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

[Omegonthesane]

@Kaelik : I think that's where you've got it wrong.

Bob is the cashier at a shop. He's expected to interact with buyers. He's here to provide Aaron with snacks.

Rebecca Watson is not there to give you sex. If you do think so, then you're clearly what the feminists are fighting against.

The difference is in their appropriate reactions, however.

Bob is being paid to actually serve as a cashier, so his appropriate reactions are restricted to actually serving as a cashier.

Rebecca Watson is indeed not there to give you sex, so if you ask her for sex her appropriate reactions include telling you to fuck off, and you are required to accept that.

In neither case are you violating anybody's rights.

[nockermensch]

Simmering below this entire discussion about Rebecca Watson seems to be a "weird guys, know your place" argument that nobody wants to admit.

[sabs]

That someone is frightened by something (s)he shouldn't be is wrong.
This applies both the cashier frightened by black guys and the girls frightened by a friendly male.

But even if it's wrong, it doesn't make it right to not react to that fear. No matter if the person's fear is justified, what's right is to do everything you can to appease that person. If that means not interacting with him/her at all, then that's what you do.

So what if you can't read what the person want? If there's a 50% chance that that person wants to have sex with you and a 50% chance that she's afraid of you, but you can't tell?
Well in that case you refrain. Because it's morally better to lose a chance of having sex than to risk causing trouble to someone.

But you have the right to be an asshole. You even have the right to say that it's better to be an asshole. You'll be morally wrong in my opinion, but you have that right.

SO let me get this straight.
I am a black man who is very thirsty at 2am. I want to buy a slurpee from 7/11 because I'm young, and have no idea that that much sugar at 2am is bad for me. So I walk into the 7/11 and go make myself a slurpee. I notice the cashier hunching his shoulders, and eyeing the cameras nervously. He also seems to keep his hand under the counter where I assume he's got a gun in case I go all Negro on him and rob the store.

You are saying that I should appease his fear that I am a gangbanger out to rob him by leaving the store without getting my delicious slurpee?

WTF is wrong with you.

[Blade]

@sabs: I've never said that. I've even said that the black man (or the white man it doesn't matter) should buy his stuff. He should just be careful not to have a behavior that would give the cashier the wrong idea. And if he can do stuff that would appease the situation (like making small talk in a normal and non creepy way) it would be even better.

@Omegonthesane: I'm not talking about rights here. Bob, in some states, has the rights to make a racist comment, and Aaron has the right to make a creepy comment to freak out Bob, but both would be inappropriate.

Similarly, a guy has the right to ask a girl for sex in an enclosed space even if the girl is displaying no interest and even seems afraid of interacting with the guy. He's got the right to do so, but it's inappropriate.

[Omegonthesane]

@sabs: I've never said that. I've even said that the black man (or the white man it doesn't matter) should buy his stuff. He should just be careful not to have a behavior that would give the cashier the wrong idea. And if he can do stuff that would appease the situation (like making small talk in a normal and non creepy way) it would be even better.

@Omegonthesane: I'm not talking about rights here. Bob, in some states, has the rights to make a racist comment, and Aaron has the right to make a creepy comment to freak out Bob, but both would be inappropriate.

Similarly, a guy has the right to ask a girl for sex in an enclosed space even if the girl is displaying no interest and even seems afraid of interacting with the guy. He's got the right to do so, but it's inappropriate.

If you're telling me that I have any meaningful obligation to act in a manner you deem appropriate, to the point of infringing on my use of my rights... there aren't enough barrels of cocks in the world.

[erik]

Simmering below this entire discussion about Rebecca Watson seems to be a "weird guys, know your place" argument that nobody wants to admit.

I was a weird guy who knew his place into age 20 and it was no way to live. Avoiding making advances due to possible unknowable states of mind of other people is a fucked proposition since you're unable to make any advances if you want to avoid all possibility of discomfort to the person you're asking. There's no such thing as a perfect opportunity. Sometimes you just have to ask and risk that woman's discomfort of being asked out may actually be as much as the guy's who is asking her out.

Not knowing the complete context of the proposition Ms. Watson received, I still don't have good reason to conclude that she was asked to have sex, especially since it was prefaced with "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you really interesting, and I would like to talk more." as an opener. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that someone who had talked until 4am may well have wanted to talk until 5am, and no coffee shops were open at that hour.

Sure he could have suggested to get some coffee without suggesting his room specifically, but fuck, not everyone parses all their thoughts perfectly all the time to avoid any misinterpretations.

