A Fantastic Response to Elevatorgate

I don’t have an hour and 23 minutes to spend on this. What is Elevatorgate?

Do you mean you “differ from” or you “defer to” – very different meanings!

This > http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=602 > Watson being OTT, and Dawkins being rightly dismissive of her. Which, apparently, makes him sexist.

The more I think about this, the more I agree with Dawkins.

Do you know who is not being considered in all of this? Anyone notice?

Elevator guy. I could be wrong about this, but I’m guessing there could be a person behind this label.

Here’s someone who finds Ms. Watson attractive, for whatever reason, and wants to approach her. How does he go about doing so, without a panel coaching him on sensitivity (a matter which is admittedly subjective), and with special focus on Ms. Watson’s particular sensitivities, much less in a manner that will not end up in more than minimal personal humiliation (and yes, some do see rejection as personally humiliating)? How about public humiliation?Does anyone consider, even for an instant,  the possibility that maybe, just maybe, his intent was not to cause Ms. Watson to feel trapped, that he intended no discomfort at all. Does not “don’t take this the wrong way” suggest that he was deliberately, albeit clumsily, trying to avoid such discomfort? I see many, many mocking that, but not everyone is Shakespeare.I wonder what it is like being “elevator guy” right now? Vilified as a symbol of all that is insensitive about men, being depicted as *the* cause for why women do not go to atheist/skeptics meetings? “Elevator guy” is now an anonymous, amorphous, evil symbol. How fun must that be? Whoever he is, he has a life history too. That life history will impact what he does and how he approaches matters, including his approach to Ms. Watson. Tell me; has anyone shown any sensitivity to that? Has it even entered into anyone’s considerations, amongst all the talk of sensitivity?”Elevator guy” put himself at risk in a very personal way. He gave Ms. Watson power over him. Look what she did with it.Did you enjoy the questions with the stepping forward and backward business? Try this one:If you have ever deliberately avoided women (in any way, covertly or overtly) for fear you will be accused of something against which there is no defence, take a step backward.Why wasn’t this question in the professor’s list? Because it would alter the results contrary to his intent; it considers the feelings of the “non-minority” and there is an entitlement mentality about who’s feelings matter – a unseen “privilege,” if you will.People talk about sensitivity to the feelings and experiences of others. Is it possible it is being selectively applied…? 

Ah see, that’s why there was a conflict. I don’t think Watson was being “OTT” at all, and I think that Dawkins being “rightly dismissive” was actually him being a bit sexist. 

She took ten seconds of a video to mention that someone made her feel uncomfortable.  If the incident was minor, then so was her initial commentary on it.  The people who took great offense to her comments are the ones who went over the top.

Dglas is right.

It’s funny because as a gay person, I think a lot of people expected me to be on Skeptchick’s side in all this. But I’m not, and I don’t know of any other of my gay friends that were. Why? Because while we do know what it’s like to not have privilege in society and to be vulnerable in physically and/or sexual ways… we also know what it’s like to be accused of doing something inappropriate, even predatory, when we are NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG AT ALL.
I took lots and lots of gender studies courses in college. In comparison to those, this entire Elevatorgate discussion has been a tragic failure. The level of intellectual discourse has been low, to say the least. You cannot take a generalized sociological concept (majority privilege, which certainly does exist) and apply it to an individual person and circumstance. Male privilege is real in our society. That doesn’t mean every male who makes an advance on a female is attempting to exert power over another person. Majority privilege is intended to be a tool to study society on larger scales. To wield it as a weapon against an individual person is a misuse of social science, to say the least.

Nope, she’s not that innocent. She also accused the person of “sexualizing her” (whatever that even means), and put out a warning to all other guys to not do it.

I just remember the first thing my wife said when I explained ElevatorGate to her…

“Wait, she calls herself ‘SkepChick’ and expects to be taken seriously?”

’nuff said.

I haven’t watched this video, but throughout this whole controversy one thing I was constantly reminded of was religion.  People who disagreed with RW and her supporters were often viciously attacked for daring to have a differing opinion.  It’s been sickening, disheartening, and really been pushing me away from the community.  And many times when posting about this I’ve been told I wouldn’t be missed, which I’m sure is true, but it’s still hurtful to hear people be so close-minded all the time.  Now I see this piece above, with hymns sung throughout the service.  I live in DFW, but I sure as hell won’t be attending these church services.  

I’ve left two atheist boards due to the massive sexism, which included such lovely claims as ‘rape victims choose to be victims’ and ‘look how she was dressed, what did she expect’.  These quotes were from long time forum members, one of which was actually a moderator.

Yesterday, while purchasing a screwdriver set at Home Depot, I had a guy come up behind me and say ‘Hey baby, you got somebody to helps you with that?’  When I said I had it covered, he responded, ‘Sokay baby, I’m just trying to talk to you’. I responded that I was in a hurry and started walking away.  ‘Fucking Dyke’ was the response I got yelled after me.

Oh, how I WISH we were done with all this.  Wouldn’t that be lovely?  I could go run errands, or take public transportation, or ride an elevator without having to do the ‘should I do the nice smile thing or would that lead him on and net me another stalker?  Should I bluntly make it clear I’m not interested or is he going to respond by getting angry and possibly violent?  Should I point out the wedding ring or would that just get me treated to arguments as to why I should be willing to cheat with a stranger?’

I could actually get from point A to point B without having to fend off any uninvited advances from folks who have serious difficulty understanding the words ‘not interested’.  Oh, to be done with this.

I really don’t want to invest another 90 minutes of my life on Elevatorgate so I will say what has been bugging me about this whole shitstorm, and move on.

I don’t think Richard Dawkins was being sexist or “privileged” – he was probably bemused, as I was, that a post on Pharyngula about female genital mutilation might draw a few dozen comments, but a privileged white western woman being on the receiving end of a clumsy pass draw several thousand comments, many of them of a very heated nature.

