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

[DragonChild]

Your posts, overall, are really just showing you're a bad person totally divorced from reality.

You don't have an "obligation" to do things others request, no. But you don't have a right not to make people uncomfortable, or annoyed. If my co-worker is playing music too loudly, I can ask them to stop - they don't have an obligation to stop, but claiming I'm trying to infringe upon my coworker's human rights would be ridiculous into the extreme.

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.

I said "within sight". Not in front of other people, just around them.

You know, how like it's considered common sense to meet somebody for a first date in a coffee shop or restaurant or other public place if you met online, and not immediately go to their house.

Best part of this is if Rebecca took up that guy's offer, and something DID happen, people would be blaming her for being so dumb, because that's how our society works.

[sabs]

Because, every girl loves it when a guy shouts across a crowded room, "Hey want to go back to my room and look at my stamp collection?"

That's just so much better.

[DragonChild]

Because, every girl loves it when a guy shouts across a crowded room, "Hey want to go back to my room and look at my stamp collection?"

That's just so much better.

No, you call out to her, ask for a second, and approach her off to the side before she gets into the elevator. Or, because you're right behind her presumably before she gets on the elevator, you ask her BEFORE you're alone on the elevator. There is no good reason to wait until both of you are alone in an elevator.

[Kaelik]

You don't have an "obligation" to do things others request, no. But you don't have a right not to make people uncomfortable, or annoyed. If my co-worker is playing music too loudly, I can ask them to stop - they don't have an obligation to stop, but claiming I'm trying to infringe upon my coworker's human rights would be ridiculous into the extreme.

But that isn't what you are claiming. You are claiming that your coworker should never ever play music load enough to upset you, even when the volume is really really low, and you can only barely hear it and the only reason you are upset it because your mom just died, something he doesn't know and is not responsible for.

No one is saying that the guy shouldn't stop after receiving no, or even that people in general shouldn't stop asking Rebecca Watson if she makes a public statement that she doesn't want to be asked out (ever/at atheist cons/in elevators/whatever). But you are specifically claiming that this guy was in the wrong for not knowing something that had never been told to him.

Best part of this is if Rebecca took up that guy's offer, and something DID happen, people would be blaming her for being so dumb, because that's how our society works.

Again, you are blaming people who did not do anything wrong (and are not know saying anything wrong) because some completely different people would have said something wrong in a different situation.

Do you really think Frank Trollman, DSM, or I would have said that she should have known better than to be alone with a guy in his room?

Frankly, isn't that actually what you are saying, you, unlike us, believe that women should act as if all men are rapists.

No, you call out to her, ask for a second, and approach her off to the side before she gets into the elevator. Or, because you're right behind her presumably before she gets on the elevator, you ask her BEFORE you're alone on the elevator. There is no good reason to wait until both of you are alone in an elevator.

Except you know, that you might be alone on the elevator anyway, because it's 4 AM, so you are both going up to your rooms anyway regardless of what the answer is, so it is better to ask such that you spend the smallest amount of time alone together on an elevator after she has said no.

Are you telling me that she would have been happier if, after she said no they got on the elevator together? Of course not. So presumably he now needs to wait for a second elevator, which hey, is totally worth the minor inconvenience if he knows in advance that Rebecca Watson believes anyone on an elevator with her is going to rape her, but since the point is that he obviously didn't know that, how was he supposed to act on information that was never provided to him.

[DSMatticus]

do things others request

If my co-worker is playing music too loudly, I can ask them to stop

Dude. You're literally fucking describing situations and appealling to examples where person X is interacting with person Y, and person Y asks them to stop, and suggesting that person X should listen to them (though, the coworker one is a super-awkward example because it's actually about the civilities involved in sharing space and nothing to do with issues of interaction and consent, but hey, you tried). You know, like the situation Rebecca Watson was in, where she got on an elevator, and a dude tried to hook up with her, and she said no, and he stopped trying to hook up with her. You aren't trying to defend Rebecca Watson's right to request someone stop interacting with her, because she exercised that right. Successfully. It does not need defended in this situation.

Rebecca Watson is actually complaining that men asking to hook up with her is unsettling if she can't immediately run away, because, you know... guys are rapists sometimes maybe and it's a little scary. And as an example of this she cited a man who completely respected her rejection and went on minding his own business.

[ubernoob]

ITT:

Women- "A man has to obey certain unspoken rules about how to approach me for casual sex"
Men- "No, there are laws, ethics, and the fact that something might make you uncomfortable, but not actually cause you harm in the slightest way does not make it a factor in what is and is not morally/ethically/legally right"

Have I summed it up?

