Does vocal atheist = sexist? (And the Rebecca Watson debate)

[Kaelik]

But when you make prescriptive statements ("hey, men, don't ask me for casual sex, it's scary," "hey, black, people, don't wear hoodies, it's scary") using your personal fear you're actually being incredibly offensive and committing a blatant act of prejudice.

Those two things are very different. One of them involves an interaction, and the other one doesn't. I have every right to ask you to not interact with me. I do not have every right to tell you how to do your own thing.

So just to be clear, I can tell women to not make eye contact with me because it is offensive to my god for me to look a woman in the eye right? Because that is totally them interacting with me.

[DSMatticus]

I have every right to ask you to not interact with me.

Um. You realize Rebecca Watson almost certainly said no, and given that she did not complain about how the man harassed her, the man stopped asking her? As in the exact right you are saying Rebecca Watson clearly has (and she does) is one that she successfully exercised in this situation.

[TheJerkStore]

"Women will like what I tell them to like!"

I'm just saying, seeing a bunch of men telling a woman she shouldn't feel threatened by a stranger asking for sex and making comparisons that it's the same as the systematic racial prejudice that the US has been guilty of since before there even WAS a US doesn't sit right with me at all.

I'm sure next the people here will start making comparisons between Bronies and Holocaust survivors next.

[TheJerkStore]

But when you make prescriptive statements ("hey, men, don't ask me for casual sex, it's scary," "hey, black, people, don't wear hoodies, it's scary") using your personal fear you're actually being incredibly offensive and committing a blatant act of prejudice.

Those two things are very different. One of them involves an interaction, and the other one doesn't. I have every right to ask you to not interact with me. I do not have every right to tell you how to do your own thing.

So just to be clear, I can tell women to not make eye contact with me because it is offensive to my god for me to look a woman in the eye right? Because that is totally them interacting with me.

I've told women to stop staring at me before.

[DSMatticus]

seeing a bunch of men telling a woman she shouldn't feel threatened by a stranger asking for sex

No one said the thing you are saying they said because it's actually completely irrelevant. I don't actually give a fuck whether or not Rebecca Watson was afraid, because "someone made me scared" will never be a successful argument that someone has wronged you. She can be afraid of anything she wants, but she can't turn her fear into prescriptive statements about morally or socially acceptable behaviors. And if she could, then it would necessarily follow that "being afraid of black people" entails the right to not have black people try and strike up a conversation with you.

making comparisons that it's the same as the systematic racial prejudice that the US has been guilty of since before there even WAS a US doesn't sit right with me at all.

That didn't happen either. The comparison was between two specific events which were both wrong on their own merits. One is a relatively isolated incident (because white men are not an underprivileged group), and one is a part of a larger pattern (because black men definitely are). But the fact that a civil rights transgression is rare does not make it not a transgression of civil rights. It makes it a less pressing social issue than civil rights transgressions which are not rare, certainly, but no one in this thread said "white guys have it just as bad as black guys! See what mean old Rebecca Watson said on the internet?"

You are being dumb and dishonest. You should cut that out. If it helps to motivate you, stupid liars scare me, and I do not consent to your stupid liarness interacting with my eyes.

[TheJerkStore]

("hey, men, don't ask me for casual sex, it's scary," "hey, black, people, don't wear hoodies, it's scary")

That's top lel right there.

[shau]

I don't actually give a fuck whether or not Rebecca Watson was afraid, because "someone made me scared" will never be a successful argument that someone has wronged you.

So if the KKK erects a burning cross on the lawn of a mixed race family, its not actually bad. After all, it nothing but an attempt to terrorize the occupants. And you don't give a fuck whether or not someone is scared.

[Kaelik]

So if the KKK erects a burning cross on the lawn of a mixed race family, its not actually bad. After all, it nothing but an attempt to terrorize the occupants. And you don't give a fuck whether or not someone is scared.

There is in fact a difference between "someone did something which caused me to be scared" and "someone did something with the specific intention of scaring me in order to influence my behavior" and that thing is the mens rea of terroristic threats.

Also, in the specific case of asking about sex, presumably proximate cause as well.