It must be said that Rebecca Watson had it in her power at several points to let the whole thing die the natural death it deserved, but instead she chose to escalate. Her initial response – “guys, don’t do that”, and then move on – was exactly right. But then she acted like an asshole towards a fellow female (and less privileged) blogger, she was called on it, and she needed a distraction from her own behavior. Within days she was calling for Richard Dawkins to be declared an unperson. Meanwhile, PZ was (dishonestly, IMHO) stirring the pot and Richard Plaitt was hysterically calling Elevator Guy a rapist.

This isn’t the first time Watson has found it convenient to whip up controversy. A few years ago, her target was the physicist Lawrence Krauss, who had the misfortune of having a friend, Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated (but never convicted) for allegedly having sex with minors. Krauss gave his friend the benefit of the doubt, which is what friends do. Watson attacked Krauss and insinuated all sorts of wild stories about Krauss holding orgies with underage prostitutes, which her followers lapped up with a total lack of skepticism.

I look at Watson’s Wikipedia page recently, and it is obviously a vanity page written by either herself of a follower. Yet it gives no indication of how she rose to such a prominent and powerful position in the atheist/skeptical community. She started out as a street juggler and now, if you don’t mind, she has an asteroid named after her. But she appears to have no scientific credentials of any sort and it’s very difficult to see anything positive she has contributed. She is a polarizing and divisive figure who rose without a trace.

It’s remarkable that the skeptical movement has a cult leader and cult followers who are prepared to tear anyone – including prominent atheist physicists and biologists – limb from limb at their leader’s bidding. Watson is, in a nutshell, the Sarah Palin of skepticism.

“Her initial response – “guys, don’t do that”, and then move on – was exactly right. But then she acted like an asshole towards a fellow female (and less privileged) blogger, she was called on it, and she needed a distraction from her own behavior.”

This is true.  However, you do leave out one part of the equation.  There was her initial response, and then there was the shitstorm that followed of offended guys who proclaimed that their “natural sexuality is being oppressed” merely because she said that something made her feel uncomfortable.  I totally agree with you that she subsequently acted like a jerk.  But you are remiss if you do not include the very heated response that she received from male skeptics to her mild initial response to the incident.  

It is that over the top outrage by male skeptics that I reacted to most viscerally.  And I’m not exaggerating when I say that there were claims that male sexuality itself was under attack by her initial response.  The idea that a woman cannot even express personal discomfort without threatening male sexuality is the crux of the problem to me.

Then I wonder why we aren’t taken as seriously by the wider community as we should be,when we let a ridiculous non-issue such as “Elevatorgate” take up discussion instead of using for lets say discussing solutions for human caused global warming or fighting against abuses of power by the Christian Fundamentalists for example.
Look all I’m saying is that if you want me to take this blog seriously let the issue die & promise never to speak of it again.

I wish I could like this 100 more times.

Anybody else vaguely disturbed by the implication that we all need to go to Re-Education Camp?  Even if it just consists of watching an hour-and-a-half video?   It’s like we’re taking the “no true Scotsman” fallacy and making it a qualification for membership:  No True Atheist would ever behave like an insensitive jerk.

I wish that the majority of the comments on this post were actually about the content of this post. I’ve only been able to watch a couple segments of the video, but I think what the Dallas F0F did is really interesting and useful. 

It’s a long video, so perhaps more substantial comments will come later, after more people have had a chance to watch it. But seriously–you don’t need to leave a comment to whine about EG being brought up again. That’s not the point of this post.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but you know men can be raped too, right? Or is it sexist because it’s a woman that is a rape victim in the discussion?

(Imagine, for a moment, that it had instead read ‘Look how HE was dressed, what did he expect?)
 sex·ism  1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes ofsexual roles.2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex,  as inrestricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.I’m not certain that the scenarios you discussed discussing are indeed sexist, but then again I wasn’t there, I just thought I’d point that out.Furthermore, your reply has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.  I’m not claiming that sexism doesn’t exist in the atheist community. I am simply claiming that skepchick provides poor evidence, and I don’t know why she is taken seriously. 

Is there no moderate line to take on this issue?  I empathize with both sides that led to the actual event in the elevator. Guy thought he was being polite, did not understand or even cross his mind that his actions could be perceived as creepy. Rebecca points out how uncomfortable she was in the situation and said “guys, don’t do that.” probably to help point out that’s not the best way to get to know a woman.

I could care less about the resulting shit storm after that comment when people on both sides blow the underlying concern out of perspective.  If you can’t empathize with a guy who takes the wrong approach to get to know a woman then you need to work on your empathy. Conversely if you can’t empathize that a woman could possibly feel uncomfortable being hit on in a confined space during a time when most people are sleeping, you need to work on your empathy. 

Honestly both sides at this point have gotten so ridiculous and I don’t see how anyone can pick just one side.

Well, there’s a nice example of selective reading. One moment we are talking about feelings and perceptions and the next, when inconvenient, all that goes out the window.

Actually she was in a position of emotional power, even if he was in a position of physical power. Try to think in terms other than mere brute force, please.

Welcome!  Please make yourself comfortable here, and always remember, there are jerks here… Just like everywhere else. 🙂  Feel free to ignore them.

Compromise!

How about this, since we’re on FA’s comments:

Feminism is good!  Dworkin-et-al (a fairly SMALL portion of the feminist community, I’ll add) is not-so-good, and kinda misandric and abrasive.  Let’s keep that tone out of the conversation here.

Men have rights too!  People who troll the comments, though, in an assholish manner, calling feminists ‘conservatives’ and such (WTF?) and claiming women are endangering their sexuality are bad.  Let’s keep that tone out of the conversation here.

Discrimination runs both ways, and as much as some people would like to hide it, there WERE two sides to this story (more like eighty or so, really).  Both sides were correct to a certain degree, and both sides deserved respect.  It all went from meaningful discussion to shitstorm because we had people all over the freakin’ blogosphere calling people misogynists or feminine conservatives or potential rapists or uppity sluts or WHATEVER the derogatory term of the day was, and it JUST. KEPT. GOING.

I propose we excise assholes with anger problems from the conversation.  No, really.  Some of them just don’t belong in the comment threads here.  Let PZ and ERV have them all (I love them both, but really, they both get off on that shit).

