taken seriously.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 12:10 PM

remusm:

a rather innocent social blunder

It was not innocent. It was more than a social blunder. It was an instance of privilege, and it highlighted why privilege is harmful and people need to be educated about it.

As you seem to be one of those spayshul idiots, go back to post #108. There are four links. Click on each one and read. Read until a clue sinks in, Cupcake.

Posted by: Neamhspleachas | July 3, 2011 12:12 PM

I find it amazing that a certain group of supposedly intelligent people cannot, for the life of them, understand some very, very basic social interaction.

Unless you are in a gathering specifically designed for facilitating romantic relationships, like speed dating, you do not have the right to hit on anyone. Accepting romantic overtures is not part of the social contract.

Conferences (atheist or otherwise) are gatherings for the purpose of sharing information. They do not exist to facilitate romantic relationships, unlike, say, speed dating. Yes, there are opportunities at conferences for social interaction and even, gasp!, romantic interaction. However, you are doing it wrong if your biggest goal at an atheist conference is to get laid. There are plenty of dating websites if you need to bed someone that badly.

I'd venture a guess that something like 80% of my male friends are atheists. Somehow they manage to go through life both having sex and not acting like misogynist assholes. This leads me to believe that most atheist men aren't going to get all rapey towards me at a conference. However, I can't verify the rapist status of every single person possessing a penis so I tend to err on the side of caution. Yes, this means that I, as a woman, assess the likelihood that you, as a man, might try to sexually assault me. The vast majority of women do this and you, as a man, can do lots of things to not get stuck in the "potential rapist" and/or creepy, freak, weirdo category.

Don't pursue a woman into a situation in which she is isolated, such as a dark alley or an elevator. Why? Because it will likely put our guard up and that is not the mood that you want us to be in. Don't argue, cajole, needle, demand, or otherwise question us when we say "No," whether that is a no to the offer of a drink, a sexual tryst, or interest in your phone number. If you cannot accept no as an answer under those circumstances, I doubt you will be able to accept no under others, such as "No, I don't want to have sex." Engage in basic human decency, also known as "Don't be an asshole."

This shouldn't be so incredibly difficult for intelligent people to figure out.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 12:14 PM

Matt, no matter how many times you carry on the diatribe that disagreeing with you makes me retarded, stupid, immoral, a lowly human being and what not doesn't actually make it so.

I can see you bring a lot to any conversation you're in - why, people who don't already agree with you retards who should know better. Immoral fuckers we are. Now, I'm actually positively dangerous to women. Hell, I'm practically holding them down I'm so dangerous.

Yes, I'm super duper dangerous because I don't "retard", lawl, "dickhead", lmao "liar" to be a convincing line of argumentation. But if it's the best you have, it's the best you have.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | July 3, 2011 12:14 PM

John Salerno:

I don't disagree with this, but at the risk of sounding like one of those "blame the woman" type of person (which I'm not!), I have to say, in this particular case, you have to also ask, what kind of women gets "stupefyingly drunk" with a man she doesn't even know, in the first place? Of course, this also applies in reverse if a woman is courting a man, or man man, or woman woman.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 3, 2011 12:16 PM

Without reading anything in the thread, I have to ask: Am I the only one who finds the very idea of trying to get laid at a convention somewhat crass? Maybe it's the sex ratio that does it for me. You have a small minority of women who pretty much by definition must spend the entire time with poor awkward guys hanging off them. It makes me feel skeevy by association. Do any of the female attendees even have sex on their minds at all?

Posted by: The Captain | July 3, 2011 12:17 PM

I love how "Decent Human Being" is an applied standard to everyone BUT RW. Perhaps RW should start being a "Decent Human Being" and not go on these personal jehad's against people who are socially awkward, and you know, cut them some slack like the rest of us "Decent Human Beings" do every day?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 12:18 PM

Justicar - another 1100 words, still no answer.

Why does your personal opinion on the risks of elevator passengers trump that of several major city police departments, who feel it necessary to warn women about their elevator companions in their antirape campaign materials?

Posted by: remusm8 | July 3, 2011 12:19 PM

@Matt

You really do seem to have some anger issues. Stop rageposting already.

Feel free to completely lose your shit, but you should realize I don't really care about what some guy with the Hawaii Military Surfing Organization --Just a guess, had to google it-- thinks I should do in order for him to take me seriously.

Your opinion pretty much stopped being of interest to me with that first reply, and you've settled the matter with this second one.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 3, 2011 12:20 PM

Bryant Belknap and Some Bloke or Another on the old thread, Corkscrew and Thor on this one: Thanks, genuinely, for your comments. They're nice to read after so much willful stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.

Although, Thor, I'll point out the issue with the phrase "asking sex from somebody." The whole idea that women "have" sex and it's up to men to "get" it from us by hook or by crook is a big part of the problem, because it makes women into gatekeepers and commodities. Sex is an activity that, ideally, is done between two (or more) enthusiastically consenting people, of whatever gender.

Bastion of Sass, #1046, old thread: This is why the nametag thing would be a bad, bad idea.

Caine, #59, current thread: You're talking to someone who named himself after a rapist in a truly douchy animated series, so there you go. As for your comment #124, while I'm appalled that Diablo would try to contact you, I'm not terribly surprised. He persistently misnamed you, he signed off with "xoxo," he tone-trolled you, and he compared you to a fascist. He radiates creepitude online the way he probably radiates Axe IRL.

Somite, #60, current thread: Go back and read this comment about "normality."

Macrochelys Chris, #73, current thread: Yes, we feminists and are allies are "just as bad as them." Because shouting down bigoted assholes is just as bad as being a bigoted asshole, and caring about women's safety is not inherently better than not doing so. It's all about how "nice" we are. Thank you for your Concern™.

Carlie, #107, current thread: AWESOME. XD

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 12:21 PM

I love how "Decent Human Being" is an applied standard to everyone BUT RW. Perhaps RW should start being a "Decent Human Being" and not go on these personal jehad's against people who are socially awkward, and you know, cut them some slack like the rest of us "Decent Human Beings" do every day?

RW seems to have behaved perfectly decently, so why would we take her task for not doing so ?

Please, try to keep up.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 3, 2011 12:25 PM

I wrote:

Not that we're planning things PUI style

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | July 3, 2011 12:27 PM

The Captain:

I love how "Decent Human Being" is an applied standard to everyone BUT RW. Perhaps RW should start being a "Decent Human Being" and not go on these personal jehad's against people who are socially awkward, and you know, cut them some slack like the rest of us "Decent Human Beings" do every day?

On a different note: Have you been to Dublin recently?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 3, 2011 12:29 PM

PZ: thanks for # 144.

ok gotta function

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 12:31 PM

remusm8,

The fact I refer to PZ as P-Zed should have been a clue I am not from Hawaii.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 12:33 PM

Philip Legge:

I asked to answer a series of questions specifically asking me how I would react in certain situations. If I knew what it felt like to feel not entirely safe. If I understand the feeling of having to make sure my cell phone is on and know where all the exits are. And something else.

I answered it. The response: you're making this all about you! Yes, by answering questions asked of me, *I* made it about me.

I did not direct my comments to Rebecca Watson congratulating her on being raped. I directed my comments to those who said from the outset are arguing: if she'd said yes, and if she went to his room, and if he raped her, it would be her fault. Apparently, making a bad pass at someone implies the train all the way up to rape. Of no doubt is the fact that he's been called sexist, misogynistic, oppressive and privileged, as have I been called those and more.

So, it seems that not to agree the only possible solution is the one Rebecca chose later on defines on as sexist, misogynistic, oppressive and privileged. Alas, despite my many askings, no one yet has told me what privilege it is I have. And not knowing I have it, you see, is the way that people can be sure I actually have it. Also, if they drown, they're not a witch. Apparently, I'm a member of the MRA, part of the MRM, which defines membership in part as:

the traditionally oppressed groups, be they women, minorities, or non-Christians, have somehow seized control of the country and are systematically denying the straight, white, Christian men their rights.

This is obviously a group to which I cannot by definition belong. Yet, there I am, lumped in with it. Yes, being sarcastic to people who are not Rebecca Watson for their massive leaps naturally means I'm belittling her and not the people talking about her by pointing out that the way they tell makes it hard to imagine she actually escaped unraped.

I'm sure it's just my privilege talking. And also I'm stupid. Retarded. A liar. Disingenuous. Oh, hell, ask Matt; he probably has a complete list.

Posted by: ttch | July 3, 2011 12:35 PM

Make friends, not hookups.

Posted by: Thor - not as in Marvel, but part of my real name | July 3, 2011 12:38 PM

Ms. Daisy Cutter @ #157

Although, Thor, I'll point out the issue with the phrase "asking sex from somebody." The whole idea that women "have" sex and it's up to men to "get" it from us by hook or by crook is a big part of the problem, because it makes women into gatekeepers and commodities. Sex is an activity that, ideally, is done between two (or more) enthusiastically consenting people, of whatever gender.

You are right. I'll try to phrase this better next time. As a non-native speaker of the english language it's sometimes difficult for me to hit the right nuances. But reading Pharyngula surely helps with these skills.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 12:39 PM

@Justicar

Well, great, you've eliminated four people, maybe five. I guess that means I'm wrong!

Apparently you missed the "or anyone else" part of my post.

Demanding someone turn the page for you and highlight the relevant sentences is how evidence works in your world. Having it available to you isn't enough - no.

Cupcake, you were a cop, right? Did you ever have to go to court? I'm sure you must have at least a few times. Now, when the person who was accusing someone else of a crime was asked by the judge for evidence, did the plaintiff say "what, you want me to do all the work?!" I'm guessing not.

What I was asking for was some actual proof. I read and participated in the thread and never saw anyone saying anything you claim. If it happened, you should be able to pull out at least one quote, even if it's from memory just tell me who said it. Is it really that difficult?

And many women (and men) disagreed that they'd feel creeped out.

Who said that the default response has to be "creeped out"? I would be creeped out, and so would many others; I also acknowledge that there are people who would not be creeped out. The difference is that there are people who would not be creeped out who also say that she shouldn't have been either. By calling her response an overreaction, you're doing just that.

So, clearly the ones who disagree are the wrong ones.

No, the people who say she overreacted are wrong. She's allowed to react how she wants to; it also doesn't help matters that the characterization of her reaction by people who say she overreacted contradicts reality.

Oh, I didn't have to wait long for that I see. The sexism comes in because of my assumption in how I'd react (listen, sweetcheeks, it's not an assumption; I know how I'd react because I know I've always reacted) is rational and valid and because I'm not a woman I'm too stupid to understand so therefore she's wasn't rational and valid.

Sigh. I'm not sure how many other ways I can put this. Look, who decides what situations you do or do not feel safe in? You do. Who decides what precautions you take for your safety? You do. All I'm asking is you afford women the same right.

Therefore, I do not understand what it means to be in a "minority" and have to be alert.

Just because you're in one minority doesn't mean your experiences translate perfectly to the experiences of other minorities. This was actually one of the hardest lessons for me to learn when I started studying feminism. The fact that women are discriminated against and so are gay men is true; it's the way that they're discriminated against that differs. That's where your experience is different and that's the gap in your experiential knowledge.

Therefore, she is rational and valid and it can be NO other way; it is IMPOSSIBLE for her to overreact.

What's so funny about this whole thing is the way you mischaracterized her reaction is something I really would call an overreaction. Had he asked her for coffee and she freaked out, kneed him in the balls and called the police, I'd call that an overreaction. But that's not what she did. What she did was she said no to him, and reflected on it later as an aside, saying "You know, that was kinda creepy, so maybe some of you guys should consider not doing it". That's why your characterization is disingenuous.

You remember that whole bit about "trying it from a different angle" bit?

Yeah, I do, and the point of that little exercise was to get you to understand that you already do what women do; the point of contention is that you're trying to tell RW when she's allowed to feel threatened and when she's not, and how to react to situations. Calling it an "overreaction" is telling her that her reaction wasn't valid, in case you didn't know.

No man in the world is allowed to ask her to coffee if they're in an elevator

Yes, they are. If they had been talking during the post-lecture period and were acquainted, and she seemed interested, he could ask! And she might even say yes! But that's not what happened, is it? She's saying it's creepy to ask a total stranger to sleep with you, especially late at night on an elevator.

Posted by: Randomfactor | July 3, 2011 12:41 PM

Cheeses, doesn't anyone go to the conferences for the panel discussions?

I vote with IA #20 above. Unless you brought someone you're already entangled with. And I speak as someone who's not entangled for the a significant fraction of a decade.

Posted by: Blueaussi | July 3, 2011 12:43 PM

I would like to suggest one more guideline to the Decent Human Beings Guide. If you have been a decent enough human being to enjoy a moist and slippery frolic with a fellow attendee, don't be an asshat afterwards. Treat your partner with respect.

Moist and slippery frolics can lead to great friendships or even more moist and slippery frolics; or they can be a "groins that go bump in the night" kinda thing where you never see your partner again. Either way, treat your partner with respect. Skittering around the rest of the conference avoiding your partner because you're convinced you're such a hunka hunka burning love that mere eye contact will allow they to declare undying love and fidelity is silly and rude and Just Not Done by Decent Human Beings.

Posted by: Andyo | July 3, 2011 12:44 PM

[Aikido] It is as much a martial art as any of the others.

My friend is a Tae Kwon Do, Aikido and Jiu-Jitsu expert, past few years training with a branch of the Gracie family. He can kick, he can break your wrist, and he can throw you to the floor pretty easily, but taken individually he's the first to admit that they're varying degrees of ineffective. You take what works.

Incidentally, he took on 3 muggers one time, on the street. None of that silly Jackie Chan stuff though. Surprise-kick or punch one or two, and then he told me he ran towards the third one and jump-kick. Of course the jump kick usually only works in movies; in real life the guy will avoid you, but at that point you're already way ahead, running away, which is what he did.

I don't buy too much into the Bruce Lee mythology either, but I think it was one of his documentaries that mentioned that he developed his own style, which conspicuously is devoid of all jumping and crouching and whatnot, of traditional Chinese MA, because it's a waste of energy to be doing all that, and his style was based on efficiency.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 12:46 PM

Your right, not me, Stef, or anyone should ever question the judgment of the atheist in clique.