[shau]

There is in fact a difference between "someone did something which caused me to be scared" and "someone did something with the specific intention of scaring me in order to influence my behavior" and that thing is the mens rea of terroristic threats.

Also, in the specific case of asking about sex, presumably proximate cause as well.

See, that's a reasonably nuanced and well thought out opinion I can accept as serious. You will notice it is quite different than "I don't give a a fuck you are scared." Which just comes off as you don't accept assault as a crime.

[DSMatticus]

("hey, men, don't ask me for casual sex, it's scary," "hey, black, people, don't wear hoodies, it's scary")

That's toplel right there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_Rivera
Ctrl+f hoodie

I seriously do not know what point you're trying to make. Did you not catch the reference, or do you think that quote is inconsistent with what I said? Because it is a reference to a specific event, and the quote is in no way inconsistent.

I don't actually give a fuck whether or not Rebecca Watson was afraid, because "someone made me scared" will never be a successful argument that someone has wronged you.

So if the KKK erects a burning cross on the lawn of a mixed race family, its not actually bad. After all, it nothing but an attempt to terrorize the occupants. And you don't give a fuck whether or not someone is scared.

You have destroyed the little remaining faith in humanity I held. I knew, in my heart, someone would try and twist that into a blanket endorsement of intimidation, but I didn't want it to be true. I wanted a world where everyone understood the basic concept of logical sufficience and you have pissed so thoroughly in that bowl of cheerios I don't think I'll ever be able to look at my breakfast again.

I will endeavor to make obvious the distinction you missed: murder is a subset of all deaths. "Someone died" is not a successful argument for the existence of a murder because it is not sufficient to demonstrate that a murder has occurred. Heart attacks happen. You can turn an unsuccessful argument into a successful one by adding the missing elements which lead to sufficience ("someone died from a gunshot and no gun was found on or near their body"), but when you do it becomes a different argument. And when you add things to other people's arguments that they did not say and pretend they represent their positions, that's a strawman. Here is your recommended reading.

[Kaelik]

See, that's a reasonably nuanced and well thought out opinion I can accept as serious. You will notice it is quite different than "I don't give a a fuck you are scared." Which just comes off as you don't accept assault as a crime.

1) Which just comes off as he doesn't accept assault as a crime. DSM is not me.

2) No it fucking doesn't. People say things that apply in the context, and saying that he doesn't care if you are scared doesn't mean he doesn't care if you are scared because you are under threat of your life any more than it means he doesn't care if you are scared because you are bleeding.

Adding factors changes things. And yeah DSM didn't tell you everything that could possibly change it, but so what, no one ever does.

[DSMatticus]

It's honestly not even a matter of context, and letting him make it a matter of context helps him pass off a logical fallacy as a simple misunderstanding. Shau's wrongness is a matter of pretty basic logic, and completely objective.

"Someone made me scared" is not a successful argument that you have been wronged because it is not sufficient to demonstrate a wrong (such as intimidation) has occurred. That is because "someone made me scared" includes the example of someone crossing the street to avoid walking past a black person (fear without being wronged) and the example of someone having a cross burnt in their yard (fear with being wronged). And that is precisely why the burden is on Rebecca Watson to demonstrate that she was wronged, not that she was afraid.

[Username17]

But when you make prescriptive statements ("hey, men, don't ask me for casual sex, it's scary," "hey, black, people, don't wear hoodies, it's scary") using your personal fear you're actually being incredibly offensive and committing a blatant act of prejudice.

Those two things are very different. One of them involves an interaction, and the other one doesn't. I have every right to ask you to not interact with me. I do not have every right to tell you how to do your own thing.

No. You have the right to ask people to stop interacting with you. You do not have the right to tell groups of people that they can't interact with other groups of people.

Watson's original comments were thoughtless and offensive. But she could have easily walked them back. Telling people that they should know that you saying you were sleepy meant that you were necessarily out of bounds for coffee and late night talking with possible sex afterwards is inane. There's no way anyone could know that. Telling other people that they should know you were out of bounds for a hook up because you were out of your home country is even more inane - that increases the odds that someone is looking for a hook up. Telling someone that them asking to have a late night conversation with you that has an implied offer of possible sex afterwards is "treating you like a piece of meat" is actually offensive. The guy asked for a late night conversation in his room, he didn't ask her to spread her butt cheeks.