On that note, we have people who recognize that the intents on both sides have massive numbers of possibilities, and were mostly unknowable.  We also have people that are all, “ZOMG RW IS A MISANDRIST’ and “Holy Dog-Shit, Batman, EG IS A RAPPIST!!!!111!!!!”.

Give it all a rest.  Read up on causality, psychology, and mob mentality.  Also, love you all! 🙂

Have a nice day!

Exactly, Blitzgal.  I know nothing of Rebecca Watson and I do not follow her. This insane shitstorm came to my attention only through blogs like this and it was the ferocity of the male response –  the unbelievable viciousness – which made me go back and find out what the hell happened.
That is the issue.  Not whether Rebecca Watson was a jerk later to this or that person;  not whether Dawkins was condescending or bemused about one issue being less severe than another. It was that the whole shitstorm even HAPPENED.  And that was driven by outraged men who were furious that their privilege of being free to hit on women any place any time should be questioned – ever.

Yes, exactly right.  Your post is just how it should have gone.  Rebecca DID treat the guy with empathy.  She seemed to “get” that he was just utterly blind to his own privilege and the possibility of her discomfort;  likewise, she was uncomfortable and wanted to give it a mention –  maybe both EG and other guys could learn something in an easy, friendly way.  She said, Here’s what happened –  not the end of the world, but I was uncomfortable.  Guys, please don’t do that.
THen –  the shitstorm.
elevatorgate was caused by the rage of frustrated men.

And, to paraphrase the condescending jerk who replied to one of my earlier comments –  that is why “we people” have to speak up now and then and put it all in perspective for you!

Did you find Watson abrasive in her original video, where she (I thought quite calmly and politely) said ‘this incident made me uncomfortable, I wish guys wouldn’t do that’?  Or are you referring to later posts?

Because I was really surprised at the number of comments that found Watson’s original comments somehow overreacting, or over-the-top.  They seemed quite understated to me, really.  I was amazed that people felt attacked by those comments.

Thank you — this is ABSOLUTELY the issue for me.

 I’d never read Skepchick before, and was only vaguely way aware of Rebecca Watson before this incident.  I hadn’t been to any atheist conventions, though I’d read a post or two on Pharyngula about women getting hit on and feeling uncomfortable at such events. I am familiar with being in a mostly male environment from my work, so this was interesting and troubling, but not something that would have kept me from attending groups or conferences.

The response from men to Rebecca Watson and elevatorgate, however, has me feeling seriously uncomfortable about the atheist/skeptical community, and about whether I’d be comfortable at events.  Not Dawkins’ response (which was troubling in a different way).  The response of average guys, who defend their right to proposition any woman any time any place, and who insist that this behavior isn’t disrespectful to women (or perhaps that there’s nothing wrong with treating women disrepectfully).  Guys who don’t recognize that misogyny exists, or how they contribute to it.  Guys who have NO interest in understanding women’s point of view, period.

To be fair, there were a number of men who were supportive, who understood why a woman would feel uncomfortable in the situation described, who thought that other men were responding badly.

But the loudest and most persistent voices were startlingly misogynistic.  There was far more misogyny in the responses than in the original incident.  And trying to discredit Rebecca Watson as a way to try to discredit her point (as HughInAz) does above seems petty and hyperbolic (Sarah Palin!?), as well as logically flawed.

radical*

How interesting. 

See, I would have said that people who AGREED with RW and her supporters were often viciously attacked.  And that the response has been, for me, sickening, disheartening, and pushing me away from the community.  The response that’s made me feel this way is that of those attacking RW, not those supporting her.

Where does that leave us?

I’d put out there that to imply that he definitely meant sex can only come from a viewpoint of necessarily-limited personal or anecdotal experience (having been a really, really awkward youngster myself at one point, I’ve made dumb moves like that myself in the past), but I also feel that it IS reasonable to assume that sex is likely what he was going for.  I certainly hope that he knows better at this point…

I don’t know what to tell you.  I can say that I was attacked for disagreeing with RW here and at PZ Myers’ blog.  I don’t visit the forums, so I don’t know what you saw.  

I personally feel that RW’s initial video wasn’t a big deal, of course I felt differently after I saw some of her nude photos, because she does put herself forth as a sexual object so some of what happens is to be expected.  Still, her initial reaction didn’t come off as if she felt she was a victim of something horrible, rather that his approach was inappropriate, and considering this was the topic of her talk it was ironic and she wanted to highlight it as an inappropriate come-on that wouldn’t make women feel welcome at such events.

It was everything after that made things worse.  And there were many of her defenders, PZ Myers and Phil Plait come to mind, who were vicious in attacking her critics.   Phil said she was a victim of potential sexual assault, which is ridiculous.  People commenting on this blog said the guy only wanted to fuck her.  RW’s attack in a speech at a convention against a female blogger who disagreed with her was also unnecessary and unreasonable.  She has a much more prominent position in the community and that person would not have an equivalent platform to defend herself.  It was bullying, plain and simple.  

Furthermore, people like Hemant and PZ have made a lot of blog posts on this subject, all on RW’s side.  A ridiculous amount of posts have been made about a nothing subject.  And RW and her side should have just dropped a long, long time ago.

I’d join in not to excuse the incident, but to point out that what EG did would hardly stand up as sexual harrassment…  The standard for that is behaviors that are either 1) repeated, or 2) extreme.  Had he grabbed her, or verbally abused her, sure.  Had he followed her around and asked more than once, not taking no for an answer, then yes.  Asking her politely, once, and taking no for an answer, despite doing so in an awkward place, would definitely not pass muster in a courtroom, nor even likely lead to disciplinary action in a fairly liberal workplace.  Not jumping RW here, either…  As to whether he ‘sexualized’ her, it’s probably safe to infer from her response that his tone/body language implied it in her view.  I do think that ‘sexualize’, as a term, carries overly-strong connotations for the situation (unless he was clearly a predator/frat boy/whatever), but she was THERE, and he hasn’t stepped forward in his own defense.

Oh, it came up for EG too… and RW, and Rose, and Stef, and damned near everyone at one point or another.  I’ve read pretty much every comment on the issue across probably 7 or 8 different blogs.  Not disputing your point about Dawkins, but there was a bit more there…

“I choose not to live my life as though every man I see wants nothing
more than to rape and assault me. Woman is not synonymous with victim,”
welcome to the club.  Oh wait, was that another strawman?  Thought so.