[Maj]

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.

Actually, I agree with Kaelik's statement, too. But based on my personal experiences, Watson's comments come off as a "You may not have meant to be frightening, but you were, so you should try to avoid that behavior in order to prevent that impression."

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.

What you have said here is offensive to every woman in the universe who looks at a man, says something, and has her words promptly discarded because he thinks no means yes. It has clearly demonstrated that when you say I'm wrong, you actually mean that I'm right.

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.

I think this is absolutely the case (and I already said as much at the top of the previous page). But, I totally can see both sides of the story and feel that Watson has her own take on the situation that's important enough to be heard. And that side is this:

If I've spent all day talking about sexism and how the women are treated badly by this community, AND it's really late, AND I've said I'm going to sleep, AND I'm in a foreign country, AND I'm alone, AND I'm in an enclosed space, don't invite me to your hotel room.

This situation leaves so many options for guys. Do wait to ask her when the elevator doors have opened and she's on her way out. Do ask her for coffee, but invite her to a public place, rather than your hotel room. Do ask her in the presence of someone - anyone - even hotel reception.

Any one of those things would have alleviated the threat.

[sabs]

So, you're saying that all men should always consider, "is she going to think I'm a rapist if I say hello to her."

That's bullshit in everyway. Also, it's possible he didn't attend ANY of her talks. There are always multiple tracks going at the same time. We don't even know if he was in the bar with her, and knew she had said she was sleepy and going to bed.

What if he's terminally shy and it's impossible for him to muster up the courage to ask her in a bar in front of lots of people.

Men should know that no means no, which clearly he did. But asking men to know that words that are't no, probably means no, if you're the wrong guy asking is going to far.

Never talk to a woman in an Elevator? Maybe we should just never talk to women, ever, except when introduced by a male relative of the woman, that she feels safe around.

[...You Lost Me]

I feel bad agreeing with the side that says the guy was justified in asking and then backing off, because I understand that can feel intimidating and I wish there were a way around it.

But it looks like the other side is just a slippery slope all the way down, and I can't justify the other response to myself.

[Kaelik]

What you have said here is offensive to every woman in the universe who looks at a man, says something, and has her words promptly discarded because he thinks no means yes. It has clearly demonstrated that when you say I'm wrong, you actually mean that I'm right.

No it's not Maj. It means that people never say "I am open to sexual propositions. Now would be a great time for you to make them." And so that often they say things that mean either they are open to them, or they are done for the night.

"Hey, I'm done for the night, I'm going home." Is both what I say when I no longer want to talk to people, and when I think there is someone who will follow me home who I want to go home with.

And that side is this:

If I've spent all day talking about sexism and how the women are treated badly by this community, AND it's really late, AND I've said I'm going to sleep, AND I'm in a foreign country, AND I'm alone, AND I'm in an enclosed space, don't invite me to your hotel room.

You believe that a whole bunch of things that don't mean someone won't have sex suddenly all together means they won't have sex?

People who talk about feminism are not anti-sex (except the ones who are, but Watson actually isn't one of those). It being really late doesn't mean that people don't want to have sex, really late is usually when people want to have sex. Saying you are going to sleep could mean you are going to sleep, or it could mean that you want to have sex. Being in a foreign country often means, as Frank said, that people are more likely to have sex, especially of the I just met you kind. Being alone is usually a prerequisite to sex. And finally, being in an enclosed space only matters if you think that anyone who asks you for sex is going to rape you.

So literally, the entirety of your post is adding a bunch of things that don't make sex less likely together, and then saying that therefore sex was especially unlikely.

No part of your conditions adds anything at all to the already extant conversation of "said she was sleepy" and "was in an elevator."

This situation leaves so many options for guys. Do wait to ask her when the elevator doors have opened and she's on her way out. Do ask her for coffee, but invite her to a public place, rather than your hotel room. Do ask her in the presence of someone - anyone - even hotel reception.

Any one of those things would have alleviated the threat.

Absolutely bullshit. If he had asked her in the elevator for coffee downstairs she would have still thought he was creepy and going to rape her and posted the exact same thing. And he asked her seconds before the elevator doors open, how is that any fucking different? Because she could more easily run away if the doors were open? Again, do you not see that the problem here is that he should never ever ever have to assume that she thinks he is going to rape her and act on that assumption?

The correct response to a woman thinking you are going to rape them is to never speak to that person ever for any reason. It is not to act in such a way that you frighten them with rape slightly less.