Quit being a dickhead. It is boring, and we already know are one so you nothing to prove.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 12:50 PM

And I still think this was little more than an innocent blunder.

Not really. It was more than just an innocent blunder, given the time and place. I accept the man might not have realised how uncomfortable he would make RW feel, but that is no excuse. He should have.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 12:50 PM

Matt:

Quit being a dickhead.

Matt, there was a somewhat large point about gendered insults in the previous thread. Could you possibly drop dickhead for, say, douchebiscuit, assclown, assclam or some such? It would be so appreciated.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 12:53 PM

Caine,

Of course. But can I substitute arse for ass, since I have nothing against donkeys ?

Posted by: JRave | July 3, 2011 12:58 PM

I've been reading this blog for a few months now and enjoyed every minute of it - until this turned up.

Way to demonize the sexual advances of a (presumably) single male unto a single female everyone.

I don't remember the no elevators rule in sex-ed. In fact, several hollywood films have lead me to believe it's a perfectly natural place to carry out this sort of moral indecency.

*shrug*

Does this also rule our aeroplanes? How about other methods of transport with a claustrophobic bent? How could two astronauts be expected to get their thang on with morally repressive social conventions like this?

I'll stick to giving subtle hints of my own sexual attraction to others in city parks and well ventilated aircraft hangers via sheepish, flinting eye contact and exagerated hair stroking. My own hair of course. Wouldn't want the advance-ee to think I was a rapist.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 1:00 PM

remusm8

And I still think this was little more than an innocent blunder.

You aren't listening.

The problem is that sexual propositions are occurring in elevators, not what any one guy's intentions were.

You can help address this problem by telling your straight male friends what you've learned here about not making women feel distressed. At the minimum, you can help by telling them not to follow women out of public areas and approach them in confined spaces away from everyone else.

You do not help anyone by ignoring the systemic problem here and focusing on internal, invisible, imaginary intentions.

Posted by: Tynk | July 3, 2011 1:01 PM

It's pretty simple, a stranger waited until there was an inescapable situation to proposition her. This is what girls in the US are taught to fear from a very young age. It not just uncomfortable, or rude, or that we do not want sex. It is because we are taughtthat situations like this lead to physical harm. The key is to make a connection with the woman BEFORE putting her in a position that could lead to a dangerous situation. The reason why this had to be brought up? That is easy. A lot of men simply are not aware of fear caused by such an encounter. By explaining that it is abad thing, and why it is a bad thing is key to not only help women feel less fear, but to help men not unwittingly scare women. This is beneficial for all parties involved.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 1:07 PM

Philip:
It's not my fantasy. These are the implications from the previous discussion. Take it up with people who are the if if if if case. I am not among them.

To listen to some of the implications of this, you'd think she had to practically fight tooth and nail to escape the Evil Stranger who took no for an answer. Remember, gentlemen, no means no. But just putting a woman in a position to have to say no makes a creepy sexual pervert. But no means no - just don't ask though as the woman you ask might not like that you've asked. Sure, some women would be receptive to it. But you must forgo asking because some women won't like it.

Posted by: tylerdurden1200 | July 3, 2011 1:07 PM

PZ: "There are so many clueless comments in this thread... [...] Join a cult if you'd rather have rules of silence and obedience."

14 minutes later...

Caine, Fleur du mal: "Scented Nectar, shut the fuck up and go away. [...] The last thing anyone needs is to read your crap."

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves...

Posted by: Andyo | July 3, 2011 1:07 PM

I've been reading this blog for a few months now and enjoyed every minute of it - until this turned up.

Way to demonize the sexual advances of a (presumably) single male unto a single female everyone.

What the hell, who dropped water on the goddamn MRAs again?

Yes, Señor Condescending Reading-Challenged Asshole. We're doing just that. No one can ever have sex with anybody. Well, I guess just the gays between each other.

Posted by: MichelleZB | July 3, 2011 1:11 PM

@ Ms. Daisy Cutter

MichelleZB,
I don't know if you're reading this current thread, and given your lack of understanding of my usage of "quaint" and the definition of "belittling," this is probably as much a waste of my time as arguing with Fundip would be.

I hope not. But rest assured: I fully understand the definitions of both "quaint" and "belittling", and I don't know how you could have gotten the impression that I did not. You can argue with me as much as I want without fear that my comprehension skills are so bad I won't understand the definitions of words.

However: Do you understand how concern trolling works? The concern troll doesn't come out and say they're anti-feminist (or anti-racist or anti-labor or what have you). They pretend to be "concerned" about how feminists (etc.) are "hurting their cause" by being "incivil" or what have you.

Are you trying to say that McGraw was concern trolling, or that I was?

If you really think that people are "reacting differently" to Watson's comments because abuse of women is just not that common, you really need to get out more.

You misunderstand me. I don't think abuse of women is uncommon! Simply that it is possible that to some women to whom it is *personally* uncommon, like me, the initial reactions to Elevator Guy's behaviour may have seemed too extreme, and simply that different lived experiences might be a good explanation for why we were getting all these differing reactions from women on the thread. I'm not trying to say that we should all excuse Elevatory Guy's behaviour because some women haven't been raped--I agree that would be a really ridiculous thing to say. I'm just trying to point out that the occasional person who says, "I don't get what the fuss is all about!" might be the kind of person (like me) who has had limited experience with sexual assault, and that it might take some reading of these threads for them before it clicks. Does that make more sense, sort of?

I don't "need" to get out more, or do anything you say, really. I can get out as much as I want.

Finally, if you can't deal with angry or vitriolic people, perhaps you don't want to be arguing here. Neither anger nor vitriol is inherently wrong.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't trying to complain to you that you were being too mean to me. It just looked like I had offended you with something I had said, and I honestly wasn't sure what exactly that was. If I had said something really wrong, I would want it pointed out, you see, because I wasn't intending with that particular post to be controversial. But now I think that you just misunderstood what I said, or that I wasn't clear enough. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me now that you thought I was trying to lord it over other women that I hadn't been assaulted, or that I was trying to excuse Elevatory Guy's behaviour because "not everyone has been raped". That was not my intention or my point at all.

Posted by: Wanderfound | July 3, 2011 1:12 PM

This is essentially just a repeat of comment #100, but:

Thanks to an incompetent-mechanic-induced motorcycle incident (he removed the topbox to get at the brake lines, but didn't bother to properly secure it afterwards, causing my luggage to detach from the bike at ~60km/h a day later), I had to replace my laptop a few weeks ago.

This thread has been extremely useful for repopulating my killfile.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 1:13 PM

Philip legge: while I do not agree with his tactics at all, I am not sure we can write him off completely as a dick. Unaware of the situation would fit well enough. It is also a possibility that he was just uncomfortable and afraid of any perceived humiliation of being rejected in front of others, thus waiting for a time where they were alone would be safer for him as any rejection could potentially be kept private. Where women tend to not be afraid of humilliation in public, they are afraid of being trapped in private. And yes I am using generalizations based on my personal experiences.

I am pretty the man did not realise how his approach would come across. |He should have done though, and part of what makes this interesting is why he didn't.

Posted by: spiderxray | July 3, 2011 1:14 PM

Neamhspleachas @ #143

This shouldn't be so incredibly difficult for intelligent people to figure out.

That strikes me as the crux of this whole interminable thread. It shouldn't be difficult. But, you have an atheist convention, the bubba index may be nil but the nerd quotient is sky high for both sexes. Most of the debs I knew growing up would have fixed the guy in the elevator with an icy sneer and said something along the lines of, "Piss off peckerwood." And, then forgotten the dweeb before the elevator closed behind her.

So, basically, hurrah for RW for still believing she can change things with dialog and reason. In other circles, if the offended femme felt like some follow up was needed, it would come in the form of a boyfriend or brother or both who would then discuss the error of his ways with the offending male.

And, besides, if you want to get laid, don't go to an atheist convention. That's what church socials are for.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 3, 2011 1:15 PM

Comments #30, #134, #143. Thank goodness it's not just me.

But how can it be that so many people don't grasp that it is beyond creepy to proposition a total stranger in an enclosed space at 4 a.m. with no witnesses or escape routes?

No idea. I'm a pretty shy person, but this thread has made me feel like the Dos Equis guy.

Make friends, not hookups.

I believe you can make both, it's just that the "friend" part should come first.

But you live and you learn, and mistakes are going to be made. The key point is to not continue being a dick and as far as I know, elevator guy didn't do that.

This is exactly what happened. It's the MRA douchebags that are trying to make this out to be a total witch hunt. Because any gentle correction of their social behavior is taken as an assault on their manhood. You'd think people would appreciate tips on how to better cultivate happy relationships with members of the opposite sex. But no, apparently menz will be menz, and the bitches just gotta take that.

As for McGraw and Watson, I think they can work this out amongst themselves.

JRave: Turn off the Cinemax and join the real world.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | July 3, 2011 1:16 PM

And I still think this was little more than an innocent blunder.

And to him, it may have been an innocent blunder. To her, it was not. This is a perfect example of male privilege -- he assumes he has the privilege to chat up a woman no matter the environmental, temporal, or social context.

Look, don't forget us privileged people can't help being born into a society that's structured this way.

But being aware of it allows each of us to empathize with others and make small adjustments. I am a white male. I am large (six foot tall and around 19 stone). I can be (or so I am told) quite threatening. In any situation involving a female, I keep a running loop in the back of me mind saying, in effect, leave things open don't even appear threatening leave things open, etc. This is not something I did 20 years ago. This is a learned tactic on my part, as a privileged white male, because I know that I was raised in a society rife with endemic and unstated sexism and mysogyny. My awareness of this fact allows me to be a little more cognizent of the effect that my gender and size may have on a woman.

You are correct that you cannot help being born into a sexist society. Of course, you were also born unable to talk, read, listen, type, drive, ride a bicycle, play Scrabble, or, really, just about anything other than eat, drink, pee and poop. To claim that the endemic sexism of your upbringing makes it impossible for you to learn how to empathize is absolute and total bullshit. You, too, can learn to recognize context and adjust your behaviour, language, decisions and actions to fit the context. Unless, of course, you are incapable of learning anything new.

Posted by: remusm8 | July 3, 2011 1:18 PM

@ strange gods before me

I'm not in any way excusing his behaviour. He was being a dick. A dense, clueless dick. Also, it's an understandable form of disckishness. Assuming he was just clueless and this isn't his usual routine that is. He could have and perhaps should have know better, but nobody can completely and totally avoid making mistakes of this sort. He also did the best thing anyone can make out of that situation, by not further pursuing the issue. (This is a lot of assumptions, but I reckon Rebecca would have mentioned this had it happened. Or not.)

That's what I meant with 'innocent mistake'. Perhaps not the best way to phrase it. Understandable douchebaggery perhaps?

@Philip

Really? How do you even bring up 'the right to go about unmolested' into this, I wonder. Did you really get that out of what I said? That I somehow challenge this right?

Look, here's the thing. If you want to really fight sexism in the atheist community it would be helpful not to rip off people's nuts off and put them in the same category of 'rape apologists' if they think that a guy propositioning a woman in an elevator is guilty of little more than being a dick with spectacularly poor judgement skills.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 1:19 PM

Reposting some Carlie from last thread:

And you know that if she had gone to his room because she took it in good faith that he just wanted to discuss her talk in more depth, and she got raped by him, people would say it was her damned fault because everyone knows not to go back to some guy's room at 4am after he follows you into the elevator and asks you to.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 1:20 PM

You know, if I am walking down a street late at night and there is a women walking in the same direction ahead of me I feel uncomfortable. I feel uncomfortable because I know she may well perceive me as a threat and I have no easy way of making her aware I am not.

I doubt very much I am alone in this. I wonder how many of those making excuses for EG would feel the same.

Posted by: missmarnie | July 3, 2011 1:20 PM

Simple rule: Don't put an individual in a situation you would advise a woman you care about against.

For instance, you dear friend/niece/daughter/cousin/mother/whomever says "a man I have never met just approached me in an elevator at 4AM, we had both been drinking earlier. He wants to know if I would like to join him in his hotel room. What do you think?"

By the way, if the whole of your answer is "he might be a nice guy and have no ill intentions" you should be kicked in the burrito.

But seriously, whatever your intentions, whatever you think the other individual might be like, whatever your level of inebriation, think about the situation as though you are a strange man and the woman is someone you know well and care about and ask yourself if there is any chance at all that this could be viewed as a risky situation for her.

The truth is that very nice and well meaning people may inadvertently approach a situation in a way that is very similar to what a not-at-all-nice, ill meaning person might do. The woman has no means of determining which type of person you are and it's up to you not to make her feel like she has to be safe and rude or polite and take a huge risk.

Posted by: Xios the Fifth | July 3, 2011 1:21 PM

To listen to some of the implications of this, you'd think she had to practically fight tooth and nail to escape the Evil Stranger who took no for an answer. Remember, gentlemen, no means no. But just putting a woman in a position to have to say no makes a creepy sexual pervert. But no means no - just don't ask though as the woman you ask might not like that you've asked. Sure, some women would be receptive to it. But you must forgo asking because some women won't like it.

....I'm not sure how to say this, since it's already been said a ridiculous number of times quite well. It's only implied if you didn't read the entire thing or don't have good reading comprehension. I'll try to say this clearly.

The reason the entire business of raping, sexual perversion, etc. came up was because of some idiots on the other thread who are either really clueless or willfully ignorant. Not sure which.

Women, because of a number of factors, including smaller physical size, cultural factors and caution, usually have the 'rapist scale' in their head when they are propositioned.

The point was that asking a woman at four in the morning, after both of you have had a number of drinks in a small enclosed space from which escape is not possible to come to your room for coffee is a really stupid move if you do, in fact, want her to say 'yes'.

For all I know, the gentleman in question may have bore her no ill will but was simply clueless. I don't know and can't find out.

However, blaming the women who are trying to either tell men so they don't do this or are trying to stand up for their rights, abilities, and privileges is downright malevolent.

Comprende?

Posted by: tradewinds | July 3, 2011 1:22 PM

Sounds like some of you have been behaving badly, else why would PZ take the time to pen this :)

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 1:25 PM

I'd also like to point out generally that I think it's funny how Elevator Guy is given all the benefit of the doubt ("he was socially awkward! Maybe he doesn't understand social cues and body language! He's just a big fan of her work! It was a total coincidence he hung around her group all night and then followed her to the elevator! He really did just want to have coffee, that's it!") and yet RW is given no such consideration whatsoever. Yup, no sexism there.