Rabid,

You DO realize that both Within and Chrissy’s statements were made in the exact same context and your argument could apply equally to either, right?  Also, don’t be a dick.

I really appreciate this balanced response.  I don’t completely agree with you (I don’t agree that anyone accused EG of sexual harassment, though it all got rolled up in the ensuing storm),  but I greatly appreciate and respect this post and your other one above. Thanks

Sorry, the sexual harassment accusation seemed implied by Leo’s post up a bit.  That was what I was trying to correct 🙂  Thank you for the reply!

My point about her nude photos was badly worded above.  What I’m pointing out is that she seems offended that some are sexually attracted to her or express interest in dating her, etc., and she wishes they’d strictly focus on whatever it is she is discussing, and not be personally interested in her.  But she’s putting herself out there sexually, and so it’s to be expected that she will get some admirers. 

One of the nude (or implied nudity) photos is here: http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=602

It’s like if a girl wears a push-up bra and a low cut top then gets upset about guys looking at her breasts.  OK, sure it’s rude to stare, but isn’t she putting them on display for a reason?  

Really RW just picked the wrong thing to harp on.  She’s provided other examples of far worse behavior, people groping her and making lewd comments.  That’s much, much worse than a guy that said, in her words “don’t take this the wrong way, would you like to come back to my room for coffee”.  

I have seen a few men that have issues, that can’t be denied.  They’re probably in the “OMG, my penis was mutilated when I was a baby” camp.  I tend to shut those guys out pretty quick.  

But you know, I wouldn’t mind meeting like-minded women.  But now I don’t know where I can do that.  It is a problem if any women that attend atheist/skeptic events is constantly hit on.  But where is that line between being creepy and just showing interest? 

Um well,  if some of “you people” didn’t keep assaulting women so ridiculously often,  we wouldn’t have to bring it into perspective for you!

This.

“I could actually get from point A to point B without having to fend off any uninvited advances from folks who have serious difficulty understanding the words ‘not interested’. ”
How does that not sound like every man is trying to rape and assault her?

I’ll be blunt.

Everyone woman I’ve ever encountered who has claimed she has never been the victim of street harassment has ultimately turned out to be lying, either to us or to herself. 

I’m well aware that not every man is a rapist.  Only about 1 in 30 men are rapists. 

1 in 6 women have been the victims of sexual assault.  I’m willing to bet 999,999 out of 1,000,000 women have been the victims of sexual harassment.  Including, yes, women you know.  Perhaps they’ve picked up on your scorn towards women who have been attacked/harassed and thus wisely decided not to tell you.

Way to deliberately and intentionally miss the point.  I can’t help but wonder about the type of men that do this.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3722.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-5165.html

This is why we keep having to have these discussions

I’m glad to see this thread has not devolved into the usual shouting match that typically accompanies any mention of the word “elevator”. I’m also really glad to see that most people have watched the video and, in that spirit, not rehashed the fucking “incident” again but actually used it as a way of discussing the issues of majority/minority status, priviledge etc.

/sarcasm

I loved the video and the approach. I especially liked the “priviledge” step forward and step backwards activity and would LOVE to see it done with a large audience and recorded. I think possibly the most important lesson I take from this is how important grass-roots groups are. Strong local groups where things can be discussed face to face are essential. On the internet hyperbole is the norm, misunderstandings and misrepresentations are rampant and “who wins” is far too important. Local groups aren’t immune to drama of course, but face to face things can be resolved more quietly (Rebecca and Richard have pretty much patched things up on a personal level, even as the internet wars rage on). People who have a community of real life human beings are also less isolated, which both gives them a sense of security (my pack will look out for me) and checks their less civilized behavior (I don’t want my pack to think I’m an asshole).

I was sitting in an airport.  I had my kindle in front of me, and was engrossed in reading it.  I was also wearing my MP3 player, with my hair pulled back so that the earbuds were quite obvious.  I was not looking up or making eye contact with anyone.

A man came over and started talking at me.  I didn’t realize it at first because, well, earbuds, mp3 player, kindle, not looking up.  He reached over and tapped me on the shoulder.  I took an earbud out and raised an eyebrow at him.  He asked me what I was reading.  I responded that I was studying and needed to get back to it.  He ignored me and started chatting about a book he’d read recently.  I tried several times to excuse myself from the conversation and was talked over each time.  Finally I got up, walked across the room, took another seat, and went back to my book, replacing my earbuds.  He walked over and called me a stupid cunt.

Now, those of you defending elevator guy and saying that this kind of stuff doesn’t need to be talked about, please explain to me why exactly I was in the wrong in this situation, as several folks (all men) seem to think I was.  Please explain to me how this man’s desire to talk to me was more important than my quite clearly expressed desire to be left alone.

I’ve been told I was rude in this situation by many folks I’ve previously considered to be reasonable.  That’s why we still need to talk about this.

Because the facts actually back us up, or have you completely not paid the slightest bit of attention to, well, the entirety of reality?

1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted.

1 in 6.

You do know someone who has been sexually assaulted.  But based on your attitude, they probably have figured out it’s smarter not to mention it to you.

There are 20 men on this bus.  One of them is an asshole who comes up and hits on me even though I am clearly not inviting any advances. 

The ‘every man’ is your hyperbole.  Your strawman. 

Also, I said ‘folks’, not men.  On a couple occasions, the unwanted attempts at conversation / advances have come from women.

You mean, it’s stupid and irrelevant, just like the singular anecdote that preceded it?  Or is that a privilege available only when it suits the narrative?

I have good reasons to not doubt that such things happen all the time…I’ve heard similar tales from almost every woman who has known me well enough to confide such experiences.  But not one of them has ever said that it was a regular occurence, or that a lot of men did it, or that they thought most men wanted to act like that…it has always been presented as a single cowardly jerk using a random opportunity to be a pushy, threatening jerk.  I’ve never personally witnessed such a thing happen in my life, not because it doesn’t happen, but because it’s not widespread behavior in most parts of our culture and most men condemn it right along with women.  Pathetic, cowardly,  pigs like that certainly exist…but they do not define our whole culture at all.  That’s why they hide and wait for opportunities to arise where there will be no consequences.    