If he shouldn't have asked her in a closed elevator, he shouldn't have asked her in an open one, or ever. Either asking in a closed elevator is fine, because woman can respond to men as if they are not rapists, or asking ever at any point is not okay, because they could always wait until later to rape you if you are in public.

[DragonChild]

Absolutely bullshit. If he had asked her in the elevator for coffee downstairs she would have still thought he was creepy and going to rape her and posted the exact same thing.

And if she had gone up to his room you would have said it was her fault if something happened to her.

Isn't it amazing how arguments go when we can say what we think the other person will say? I'm so glad you agree this method is a valid tactic.

[Kaelik]

Absolutely bullshit. If he had asked her in the elevator for coffee downstairs she would have still thought he was creepy and going to rape her and posted the exact same thing.

And if she had gone up to his room you would have said it was her fault if something happened to her.

Isn't it amazing how arguments go when we can say what we think the other person will say? I'm so glad you agree this method is a valid tactic.

Fuck you shithead, we can tell what people would have said by comparing it what they did say. Since I have never said anything about how women should never be alone with men, or fear them, or that sluts deserve it, it follows that I would not say that in that situation.

Since Rebecca Watson specifically told us what she didn't like, we can tell that completely irrelevant things would not have magically flipped her opinion to the exact opposite.

Her complaints are: Close Elevator made her nervous, She had said she was tired, so he should have known she wasn't interested.

At no fucking point did she ever say that asking her for coffee in his room was the problem. She said that asking her for sex in the elevator was a problem. If he had said, "I find you very interesting, do you want to have coffee back downstairs" it would still meet all the qualities she complained about, and for you to claim that would have changed how she felt is literally to say that she lied about why she was upset.

[DSMatticus]

Watson's comments come off as a "You may not have meant to be frightening, but you were, so you should try to avoid that behavior in order to prevent that impression."

We have had this debate at length. "I was scared of person X" is not at all sufficient to indicate that person X wronged you. People do in fact cross the street to avoid black people because they are afraid of them, and it is immediately obvious that the people they are afraid of haven't done anything wrong, and telling black people they should try to avoid being on the same sidewalks as everyone else is staggeringly (and obviously) offensive. And yet, somehow, telling men they shouldn't do X because it makes women afraid of them even though they aren't violating anyone's rights or acting in malice is... totally normal and appropriate? Um, fuck no.

Not all men want to violate your rights. When you pretend that your fear of having your rights violated is the fault of the men who are in no way violating your rights because there exist some other men somewhere else who would violate your rights, you are being offensive and prejudiced. Seriously, just fucking say it and see how it sounds: "Men, you need to act like I think you might be a rapist. Because I think you might be a rapist. And that's your fault, even if you aren't a rapist and completely respect my rights and autonomy. So make sure you fix that."

What you have said here is offensive to every woman in the universe who looks at a man, says something, and has her words promptly discarded because he thinks no means yes.

Are you fucking serious? You don't see a difference between this:
1) "Hey everybody, I'm tired and calling it a night."
2) "Going out on a limb here, but would you like to sleep with me?"
and this:
3) "I don't want to sleep with you."
4) "Yes, you do."

Neither 1->3 NOR 2->4 are anything near fair or equivalent substitutions. You are quite straight-facedly equating "asking sleepy people if they'd maybe want to come up for coffee i.e. sex" with "the immediate precursor to rape." I don't think any sane person thinks being asked, once, without coercion, if they want to do something after announcing to no one in particular that they're going to bed is the same as the complete and total negation of their directly stated answers to specific questions.

I feel bad agreeing with the side that says the guy was justified in asking and then backing off, because I understand that can feel intimidating and I wish there were a way around it.

Are you sure you feel bad? Because the most uncomfortable part of this for me is that every single person here knows Geraldo Rivera is a racist asshole. You can't use the fact that some people are intimidated by certain ethnicities to justify telling those ethnicities "to be less scary." But we can't agree that Rebecca Watson is a sexist asshole. Because apparently some people think you can use the fact that some women are intimidated by men to justify telling men "to be less scary."

[Starmaker]

As the resident prude, I offer my 0.0006.

Yes, it's creepy to approach a stranger with offers of casual sex anywhere except a singles bar or an equivalent place. It's creepy for the same reason leaking someone's noodz is more damaging than leaking private clothed pix, or blood from a head wound showing through the bandage is acceptable while but evidence of aunt Flo's visit is a no-no. Sex is private. However, Watson wasn't offered sex. She was offered coffee. A conference is exactly the place to make acquaintances. She even quotes him having said, "Don't take this the wrong way".