Posted by: Deen | July 3, 2011 1:26 PM

How come the people who argue that this thing has been blown out of proportion tend to write the longest comments?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 1:26 PM

Justicar - you're still avoiding the question. You still haven't explained why we ought to privilege (heh) your opinion on how women should feel in elevators over anyone else's.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 1:28 PM

amphiox:
So sorry. I forgot that in the comments section here we're not allowed to talk about the comments others have left. It's not like a discussion or anything.

I'll get back to only addressing what appears in the main article. Uh, you're a rocket surgeon - I just know it.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 1:29 PM

@Carlie

Seriously, I'm fucking exhausted from arguing with Justicar. Even arguing with brick walls would be more productive. I think I'm done at this point.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 1:30 PM

Carlie, you're still droning on about something I've never said. Indeed, I've specifically told you that when I start saying that people are prohibited from doing something because of my authority to say so, you'll have the ghost of the point.

I haven't, and you don't.

Carlie, you're still avoiding reality. Allow me to draw you some pictures to help you along.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 1:32 PM

Dear snarky feminists,

Many of us western men do not your sneering nor your ideology to have concern for equlaity & women's issues. we demonstrate this on a daily basis and prefer you demonstrate you can have a two-way dialogue (hence the name) to those who disagree w/ your ideology.

--Non-feminist humanist

Posted by: deadly | July 3, 2011 1:34 PM

Andyo

This will be my last post on Aikido as this is straying off-topic.

I was trying to disabuse David on a few specific points; In reference to your comment: I agree with you! (I'm not going to start a semantic argument over the first sentence.) My point was not to say that they're all martial arts and so are all sacred and amazing, but to say that they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Much of their effectiveness is down to personal experience and ability.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 1:34 PM

Non-feminist humanist

You cannot be a humanist whilst dismissing more than half the population.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 3, 2011 1:35 PM

John Salerno, Here's a clue: if you have to start out a sentence with "at the risk of sounding like...," then STOP. Erase what you've written. Walk away from the keyboard. You'll thank me for this advice someday, because then you won't sound like an idiot and a rape apologist.

Here's the deal--a woman should be able to get dead drunk, pass out naked in a room full of horny men and remain utterly untouched except for the guy tucking her into bed...alone.

NOTHING EVER JUSTIFIES OR MITIGATES RAPE.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 1:37 PM

--Non-feminist humanist--

You cannot be a humanist whilst dismissing more than half the population.

@Matt, please please tell me you can explain to me the faulty use of language and/or logic here.

Posted by: Rasmus | July 3, 2011 1:37 PM

Seems to me that the simplest way of "getting laid at Atheist conferences" is to bring a date, or arrange to meet someone you know from online. If it is a date, romantic moves are on the table from the get-go. Trying to negotiate from zero-to-bedroom in one evening is pretty tough to do, especially if you're trying to maintain your DHB cred. It is a lot easier if you have already had some contact and conversations and know each other as people. All the rules still apply, and you're not guaranteed anything even if you're actually dating or even married.

Yeah, I think that's about the only way that's not a 1000 meter shot in the dark unless you know beforehand that you are extremely attractive on the market.

Further suggestions? Uh, yeah. Condoms. Learn to use them. Five measly minutes of half-drunken messing around with someone you hardly know are never worth a month of worries about STD:s and inadvertent fatherhood. The difference in feel is negligible when you get the right size and use it correctly... And that's before even considering that you want to be a DHB.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 1:39 PM

Matt:
Denying your undemonstrated claim doesn't make me ignorant. You can't marshal a convincing argument and then blame those whom it fails to convince for not being smart enough to remedy your defective argumentation skills.

Of course, I can't wait for the pat riposte: it's my privilege that prevents me from understanding how Right your Truth is. It's not at all that you fail at every turn to rub two coherent thoughts together and marry those to a conclusion entailed by them or anything. No. Not that. Anything but that!

Posted by: deadly | July 3, 2011 1:40 PM

Non-feminist humanist:

Dear snarky feminists,

Unsubstantive comment is unsubstantive (and poorly written).

Posted by: ktsaktsa | July 3, 2011 1:41 PM

Buddy, that was pretty good advice. I'd like to add to it. Fo sho it helps if, as in my case, you have luxurious, long and black silky hair that goes down to your waist. Brown skin tanned 'red' by the awesome Nor Cal sun and three day hippie music festivals, so tan that peeps think you are native American (I'm really Filipino American), ya know, so that you literally radiate a glow. Chiseled features like Bruce Lee, or in my case better, ya know, cause I'm alive and he's dead. Be so funny and charming that your brother IS a professional comedian. And the most import...be totally humble. In fact be the most humble peep out there. On the top ten list of humble peeps out there...be all ten slots (and if you are a baddass, then #11 also).

Other than that, just be nice and genuine.

Heart,

Kriss

Posted by: jlxn | July 3, 2011 1:46 PM

How come the people who argue that this thing has been blown out of proportion tend to write the longest comments?

Linguistic gymnastics?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 1:48 PM

remusm8:

Look, here's the thing. If you want to really fight sexism in the atheist community it would be helpful not to rip off people's nuts off and put them in the same category of 'rape apologists' if they think that a guy propositioning a woman in an elevator is guilty of little more than being a dick with spectacularly poor judgement skills.

I fail to see where Philip emasculated you or called you a rape apologist, so perhaps you should cut down on the hyperbole.

So, if we really want to fight sexism, we won't criticize guys who think they're fighting sexism but are making mistakes, or at least we won't criticize them by pointing out when their language is echoing and reinforcing sexist memes.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | July 3, 2011 1:48 PM

a_ray_in_dilbert_space wrote:

Just curious. Is sex the only value you attach to a woman--because it seems as if every thought that goes into your post is directed at justifying such an attitude.

The logical fallacy of believing one cannot care about more than one problem at once is not fucking profound.

Scented Nectar, your pretense that any concern about rape culture whatsoever is an affront to "sexual freedom" isn't fooling anyone except you and the MRAs. Listen: I don't feel particularly sexually "free" when I have to worry about being assaulted, or about anything I do or say (or don't do or say) being taken after the fact as consent to being assaulted. If you want to further the cause of actual sexual freedom, maybe you ought to consider that it doesn't thrive in that kind of atmosphere. But, given your history here (I thought you said a while ago you wouldn't come back?), I don't hold out much hope for that.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 1:51 PM

PeterParker:
It's a bit difficult when the conversation starts out:

That's sexist, misogynistic, oppressive and endangering the lives of women.

Then the question comes:
how is this sexist?

The answer:

You fucking woman hating retard who doesn't fucking know how The One Truth is so fucking obvious, fucking wearing your privilege like that!

But what if I'm a woman?
Oh, then you're brainwashed and stupid and you have to agree that the Only Way by The One Truth is to do exactly as Rebecca did - any other answer makes you a hazard to women the world over, and only shows how you're too stupid to realize that men are oppressing you. If you're not feeling victimized when a man shows interest in you, then you're wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrong!

Or:
How is it "privilege" for me as a person who is in an approximately equivalent situation to not feel threatened when someone dares to talk to me without permission first?
STTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDD You can't understand my Great Arguments about The One Truth because you're so fucking retarded, and a douchebag!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 1:52 PM

Short version: I agree with comment #20, Island Adolescent and the others who have said, going into conferences with the idea that you are going to, or try to, engage in intimate relations is not good, please don't.

Exactly.

At TAM last year, I met two very different men. I became aware of one of them after overhearing different groups of women point him out as a creep and someone to be avoided. The next day I found myself in group including this noted creep. A woman approached us to talk to a friend. Without even asking her name, the creep asked if she was single and announced his intention to find a girlfriend at TAM. She left immediately. Creep then mentioned how the women at TAM were treating him poorly.

The second man is a widow living in the bible belt. Over lunch we discussed how difficult it is for an atheist to date in such an area but he never mention picking up the slack at TAM. Over the weekend, I saw him in many different groups. The people around him, which included women, were relaxed, happy to talk whatever speaker they had just seen. He was having a great time.

Neither of these men "got laid" or even laid the groundwork for a relationship but only one of them was able to enjoy themselves.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 3, 2011 1:53 PM

You know, if I am walking down a street late at night and there is a women walking in the same direction ahead of me I feel uncomfortable. I feel uncomfortable because I know she may well perceive me as a threat and I have no easy way of making her aware I am not.

I doubt very much I am alone in this.

No, I feel the same way. Up to the point where I will try to pick a different route (or cross across the street) if possible.

And I live in a relatively safe country for women.

I also try to invite women to meet at a public place the first time I meet up with them - or make sure that there are others there.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a blogpost called Why men don’t get to decide if talk about rape is threatening - the points I make in that post could also be used to explain why men, or even other women, don't get to decide whether a man's behavior is threatening to the woman. We cannot know the context of the woman's perception (though in Rebacca Watson's case, we know that she is the frequent target of rape threats).

Posted by: serendipitydawg | July 3, 2011 1:53 PM

Yahoomess @239,

two-way dialogue (hence the name)

A two way dialogue is a duologue. A dialogue can have as many participants as you like... dia not di.

If you are going to be a moron, you may as well be an educated moron.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 3, 2011 1:54 PM

Your concern is noted, Spiderman.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 1:55 PM

DogWhisperer

That won't be sufficient. If you're actually gay and have been actually raped, you still can't understand. You see, you'd still have a dick and therefore, your privilege of being male prevents you from understanding what rape and the fear of rape really means. Only women know. In fact, not even women really. Only feminists know. Well, not even feminists. Only feminists who agree with Rebecca Watson have can have an opinion on it; it is impossible to not agree because The One Truth prevents it.

And no, not even being transgendered would solve the problem. You were once male and therefore, you have male privilege. If you deny it, then you're endangering women - hell, other women in the world might have someone talk to them in an elevator. And the guy speaking to her might take no as an answer too. Oh, you'll never understand The One Truth!

Posted by: karenm77 | July 3, 2011 1:56 PM

It's really quite simple. Really, it is.

1. If the very first thing you say to a stranger is something in the category of "I would like to isolate you," you are being creepy (no matter where you are or what time it is).

2. If the very first thing you say to a stranger is that you would like to isolate him or her and you say it when the two of you are alone, you are being creepy and aggressive.

3. If you both are alone and the person has no immediate avenue of escape, you are being creepy and aggressive and scary.

4. If your modus operandi has been to be creepy and still get results, you have been lucky enough to encounter people whose tolerance for creepy is very high, for any number of possible reasons that honestly you can't know unless you asked. It doesn't mean retroactively that you weren't being creepy because the person didn't call you out for it at the time.

5. If you perceive that the risk of being labeled "creepy" is outweighed by the benefits of possibly meeting someone via creepy tactics, at least gracefully accept the label of "creepy" when it is used to describe something you have done. If you don't care about the opinions of the people who call you creepy, then don't worry about it and don't complain when they use the term. If you do care about the opinions of the people who call you "creepy" and if "creepy" is not a description that matches up with your self-image, reevaluate what you are doing. Ask the people whose opinions you care about for advice.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 3, 2011 1:57 PM

I mean, doesn't that seem just a teensy bit inappropriate. Is that really the sort of action you--as a man--want reflecting on you?

No, because to them she's just "a woman" and no other rank or social status matters.

Posted by: PeterParker | July 3, 2011 2:00 PM

"Your concern is noted, Spiderman"

shit... who told you?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 2:00 PM

PeterParker:

This same 15-year-old attitude is more often than not championed by some of the apparently respected regulars such as Caine Fleur de Mal.

Oh, Cupcake, I'm just devastated. Here's a suggestion: go to my post @ #108. Click all the links. READ. Especially read the previous post before you start braying. It helps to know what you're talking about, which you don't.

I've been posting on this particular subject for hours at this point, listening to one misogynistic creep after another. I've been polite. Now, my patience is worn somewhere past thin. I'm in no mood for assholes, including yourself, cupcake.

Unlike you, PeterParker, I'm a regular commenter here. I'm an OM. I'm involved, on a regular basis in every feminism thread that comes up here. I deal with misogynistic scum on a regular basis. Until you can say you do the same thing, perhaps you should think a bit before scolding me.

Don't get me wrong, I like to curse as much as the next person, and some people definitely ask for it, but for some of you it seems like your default way of arguing.

Here's a handy dandy hint for you: people who begin anything with "don't get me wrong" are about to show themselves as a prime asshole. It's like people who say something like "I'm no bigot, but..." It means you're about to contradict your opening statement.

I don't care how much you like to curse or don't like to curse. No one does. If all you're seeing is swear words, you aren't paying attention to the substance of an argument, PeterParker. Substance is what matters here. What you're doing is focusing on tone. Around here, we call such people Tone Trolls™. They aren't particularly welcome. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 3, 2011 2:02 PM

Thus in dismissing feminism one implicitly rules out being a humanist. Same way you cannot be racist and humanist, or homophobic and humanist.

I'm sure he's all for supporting women's issues, if the stupid women would just STFU and let him tell them what issues deserve to be supported!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 2:03 PM

@Pastor Farm

re: feminist ideologs

It's really not a scared of losing freedoms. Its more about ideology vs skepticism

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 3, 2011 2:04 PM

Oh, then you're brainwashed and stupid and you have to agree that the Only Way by The One Truth is to do exactly as Rebecca did - any other answer makes you a hazard to women the world over You, the moron who calls RW "irrational" and "hysterical" for perceiving the situation differently from how you would perceive it, are the only one who is pretending there is only one way or one truth.

You may now continue your descent into incoherence.

Posted by: DogWhisperer | July 3, 2011 2:05 PM

@Kristjan Wager:

You know, if I am walking down a street late at night and there is a women walking in the same direction ahead of me I feel uncomfortable. I feel uncomfortable because I know she may well perceive me as a threat and I have no easy way of making her aware I am not.
I doubt very much I am alone in this.

No, I feel the same way. Up to the point where I will try to pick a different route (or cross across the street) if possible.