Bringing it up as if it were a daily occurrence for most women sure does pack an emotional punch, though, which is the majority of what I’ve seen on blogs regarding this issue.
  

Your straw “every” man is the reason why you are unable to empathize with the other human beings who are trying to be understood here.  No one said “every man” is a rapist or a sexual predator.  You said that. You created a ridiculous strawman, and then cried, “I refuse to live my life thinking every man is a rapist!”…that kind of thinking certainly is extreme and hysterical.  But that wasn’t the thinking here — except from you and some of the MRAs and MRA sympathizers.

The problem is, you can’t tell the harmless & clueless from the batshit crazy & violent at first glance.  Sometimes, you can refuse the pamphlet and it’s fine.  And sometimes, you’ll be followed down the street and have your car windows smashed.  You don’t know, you don’t have any way of knowing, and that’s why it’s fucking creepy and uncomfortable.

Yes, those horrible men, asking not to be lumped in with rapists for the crime of insuffuicient outrage at n0thing.

Of the dissenters, how many were railing against anything Watson said (a very few), and how many were defending their viewpoint against unfair comparisons made by all the articles AFTER Watson’s? 

can you be honest for two seconds?  

I read all the comments of several different bloggers, including Watson’s…There was some very mild criticism about calling out the other blogger in public, and a bit of “ok, what’s the big deal?”  How is that taking great offense? 

The only time I saw anybody “Taking great offense” was P.Z. Myers and Adam Lee, and many of their commenters, taking great offense that some people thought it was all a silly non-issue from the start.  And then some commenters very rightfully taking offense when they were compared to rape-gangs and sexism-enablers because they weren’t properly outraged.

Please, feel free to show me any meaningful examples of otherwise reasonable men “taking great offense” at Watson.  I’ve seen plenty of outrage and offense-taking, but none of it in response to Watson directly. 

It is difficult to understand how you could have read every thread and missed the many nasty comments directed at women.  I don’t have time to go back and search threads for good examples (I haven’t really had time for the posts I’ve made today).  But these are the gist of a number of comments I read.  (I read PZ, Hemant, Skepchick, and a few other blogs during the height of the discussion, and many, though by no means all, of the comments.)

*  Men have the (moral) right to hit on women any time, any place.
*  If men didn’t hit on women all the time no one would find a mate and the species would die out.
*  Women who feel uncomfortable when alone late at night with a stranger have some bizarre psychological problem with fear.
*  RW and those who defend her are just being ‘hysterical’ (definitely a gendered insult).  I saw lots of reference to female commenters being ‘bitches’, and more than a couple of references to ‘cunts’.
*  Rape jokes.
*  Women who object to guys hitting on other women are just jealous, and probably too ugly to get hit on.
*  RW is too ugly to hit on, she probably told the story to make herself seem more desireable.
*  Women have no right to be treated with respect before they have earned it. 

These are just the few that come immediately to mind.  They were often phrased much more crudely and colorfully, and got positive responses from some other guys.

My overwhelming feeling after spending so much time reading various blogs and comments over a period of several days was one of — well, despair is too strong a word, but resignation isn’t strong enough.  I was enormously disheartened to encounter such unpleasant attitudes to women in the atheist community, and it made me feel like perhpas I didn’t belong.  (Nothing previous to this had made me feel this way.)  I also felt depressed that society hadn’t progressed as far in the last few decades as I’d thought. 

I wouldn’t have expected any better from a right-wing religious community.  I did expect better from atheists.

“I responded that I was studying and needed to get back to it. ”

But don’t let the facts get in the way of dismissing the discomfort of someone being harrased.

Don’t necessarily recall talking to you directly, just read a good bit of your stuff…  Might also have been at Greta’s, Jen’s, or Abbie’s, as I read all of them pretty frequently.  Hello, angry lady! 🙂

What you may not be aware of is how often women experience unwanted sexual behavior.  I used to work in a mid-size Midwestern city, and walk about 10 minutes from where I parked to my place of work.  (This was not a high-crime, ghetto area).   It was common — not daily, probably not even weekly — but still common to get wolf whistles, cat-calls, guys yelling out of car windows at me.  “Hey baby, want a ride?”, followed by  laughter.  You learn to not look, but then some guys yell ‘bitch’ at you since you seem unfriendly.

I’m a fairly average looking woman, and I dressed in very conservative skirt suits.  Just in case you find that data point relevant. 

At work (male dominated workplace) I didn’t encounter direct sexual advances, but lots of sexual ‘joking’ and double entendres that were uncomfortable, and tended to make women feel that they didn’t quite belong.  Jokes about the attractive blond who must have slept with someone to get her promotion.  Laughter at innocent comments that could be looked at in a different light.

This is a sea that women bathe in.  Men are, I think, largely unaware.  It is not most men behaving badly, but one encounters enough men on a daily basis to run across the few that do with some regularity.

Understanding this will help men understand why women get tired of being hit on, why they have a somewhat knee-jerk negative reaction to some behaviors.  But this doesn’t mean that women don’t want to meet like minded men too.  They just want to be treated as people first, potential sexual partners second. 

Talk to women.  Get to know them, find out what their interests are, who they are as individuals.  Let them give some indication that they return your interest before asking for coffee, and ask for coffee in a public place, during the middle of the day.  Be the guy at the atheist convention that women feel comfortable with and respected by.  

Of course, not all women will be interested in a relationship, or maybe not with you.  But if you act like you’re interested in a relationship rather than a sexual encounter, you’ll get a lot further.

I really liked Dr. Justin Fisher’s activity.

Way to miss the sarcasm, there. I was agreeing with WTM.

(Reading comprehension, get some, kthxbai.)