If someone is tired and says they want to sleep, coffee as an alternative is a 100% correct reply. Because, fuckity fuck, "I want to sleep" HAS TWO (nonsexual) MEANINGS. It means EITHER "I would find it emotionally satisfying to go to sleep right now" OR "I would find it emotionally satisfying to stay active and do shit, but unfortunately, I am physically exhausted and can't stay up".

[Maj]

She was offered coffee.

At 4 AM in some dude's hotel room.

[DragonChild]

She was offered coffee.

At 4 AM in some dude's hotel room.

We're at the point in the conversation where people are outright claiming things were said that never were and not providing evidence of it, as well as outright saying they know how a woman they've already blatantly mischaracterized would act were the situations different, because, well, they just know.

This conversation I think is pretty much over and making me wonder why I even bother coming here anymore.

[sabs]

She was offered coffee.

At 4 AM in some dude's hotel room.

She said no, he left her alone.
That's not exactly creep material.

[Kaelik]

She was offered coffee.

At 4 AM in some dude's hotel room.

We're at the point in the conversation where people are outright claiming things were said that never were and not providing evidence of it, as well as outright saying they know how a woman they've already blatantly mischaracterized would act were the situations different, because, well, they just know.

This conversation I think is pretty much over and making me wonder why I even bother coming here anymore.

Presumably because you enjoy lying.

But just to be clear, your official position is that despite what she actually said, we cannot possibly predict how Rebecca Watson would respond to anything except the thing she just did, and that if, somehow, I should run into Rebecca Watson, I should not assume that she would be upset by being approached in a closed elevator for coffee downstairs?

Your official position is that even as clear as she has been about being approached in elevators for sex, still it is unclear whether asking her in an elevator for coffee downstairs at 4 in the morning is a grey area and that I would not be a horrible asshole for asking?

Is that your official position now? I say now because that completely undermines your entire fucking point up until now about how asking people in an elevator, or for that matter, alone on the street, constitutes evil badness.

[Dean]

DSM, Frank and Kaelik are successfully covering basically every aspect of this argument but I wanted to focus particular attention about how backing these "feminists" hurts women's rights considerably. I spent my college education primarily in sociology and women's studies courses and when I argue about feminism in the modern day I am more often than not arguing against it. Whatever you want to call the contemporary feminism movement (internet feminism, faux feminism) it has turned from being focused on advancing women's rights to making absurd and morally offensive personal statements and pretending they are acceptable political positions backed not by moral argument or logic but by declaring their stated beliefs must be held by any "true believer" and mobilizing followers with ample use of the bandwagon fallacy. It has become a popular and profitable industry opposed to factual or logical discussion spread through memetics and not political action, research or debate.

I have attended rallies, events and campaigns. I think fighting for Women's Rights is arguably the most important thing in the first world and I hate virtually every feminist article I read. This is an upsetting and harmful movement which, should I have one, will make my daughter's life worse and it disgusts me.

[DragonChild]

I guess the answer to TheJerkStore's original question has been proven as "because being atheist doesn't make them not honestly terrible people".

[Username17]

I guess the answer to TheJerkStore's original question has been proven as "because being atheist doesn't make them not honestly terrible people".

Dragon Child, I don't normally say this: but if I met you in real life I would punch you in the dick. You've been repeatedly accusing people, completely baselessly of being rape apologists. It's offensive and disgusting. Fucking stop it, you fucking fuck.

When you say shit like this:

And if she had gone up to his room you would have said it was her fault if something happened to her.

That's offensive bullshit. It's deeply, deeply offensive and provably wrong. How is it provably wrong? By the fact that there are people who are date raped, and I don't say that it is the victim's fault. It's not a hypothetical situation, it's a real situation. Not for Rebecca Watson, but for lots of people in the real world. And you saying explicitly that I am cheering for the aggressors in those situations is deeply offensive. So offensive, that I would punch you in the god damned dick. And i wouldn't even feel sorry about it afterwards.

What you just said is simply way over the fucking line. You flat out accused me of being pro-rape, which not really very different from calling me out as a rapist. That's disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Asking for someone to go to your room is not violating their rights. Raping them while they are in your room is violating their rights. Having your rights violated is not your fault, and accusing me of saying otherwise when I never did is beyond acceptable behavior, you sanctimonious lying piece of shit.

-Username17

[shau]

This conversation I think is pretty much over and making me wonder why I even bother coming here anymore.