Yup. I do this all the time. I hate feeling like I am making someone else concerned. In fact, I'm bi and have in the past couple years been dressing far more "flaming" than I did as a teen / early twenty-something and I much prefer this arrangement...I get a bit more harassment for doing so than I did when I dressed more "straight," but women are less uncomfortable around me in the subway and whatnot.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 2:07 PM

Matt Penfold, CO of the HMSO | July 3, 2011 2:00 PM

Dismissing feminism is to accept that you do regard women are being of equal worth or ability to men.

This is an incorrect premise because it assumes that all feminists have the correct ideas about gender issues. That the only proper way to address gender issues is via feminism.

Agreed?

If you do not agree, please explain.

I dismiss all ideologies as skeptic and i see lots of them in the feminist camp.

Posted by: Pastor Farm | July 3, 2011 2:09 PM

@ 285

To the best of my knowledge, Feminist ideology is in no way counter to Skepticism. I don't know of any woo inherent in Feminism.

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 2:10 PM

You know, it's kind of hard for me to understand how some of the folks here cannot see that when a person is a speaker, invited to give her views on a subject of interest that it might be just a wee but rude to utterly ignore what she has said and presume she came all that way to have sex with you.

I mean, doesn't that seem just a teensy bit inappropriate. Is that really the sort of action you--as a man--want reflecting on you? Is that the sort of image that we as atheists want to project to women?

Do we really want women saying to themselves, "I really want to say something about that, but if I say anything at all, it will just attract attention from guys like elevator man?"

QFT

(And because so many of us have been saying the same thing. I'm rooting for your take on it to get through the thick skulls around here. Go logic!)

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 2:11 PM

Jlxn:

That's oftentimes a byproduct of people not talking sense. It would be absolutely lovely to see one coherent thought as to why Rebecca Watson's emotions are somehow the metric by which the entire male population is to be judged.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 3, 2011 2:11 PM

Oops! That should have been:

Oh, then you're brainwashed and stupid and you have to agree that the Only Way by The One Truth is to do exactly as Rebecca did - any other answer makes you a hazard to women the world over

You may now continue your descent into incoherence.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 2:12 PM

@293

Then you dont need to discuss much do you?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 2:14 PM

RahXephon231:

Justicar's already done with his descent and his incoherence has actually started some kind of feedback loop, to the point that his posts seems to consist almost entirely of passive-aggressive "snark" at things people didn't even say.

You went above and beyond. And it's not all bad, because Spiderman has decided to kiss up to Justicar, of all people. A match made in...well, that I don't know.

Posted by: PeterParker | July 3, 2011 2:15 PM

Caine Fleur de Mal,

I can tell you've been at this for hours and by now you must be a little bit wired from all the misogynist assholes you crossed swords with. It shows.

But you haven't spoken to me until now, and I was not trying to scold you, believe it or not. So calm down. If you go around cussing out everybody you disagree with as trolls and asking them to fuck off, why are you surprised when someone leaves the forum with a less than favourable impression of you? To me, you sound like a troll half of the time. And it's a shame, because on topics like Rebecca Watson, I find myself agreeing with the points you make. (I did actually read what you had to say).

"Unlike you, PeterParker, I'm a regular commenter here. I'm an OM. I'm involved, on a regular basis in every feminism thread that comes up here"

Was that supposed to be a joke?

If you're going to hang medals on your own neck for contributing comments on a forum then I am entitled to a few medals myself for calling out bigots on Youtube. But I would never dream of beating my chest for commenting on forums. Armchair activism = oxymoron.

Posted by: DogWhisperer | July 3, 2011 2:16 PM

@ Justicar:

That won't be sufficient. If you're actually gay and have been actually raped, you still can't understand. You see, you'd still have a dick and therefore, your privilege of being male prevents you from understanding what rape and the fear of rape really means. Only women know. In fact, not even women really. Only feminists know. Well, not even feminists. Only feminists who agree with Rebecca Watson have can have an opinion on it; it is impossible to not agree because The One Truth prevents it.

Actually being a male victim of rape *is* different than being a female one. In some ways it's worse (even worse victim shaming/blaming, the homo "ew/ick" factor tainting sympathy toward you, the relative lack of institutional resources for you compared to female rape survivors, etc) while in other ways it's better (you are, after all, still a male and therefore probably larger than most females and it may be easier for you to bulk up and gain more self-confidence that it won't happen again and thus you may not have to live in as much fear for as long, etc) and in many others ways it may be very similar or somewhat different but not necessarily better or worse. So I don't see what your point is there.

It is tautologically true that we can never truly get someone else's viewpoint, although we can try and we can make our first assumption be that their viewpoint is valid until proven otherwise. When the viewpoint of a large percentage of the population is similar, disregarding that viewpoint (as you do) is a the action of a presumptuous, privileged asshat.

By the way, even if you truly believed it wouldn't change your or the "Feminists'" minds if you did so, is there any reason you wouldn't go out in a manner that marked you as a vulnerable target akin to what women do every day?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 2:17 PM

MichelleZB

Can one be against feminist and still treat women with equality and respect?

No, I don't think someone who truly treats women with equality and respect can be against feminism. It is possible, though, that such a person could be against certain specific feminists, since anyone can be wrong.

Being against feminist ideology is called for because there are plenty of problematic denominations of it.

This is basic stuff here.

Prior to feminism there were gender equalists and after it there will be as well.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 2:19 PM

@MichelleZB (repost- f'n HTML sucks here)

Being against feminist ideology is called for because there are plenty of problematic denominations of it.

This is basic stuff here.

Prior to feminism there were gender equalists and after it there will be as well.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 3, 2011 2:20 PM

Do you think feminism has a scientific basis

Insofar as there is no scientific basis for the discrimination and oppression that feminism stands against, yes.

and that all feminists employ reason and skepticism in their handling of gender causes?

No, not all. There's plenty of bullshit promulgated by some feminists in the name of feminism. I've even had occasion to accuse specific feminists of science denial.

So what? Discrimination and oppression are still wrong.

Posted by: shawmutt | July 3, 2011 2:21 PM

So, after reading this thread, and the last one, and doing some research on a few of the groups mentioned here, I have a question. Why are some here equating pick up artists (PUA) with men's rights associations (MRA)? It seems a bit sexist to say thay a group dedicated to picking up females for sex is the same as groups of men fighting for equal rights in a family court.

Oh, and Hitler!

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 2:24 PM

remusm8

Perhaps I'm just not expressing myself clearly, which is definitely possible considering I'm not a native English speaker.

I think you're expressing yourself clearly enough. Sometimes people have thoughts and feel a compulsion to express them, in unnecessary and even inappropriate contexts, without considering whether those thoughts are contributing anything illuminative to the discussion.

I think we can all understand that more straight men need to understand Schrödingers Rapist, or a guy's guide to approaching strange women without being maced—and that you can help by getting your friends to read it, posting it on your Facebook or whatever.

But what on Earth do you think you are contributing with this:

as with any learning process, mistakes are going to be made, making them at least somewhat understandable.

It's like the women here are saying "male privilege makes men oblivious, and they need to understand that, and fix it", and you are responding "zomg, but male privilege makes men oblivious! and you need to understand that!"

Posted by: Codex | July 3, 2011 2:24 PM

I dismiss all ideologies as skeptic

Hmm, odd, my ideologies as a human rights campaigner and an environmentalist are firm but not 100% fixed in stone and open to slight changes thus do not offend my scepticism. However, without ideology I would not be doing any of the work I do and would not have met many of my friends.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having an ideology as long as it is based on rational thought and research. If you dismiss all ideologies why do you give a fuck about feminism?

Posted by: thajarin | July 3, 2011 2:25 PM

As a person who has never been involved with a one-night stand, I am of the opinion, that perhaps, a person might be better of to focus on having a dialogue with their fellow atheists. It just seems a little pushy to go out to get laid at a conference. Don't get me wrong, if you meet someone and something happens I think that's great. But even if you are going to meet people who are like minded I think it's really presumptuous to think you are going to get laid.

Posted by: Deen | July 3, 2011 2:25 PM

@JRave:

I just completely fail to see - and this, I think, is what separates the two sides of this debate - how you can assume from the transcribed actions of randy 'elevator man' savage that he did in fact feel that he was on the more enjoyable side of a sexual divide.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 2:26 PM

shawmutt:

Why are some here equating pick up artists (PUA) with men's rights associations (MRA)?

Because they have a great deal in common. We often see both types in a single thread, and they spout the same rhetoric, most of which boils down to bitches ain't shit.

I don't think you're quite clear on MRAs, either. Try Explainer: What's an MRA? for a start.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 2:27 PM

It would be this skeptic's approach to any gender warrior to expect them to at least demonstrate that any particular context has a gender element to begin with- and then also demonstrate its priority over other potential human element.

This is where most feminisms fail: the assumption that any given social context can be broken down on gender- and these days, many times ONLY on gender. This is a bad assumption when class, physical and other cultural features are demonstrably deserving of primacy.

This presents skeptics w/ a perfectly clear concern for ideology AND religious-ish tunnel vision.

Posted by: Phil65 | July 3, 2011 2:29 PM

Just out of curiosity, am I the only hetero white male on earth who actually appreciates his privileges?

I like not being pulled over for no reason, and not being tailed in stores, and not having to worry about being alone in an elevator with another man (unless he farts). I like that people talk to my face and not my chest.

In other words, it's pretty awesome being a white male, and I have absolutely no idea why anyone in my position would spend all of their time crying about it.

And the best thing about those privileges I just mentioned: no one is asking me to give up any of them.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 2:30 PM

Can one be against feminist and still treat women with equality and respect?

No, because if you are against feminism then you are against women's own attempts to gain equality and respect.

Posted by: jlxn | July 3, 2011 2:31 PM

That's oftentimes a byproduct of people not talking sense. It would be absolutely lovely to see one coherent thought as to why Rebecca Watson's emotions are somehow the metric by which the entire male population is to be judged.

Justicar, I'd like to help you but I haven't seen where Rebecca Watson's emotions are the metric by which the entire male population is being judged.

I cannot see any reason to take what Rebecca Watson said about this incident as a judgement on the entire male population. It is about our culture and prevailing attitudes certainly. But there is no reason any male should consider this a personal judgement.

That's where you get it wrong.

Posted by: Neamhspleachas | July 3, 2011 2:36 PM

@209

I agree that I know a lot of women who would have told the guy to piss off. Sometimes, however, that reaction can put you in a much worse spot. Check out some of the stories over on Hollaback. It is not unusual for a woman to reject to a sexual advance from a man and have him respond in a abusive manner.

Posted by: gex | July 3, 2011 2:36 PM

I should add, being gay doesn't make me any safer, because I am still a woman. And I've had my inappropriate/threatening/scary approaches by men. I just don't have to go through the difficulty of sorting through guys to find a feminist one.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 2:37 PM

PeterParker:

So calm down.

I'm already calm. Cupcake, go clutch your little pearls elsewhere. You're doing nothing except Tone Trolling™ and a nasty class of whining. You are not adding anything to the substance of the current discussion.

Here's another handy dandy hint: every single trolling arse who shows up here eventually tells someone to "calm down". It marks you as an idiot. With that, I'm done with you. You can go back to kissing Justicar's ass now, which was fucking hilarious and shows the extent of your ignorance.

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 2:41 PM

Heading to my first TAM this year, I'm really excited. Reading some of these comments has helped me decide to have a good time but avoid being alone with anyone who is not an old friend. Thank you PZ.

TAM is sold out, it will be huge. In addition to the core 200 or so, there will be a lot of people who have been recently introduced to the skeptical/atheist community and will have their own take on it. This will include a greater number of women, especially because there are more women speakers and some of the new attendees will have heard about TAM from their blogs.

Women will no longer be special simply because they're scarce. This is great. When there's less of a majority. it's easier to treat everyone as equal. Here's hoping that you, as a first time attendee, feel a camaraderie of peers.

On the off-chance that a year of examining sexism in the atheist movement hasn't taught the assholes, here's a bit of advice. If you are alone and feel uncomfortable for any reason at all, go find the skepchicks. Whatever you think of what they have written, they are individually some of the nicest, most welcoming people you'll meet. If you're in the corridor, Surly Amy will have a stall of jewelry, she or her husband are almost always there. If you need a safe zone, that's the place to go. This isn't gender specific advice, btw. If anyone was making a first TAMmer feel threatened, Amy would be the first to notice the situation.

I doubt that you'll need this advice and I am not saying that you can't take care of yourself. Just laying out an escape route should you need it.

Posted by: PeterParker | July 3, 2011 2:42 PM

Caine Fleur du Mal,

It was a pleasure speaking to you too, sweat-heart.
Good luck on your armchair activism. Where would we all be without you?

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 2:43 PM

Jlxn:

This is what people are saying. Because she's uncomfortable, the rest of the world is somehow supposed to know that. To not know this is sexist and denigrating. And when she tells men they're assholes for not knowing because women don't like and is told by some women they have no problems with it, well, nevermind those women's opinion.

They're the wrong kind of feminist because, you know, they think differently.

And of course I can't disagree with her either because to do so demonstrates only that I'm sexist, woman hating, misogynistic and using my privilege - a supposed thing I have that makes it impossible for me to understand the concern that actual oppression generates.

Now, you might say you're not arguing this position, and I'm not saying you are. But there are people who are arguing it; it's those people with whom I disagree. And yet you tell me that I just don't get it.

No, I get it. No matter how many times I've said Rebecca is free to have whatever feelings she wants, I'm told that I am saying she's not allowed to. If she wants to run around being victimized by someone making a putative pass at her, fine. She's welcome to it. She is, however, entitled to demand the rest of the world bow down to her and speak only when spoken to according to the rules she's mapped out in her head as to what a man is able to say.

And if other women feel differently, well that's just too bad for them because the only way to make sure that Rebecca NEVER has to suffer the indignity of declining an offer is for no man to hit on a woman. After all, there's a small chance she might the woman.

Again, for the slower ones among us: she is welcome to her feelings of oppression, victimhood, anger, fear, cowardice, intimidation and whatever else she wants. I just fail to see how this generalizes, or presents a de facto argument of when, where, how and under what conditions a man may invite a woman to coffee, or even express interest in her.

Particularly when there are women saying they are fine with it.

It's not that the argument is Rebecca Watson feels uncomfortable, therefore if you meet Rebecca Watson, don't do x y or z. It's that Rebecca Watson feels uncomfortable, and you're a sexist rape-enabling motherfucker for not knowing that. That indicts the whole of women, some of whom would rather not be managed by Rebecca Watson's particular emotional issues.