[Kaelik]

@Kaelik : I think that's where you've got it wrong.

Bob is the cashier at a shop. He's expected to interact with buyers. He's here to provide Aaron with snacks.

Rebecca Watson is not there to give you sex. If you do think so, then you're clearly what the feminists are fighting against.

Fine, the black guys wants to ask directions. Is he obligated to wander lost in an unfamiliar city to appease the racism of Bob, because Bob is not paid to give directions?

The point is that regardless of whether or not Rebecca Watson is obligated to give sex, she might want to. You don't ask someone if they want to have sex unless you think the answer is yes. If you think the answer might be yes, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask.

Similarly, a guy has the right to ask a girl for sex in an enclosed space even if the girl is displaying no interest and even seems afraid of interacting with the guy. He's got the right to do so, but it's inappropriate.

1) I am really fucking sick of this "enclosed space" bullshit. Obviously I won't try to ask Dragon child because he is a dishonest cock, but try this on you:

Is asking someone in an elevator at all bad compared to anything else? Is asking in an elevator worse than getting off on her floor and asking her in front of the elevator? At the door to her place?

You, and every other person who has said enclosed space just tack it on to a sentence, and you never make it clear whether it is the central premise of your argument or meaningless filler text. Which is it, because if it is meaningless filler text, stop saying it, and if it is the central argument then please address any of the myriad criticisms of how being in an elevator is a completely bullshit difference.

2) You make all these claims about what the girl might be doing that make it clear she isn't interested, but you are full of shit. First of all, you weren't there, so you don't know that she made any kind of signs. Secondly, as previously discussed, people are not fucking masters of reading all the signs. "I want to go to bed" can mean that someone wants to have sex, or not. Looking away while blushing and messing with your hair can be a sign that someone is attracted but nervous, or they could be experiencing a fear response, nervousness based on that fear, and avoiding eye contact for that reason.

Would it be great it the guy had better read Rebecca Watson? Sure, that would have been wonderful. But when you allege that he should have known better you are full of shit. You don't know what he saw or thought. To the extent that we know anything the only thing we know at all is that he thought there was a non zero chance she would say yes. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say he probably didn't think she would assume he was a rapist for asking for consent. Not because he didn't read the signs, but because that is a completely unreasonable assumption that is unjustified in literally all circumstances, just like assuming Aaron is thief because he wants to pay for chips.

[DSMatticus]

And if he can do stuff that would appease the situation (like making small talk in a normal and non creepy way) it would be even better.

That is actually racist. Geraldo Rivera went on national television and told black people society would find them less frightening if they'd stop wearing hoodies. That is "appeasing the situation." If you are telling me that the many, many people who went out and bought hoodies explicitly to give him the middle finger are all assholes, you are wrong. Geraldo Rivera expressed his fears, suggested a way to appease them, and it showed the world he was a monster in a human suit. But even when the burden is as small as "being polite more than usual," you are telling black people they're in the wrong for not trying to appease society's prejudices of them by being less threatening. Even when they are, in fact, doing nothing wrong or intimidating at all other than existing and being black. That's still racist. "You should be polite whenever possible" is a... vaguely reasonable statement, I suppose. But "you should be more polite because people find your skin color intimidating" is a horrific statement. And it's what you said, even if you don't think you said it.

Bob is the cashier at a shop. He's expected to interact with buyers. He's here to provide Aaron with snacks.

Believe it or not you should expect that people will try to interact with you when you are in public. The difference between Bob and Rebecca isn't that Rebecca has the reasonable expectation that people will automatically know to leave her alone without her telling them and Bob doesn't. That is just not a reasonable expectation to have for anyone. The real difference is that Bob has no reasonable way to request that specific individuals stop interacting with him, while Rebecca absolutely does ("not interested"). But that's not actually pertinent, because Rebecca's complaints are that guys should not talk to her if she's going to reject them before she's rejected them even if they don't know she's going to reject them.

Rebecca Watson is not there to give you sex. If you do think so, then you're clearly what the feminists are fighting against.

Incredibly dishonest. No one has ever suggested that because Bob has to sell you things Rebecca Watson has to say yes when you ask for sex. The discussion is about the use of personal fear to justify the notion that people are wrong to interact with you in the first place.

[Blade]

Ok you win, I'm now convinced that I have the rights to insult people in the street and I don't have to care if they'll feel offended.

Thanks, I now understand that I was completely socially inapt by trying to respect other people and not just caring about what I want.

PS : I like your way of taking examples with black people so that you can end up pressing the "I win: you're racist" button. No matter if I said that it would be exactly the same thing if the guy in the example was white.