I am out too, although the thought I broke DSMatticus faith in humanity by taking what he literally said literally will keep me warm at night.

The thing is though, this whole thing really has very little to do with what happened in an elevator in four o'clock in the morning. The only thing that has really happened here is that a young woman found a particular sexual advance creepy and asked that similar advances not be made in the future. And that one little statement has been more than enough for the half the internet to lose its fucking mind. People here are seriously arguing their civil rights were violated. And this makes me very sad, because people really are paying attention to this shit and it could absolutely have a chilling effect on whether or not a woman reports sexual harassment, molestation, or even rape. Because if Watson gets this much shit just for saying she felt something was inappropriate, what will they have to deal with?

[DragonChild]

That's offensive bullshit. It's deeply, deeply offensive and provably wrong. How is it provably wrong? By the fact that there are people who are date raped, and I don't say that it is the victim's fault.

That was specifically aimed at Kaelik, as I quoted him, after he outright claimed what Watson would say in a different circumstance. He felt the need to put words into the mouth of others, so I was sarcastically putting words in the mouth of him. Not you. My attempt to point out how goddamn stupid it is to say "If things went differently, I know people would act exactly like I claim".

So no, I did not accuse you of a goddamn thing, nor was I actually attempting to accuse Kaelik of anything besides gross ignorance and dishonest debating.

I did say before that some people in this thread may have blamed her, and there would be a huge chunk of society that blames her, and I fully believe that - our society is really goddamn disgusting, and I don't think the den is free of that kind of bullshit.

Now, would you like to back up your claim that Watson specifically named the guy, and specifically called him a rapist? That was your claim and I'm still waiting to see that backed up - if that's true I will happily apologize and back out.

[Username17]

Now, would you like to back up your claim that Watson specifically named the guy, and specifically called him a rapist?

I may actually be misremembering about whether she specifically named him or not. It was two years ago, and frankly the guy on the elevator isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things either way. But I think one way or the other his name is actually known, though I can't remember what it is and never really knew what channels that came out through. Maybe he even named himself, stranger things have happened.

Her saying he could be a rapist is actually the entire basis of her entire argument. Especially her later videos on the subject where she says socially awkward men should fuck dolls, it gets into deeply offensive territory. Her entire claim is that men need to modulate their behavior because they could be rapists. That's it. That's the whole thing.

It's exactly equivalent to telling young black men that they need to cross the street to avoid you so you don't have to cross the street them because they could be muggers. Or any other substitution you care to name. The structure of the argument is that she is going to treat you like you're a heinous criminal, and therefore you should not do things that are well within your rights but might be consistent with future actions that are criminal and also not within your rights. So, no reaching into your pockets (there might be a weapon!), no sitting next to her on the bus (you might be a molester), and so on and so forth.

Without the "you might be a rapist" part of her argument (which is explicit, and was from the beginning), there's no argument worth talking about. The rest of it is just "you should use your psychic powers to know whether I'm interested in you and not bother me by hitting on me if I'm not," which is simply retarded. People don't have psychic powers, and they do not always know if you are interested or not, and cannot possibly be certain if they don't ask.

With the "you might be a rapist" part of her argument, it's offensive and stupid. She's asking people to avoid human contact on the grounds that they might perform heinous crimes if they got human contact. This is ridiculous on many levels. It's ridiculous and offensive to treat innocent people as if they were about to commit heinous crimes that they have shown no particular interest in committing. But it's also patently absurd to think that getting men to not talk to women would somehow reduce rape. We have a natural experiment, a country where men literally are not allowed to share elevators with or speak to women. It's called Saudi Arabia, and the reality is that these measures have in no way provided for safety of women from sexual assault.

Rebecca Watson's original piece was stupid and offensive. But it was also minor. She could have walked it back or even just lived it down. However, when people called her out on the fundamental flaws in her argument, she doubled down and got way more offensive. That doesn't excuse the rape and death threats she received, but it does make her wrong. And when she called for a boycott of the books of people who simply said she was wrong (and had not, for example, threatened her in any way), that made her in the wrong.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

nor was I actually attempting to accuse Kaelik of anything besides gross ignorance and dishonest debating.

Which is it Dragonchild, if I run into Rebecca Watson in a closed elevator going up to our rooms at 4AM should I or should I not know better than to ask her for coffee downstairs?

You have to pick one side or the fucking other, you can't say that it is impossible for anyone to know what could upset her, and simultaneously that anyone asking her should have known better.