(but I have no opinion; I'm only a minority when someone's arguments needs padding. )

Posted by: JRave | July 3, 2011 2:45 PM

You don't have to be aware of privilege to have it...and you don't have it.

More assumption.

If I don't view one gender/colour/species as of less worth than myself, am I ignorant?

More to the point, am I naive for assuming that a man who attends a sceptics event may tend to be of a more free minded persuasion?

Posted by: DogWhisperer | July 3, 2011 2:45 PM

What I said:

It is tautologically true that we can never truly get someone else's viewpoint, although we can try and we can make our first assumption be that their viewpoint is valid until proven otherwise. When the viewpoint of a large percentage of the population is similar, disregarding that viewpoint (as you do) is a the action of a presumptuous, privileged asshat.

What Justicar heard:

When a large percentage of the population agrees, it means that disagreeing makes one an asshat

I guess I really am just terrible at getting what I'm trying to say across, as Giliell and Brownian and now Justicar accuse me of. To reprise:

When a large percentage of people thinks some external thing is true (eg that creationism is true, that the climate isn't warming or that vaccines cause autism), it may or may not be true and should be open to skeptical inquiry. When, as in those three cases, skeptical inquiry finds mountains of evidence that those positions are wrong, then those positions are wrong, even if opinions of most people don't change.

HOWEVER, when a large percentage of people have the same internal emotional reaction/feeling to a specific circumstance, the presumption should be that those people are not crazy and it is in fact a legitimate way to feel. This isn't about some external truth but about internal feelings. I don't believe that every feeling is always legitimately justifiable (eg you should be prosecuted if you fear all black people want to kill you and so you preemptively start killing all black people you see), but that the presumption should be that someone's feelings are justified AND THIS PRESUMPTION is even stronger when a large percentage of people feel very similarly in a similar circumstance. It's still open to someone providing compelling evidence that a reasonable person would not feel that way in those circumstances, but given your very different life experiences as a male, your intuition is a very poor substitute for any sort of argument that that is the case.

Do you get it? Or is Pharyngula truly devoid of people who can get subtlety?

Posted by: Daz | July 3, 2011 2:46 PM

It's that Rebecca Watson feels uncomfortable, and you're a sexist rape-enabling motherfucker for not knowing that.

Citation for that please.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 2:47 PM

Tomh:
And it's also a perfectly acceptable reason for some women not to be afraid. Apparently, there exist some women who don't claim victim status the moment a man opens his mouth and extends an invitation to do something.

So, how does one tell the difference? There exist some women who, apparently, become mortally petrified at this. Some who are ambivalent. And some who would enjoy it given the right candidate.

You are excluding the latter two groups if you adopt Rebecca's stance. If you adopt the latter's stance, you've done nothing to the middle group, and Rebecca's group will have to suffer the unfair, oppressive burden of having to say no.

Say, there are some things that cause me concern, maybe even scare me a little. I guess I now have a right to demand everyone else accommodate my feelings?

To what end does this go?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 2:48 PM

strange gods before me

Can one be against feminist and still treat women with equality and respect?

No, because if you are against feminism then you are against women's own attempts to gain equality and respect.

I disagree with feminism for the reasons stated (method & scope) AND because it CAN BE wrong in its approach to gender issues. It CAN be a voice of advocacy for a woman or feminist (even when a woman or feminist is in the wrong) rather than a voice of equality- or one getting a proper read on any particular gender issue.

You can witness such tactics on this very forum.

Posted by: PeterParker | July 3, 2011 2:52 PM

Kristjan Wagner

"Comment by PeterParker blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]"

Ehm... Which comment of mine did you interpret as misogynist and, more importantly; HOW?

Posted by: Kobra | July 3, 2011 2:55 PM

@358: "Disgraceful public shaming"

Quit being such a moan-ass.

If you do something to someone, it's their right to tell the world what you did and how it made them feel.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 2:57 PM

@Caine

Yeah, I had forgotten about that. It's the same way with creationists, isn't it? Atheists and scientists don't always argue with them because we think we'll change their minds; we do it for the audience's benefit.

I was reluctant to share a story of my own, but I suppose I can. I'm 24, and when I was a teenager I never would've thought about this kind of stuff: feminism and the like. Even as a gay teen I was still inculcated with the kind of social messaging straight men receive, if only by osmosis.

That changed when I met a guy online. Looking back on it now, he was really over the top; telling me how gorgeous, funny, and smart I was, even though we'd barely talked. He said he was really into me and I believed him. He convinced me to come over to his place because he "just had to meet me". So, I went over there.

When I got there, the first thing he did was take his laptop out and start playing porn and tried to get me to watch it. Then he took his pants off and gave me what I know now is the "it ain't gonna suck itself" look.

I don't mention this anecdote because I think I was raped, or even assaulted; I don't. I bring it up because it's a shitty thing a guy did to me that's also extremely common, and it happens to women along with gay men like me. That event and others have caused me to be really cautious when I meet men and if I see similar signals to that guy, like being overly/inappropriately enthusiastic, moving too quickly, being really insistent that we meet, I see those as warning signs just like women do.

I mention this story because it's at least a data point to reference if you're wondering why a man or woman would react to your advances negatively; most likely, they have reasons for it.

Posted by: Daz | July 3, 2011 2:59 PM

jack.rawlinson

Just how has the 'individual concerned' been publicly shamed? As far as I know, he hasn't been named. If he's seen any of the brouhaha, he knows it's him. No one else does though. I'd say at the most he's learned a lesson in social interaction with women. Which he obviously needed.

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 3:00 PM

Again, for the slower ones among us: she is welcome to her feelings of oppression, victimhood, anger, fear, cowardice, intimidation and whatever else she wants. I just fail to see how this generalizes, or presents a de facto argument of when, where, how and under what conditions a man may invite a woman to coffee, or even express interest in her.

Bravo! After two million words and 47,000 useless personal anecdotes, you have finally managed to get it. RW in no way presumes such a thing.

She gave a talk about her experiences with sexism in which she made it quite clear that she did not want to be hit on, following that she went to the bar where she and many other people discussed her talk. (This is common, btw. A speaker will often go over points they didn't have time to address in a more casual setting.) After that, she was followed into an elevator and hit on.

btw, I'm just laying this out for any newcomers. You've made it very clear that this concept (If a woman explicitly states that she does not want to be hit on, she has a right to expect that to be respected.) is far beyond your ken.

Posted by: Xios the Fifth | July 3, 2011 3:01 PM

Again, for the slower ones among us: she is welcome to her feelings of oppression, victimhood, anger, fear, cowardice, intimidation and whatever else she wants. I just fail to see how this generalizes, or presents a de facto argument of when, where, how and under what conditions a man may invite a woman to coffee, or even express interest in her.

Not only are some of her feelings justified (for example, intimidation, since men are usually larger than women and she was in a small enclosed space) it does not present a de facto argument of anything! It presents a set of guidelines as to how one person feels that men should proposition women given social conditions and her personal opinion. Those of us who agree with her are attempting to present an argument to justify it. I, at least, am supporting the attempt to give useful advice to those who wish to hear it!

Also, this disagreement does not give you the right to play oppressed or to go on long-winded rants about how the world is cruel or some such nonsense.

Please read before posting further comments.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 3, 2011 3:02 PM

Rev. BDC,

Maybe it's just me but what the fuck happened to just talking to someone until you both were obviously interested.

I could kiss you. I had an enlightening moment earlier in the year when I was having a lovely rambling conversation with a man, and later realized that there was probably an attraction developing on both sides,( well, definitely on my end, but I am notoriously horrible at noticing when someone is attracted to me,) but that didn't start out with him objectifying me in any way. It was weird and wonderful, and I probably would have never noticed it if it weren't for many things I've learned here.

Another conclusion I've come to is the answer to the question, "so can I ever hit on a woman?" is NO. Because hitting on a woman, or going to a conference with the intention of "getting laid"(ugh, I hate even typing that) is the very objectification and sexualization that Rebecca was talking about, which is why she wasn't "ragey" "hysterical" or any other hyperbolic thing,(and anyone who actually watched her video can see that) she was noting the irony of some doofus not getting what she was talking about and engaging in the very behaviour she advises against.

Picking a woman up, hitting on her, getting laid, all of this is putting the cart before the horse and makes you a very unDecent Human Being indeed.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:03 PM

shawmutt:

All this bickering makes me glad I'm happily married to a wonderful woman who doesn't find me creepy

All this bickering? You know, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore. You see attempting to educate people on the toxicity of privilege as bickering? As in "oh, not really important at all"?

Jesus fuckin' Christ.

By the way, your marriage has nothing to do with the subject at hand. A lot of us are married. I am, over 30 years. How is that relevant to issues of feminism and privilege?

Anyway, how about you wander off and enjoy that marriage, eh? It will no doubt do more good than you posting here.

Kristjan Wager:

I'd just like to say thank you to all the regulars fighting the good fight against the misogynists who always show up in this sort of threads. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Kristjan.

Posted by: anonymousply | July 3, 2011 3:05 PM

Amazing exhibition of crappery with PZ reduced to supplying a dictum of proper behavior to the hopelessly mysogynistic made excellently and no doubt with an ear for responding to the throbbingly insistent ring of stupidity.

'Let all the poison that lurks in the mud hatch out.'

What the FLYING FUCK is the "argument" here?

That there is some liberty that attends that a boner must be properly ejaculated upon any woman such boner may deem an acceptible target?

I've got news for those who insist they have a 'right' to proposition a woman for that selfish 'reason': go fuck a convenient fire hydrant to alleviate your distress.

Posted by: serendipitydawg | July 3, 2011 3:06 PM

shawmutt,

All this bickering makes me glad I'm happily married to a wonderful woman who doesn't find me creepy and doesn't mind me propositioning her at 4 am in an empty elevator. Hell, she may reach over and hit the STOP button!

Well, lucky you. I hope you can see the difference between this and the subject in hand.

_{Do be careful though, a lot of CCTV seems to end up on TV or YouTube these days.}

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 3:08 PM

Wow, I just finished reading Schrodinger's Rapist.

Is this really true? Do women live in constant fear of strange men?

First off, replace "constant fear" with "constant vigilance" and you're much closer. Do women live in a state of constant vigilance? Yes.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:08 PM

You_Monster:

Caine, Fleur du mal,

Thanks for those links at #108, they were all great. Too bad those who would benefit most from reading through them probably won't.

Hey, I'm thrilled you took the time to read and liked them! Thank you very much.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 3:08 PM

@Algernon

What Sven said.

I actually appreciate part of what Sven said as well. It is so very rare to see a feminist counter another.

Also, it sounds like you approach skepticism as an ideology.

I will try harder. In the mean time:

F off

Posted by: remusm8 | July 3, 2011 3:10 PM

@strange gods

Yeah, I noticed that was starting to become the discussion I was having with you.

My original comment, which caused a few people to go batshit crazy was more of a general 'I can't believe a rather harmless incident set off such a shitstorm of e-rage' sort. My subsequent comments were written more with that in mind.

So let's just say that I'm right and that you, by virtue of agreeing with me, are right also.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 3, 2011 3:12 PM

Sven and I often agree with each other. So I guess that would be two feminists countering each other?

Or... you're an idiot.

I will try harder. In the mean time: F off

I'll take that as "I'm too stupid to reply" which, I believe, is what you really mean. Yes. I'm sure you will try harder, and continue to be an idiot and anti-humanist. That's good for you now.

Posted by: Terry Gibbs | July 3, 2011 3:12 PM

PZ - great advice, but you left one thing out.

Be Aware Of The Situation in some situations things are acceptable that would be creepy in others.

For example, I met a woman I lived with for years one night when a car drove up with one of my friends in the passenger seat. I took one look at the driver, and said I'm going with you two and got in the car. That would have been creepy if the woman I knew wasn't in the car to provide a buffer while the woman of my dreams got comfortable with me.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 3:13 PM

I disagree with feminism for the reasons stated (method & scope) AND because it CAN BE wrong in its approach to gender issues.

Again, misogynist troll, you are pretending intersectional feminism does not exist.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 3, 2011 3:14 PM

I disagree with feminism for the reasons stated (method & scope) AND because it CAN BE wrong in its approach to gender issues.

Anything can be wrong, dipshit. Your quest for a fool proof ideology will remain eternally out of your hands. Have you tried religion? I heard it's never wrong.

Posted by: DogWhisperer | July 3, 2011 3:16 PM

The thing is, most men, I would venture, have been in situations where they feel like they need to be vigilant to the same level women usually are. Most dads of daughters have probably encouraged a good bit of vigilance. It's really not asking too much of men to try to understand.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 3:17 PM

Well I hope its obvious that not all skeptics see feminism(s) the same way.

At the very least feminism should be held up to scrutiny in the way it divides- creating yet another tribal "us & them"; some feminists have a strong sense of us & them, while others have a weak one.

Skpetics need to examine and discuss these things-- and obviously social scientists should probably be around to weigh in. There is so much happening- from neuropsyche to social pscyh- and I just hate to see these threads void of real substance from them.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 3, 2011 3:18 PM

What I meant was that the speaker cannot be held to account if a person perceives their words in a manner different to their intent (assuming that their words cannot reasonably be interpreted as a call to violence). That way madness lies.

No, it doesn't. Are you really so stupid that you expect audiences to be mindreaders?

Maybe it would help to look at this from a humanities major's perspective. Did any of these mansplainers ever take an advanced ENGL class in college? Or talk to a humanities professor about more than boosting that D on the term paper?

Because if they had, they'd know that one of the fundamental concepts in advanced language study is this:

Intent + Context = Meaning. It's like Newton's laws of thermodynamics to classical physics. Or DNA to genetics.

Notice that intent is only half the equation. Thing is, though, most communications majors/PhDs would tell you that context is more important, that the best communicators speak/write for their audiences--i.e., in context. Always. Don't believe me?

You can intend all you want to convey principles of biology. You can sincerely want to convey it. But if you try to speak of those concepts to third graders like you do to college students (or vice versa), you are not going to be deemed a good communicator, your intent is not going to come through, because failing to understand context results in turning off your listeners, even annoying, angering or frightening. It's not their fault for being third graders or college students. It's your fault if you speak to them in ways that don't correspond to the context of their reality.