[DSMatticus]

Ok you win, I'm now convinced that I have the rights to insult people in the street and I don't have to care if they'll feel offended.

Harassment is a crime. If someone is insulting you in the street and refusing your requests to be left alone, you can call the police and they will come and they will stop the person on your behalf using whatever force is necessary. This is absolutely not equivalent to what happened to Rebecca Watson, who was asked to do X, said no, and then was left alone.

Thanks, I now understand that I was completely socially inapt by trying to respect other people and not just caring about what I want.

"Homosexual couple, please respect my desire to not see you holding hands." Certain behaviors are acceptable, and certain behaviors are not, and there are reasons those behaviors are acceptable or not acceptable. Honest-to-god reasons. When you reduce things to questions of what people want, you run headfirst into the problem that certain people want abhorrent things and respecting their wishes is actually harmful and evil.

You have to answer the question of whether or not Rebecca Watson's desire to "not have men politely ask her back to their room for coffee (and possiprobably sex) without knowing she would reject them" is legitimate grounds for suggesting that the man did something wrong/assholish. Because that is her claim. Her claim is that because she had to explicitly express her disinterest to a polite request the man did something assholish. Not only assholish, but sexist.

PS : I like your way of taking examples with black people so that you can end up pressing the "I win: you're racist" button. No matter if I said that it would be exactly the same thing if the guy in the example was white.

Um... society doesn't have a problem with its members being prejudicially afraid of white people. Society does have a problem with its members being prejudicially afraid of black people. If you are in fact claiming that you would place the same standards of "go out of your way to satisfy society's prejudices" (edit: For some reason that said avoid satisfying at first. The hell is wrong with me?) on everyone, then that's racist. Because society's prejudices are more burdensome to some groups than others.

[erik]

I think this is all less about rights and more about what is socially acceptable, and that varies by cultures.

I personally do not want to live in a culture where it is considered unacceptable to ask someone out if you think there is the smallest possibility that they would either say no, or that they would be offended by your asking. It is hard enough to simply ask out someone without additional social stigma attached.

[Username17]

We can all agree seemingly that when racists want Black people to look at the ground all the time because they find being looked at by Black people to be a thing that makes them uncomfortable, that they are being unreasonable. If you are finding it difficult to explain why that is unreasonable that is in any way consistent with your stance defending Rebecca Watson, you should possibly consider the possibility that this is because she is fucking wrong. And that by extension, defending her statements is also wrong, and you should stop.

-Username17

[Blade]

We can all agree seemingly that when anti-racists want White people not to stare angrily at Black people, because it makes Black people feel unwelcome and threatened, they are being reasonable.

If you are finding it difficult to explain why that is reasonable that is in any way consistent with your stance defending people who make women feel threatened by asking them for sex in situations where they don't want to, you should possibly consider the possibility that this is because you are fucking wrong.


And to answer you: asking Blacks to stare at the ground is unreasonable because it's degrading to them. I fail to see how telling men not to ask women for sex in every occasion is degrading to them.

[Username17]

We can all agree seemingly that when anti-racists want White people not to stare angrily at Black people, because it makes Black people feel unwelcome and threatened, they are being reasonable.

If you are finding it difficult to explain why that is reasonable that is in any way consistent with your stance defending people who make women feel threatened by asking them for sex in situations where they don't want to, you should possibly consider the possibility that this is because you are fucking wrong.

Staring angrily at people is a threat of violence in all human cultures. Threatening people with violence is not OK. That was not difficult.

And to answer you: asking Blacks to stare at the ground is unreasonable because it's degrading to them. I fail to see how telling men not to ask women for sex in every occasion is degrading to them.

You don't think that telling men that they should be treated as if they were possible rapists is degrading to them? Seriously? That's what you're going with?

-Username17

[Blade]

I don't see the link between "men bothering women/making them feel threatened by asking them for sex" and "treating all men as possible rapists".

I think you just don't understand the issue. Which is a part of the issue itself.

[Username17]

I don't see the link between "men bothering women/making them feel threatened by asking them for sex" and "treating all men as possible rapists".

I think you just don't understand the issue. Which is a part of the issue itself.

OK, now I know you're trolling. The "you might be a rapist" is literally Rebecca Watson's entire argument. Without that, there's no part of it that makes any sense on any level. She's uncomfortable supposedly entirely because she suspects he might be a rapist. That's it. That's literally the whole thing.