So basically, Watson's original statement was gross misandry backed up by "people should use their psychic powers to know ahead of time that I'm not interested in them" which is exactly the kind of woo she's supposed to be fighting against. But while every part of her original argument was based on either other people magically knowing her mental state or her offensively assuming that men necessarily operate under false pretenses with every single action they take, she still could have easily walked that back as soon as people pointed out that "Hey, in fact, that's bullshit."

But she didn't. She doubled down on it over and over again. She rallied an army of white knights to support her on the internets. People vilified the entirely reasonable people who pointed out the extremely obvious holes in her reasoning, and she did nothing to make peace or hold them back.

The controversy makes her money. And she basically rides it. But the controversy hurts feminism, because she is fucking wrong. So if you put up that as a fucking shiboleth for what "real feminists" have to support, a lot of very reasonable people are going to decide that they must not be feminists. Do you understand how fucking dangerous that is? Basically it's the Sarkeesian thing all over again. If as a feminist you stake out an extreme and wholly unreasonable position, you'll get vocal support (and money) from some sections of the internet. But you'll hurt feminism because a non-zero number of people will equate an obviously unreasonable position with feminism and decide that they are opposed to it. Good for you, bad for the movement.

Like how Phelps has a lot of money for himself, but his church is probably bad for the cause of hurting gay rights. By equating homophobia with dickishness and unreasonability, he convinces people that homophobia is wrong as effectively as Stephen Fry.

-Username17

[tussock]

My read EDIT: which was retarded and corrected by frank below, has been spoilered

when the whole thing with RW kicked off was that there had been problems where many women were being constantly harassed for sex and some directly threatened for their refusal at the atheist cons. It was becoming a bigger problem over time, or at least more openly talked about between female attendees.

And that when they'd complained about the threats, nothing was done because it was the highest profile guy being an exceptional asshole. They didn't publicly name that guy strait away and then at the very next con he tried to drag a woman into a private room after she refused sex with him.

So that got him named. And then it became the big thing at the next con. About how the women attending atheist conventions were actually going there to talk about atheism, and being a minority actually faced a lot of shit when a bunch of the men there all thought they should ask them for sex. Being in a minority like that amplifies the amount of shit you have to put up with.

So they held a panel about that. Made it a point of the con, that women shouldn't have to put up with being asked for sex all the time. That guys who creep on women in tight spaces are doing it wrong. And the only person who hadn't noticed was Richard Dawkins. Because he's an old guy from Britain and it he just doesn't care about people's feelings, that's how he became such an outspoken atheist in the first place.



And RW saw it as yet another high profile guy who just doesn't listen to women, even at a con where that was the main talking point for her.

In an ideal world, RD would've noticed what RW had been saying all day before thinking about asking her for sex. That's a thing which women like, being heard. If he had, he'd have known that the only thing RW was talking about all fucking day was how men should not creep on women in tight spaces at all, and how getting asked for sex all the time is super-annoying and should probably just stop. Then he might not have.

Also in an ideal world, when told he had offended someone, he could have said he was tired and misread the situation and apologised for not listening. Instead he got all precious and told everyone that women should not complain about being asked for sex.

EDIT: but parts of it, especially this, is still good

And you'll note again, that had been her entire thing recently. How a lot of women felt pretty oppressed about being creeped on all the time and how fucking scary it was when some random guy cornered you out of sight and told you how happy you should be about it and that your feelings are incorrect because you're a woman.

[Username17]

Tussock, you're an idiot. Richard Dawkins didn't ask Watson for sex. Richard Dawkins is married to a former Doctor Who Companion and doing just fine. Rebecca Watson was going to bed and in an elevator, when a college student no one cares about offered to go back to his room together for coffee. She said "no," and they both went to their respective rooms alone. He respected her personal space, he respected her wishes, he did not argue with her rejection. That should have been the end of it. Indeed, had she offered his behavior as a model of good behavior it would have seemed totally reasonable to do.