Understand THAT feeling, and I can definitely see why it would cause problems in the other relevant situations… :/

Would smacking him with the book have been bad? 😉

I saw some elements of the first three, although I think you’re generalizing, coloring, amd dismissing what they said in a rather convenient way…but I can honestly say that on Skepchick, Daylight Atheism, here, Pharyngula, and Bad Astronomy, I saw only a little of that and much, much  less to do with rape jokes, claiming women don’t deserve respect, or “she’s ugly” jokes.  Such things were certainly NOT the prevailing response on ANY of these sites, and if it seems to you like they were, maybe you should actually go back and read the comments like I did.  I think that conformation bias and intentionally uneven coverage by bloggers has given you and others a distorted view of the number of ugly sexist comments compared to reasonable ones.  But they sure do get remembered, especially when half a dozen bloggers keep bringing them up for two weeks straight!

What I did see was a lot of bloggers and commenters taking a small handfull of trolls and sexists, and one rape threat, and applying that label and those motivations(or at least the guilt of being an “enabler”) to anyone who disagreed with them, however reasonably.  I am one of those that DOES read most or all of the comments attached to an article I find interesting…out of the thousands I read over two or three weeks, only a small minority, mostly one-time drive-bys and obvious trolls, were in any way confrontational, hateful, or obviously sexist.  And these few, especially the one rape threat, were repeatedly and dishonestly held up as totally average and  representative of the male response by every blogger involved except Hemant.  The vast majority of male commenters, no matter what “side”
  were at least as respectful and objective as the comments on this very thread.   

 I continue to see this very small minority of commenters dishonestly bandied about as if it was the prevailing male attitude, which it certainly was not and is not,  on any of these sites.  On every last one of those sites, there were many, many more men  showing support for Watson’s side of the issue, or at least being very reasonable and respectful in their doubts and questions, as opposed to those “attacking” her or showing disrespect for her or all women.

I’m not saying these fools don’t exist…I’m saying that it looks to me like many bloggers and commenters have taken the worst of the worst (of which there are always a few, even if they’re just trolling) and tried to pass that off as the prevailing attitude of those who didn’t agree with them or think it was a big deal.  I think that emotional heat and confirmation bias have played a huge part in this, but there are some, namely P.Z. Myers and Adam Lee, who did everything they could to make any dissenters look like rape apologists- including direct and completely dishonest comparisons to rapists and violent abusers-  and plenty more commenters who ran with that dishonesty and milked it to score emotional points for their causes.

There was no “huge backlash” to Watson’s articles…there was an insignificantly tiny “backlash” when compared to the whole, but there was also a whole lot of  “So What?”  That “So What” response
was immediately followed by several prominent bloggers and dozens of commenters willfully, knowingly, and repeatedly lumping the “so what” people in with rape gangs, rape apologists, and anti-feminist activists.  And a few “so whats” had the unmitigated gall to COMPLAIN about being unfairly and dishonestly associated with rapists…go figure!
 

The real issue is strangers bothering us for things they do not need. It would be like EG asking me for $500 on the elevator for no reason other than just to have another $500.

Thwacking assholes upside the head isn’t covered by kindle warranty.  Beside, if I’d hit someone with it in an airport TSA would immediately ban it as a weapon.

You showed a lot of restraint, there.

Confirmation bias works both ways.  Those who feel attacked by  feminists are going to perceive those posts as a larger share of the total, just as those attacked by the MRA types will percieve those posts as a larger share of the total.

I’m willing to accept that the emotional impact of some of the really nasty comments magnifies their impact relative to their frequency.  But it would be unreasonable for you not to recognize that this is operating in reverse as well.  I’m quite confident that the commenters lumping the ‘So What’s’ in with the rape apologists were relatively small in number as well.

I also think that you’re signficantly under-representing the backlash to RW and other feminist comments.  I don’t think an ‘insignficantly tiny’ backlash would have generated the amount of discussion that has occured.  It seems obvious to me that some serious nerves have been struck, that deeply raw emotions uncovered.  I think it’s worth exploring why.  The ‘So What’ responses take on more significance when deep feelings of injustice are being expressed.

I have been reading atheist blogs for quite a while, and I do read as many of the comments as I can manage on the really interesting topics, though it’s hard when the number of comments on a single topic hits the high hundreds.  I’ve never been as uncomfortable with the general tone of men’s responses as I have with the whole ‘Elevatorgate’ mess, and it is my impression that I’m not the  only one who feels this way.  This cannot just be dismissed as overreaction.

It also is not justified to use words like ‘willfully’ and ‘knowingly’ about other posters or bloggers responses, unless you have some way of knowing what they were thinking.  You seem accuse other bloggers of a deliberately deceptive approach, which I think is unwarranted.  You don’t like their arguments or point of view.  Fair enough — argue back, using reason.  Don’t throw out unsupported accusations of mendacity.  It makes it hard to take you seriously.

Meh.  Fair enough.  I guess I also take it for granted that when people apply a term to *themselves* they don’t usually mean “Please use this term to discount me as a person” — even if it’s a term used by some people to diminish people with similar characteristics to the speaker.

Wrong. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard “oh, well she must have been asking for it” (or similar) after a woman reports a rape.

 Isn’t it kinda bigoted of you to assume you have to tell all male atheists about some rude guy on the train.   What’s that got to do with me.  I’ve never done that.    How about you tell the person who’s doing it to you at the time it happens.    Apparently the guy was clueless and since you feel the need to proselytize about this issue he was the perfect audience.   You missed your chance to give him, not every other male on the planet, a chance to hear you.

I’d thought I should comment as a rational atheist because after watching that video I see so few of them are around these days.    

Sarah Palin juggles and falsely accuses other of pedophilia?   

“Men have the (moral) right to hit on women any time, any place.”

 Show the post where someone was arguing that me could hit on a woman while she’s defecating in the woman’s room because that’s what your sentence means.     You aren’t the least bit careful with your words or thoughts.   

It’s cool.

How about when they post nude pictures of themselves on their blog to highlight the content therein?

Using the word “potential” widens it in scope to include any man who is approaching her.    They are using “potential rapist” as a synonym for “man”.

There’s more context than the 10 seconds.    Her whole essence of  being is about how women don’t go to atheist conventions because of all the potential rapists.      She’s bringing up the issue of rape.  

Nope.  She brings up the issue of being hit on a lot, and how alienating that is, as an explanation for why women aboivd atheist conventions.