It's up to the communicator to convey his intent clearly, especially in dicey situations like this. It's up to the communicator to understand how his audience, whether it be a lone woman, or a roomful of people, perceive what he's communicating. It's up to him to be aware of the context he's speaking in.

It's up to the communicator because nobody is a fucking psychic. It's fucking rude to expect people to read your tiny shriveled minds. We cannot decipher intent isolated from all context. It's absolutely fucking impossible!

Being a woman alone with a man in an elevator in a foreign country at 4 a.m. in a world where rape is not rare is the fucking context that one needs to consider in conjunction with possible intent. It was the context the speaker needed to be fucking aware of! It was not Rebecca Watson's responsibility to be a goddamned mind reader about what that scumbag intended, and it's not her fault that a bunch of smug, moronic douchebags refuse to understand that context fucking matters.

Posted by: beetle, licensed porpupine breeder | July 3, 2011 3:19 PM

Kobra,

I can only speak for myself, but it's not so much a "constant fear" as it is a constant awareness of surroundings. There are times that I'm uncomfortable taking my dogs out in my own front yard, for instance late at night when my husband is not home.( I have pugs, they are worthless as scary guard dogs. :))

I used to ride the train from the suburbs where I live into Baltimore City where I worked, and there were always few riders getting on at my stop, which was the terminus for the whole line. Often it would be me and one man, and I was always incredibly nervous. I always felt better when we got to a stop in a so called crime ridden bad part of town, because it meant a lot of people would be getting on and I wouldn't be alone. I was seventeen at the time, and already well versed on being aware of my surroundings. Because you just never know. While the majority of rapes are committed by a person a woman knows, rapes by a stranger are not uncommon, so saying things like women shouldn't be nervous or unaware is really quite absurd. Just to be clear, I've not been raped or seriously sexually assaulted. Bottom pinches and pats and the like, which is bad enough.

So, it isn't this "crippling fear" that so many people in this thread fail to understand, it's just an overall awareness of surroundings and who is in it.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:20 PM

RahXephon231:

I don't mention this anecdote because I think I was raped, or even assaulted; I don't. I bring it up because it's a shitty thing a guy did to me that's also extremely common, and it happens to women along with gay men like me. That event and others have caused me to be really cautious when I meet men and if I see similar signals to that guy, like being overly/inappropriately enthusiastic, moving too quickly, being really insistent that we meet, I see those as warning signs just like women do.

That is assault and I'm sorry you had to experience it. It would be a much better world if all people understood just how harmful and toxic privilege is in every day life.

Kobra:

Wow, I just finished reading Schrodinger's Rapist.

Is this really true? Do women live in constant fear of strange men?

It's more what Ted said, it's a state of constant vigilance. Women have to constantly have risk assessment running in the back of their mind.

I'm not actually doing that at the moment, I'm in my house, alone, with my monster dogs. However, if someone knocks on my door, yes, the vigilance kicks in. If I'm walking alone down a dark street, I'm hyper-vigilant. As with most things, context counts.

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 3:20 PM

@377: Okay, poor choice of words. Still, that's rather disheartening.

(I don't have a lot of friends and most of them are guys, so this is news to me.)

That's the weird thing about privilege, until you find an example that resonates with you, it's invisible. Almost impossible to imagine. The good news is that dealing with it is fairly simple. - Listen, actually hear, and practice empathy. (practice as in "perform repeatedly until you're good at it.")

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 3, 2011 3:22 PM

Those situations are not exactly the same, but you can not disregard one woman's feelings and use the other woman's feeling to justify general policy ("Propositioning women in elevators: No").

You should have stopped with "those sitations are not exactly the same". They are nothing alike, so try to draw some kind of parallel between then invites the impression that you try to diminish RW's concerns.

I don't disregard McGraw's feeling at all, and I am sure she felt very much put upon by RW. Yet many people defending McGraw are busy disregarding RW's feelings.

The difference is that one can accept McGraw's feelings, and still find RW's action acceptable, while one cannot accept RW's feelings, and find that the EG's actions were not problematic.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:23 PM

Kobra:

Where do I get that killfile addon?

if you want a killfile, you need Firefox. Go to http://caulfield.info/emmet/2008/11/installing-killfile-in-firefox.html
and follow the instructions.

Once that's done, in Firefox, click Tools, Greasemonkey, User Script Commands, Get latest killfile script. There ya go!

Posted by: Rotexo | July 3, 2011 3:24 PM

Three cheers for the Decent Human Beings. Decent Human Beings get to deal gracefully with this sort of situation (http://www.theonion.com/articles/horrified-man-looks-on-powerlessly-as-he-ruins-dat,18478/), and then they have a hilarious story to tell later.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 3, 2011 3:25 PM

Kobra, you need the greasemonkey add-on, but the script is here

Posted by: PeterParker | July 3, 2011 3:26 PM

Andyo,

yep.

Posted by: Pastor Farm | July 3, 2011 3:26 PM

The problem is that everything I say is wrong.

If you stopped there, you'd finally have just about everyone agree with you!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:27 PM

Between that and the seeming acquiescence towards keynote speakers using the podium to bully private individuals they disagree with, the more appropriate general advice ought to be to avoid atheist conventions entirely.

Given your last, moronic post in the previous thread, that's just fine, Mari. You wouldn't be missed.

You did get that morphing is a bannable offense here, right? Just sayin'. Again.

Posted by: Alexander Safir | July 3, 2011 3:28 PM

Great post! Will this be available in tract or pamphlet format? If not, why?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 3, 2011 3:30 PM

Of course Andyo, people who typically argue women have "nothing to fear" will turn around and argue that almost no women are really raped, or that rape is a part of a feminist agenda to create "victim culture" or that rape is mostly women who want to "abuse the system" to victimize males with false claims or have regrets about being sluts.

Blah blah blah... they use the handbook next to the creationists'

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 3, 2011 3:31 PM

Between that and the seeming acquiescence towards keynote speakers using the podium to bully private individuals they disagree with

Bullshit. Stef McGraw is not a "private individual" insofar as she blogged (that's very, very, very public) about Rebecca's views. And Stef was not "bullied", she was critiqued.

Is anyone else noticing the increasing frequency of the "but maybe he's autistic" excuse for bad behavior? It's happening here a lot, and it's really irritating. It must be even more so for people who are genuinely on the spectrum.

But guess what - most people are not, in fact, on the spectrum, and it is not unreasonable to make generalizations about what is and is not acceptable behavior. Besides which, why would anyone complain about a post that offers guidelines to behavior-isn't that exactly the sort of explicit instruction an Asperger's person would find helpful?

Posted by: N | July 3, 2011 3:31 PM

@405/Kristjan Wager:

The difference is that one can accept McGraw's feelings, and still find RW's action acceptable, while one cannot accept RW's feelings, and find that the EG's actions were not problematic.

For this to be right EG's action have to be at least intersubjectively problematic, but apparently they are at the same time intersubjectively not problematic. I actually think now that EG was at least inconsiderate. But I think that either the intent matters, in which case neither EG (assuming a optimistic interpretation of his actions) nor RW did something wrong, or the context and feelings of the recipient matter, in which case both were at least inconsiderate.

I am not sure why you think those situations are nothing alike from a purely neutral point of view. Surely they are at least alike in so far as that in both cases nothing actually happened, and in both cases the recipient of an action felt uncomfortable?

Posted by: Nicole | July 3, 2011 3:33 PM

Great follow up!

Here's a hint- 99.99% of atheist women are feminists, based on my informal poll. Feminists have varying, and occasional (ok, well, frequently) varying views. If you are an atheist dude, and want an atheist gal to, you know, have sex with, I strongly suggest you put away the feminist hate.

Posted by: Kobra | July 3, 2011 3:34 PM

@416: Haha, you should have let that accusation stick. I might have believed you were a mind-reader. :P

@Everyone: Thanks for clarifying that article for me.

Posted by: Justicar | July 3, 2011 3:35 PM

Well, Andyo, that I'm not convinced by your non-arguments, and choose to deride their stupidity doesn't make me inane or ignorant.

You see, to convince someone of a proposition, you have some mild burden to demonstrate the claims are true.

Calling everyone whom you've failed to persuade by your assertions retards, sexists, misogynists and all that jazz does not, alas, an argument make.

And then I find out that I'm actually contributing to the rapes of women by not being convinced that I am to think of myself as a de facto rapist as outlined in that guide.

Yeah, you guys are really making sense here. Terribly sorry it's not convincing.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8 | July 3, 2011 3:36 PM

"The Decent Human Being's Guide to Getting Laid at an Atheist Conference."

Bring a few wives!

It seemed to me the traditional neo-Confucian perspective was under-represented, here.

David (馬德偉)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:37 PM

Ted:

@380. Just a random guess, but you're one of those women who brags that she hasn't got any female friends, right?

Justicar is not a woman, he's a gay man.

Posted by: PeterParker | July 3, 2011 3:38 PM

Andyo;

RE the Justicar argument mocking the likelihood of rape-victims being predominantly female.

I was definitely & emphatically NOT agreeing with that line of thought, if you can even dignify it by calling it that. But you know that.

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 3:41 PM

@ 429: Knowing the self is the first step towards enlightenment, grasshopper!

Apologies for the fortune cookie, couldn't resist. The actual first step is just giving a shit. Sounds simple, right? Look around, it's trickier than it seems. You're already off to a good start.

Still have questions? Ask away. You'd be doing this thread a favor. Honest befuddlement and a willingness to learn would be a huge and welcome relief.

Posted by: PeterParker | July 3, 2011 3:43 PM

Gilliel

"@Peter Parker
It's sad that I have to explain you, but since Kristjan Wager added you to his killfile, he won't be able to read your comments. So, typing is futile"

Don't pull out your handkerchiefs yet, you don't have to explain anything to me. In any case, if I posted some sexist bull on this forum, I am the one who's got some explaining to do, right?
So I just asked dude to point out which of my comments were sexist. If you know which he had in mind, perhaps you can copy and paste.

if not, we can leave it at a case of guilty-by-(flimsy)-association.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 3:43 PM

Nicole

Here's a hint- 99.99% of atheist women are feminists, based on my informal poll. Feminists have varying, and occasional (ok, well, frequently) varying views. If you are an atheist dude, and want an atheist gal to, you know, have sex with, I strongly suggest you put away the feminist hate.

And if 99.99 were Christian, then what?

Posted by: Mari | July 3, 2011 3:45 PM

> Besides which, why would anyone complain about a post that offers guidelines to behavior-isn't that exactly the sort of explicit instruction an Asperger's person would find helpful?

It's not a complaint. It's a commentary that the organized atheist community has an excess of people who are incapable of appropriate social behavior.

I'd rather not be around either autistics or assholes. For whatever reason, both categories seem to be extremely over-represented in the atheist community.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 3, 2011 3:46 PM

I'd rather not be around either autistics or assholes.

You are disgusting.

Posted by: jlxn | July 3, 2011 3:48 PM

Justicar,

It says right there - all men are putative rapists. And not acknowledging this fact is actually the thing that puts women at risk for being raped. It's not the rapists, of course. It's the non-rapists who don't know they're supposed to think of themselves as rapists.

Actually, no. I've read the same guides and not one of them have said that. They've said that men should be aware that women must be constantly on guard against such attacks.

There must be some other reason for you to be taking this so personally.

Posted by: DogWhisperer | July 3, 2011 3:50 PM

And if 99.99 were Christian, then what?

Then if you like Christians, keep hitting on them! If you don't, find a new group for you to press your sexual advances in.

The only argument there is that most women at these conferences are feminists. It's just an observation from one person. They could be wrong, but your merely wishing it weren't true doesn't change it. You can only change your own behavior.

Posted by: Kobra | July 3, 2011 3:51 PM

@448: QFT

I'd like to append my own suggestion to this based on my experiences in trying to befriend a few gay/bi guys: Don't try to manipulate people.

It's pathetic, and it insults their intelligence. A lot of people will raise an eyebrow at your insistence to come over and meet us immediately when we're sick. Answering "horny" when asked how you're doing over IM doesn't help your cover.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:52 PM

More Education:

On the difference between Good Dogs and Dogs That Need a Newspaper Smack.

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 3:54 PM

@439: I don't really have anything vaguely resembling a coherent question at the moment.

No problem. I'm the one daydreaming about a respectful comment thread filled with the sort of insight that comes when the need to be defensive is gone. It's my responsibility to try to make that happen or to accept that it can't.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 3, 2011 3:55 PM

Justicar:

Yes, being a male victim of rape is different . . . sometimes I suppose. But that doesn't matter, you see. Only those who agree that Rebecca has the only acceptable stance can have an opinion. To disagree is to practically start raping women.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

Posted by: Don1 | July 3, 2011 3:57 PM

Actually I'll stick with calling a dickhead a dickhead, if you don't mind. Is it a gendered insult? Only to the extent that thinking your dick has rights is a male thing.

Posted by: Codex | July 3, 2011 3:58 PM

I'd rather not be around either autistics or assholes.

If the latter is true, how on Earth can you bear your own company? It must be excruciating.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 3:58 PM

I'd rather not be around either autistics or assholes.

Well, you'd certainly know all about being an asshole, Mari. A dishonest, lying asshole. Like I said, you wouldn't be missed. I doubt you'd be welcome.

Posted by: Randomfactor | July 3, 2011 3:59 PM

Josh #440, speaking as a straight-but-not-narrow, I don't want him on my team either.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 3, 2011 4:00 PM

What the hell is it with Yahoomesses and inserting unnecessary line breaks and >typing in bold?

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 4:03 PM

This is an incorrect premise because it assumes that all feminists have the correct ideas about gender issues. That the only proper way to address gender issues is via feminism.

Only if you believe in a dogmatic hive mind. Individual feminists will have different opinions just like *gasp* individual people will disagree on what it means to be an atheist. That doesn't mean that the entire philosophy is dismissible because the key doctrine of feminism - that women deserve equal social, political, and civil rights - is correct.

So Sarah Palin can call herself a feminist without negating the entire movement.

Posted by: Andyo | July 3, 2011 4:03 PM

OK I'm a little worried now.

If Justicar really believes we're saying things like

Only those who agree that Rebecca has the only acceptable stance can have an opinion. To disagree is to practically start raping women.