But instead, the next day she named and shamed the college kid and gave his behavior an example of bad behavior that people should actively avoid emulating. Her logic was this:

• She was not interested in him, and had various reasons that were personal and private that she was not intending to hook up with anyone at that time. And apparently, people who don't read your fucking mind and anticipate your whims are behaving badly.
• By asking her to go to his room with the ostensible reason of drinking coffee and chatting, he was proving that he was a lecherous beast who was objectifying her and treating her like a piece of meat. I don't even know how this part of the argument is supposed to work, since apparently 100% of any actual offer of sex was completely subtext and the overt offer was completely one of sitting in a hotel room having a conversation over coffee.

So there's the part of her argument that's stupid, and there's the part of her argument that's offensive. But the real kicker is that she actually singled out a real live human being who hadn't actually done anything wrong and all but called him a rapist and subjected him to a lot of internet threats from various white knights who hadn't wrapped their minds around the fact that her being uncomfortable in an elevator ride had nothing to do with him having actually violated her rights in any way, but instead had to do with her mental state at the time, which he had no way of controlling or knowing.

All Richard Dawkins said was that being politely asked if you wanted to hook up during a chance meeting with a random stranger who thinks you're cute is not an assault on anything, and there are actual women getting denied educations and having their clitorises hacked off with unsanitary blades in this world and that they have real problems. And you know what? He's completely right. And the people who threatened to boycott him over him being anti-feminist are completely bugfuck insane.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

But instead, the next day she named and shamed the college kid and gave his behavior an example of bad behavior that people should actively avoid emulating.

I don't think she named and shamed that dude. There was a slight scandal when she responded to some sort of blogger or journalist or something by name in a presentation and, by weight of her internet celebrity, sort of fucking crushed him. And he basically made the exact same arguments we've been making, wherein asking people for casual sex in no way a violation of your rights until they fail to take no for an answer. And that is what prompted Rebecca Watson to claim that male sexuality is inherently demeaning and predatory because you can't want to sleep with women without objectifying them unless you use the Power of Love and Friendship or something retarded. It wasn't clear, but it was really misandrist.

[RobbyPants]

I have every right to ask you to not interact with me.

Um. You realize Rebecca Watson almost certainly said no, and given that she did not complain about how the man harassed her, the man stopped asking her? As in the exact right you are saying Rebecca Watson clearly has (and she does) is one that she successfully exercised in this situation.

No, apparently Maj thinks we all have the right not to be talked to in the first place. How we are ever supposed to have conversations in the first place without violating the other persons rights is beyond me. Perhaps through an intermediate language involving blinking or gestures?

[DSMatticus]

Perhaps through an intermediate language involving blinking or gestures?

You keep your weird come-ons to yourself, you pervert. If I wanted to blink with you I wouldn't have said I was tired.

[Username17]

I'm not at all convinced that a gesture based preliminary language would be any less creepy than simply asking people if they wanted to go have a conversation.



-Username17

[DragonChild]

But instead, the next day she named and shamed the college kid

Can you link to me where she named him, or proof that she did? I can't find that his name was mentioned at all.

But the real kicker is that she actually singled out a real live human being who hadn't actually done anything wrong and all but called him a rapist and subjected him to a lot of internet threats from various white knights

Likewise, can you show where he was directly called a rapist by her, or that he got threats from being singled out? As far as I can see on several articles on the subject he was left nameless.


Really, the original message was "Guys, don't do that" when it comes to following women to a confined space late at night in an they cannot easily get out of to ask them to go to a private space at which you have full control over. Which seems... really good sense to me. I really doubt that's going to accomplish much but make people uncomfortable and upset, and people have every right to see it as an uncomfortable situation. The fact that he didn't see what sort of situation was putting in really did show he didn't much care about her feelings.

Had he called out to her before she reached the elevator, within sight of other people still, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

[RobbyPants]

Perhaps through an intermediate language involving blinking or gestures?

You keep your weird come-ons to yourself, you pervert. If I wanted to blink with you I wouldn't have said I was tired.

I'm not at all convinced that a gesture based preliminary language would be any less creepy than simply asking people if they wanted to go have a conversation.