If there's no implied fear that the man is about to commit a sexual assault in what is in reality a very public and secure place, then there's no reason given why she'd be uncomfortable. Schrodinger's Rapist is literally the only reason given. And Schrodinger's Rapist is, very obviously, an extremely demeaning assumption to make.

But beyond that, look at the equivocation you made here:

men bothering women/making them feel threatened by asking them for sex

The man in question did not ask her for sex. Let me repeat that, because apparently you are a dumbass: HE DID NOT ASK HER FOR SEX. He said he thought she was interesting and asked her to join him for coffee. There may, or may not, have been an implied offer of sex. And sex may or may not have been a subsequent offer had she joined him for coffee. But the explicit offer was coffee, not sex.

So what we have hear is a man making a good faith, non-sexual offer. And then the woman decides that regardless of what he actually said, what he actually meant was that he was offering her sex. Which may or may not be true. But the prospect that it might be true bothered her. In short: she assumed the man was lying. The prospect that an offer of coffee might actually be an offer of coffee and nothing more or less didn't even cross her mind. And then she substituted an entirely different offer that had not in fact crossed his lips, and decided that the entirely imaginary offer was crude and demeaning to women.

That's insane. That's completely and utterly insane. There is literally nothing a man can say or not say at any point in their lives that will get past a filter that total. Because what he is being condemned for is not anything he actually said or did, but what Rebecca Watson imagines he may have been thinking at the time.

So yes. It's fucking demeaning to men. The entire argument is demeaning to men. It's telling men that they can't say things that aren't sexual because we know that really men are all pigs and thinking sexual things and even having their lips move while passing totally mundane and non-sexual statements is obscene because it reminds us that they are liars and rapists at heart.

We aren't talking about someone saying that people shouldn't use hyper sexualized language with people they don't know. We're talking about someone claiming that men shouldn't use any language with women they don't know because anything they say is just a code for perversion and objectification of women. Again and still, the actual sentence was:

"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you really interesting, and I would like to talk more."

That is what is being condemned as objectification and over sexualization of women. It's baffling and insane. And when you substitute actions like "badgering women for sex" for what was actually being condemned, you change the entire situation. If someone was actually badgering a woman for sex, that would be wrong. That would be harassment. But he didn't fucking do that. And that is why Rebecca Watson is wrong instead.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

I don't see the link between "men bothering women/making them feel threatened by asking them for sex" and "treating all men as possible rapists".

Because so far, being afraid that men who ask you for sex is the best possible reason that women could be upset to be asked for sex (insert all the qualifiers about not after tying them up and beating them because you want so badly to call everyone a rapist).

[DSMatticus]

I don't see the link between "men bothering women/making them feel threatened by asking them for sex" and "treating all men as possible rapists".

You can't just fucking say the word bother because you want to make this stranger sound like a dickbag. Bother is a synonym for harass, not ask. Do you believe that the man asked Rebecca Watson for sex, or harassed her for sex? Oh wait, trick question, he asked for coffee and a chat. Whatever. If you believe the answer is he asked for sex, then your efforts to villainize the nuances of his behavior through buzzwords is dishonest and you should cut it the fuck out.

Beyond that, "making them feel threatened by asking them for sex" - what do you think it means to feel threatened? Seriously. It means to see something as source of danger or harm. That is what it means. If you are claiming that Rebecca Watson felt threatened by a man who had not wronged her in anyway or displayed any malicious intent, then you are necessarily implying that Rebecca Watson thinks men who are not wronging her or displaying any malicious intent can be sources of danger or harm despite no wrongdoings upon her or malicious intent. I mean, it's possible she thought he was going to rob her, or assault her in the normal non-sexual way, and therefore did not think he was a rapist, but that isn't actually any better. Assuming men are malicious when they are not displaying malice and you have no reason to believe they are or will act in malice is morally wrong.

Enjoying casual sex with strangers (with coffee and friendly chats about blahfirst) does not make you dangerous! You are allowed to like casual sex with strangers. That is a socially and morally acceptable behavior. Fuck the fundies! If you assume that men who enjoy casual sex with strangers are also X, where X is something dangerous and harmful and threatening, you're being prejudiced. That is the word for the thing you are being. You are holding a preconceived notion about this person that is not based on reason or experience.

[Whipstitch]

Blade, I'm sympathetic here and all but that last post is still earning a solid "Lol, wut?"