I don't know, normally I would assume he's just trolling, but he's been on this thread since yesterday posting as many comments as us or more. I think he's feeling real pressure here. Don't worry, Justicar! It's just the internet!

(I'm not being sarcastic.)

Posted by: Iris | July 3, 2011 4:07 PM

So to recap:

A woman related publicly that an unfamiliar guy followed her from a hotel bar and then propositioned her, alone, in an elevator at 4am, and that she felt this was creepy and made her feel incredibly uncomfortable. She urged other guys — well, the ones who might give a shit about other humans — to please not do stuff like this.

A bunch of wankers are outraged because either:
(a) a woman has no right to voice her own discomfort (she's overreacting, she should be flattered, it was completely innocent, she should react differently i.e. the way my girlfriend says she would, the human race will go extinct as a result, etc.);

(b) voicing discomfort about one man's actions is exactly the same thing as accusing all men of being rapists, and therefore said wanker is personally being accused of rape, and/or,

(c) no one need care one whit what this woman, any other woman, or anyone else for that matter, thinks or feels about anything, because everyone in the world exists solely to service, amuse, or otherwise provide narcissistic supply for the wanker, and of course no one must ever criticize the wanker for anything, ever.

After seven posts (one of which included a link to Schroedinger's Rapist, which wankers either will not read or cannot comprehend) I took my leave of this "conversation" at 10:36am yesterday morning. I can see that was a really good move on my part.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 4:08 PM

Don1:

Actually I'll stick with calling a dickhead a dickhead, if you don't mind. Is it a gendered insult?

Yes, it's a gendered insult, and those of us who are regulars here do our best to avoid their use.

Really, it's not okay to jump on someone for using bitch, twat or cunt and let the male gendered insults slide. Get it?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 4:10 PM

I hate living in the west now

Many of us western men

thank buddah for asian chix! :)

me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 is the same person as google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnCL_qdmEiHnvncWpKV1sIc0KlfgKQgqog

He is a sexual predator.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 3, 2011 4:13 PM

I'm an intersectional masculist

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 4:14 PM

dugong:

tl;dr

what is going on in this thread?

Here's your decaying porcupine, dugong. Take the porcupine, insert it vigorously up your ass, making sure you insert it backwards. Now, pound hard! Oh, and don't let the door hit ya, Cupcake.

Posted by: tomh | July 3, 2011 4:16 PM

Justicar wrote:
And it's also a perfectly acceptable reason for some women not to be afraid. Apparently, there exist some women who don't claim victim status the moment a man opens his mouth and extends an invitation to do something.

I guess you're just here to try and rile people up because nobody could possibly be this dense. Or perhaps you never look at a newspaper, or TV, or follow the news in any manner at all. In American society today, if a woman finds herself alone, with a strange man, late at night, in an enclosed space from which she can't escape, like an elevator, she better be afraid. That's just how America is these days. Count the bodies! No matter how you mischaracterize the situation, ("a man opens his mouth and extends an invitation to do something" - that's a good one), the fact is that in the situation described a woman is an easy target. And plenty of men take aim.

Posted by: Didaktylos | July 3, 2011 4:17 PM

My GBP .02 worth with particular regard to the male as potential rape victim.

An analogy: Potential rapists can be likened to cobras.

Potential victims can be likened to furry creatures whose name begins "mo" and ends "se".

Posted by: hotshoe | July 3, 2011 4:19 PM

Justicar:

She is, however, entitled to demand the rest of the world bow down to her and speak only when spoken to according to the rules she's mapped out in her head as to what a man is able to say.
And if other women feel differently, well that's just too bad for them because the only way to make sure that Rebecca NEVER has to suffer the indignity of declining an offer is for no man to hit on a woman. After all, there's a small chance she might the woman.

I just fail to see

It's not that the argument is Rebecca Watson feels uncomfortable, therefore if you meet Rebecca Watson, don't do x y or z.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 4:19 PM

Kobra:

There's always "Cupcake."

Of course. And for those who don't know that particular meme: http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Memes#Cupcake

Posted by: Aquaria | July 3, 2011 4:21 PM

Between that and the seeming acquiescence towards keynote speakers using the podium to bully private individuals they disagree with, the more appropriate general advice ought to be to avoid atheist conventions entirely.

It's not acquiescence to speakers, you lying scumbag. It's addressing the POINT she was trying to make, and it's remarkably similar to the one on top of your tiny little head.

She addressed an incident she experienced. She can do that, you know. She can even name names if she likes. I love telling people about Garner Ted Armstrong hitting up a friend and me for a three-way. Why shouldn't I? I thought it was creepy, I thought he was a creep for it, and I'm not afraid to say so.

Am I supposed to keep that experience to myself, and never mention it in public, ever? Am I not allowed to ridicule him for it, or call him a scumbag for it in public, when that's what I thought he was? I'm supposed to shut up if someone does something I don't like? Don't my experience and perceptions matter? Why am I supposed to silence my voice, while a doucehbag clearly thinks he can express his douchebaggery at will?

Is that what you're saying, that Rebecca and I and millions of other people negatively affected by privilege should do when these things happen to us? Just don't talk about it because it's not that big a deal (to you), or because it's upsetting, icky or rude to you?

Bullshit. I can talk about a womanizing televangelist being a creep and pervert, whether we were in public when it happened or not--because my experiences matter, because my perceptions matter, because talking about incidents like that might be instructive to other people. Most sane people want to know what kind of person they may be dealing with out there, or what to be on the lookout for from a creep to avoid a lot of pain and heartache. I can even speak of it to try to make a point to lying scumbags who are too blinded by their privilege to understand where I come from.

A man thinking he has the right to hit on me doesn't negate my right to call him a creep for it, to his face, or to anyone I care to tell. The experience didn't just happen to that scumbag, you know--it happened to me, too. My perception of it fucking matters. I'm not wallpaper.

Rebecca isn't, either. Get used to the idea that only lying scumbags like you are allowed to speak or decide what can be spoken. You're not, fuckface.

Take your privilege and fuck right off with it.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 4:23 PM

remusm8

Ah yes. I totally should view it in the sense of a generic statement aimed at no-one in particular when someone specifically replies to something I said with 'women have the right not be molested'.

What you should understand is that you were defending the guy in the elevator, so someone responded to you appropriately:

«if you – hypothetically – were a complete and utter "dick" by making an unwanted sexual proposition to someone in a grossly inappropriate location and time, should you be entitled to a free pass by claiming “don't forget us privileged people can't help being born into a society that's structured this way”?

Sorry, no. Even if you have been born into a sexist society, it’s still your volition to behave like a dick – or not. It’s your choice to respect other people’s rights to go about their own business unmolested or not.

Elevator Guy was a dick. Possibly the best thing we can say about him was that he didn’t have the slightest clue about the inappropriateness of his sexist behaviour, rather than tending to Justicar’s paranoid fantasy that Rebecca was lucky to escape a rape and that consequently her personal safety should be a butt for cheap sarcastic jokes by an ex-policeman.

The bottom line is, he should not be given some free pass because of some shit about “that’s how society is” to continue being a sexist dick.»

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 4:24 PM

I dismiss all ideologies as a skeptic

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ZiflkKEgpv7S_O2F8Cw1EI6SISY-#55528 | July 3, 2011 4:26 PM

Been at the patronizing tablets again P.Z?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 4:30 PM

Cerberus:

I mean, there is infestation and there is swarm and this is definitely in the swarm camp.

You aren't kidding. It's been quite the shitfest. Did you look at the previous thread yet? (I know it's early, but you might want alcohol first.)

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ZiflkKEgpv7S_O2F8Cw1EI6SISY-#55528 | July 3, 2011 4:31 PM

This place is like a fucking hyperbole farm. It absolutely sums up why internet forums are utterly pointless shit-fests, mostly populated by unhinged clowns who love to be victims. The oil can't run out fast enough for me, global power shortages and server outages will be a blessing. Then maybe we can't get back to using the web for actual stuff that matters.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 4:31 PM

remusm8,

After you lied:

It's amazing how quickly an off-hand comment about a rather innocent social faux pas turns into 'wtf that's rape'

you would have no standing to complain about anyone exaggerating or misrepresenting what you've said.

(If anyone had done that. For the record, no one has exaggerated or misrepresented anything you've said.)

Now, remusm8, the thread is not about you, so stop making it about you. Shut up.

Posted by: anonymousply | July 3, 2011 4:33 PM

Yes, what Sven said. Precisely.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 4:35 PM

I didn't have time or patience for this shit this weekend. Thank you to all the feminists and allies who did.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 3, 2011 4:36 PM

@Mari

Clue to misandrists: disparaging all men as potential serial killers and rapists

You know what's fun? How you ignore that women's caution is the same as worrying that someone following you in a dark alley could be a potential mugger. It's situational, cupcake.

What I'd like to know from you is why you think total strangers presenting themselves to a woman in a vulnerable position deserve unquestioned trust?

Posted by: tomh | July 3, 2011 4:38 PM

@ #410:
Unless I am mistaken RW did not name the individual.

Her only mistake, as far as I'm concerned (that is, if she knew it). Perhaps his friends, wife, girl friend or whoever would like to know how he spends his time. If every woman who was targetted like this would shout names and circumstances from the rooftops, society would be a better place. (Well, aside from the fact that there wouldn't be room for anything else, anywhere).

Posted by: Forbidden | July 3, 2011 4:39 PM

I'm still amazed at how people can equate "do you want to have some coffee" with rape. It diminishes every real case of rape.

Additionally, we've had two fairly recent fairly high profile cases of false accusations of rape. The first was Julian Assuange, who had relations with two woman, who were perfectly happy until they discovered each other, and only then did they accuse him of rape.

The second is Strass-Kahn, who was accused of violent rape, but now it turns out she lied to the police, and has been recorded having discussing what she could get out of persuing the case with an incarcerated felon, and appears to be involved in money laundering.

Rape is horrific. But every time someone tries to blur the line or make false accusations, it only makes it harder for those that really were raped.

And sexual harassment should not depend on whether or not the woman is attracted to the guy. Nothing this guy said was crude. Before talking to a woman, a guy should not have to check to make sure there is a ready escape pod available for her to use.

Women should be treated as fully adult and cognizant human beings. But the attitudes expressed in this thread stink of Victorian snobbery, declaring that women are such delicate flowers that talking to them alone is tantamount to rape. I find that disgusting and dehumanizing.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 3, 2011 4:39 PM

Clue to misandrists: disparaging all men as potential serial killers and rapists isn't an effective way to build a social consensus that it[i]s wrong for them to hit on you.

You're a fucking liar, Mari. Most of the women you're whining about have said specifically they don't see men as potential rapists, and you're the only one to bring up serial murder. Maybe if you read what people write instead of manufacturing points to promote your hatred of feminists, then you'd understand this. But I doubt it.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 3, 2011 4:40 PM

By the way, your marriage has nothing to do with the subject at hand. A lot of us are married. I am, over 30 years. How is that relevant to issues of feminism and privilege?
Never said it did.

Then why did you bring it up as if it were, you clueless sack of shit?

Are you really that fucking unaware of what you say? Do you know how to write for comprehension?

I think not.

Fuck off.

This place is like a fucking hyperbole farm. It absolutely sums up why internet forums are utterly pointless shit-fests, mostly populated by unhinged clowns who love to be victims.

I do hope you're talking about the privileged douchebags who think they're the ones put upon for people wanting them to stop behaving like privileged douchebags. If not, you're a whining fuckface who needs to fuck off.

The oil can't run out fast enough for me, global power shortages and server outages will be a blessing.

I smell a privileged douchebag.

Then maybe we can't get back to using the web for actual stuff that matters/i>

Funny, I think that men thinking that it's totally cool to treat any woman they get a boner over like she gives a fuck about it actually matters, and what you think doesn't.

Fuck off.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 4:41 PM

calling me a sexual predator because i dont fall in line w/ your beliefs.

Actually, there are a lot of people here who disagree with me.

I'm not calling any of them sexual predators.

Except you.

(See, I thought there was more than one of you earlier, but no, it's just you.)

The others do not give direct evidence of being sexual predators.

You do.

Posted by: Nicole | July 3, 2011 4:42 PM

Fwiw, stranger rape is pretty rare. I'm not freaked out that some random dude is going to rape me in an elevator, although I would be uncomfortable being hit on by a total stranger in said elevator at 4 a.m. The idea that I am a sexual object first and a human being second is the exact type of objectification many feminists are concerned about. Oh, and I'm also not worried about serial killers... Again, that's rare.

OTOH, date rape and partner abuse is very much not rare. Random men hitting on me or sending me a message on a dating site are schroddingers domestic abuser/date rapist. Of course the vast, overwhelming majority are good guys, but I cannot proceed in a relationship in the same... carefree manner men can. I just have much more to loose. I have seen too many other women trapped in domestic violence or recovering from date rape not to be reasonably afraid. Of course men are sexually assaulted, and are abused by women, but generally speaking those numbers are much smaller, more on the scale of stranger rape.

Posted by: Daz | July 3, 2011 4:43 PM

Rape is horrific. But every time someone tries to blur the line or make false accusations, it only makes it harder for those that really were raped

Except no one's doing that. No one here is saying that the man was a rapist, only that he put RW in a situation where she had to consider the possibility, by not considering the situation from her point of view.

What is so fucking hard to understand about this simple statement?

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 3, 2011 4:46 PM

Additionally, we've had two fairly recent fairly high profile cases of false accusations of rape. The first was Julian Assuange, who had relations with two woman, who were perfectly happy until they discovered each other, and only then did they accuse him of rape.

Last I saw, Assange is still accused of rape. What happened to presumed innocent until proven guilty? Oh, right, that's only for the guys, right? Not for the women accused (by the public) of making false accusations.

Posted by: anonymousply | July 3, 2011 4:47 PM

@Yahoomess #464: "I dismiss all ideologies as a skeptic and i see lots of them in the feminist camp."

Well then QUIT looking for your problem under the carpet of a fucking label.

Is labeling something or people how you determine how right(eous) you are? Is that how reasoning works?