Good point. No more conversations it is! At least no one will be offended.

[name_here]

Really, the original message was "Guys, don't do that" when it comes to following women to a confined space late at night in an they cannot easily get out of to ask them to go to a private space at which you have full control over. Which seems... really good sense to me. I really doubt that's going to accomplish much but make people uncomfortable and upset, and people have every right to see it as an uncomfortable situation. The fact that he didn't see what sort of situation was putting in really did show he didn't much care about her feelings.

Had he called out to her before she reached the elevator, within sight of other people still, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Frankly, I am kind of baffled by the apparent elevator paranoia and expect the guy never considered the possibility that it was the slightest bit intimidating. Sure, it's a confined space, but not exactly a secluded one. At any moment, someone could call the elevator and the doors are not meant to remain closed. I expect the guy wanted to ask privately and did not see anything threatening about doing so in the elevator. Not because he failed to consider her feelings but because if he actually had bad intentions he would have picked somewhere else.

[nockermensch]

Does anyone have a hypothesis as to why American Millenials have a much more ambivalent viewpoint towards abortion (about that on the level of their elders) than they do on nearly every other social issue? I think that this begs for an explanation in light of the fact that, oh, Millenials are significantly more non-religious and pro-feminist than previous generations.

Reverence for Life is a thing. If you're already against death penalty, against wars, against cruelty to animals, against eating meat in any capacity (from full vegan to don't eat mammals), it's not a big step to be also against removing something that will become a human.

Add to that the huge nominal important the western civilization gives to the welfare of children. Blastocysts segue into Embryos that segue into Fetuses that segue into Babies, which everybody loves.

Really, there's nothing mysterious to the modern shift of perception towards abortions. It's a consequence of ecological "every life is sacred" feel-good thinking.

[Blade]

Non verbal communication is 80% of communication (or so they say). Postures and facial expressions say a lot.

Typically, in an elevator (which is an area where personal space will often be invaded), people will signal their unwilligness to interact with you by staring at the display, reading the safety text or looking straight ahead at the door.

So yes. We do have an intermediate language that's used to tell if you can or can't interact with someone.

Furthermore, this includes social norms and empathy. You don't follow someone in the toilets to keep a conversation going. You don't wait until a girl is out of the bar and walking in a deserted and badly lit alley to approach her.

Oh and "would you come in my room late at night for coffee?" is most of the time as literal as "do you have any change?" or "do you have time?". If you want to talk privately with a stranger, you arrange a meeting in a neutral place or in a place they have the control over.

[DSMatticus]

ask them to go to a private space at which you have full control over.

I have no idea why you felt the need to specify that the particular place she was politely requested to go to had certain properties that could be intimidating if you assume men are rapists. How threatening a place you can choose not to go to is has absolutely no bearing on how threatening it is to be asked to go there. Because, get this: you wereasked, and you can say no. The only way to make the nature of his hotel room relevant is if you assume the request was a thinly veiled effort at intimidation, and the only way to get there from the evidence provided is "men are rapists."

Really, the original message was "Guys, don't do that" when it comes to following women to a confined space late at night in an they cannot easily get out of

The fact that he didn't see what sort of situation was putting in really did show he didn't much care about her feelings.

No. It is never my obligation to guarantee that the people around me are not intimidated by the things I do which are in fact harmless to them and within my rights and not done in malice. If you told me that black people "didn't care about the feelings" of frightened racist gas station cashiers by going into stores late at night and buying snacks, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself and I'd be right. And when Rebecca Watson demands that men not try to hook up with her on an elevator because "c'mon. Guys. You're scary. Am I right?" she's being offensive and sexist.

If you assume without cause or provocation or hint of malice that someone is dangerous, they do not have an obligation to modify their behavior in such a way as to make you comfortable. They have an obligation not to harass you, coerce you, harm you, threaten you, or whatever. You have rights, but the right to demand that people abide by your baseless fears of them or the labels they're wearing is not anywhere on the list.

Had he called out to her before she reached the elevator, within sight of other people still, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Personally, I prefer to be shot down in private whenever possible. You're really being quite inconsiderate of this poor chap's feelings, expecting him to do something like that.