 She only brings up rape in terms of rape threats that she receives in emails — from atheists.

Are you being disingenuous, or do you not recognize the context for this specific example being given?

The person sharing this example was addressing the broader context of the problem many women experience of receiving unwelcome and uninvited attention, and of the general societal expectation that women are supposed to always be “nice”, friendly, smiling, etc. (receptive?).

She assumes she has to tell this because some male atheists don’t recognize that a problem exists.

—-She assumes she has to tell this because some male atheists don’t recognize that a problem exists.—-

We should thank Mr. Macker here for providing an excellent case in point.

Once again, the problem has been twisted back around to make the women at fault.  Now, not only am I a ‘stupid cunt’ for not wanting to give the man in the scenario my undivided attention, I’m also a ‘bigot’ for daring to even present the scenario as a complaint.

And that is why we still need to talk about this.

http://www.love-shy.com

Done.

Also, btw…these are the same folks who praised Soros as a hero and have seriously discussed that a law should be passed forbidding women from turning down sex.

Do yourself a favor.

Research the sexual assault/harassment statistics at conventions.

It is a huge reason why women don’t go to conventions.  Not only do we have to risk the harassment and assault, but we also are well aware that if we try to lodge a complaint, we will be ignored, belittled, and/or further degraded. 

P.S.  A little hint:  “you people” might be “you feminists” or even “you women” to Guest. 
I realise that neither you nor any of the other female-phobic men commenting on here whining and complaining about women having the right to say No to you are ever likely to hear us or give a flying fig about how we feel, but that doesn’t mean I am saying that you or Guest or most of the men I know are rapists.  They are not.  But the casual dismissal of what the women in their lives must live with every day –  the cruel indifference to the constant anxiety that most women experience whenever traveling alone just about anywhere – is something that makes me question character and humanity in a whole different way.  It is attitudes like yours and Guest’s which enable the rape culture to persist and even thrive.  And I am not convinced that you don’t like it just the way it is.

No, fool.  It is you who are jumping to conclusions.  She is clearly expressing what fears are going through her mind as she runs through her options of how to handle this guy who will not leave her alone.  Like most women,  she has tried them all before and gotten the whole range of responses from sullen walking away to violence and everything in between. It is the UNCERTAINTY about how THIS particular man will respond to her efforts to end the encounter which makes her think of all the possible outcomes. Again, we cannot know just by looking at a guy if he is a rapist or not.  That is the ENTIRE point about why the elevator incident was creepy. But here is something to think about:  if a person has persisted in bothering you after you have given several pretty clear indications that you are not interested, it is not unreasonable to imagine that this person may also not be amenable to being even more sharply rejected.  A woman’s guard is up because experience, common sense and self-preservation tell her she would be a fool to do anything else.
FYI,  nearly every encounter of this type ends badly; at best,  the guy calls the woman a derogatory name and walks away…at worst, well…
How would you assess your options in that situation?  Oh wait, I keep forgetting, you have almost no risk of ever being in that situation, have almost zero risk of ever experiencing the fear that accompanies most women constantly during an encounter like this and oh yes,  most of all I forget that you just don’t give a shit about it – or women for that matter (does that include your mother, sisters, SO’s, I wonder? Or just random women who do not enjoy your protective feelings?). At the very least,  can you not try to imagine a woman you love (mother, sister, SO) being harassed in this manner and think about how she might feel?

In order to solve a problem you must first understand it.  The reason I am a skeptic (actually pan critical rationalist) is because I recognize my fallibility and wish to reduce error in my thought processes, my understanding.   There are certain rules I follow to do that.   One of those rules is not to misuse language so that I don’t commit common fallacies like equivocation, and over simplification.

The word privilege has several meanings none of which apply in this case.   I know it is common for people to misuse the word privilege when they mean fortune but it is still an error and one that is fraught with danger.   This error has become more common because leftists over the years have accumulated quite a bit of Newspeak.   One of the words they have invented is underprivileged, which means misfortuned.   That does not mean the word privilege has the opposite meaning.

I recognize the difference between privilege and fortune.   I am insisting on the proper use of English so that we do not confuse the two and thus oversimplify reality, or worse equivocate.   I am not denying the existence of either as you and other seem to believe.   None of those questions identified privileges.  Some were fortunes, some disadvantages, and others accomplishments.   Many depend upon subjective experience.  One persons ability to graduate from college is an accomplishment while another’s may be a fraud.

I find these kind of word games offensive precisely because they are meant to confuse.  It is precisely the same game that Theists use when equivocating between the different meanings of the word faith, which are on the one hand, To believe without credible evidence, and on the other hand, To trust based on evidence.   Except in this case there is no alternate meaning of the word privilege to equivocate on, so the left has invented a new vocabulary where privilege means fortune.

I also do not like it when a restrain on one person is confused for a privilege of another.   All three meanings, privilege, fortune, and restraint have moral implications that are glossed over when you confuse the words.

For instance it is not correct to call an emancipated slave or freeman privileged over a slave if they are not legally allowed to own slaves.  Someone who is legally allowed to own slaves is potentially privileged, and slaveholder actually privileged.   Freedom is the natural state, and slavery is a restraint on that natural state.   Unless you are actively participating or supporting slavery the mere fact you are not a slave does not make you privileged.   So it would be improper to say that US citizens are privileged when compared to the citizen slaves of the many totalitarian communist countries around the world.   Properly the reverse is true.  Those citizen slaves are restrained.

I also distinguish between privileges, restrains and fortunes that are natural, or artificial, and if artificial who caused them.     The latter have moral implications.  I may be restrained by gravity from flapping my arms to fly but there is no moral injustice that needs to be corrected, as opposed to when terrorism restrains me from flying on a plane out of fear.   A person constrained from finishing college because he is stupid bears no moral burden, whereas one constrained by laziness does.

Reality and morality is much more complex that this, what you called, privilege exercise, and I would call, privilege masturbation allows for.

I don’t find your Rawlsian sci-fi hypothetical any more helpful.  Rawls was mistaken about the nature of morality.