You exhibit the same symptoms of those who deny climate change or those who deny evolution or those who love to throw icky shit-bits at anyone remotely (SHUDDER) resembling a 'liberal'.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 3, 2011 4:49 PM

I tried to read everything I missed yesterday and today, but the rehashing of the same stupid arguments by various douchebisquits (I love that term) got too tedious after a while. So, I'll just echo what skeptifem said in #509. It's nice to see that douchbaggery has such strong opposition.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 4:50 PM

Additionally, we've had two fairly recent fairly high profile cases of false accusations of rape.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 4:54 PM

The ideas are more important than the people that may give the ideas a bad name.

shawmutt, one of the central ideas of the MRA movement is that men are the victims of false rape accusations at a much higher rate than people in general are the victims of false [crime X] accusations.

When you look into how the MRAs spend their time, you will see they do next to nothing in regard to "fighting for equal rights in a family court"; they spend almost all their time calling women gold-diggers, blaming rape victims for being raped, and then denying that any rape occured.

Posted by: makyui | July 3, 2011 4:56 PM

Nice to know that Scented Nectar is anti-feminist as well as anti-trans. I wonder when she'll start apologizing for racism and homophobia.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 3, 2011 4:56 PM

Mari #532

Your self righteousness has blinded you from the point that Watson used the keynote speech to single out McGraw for criticizing her, not 'elevator guy' for making inappropriate advances.

Since McGraw had publicly disagreed with Watson, why is it unreasonable for Watson to publicly refute McGraw?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 3, 2011 4:57 PM

I dismiss all ideologies as a skeptic

No you don't. You buy into the MRA bullshit hook line and sinker which is why you sound just like a climate denialist, or an anti-vaxer, or a white supremacist.

Because that's what you are-- a reactionary bigot who confuses personal agreement with skepticism!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 4:59 PM

Nicole:

Fwiw, stranger rape is pretty rare.

Actually, it's not all that rare. It happens much more often than most people are comfortable thinking about. Yes, I do know it's rare in comparison to acquaintance rape, rape within a relationship and child rape.

Mine was a stranger rape. Parking lot, evening, whacked in the back of the head, tied up, beaten, strangled, raped repeatedly. The man who raped me was convicted, of multiple counts of murder. There were three survivors.

Posted by: shawmutt | July 3, 2011 5:00 PM

Clue to mysogynists: women would rather not be hit on. Basic social politeness means that men shouldn't approach women they don't know.

What the... basic social politeness for what group? Wow, just...wow... I approach and talk to strangers all the time, regardless of gender. How else do people get to know each other? So by your logic a mysogynist is a man who approaches women he doesn't know? How do you suggest single people should find that special person?

serendipitydawg #522

Her opinion or your opinion of her opinion?

Based on her past actions when hit on.

LOL, some of these insults are pure gold. If these were hurled at people outside the internet what a world it would be!

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 5:02 PM

Since McGraw had publicly disagreed with Watson, why is it unreasonable for Watson to publicly refute McGraw?

Best I can tell, it's apparently because publicly refuting her live in front of 100 people for a couple of minutes of a talk is way worse than writing about it on her blog where at least 10,000 people would read it and it would sit around being able to be read for internet eternity. Or some shit like that.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 3, 2011 5:03 PM

I'm still amazed at how people can equate "do you want to have some coffee" with rape. It diminishes every real case of rape.

That's not what anyone's saying, moron.

I seriously doubt that Rebecca Watson would equate being asked out for coffee with rape if she'd been single and met someone on a Sunday afternoon at Borders, they'd had a nice conversation for the past thirty minutes about books they like and their political stands or whatever they had in common, and then the request to go somewhere for coffee came.

But do you think she can't be worried when she's stuck in a cramped and isolated place at 4 a.m. in a foreign country and being hit on by a fucking stranger, you fucking moron!

Do you not see the fucking difference? Do you think at all?

For fuck's sake, think about the fucking context! It matters!

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2011 5:04 PM

There is nothing of value in MRA that isn't addressed by the feminism/humanism of the circles I run with at least. I'll be the first one to say that you should ignore any man-hating goddess worshiping, gendercidal advocates

I'd even say that by the definition of feminism they aren't meeting the criteria (equal, not superior). And no it isn't a fucking no-true scotsman that's the definition. I can't see how someone can be a gender supremacist and honestly feminist to any reasonable definition, much like how you can't not believe in Jesus and be a christian by most standards. Or be a violent pacifist.

And no one is even arguing for fucking Gynosurpremacy, so why bring it up? Most of us have and will gladly discus the problems the current gender views and roles have for men especially men who don't fit into the expected molds.

MRA are people who have realized the culture hurts men and women and want to ensure it only hurts women.

Feminism is not exclusive, it is largely I'd say a necessary component to humanism (along with anti-racism and anti-sexism and anti-oppressing people for no good reasons). and it clearly IS one of those issues that deserves special attention, as illustrated by the response here. PZ could call the Pope a baby raping pedophile and publicly call for his hordes to assassinate him and he wouldn't get this level of response.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2011 5:06 PM

Well, I must say that I'm quite pleasantly surprised.

This is the first time since I've started visiting Pharyngula that I've seen a post where Professor Myer's attitude towards men regarding women's issues wasn't openly and relentlessly hostile. Not only that he actually managed to show some sympathy toward the men folk and didn't stereotype them as predatory woman-hating assholes.

Nice work, Prof and get well soon.

PZ literally has to give advice on getting laid to not be "bashing men"

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2011 5:08 PM

We have this bizarre discussion of "Schrodinger's Rapist", where every man might be a rapist, so we best never allow a man and a woman to talk to each other without a special parachute or escape pod that the woman can use at any time.

You never read the article did you? Or hell, half the posts explaining it to you?

Apparently this is the strategy of

1) Assert all feminists are over reacting and see all men as rapists
2) Act as creepy as possible
3) Use people's response to (2) as evidence for (1)
4) FAP FAP FAP FAP

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 5:11 PM

Comment by Hieronymus The Troll Braintree blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]

Please, everyone else, ignore it. Please.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 3, 2011 5:13 PM

Justicar,

It says right there - all men are putative rapists. And not acknowledging this fact is actually the thing that puts women at risk for being raped. It's not the rapists, of course. It's the non-rapists who don't know they're supposed to think of themselves as rapists.

Actually, no. I've read the same guides and not one of them have said that. They've said that men should be aware that women must be constantly on guard against such attacks. There must be some other reason for you to be taking this so personally.

It sure would explain a lot about his hideous attitude here.

Posted by: bronsk | July 3, 2011 5:13 PM

Ok, now I'm 500 posts behind, and I don't have the time to catch up just right now. So I felt like saying hello to the feminists doing the heavy lifting right there.

For the record I am a male who was as clueless as Justicar and others just a little while ago. (Or was I really that stupid - I'm too scared to look at the thread where I got enlightened)

I am just sorry that this thread is already 550+ posts long. It probably means others didn't get it in just a couple of posts.

Anyways, thanks to Caine and others for getting the message through. I sure looks useless at times but it worked for me, so it will work for others. I'll repay my own stupidity as soon as I get some free time in big enough chunks.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2011 5:15 PM

@Harmless

There is culturally a great misunderstanding of Feminism and what it means. I claimed to not be a feminist for a long time that I was, in actuality, a feminist because I did not have the correct definition. People shy away from the title, especially men, because it has become such a shameful title (Only Ugly/fat/shy/socially incompetent/gay woman are feminist and no REAL man is a feminist).

I'm one of those people who did have it explained to me, large chunks of it here and am appreciative of that.

Some MRA may have this level of 'innocent ignorance' but they're also now part of a group identity that actively opposes feminism. When one such person learns that Feminism isn't a castration Patty Hertz cult they can't actually then express this because the MRA is notoriously hostile to "manginas"

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 5:17 PM

remusm8, troll

If you're going to quote me, atleast quote the full sentence.

I don't see what difference it makes; I just quoted the part where you were lying. But, fine:

After you lied (the bolded part is a lie; the italicized part was your original stupid defense which earned you the treatment you've received here)

It's amazing how quickly an off-hand comment about a rather innocent social faux pas turns into 'wtf that's rape' or 'bitches be crazy, yo' in the comment sections.

you would have no standing to complain about anyone exaggerating or misrepresenting what you've said.

(If anyone had done that. For the record, no one has exaggerated or misrepresented anything you've said.)

Now, remusm8, the thread is not about you, so stop making it about you. Shut up.

Posted by: anonymousply | July 3, 2011 5:19 PM

bronsk? STFU

Posted by: Forbidden | July 3, 2011 5:21 PM

And since you misogynist assholes are the only ones who put up that strawman while none of the feminists here ever made such a claim, I for once agree with you.

Did the man use crude language? Did the man physically touch her? Did the man threaten her?

All her did was ask her if she wanted to come back to his room to continue the discussion they'd been having (which, as I understand it, began long before the elevator ride). Clearly, he thought she might be interested, or he wouldn't have said it. This is not a case of someone running into an elevator and immediately propositioning someone.

The context, from what I can tell, is two people, after a long day of conference and an evening of drinking, meet and talk on their way back from the hotel bar, talking the whole way enter the elevator together. The continue to talk on the ride. Likely due to exhaustion and alcohol, the social cues get misaligned between them. I'm not assigning blame in either direction, but the man finds her attractive and makes an offer to continue the conversation that would otherwise stop as soon as they reach their respective floors.

However, there is no element of coercion or threat involved anywhere along the way. A discussion between human beings is not abhorrent simply for occurring in a place where there isn't an immediate escape pod available to one party or the other.

When told "no", the man did not press the issue. This is a case of "It's sexual harassment because she isn't interested", and I find that pretty disgusting, considering the amount of real sexual harassment out there. The kind involving crude language and suggestions. The kind that involves physical pressure, and even physical violence.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 5:23 PM

Bronsk:

(Or was I really that stupid - I'm too scared to look at the thread where I got enlightened)

I'm afraid you were, however, you have no idea of just how happy I am that has changed! Seriously. I'll be smiling about that for months.

Anyways, thanks to Caine and others for getting the message through. I sure looks useless at times but it worked for me, so it will work for others. I'll repay my own stupidity as soon as I get some free time in big enough chunks.

Save some thanks for yourself, you stuck with it, you stuck with us, and kept asking questions. Yeah, you were frustrating and annoying, but what a payoff!

Posted by: Deen | July 3, 2011 5:26 PM

@Carlie in #536: Thanks for that list of safety tips. Oh, and for those who didn't bother to click on it - guess what's in it?

* Avoid entering an elevator occupied by only one other person, who is a stranger
* Don't enter or exit an elevator if someone makes you feel uneasy

Posted by: serendipitydawg | July 3, 2011 5:29 PM

shawmutt @545

Based on her past actions when hit on.

So, yours then. That figures.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 3, 2011 5:31 PM

Hoooly shit storm!

Posted by: Daz | July 3, 2011 5:33 PM

Oops. My previous was addressed to :

The context, from what I can tell, is two people, after a long day of conference and an evening of drinking, meet and talk on their way back from the hotel bar, talking the whole way enter the elevator together. The continue to talk on the ride.

Posted by: makyui | July 3, 2011 5:35 PM

Forbidden:

Not to mention that you're equating calling someone a potential rapist with calling someone an actual rapist, and then blaming it on us.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 5:38 PM

I think I might just sit here and cheer on Aquaria, seeing as how she is saying everything I want to say better and more quickly.

Why do we have to a get infestation at a time when typing is a pain ?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 5:38 PM

Aquaria:

Because Caine cares about substance and truth, fuckface, not the blueness of the language.

That's me. Another one who is definitely not passive. Heh.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 5:41 PM

Clue to mysogynists: women would rather not be hit on. Basic social politeness means that men shouldn't approach women they don't know.

What the... basic social politeness for what group? Wow, just...wow... I approach and talk to strangers all the time, regardless of gender. How else do people get to know each other? So by your logic a mysogynist is a man who approaches women he doesn't know? How do you suggest single people should find that special person?

shawmutt.

Look who you were quoting there.

You were quoting Mari.

Look how Mari is being received in this thread.

Mari is an idiot.

Do not take Mari as representative of what others here think.

Do not use Mari's bag of straw as a stand-in for others here.

Posted by: Daz | July 3, 2011 5:43 PM

Just want to add my admiration to those who've stuck with this all the way through. It's a good feeling, knowing that people such as you are out there.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 3, 2011 5:43 PM

That's me. Another one who is definitely not passive. Heh.

We wouldn't want you any other way.

Oh, and those having a pop at Caine, she asked me not to use dickhead as an insult earlier, since it is a gendered insult. After a little thought I realised she was right, and I was wrong to have used it. I admit I was little embarrassed, but then I should have been.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 3, 2011 5:46 PM

1)bronsk, I'm glad to see you've learned something from "your" thread. And I'm very glad to hear people are learning in these threads

2)question to the sane contingent: is this thread worth reading? I don't think I have time for 600+ comments today, so I figure I ask if there's anything worthwile happening

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 5:47 PM

Nicole:

Similarly, culturally, I am conditioned to believe stranger rape is the only kind of rape, and that I should constantly live my life in fear by following the "how not to get raped" lists. I also try to deal with that, and try to look at that rationally rather than emotionally.

I understand. It's a hard line to walk at times, no question. I looked over the safety list that Carlie linked to upthread, and I did every single one of those things for decades, back when I lived in Southern California.

Now that I've been in North Dakota for about 20 years, I don't do all that anymore. However, that does not mean that I don't do risk assessment or that I've lost being vigilant. And it's been pointed out at least a hundred times by now, but I'll say it again, context matters.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 5:48 PM

Forbidden Fuckwit

Isn't that what the whole "Schrodinger's Rapist" is about

No. Quoting Amphigorey:

The point of Schroedinger's Rapist is not "all men are potential rapists." The point is that some men are rapists, and you can't tell which ones are just by looking.

It's not that subtle of a point, which makes me think that some of you are willfully misinterpreting it. In any case, you should be mad at the men who are rapists, not at the feminists who point out that some men are rapists.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 3, 2011 5:53 PM

What the... basic social politeness for what group? Wow, just...wow... I approach and talk to strangers all the time, regardless of gender. How else do people get to know each other? So by your logic a mysogynist is a man who approaches women he doesn't know? How do you suggest single people should find that special person?

on a separate note, I've noticed that as I get older and fatter, men become more capable of talking to me as a human being instead of a sex-target. I'm sure this is only a transitional phase to becoming the invisible, but right now, it's kind of nice

Posted by: ted | July 3, 2011 5:55 PM