I feel like the best way to approach this subject is to open up with the acknowledgement that there's a conflict of interest going on, which is part of why I was disappointed with Dawkins taking his usual blustery approach to things. I mean, c'mon, of course people don't like being viewed as creepy potential rapists, especially if they what they did isn't even socially reprehensible. On the other hand, we live in a world in which rape is acknowledged but only haphazardly, and in a manner in which much of the onus is put on the woman to avoid it her own damn self--in short, people know rapes happen somewhere, but they are surprisingly unlikely to think that a particular rape may have happened. In that context, it is regrettable but unsurprising that women would approach their own safety from a conservative vantage point. The stakes are high enough that I can see why some women would treat worrying about rape in the same manner many of us check both ways before crossing the street--false positives on the ol' rape-dar just means you miss out on a few connections, while trusting the wrong person could end up with you being fuckin' dead. Such prejudices are tough to kill, because whether it is fair to other people or not is a completely separate matter from whether it has any utility for the person in question.

Now, personally, I have reacted to this sad situation by doing some toughening up of my own--I just remind myself that most of the women I've hit own didn't really know me anyway and move on with my life. Compared to the shit women put up with it's not exactly that much of a cross to bear. But, with that said, I think it's really naive to act as if that isn't a learned behavior on my part, or that it isn't unpleasant to realize that someone is thinking poorly of you even when you're acting in good faith. In the end, it is still just making the best of a bad situation.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Can we move this to an entirely new thread? The discussion is fascinating, but, it sort of drowns out the other questions.

[Prak]

Yeah, it's moved beyond "annoying question" and into a full blown debate and really should be moved to its own thread.

[Maj]

Fbmf is on vacay and so isn't available to do so.

[fbmf]

fbmf is on vacay and so isn't available to do so.

I'm back. Sorry for the delay.

Game On,
fbmf

[ckafrica]

I'm in agreement that the man in question's behavior is not inherently wrong, it would certainly match all criteria of bad judgement. Unfortunately Watson's telling of the encounter is not very specific as to where this guy came from but regardless of how you cut it, it was not the appropriate action in the situation.

If this individual had been in attendance to her panel discussion he would have heard her discuss her discomfort at the objectification by fans in her fan mail and state that “[Misogyny] is a problem, and maybe watch your own language and your own behaviour to try to root out any biases that may be lurking within you.” and therefore should have realized that this wouldn't be a welcome move (which doesn't preclude his right to try but makes it a bad one). Had he not been at the panel and simply been at the bar talking at the same table (I'm going to assume she was not an obnoxious flirt who is raging because the man took her seriously) than a woman who is going home at 4am alone is doing so because she wants to be. If you think you need to be asking in the elevator than you either missed your chance or you never had one and should have realized it.

Now if the man in question hadn't been in the bar (which the story seems not to imply but is not clear) than that exasperates the inappropriateness of come on because if ask a stranger to come to your room at 4am (or any time for that matter); that is pretty much the definition of creepy.

And I can't believe anyone would take a 4am "coffee at my place" as anything else other than a prelude to a sexual encounter. Were a strange woman to accept such an offer made by myself, I'd assume I'd scored. There are few clearer euphemisms for sex except perhaps "would you like to look at my etchings?"

Now Dawkin's "Muslimina" response is a crude and ill-conceived false equivalence regardless of what you think of the behavior. That someone is wronged in a more egregious manner than myself does not negate my right to complain about it. That she should have just taken it and not complained of its inappropriateness is as unreasonable as saying that he had no right to make the pass.

In the end Watson's goal of having society, even a subset like the atheist community, reconsider some of its behavior is laudable. A lot of male behavior towards women is in need of adjustment. While this case is obviously not a worst offender by any stretch, I think her point, which as I can parse it is "this was not a good time to hit on a chick so next time don't", is worth being considered as it seems to be intended: "a good idea bad idea" moment that should have been ticked bad but wasn't.

[Username17]

ckafrica, have you ever been to a convention of any kind? Gaming convention, science fiction convention, anime convention, scientific conference, anything? Because it totally reads like you haven't. Hitting on random people you meet in the elevator at 4 in the morning is a thing that happens. It is a thing that works.

Also, going to peoples' rooms and chatting at 4 in the morning is also a thing that happens. All the time. There isn't even always - or even usually - sex involved. People are coming from all over the country, even all over the world for larger conventions, and their time sense is all screwy. You have people for whom 4AM is their middle of the day because they just came from across the nearest ocean. I've non sexually slept on the floor of several different people I didn't know at conventions.

Conventions are about talking to people you've never met as much as you can for a few days and then being really really hung over at the end. Acting like there was anything remotely strange about asking a person you just met in the elevator of a convention hall to go have a conversation is tragically bizarre.

-Username17