In addition, your criteria for discerning “privilege” doesn’t even work.   It’s dependent on several levels of confounding factors.   What does happy mean?  I certainly would be happy being a slaveholder.   Yet, by this criteria the fact I would rather be a slave forces you to call the slave someone who is privileged.  

Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack specifically included the ability to arrange your life so you can be mostly around people of your own race as a “privilege”.   Well a slave-master on a plantation actually has less opportunity than his slaves to be around people of his own race.   So using that criteria the slaves are privileged.

Your own individual criteria are contradictory.   I’m supposed to choose such that “achieve the person easiest, healthiest, happiest life, the one most likely to succeed and get ahead.”   Many of these criteria run in opposite directions.  The easiest life, the life of a beach bum, is not likely to be one that succeeds.   The person driven to success may be less likely to be healthy, and dependent on career.

You also fail to understand that some “unearned” advantages are deserved non-the-less.   Each giraffe did not “earn” the advantage of their long necks by achievement, and yet deserve the advantages they confer.  Why?  Because their genes are the source of those advantages and an individuals genes are a part of the self.

The Rawlsian veil of ignorance doesn’t level the moral playing field precisely because it is ignorant.   In it’s attempt to level the playing field it goes to far.  The person making the choice has no means to make a moral choice precisely because it eliminates the ability to discern cause and effect, which is needed to assign both blame, and credit.

You are totally mistaken in believing that you can use your hypothetical to identify privilege.    It’s superfluous anyway since we have perfectly serviceable ways to do that already.   Whites were privileged by Jim Crow laws, and blacks are privileged by Affirmative Action today.

You also make a grave mistake in assuming that because whites on average may be more wealthy than blacks that has any moral implications for whites.   It does no good for a poor white man that some other white man lives off a trust fund.   To think an impoverished white person is “privileged” because of averages is no better than to be a stereotyping bigot.   To confuse those who’ve earned their wealth with those who have stolen it makes an even worse moral error.   Nor is the inheritance of earned wealth a moral failing.

The reason many do not recognize all these facts is because they have an impoverished understanding of the world, reasoning skills, and moral beliefs.

I find it very offensive when others use word games, designed to sucker others, in order to claim that I’m the one with moral issues.   It’s the other way round.

No this isn’t open to debate.  It’s quite clear that an error is being made, and not by me.   If you think I’m making an error, which is certainly possible, then point it out.  Otherwise you are not likely to sway me.

Who?   

Factually incorrect since she brought it up in the case of the elevator incident.   She specifically invented a hypothetical of a “what if” she was a rape or sexual assault victim.

If we had to use such “what ifs” as a standard constraining our behaviors then we would soon find ourselves living in hell.

What if, ever black man had to treat whites “as if” they had been assaulted by a black?   Worse that this restriction would be justified based on statistics.

You’re a troll. Please sod off.

The claim was that someone made the claim “any time, any place.”

There are of course going to be differences of opinion.    Some guys are going to think a girl who hangs out a bar till four in the morning and posts naked pictures of herself on the internet, and does not object to sex outside marriage, just might be fair game in an elevator.   Especially if he feels that he has good intentions, like a consensual swap of pleasure.

Some women, as has been evidenced by the push back would tend to agree.

It’s dishonest to claim that  is equivalent to “any time, any place”.  

You don’t get to make an unchariable interpretation of someone else’s position, argue from there.   It’s called making a straw man argument.

Even if there were one guy out there who made such a claim.

… but you are the only one making an argument susceptible to a charge of confirmation bias.  

No one every said you didn’t have the right to say “no” to a proposition.   Why should I care about your feelings when they bear no relationship to reality?   Believe me, if I was afraid of women I wouldn’t be telling you that.   For someone concerned about “feelings” you sure so little concern for men who are afraid of rejection.   That’s the only intepretation of female-phobic that I could come up with that fits this conversation.

Stop emoting and start thinking and I might take you seriously.

Problem is that Skepchick’s first video showed a total lack of concern of rape.    In fact, she was belittling the guy.  Hardly the behavior of someone concerned he might be a rapist.   If she were truly concerned then she wouldn’t want to antagonize him, since he can always find her later.

 No she only played the rape card later, after some rather appalling behavior on her part.   Which includes what you are doing.   Trying to intimidate other women from going off the farm.

It all depends on what definition of “wrong” Dawkins had in mind.     Was it criminal or rights violating?   What kind of wrong it was depends on motivation, and knowledge.

The very fact that these women are arguing men can possibly know without the experience of being a woman actually bolsters a position that the guy was not doing anything wrong in the moral sense of the word.     Notice that Dawkin’s argument was loaded with heavy moral issues.    Some clueless chump going about asking a girl out in the “wrong” way is small potatoes in the big scheme of things.

I think this is a bigger issue because the entire agenda here is to destroy a lot of much needed sophistication in moral understanding.

Throw it all in the big meat grinder of “privilege” and accuse and entire population of moral inferiority.   Notice all the name calling when you challenge their inanity.

One would presume that since Watson is targeting the atheist community for special treatment that there is something about atheism in general or some specific atheist ideology, like Marxism, that specifically advocates threatening women with rape, and raping them.

I can point to many places in Islamic religious texts where this is not only condoned but advocated.    Which certainly doesn’t reflect well on someone who advocates that particular ideology.   It doesn’t however make followers of other religions look bad.

I certainly cannot condemn Islam for inciting Muslims to eat more than their fair share of bacon, even if I can do so for intolerant and violent behavior.    So I wouldn’t go to a Mosque to protest a bacon shortage.     Likewise I wouldn’t do so for issues for which Islam has no opinion.  

So why exactly does Watson feel there is a special need to school atheists?   It can’t be that she is so foolish as to not get the fact that women self select against being atheists, and skeptics, can it?    Does she think we hold super special male only atheist pro-rape seminars?

If there isn’t a general avocation of rape in atheism, then at least please point out some atheist ideology that is pro-rape.  Once identified I’m sure everyone will join me in condemning it.

In the meantime it think part of the reason Watson gets hate mail is because her message is pretty hateful in it’s own right.   Who likes to have their group stereotyped as a bunch of criminals?   Especially if they are so strongly motivated by identity issues as to join a group and go to meetings. 

I’m sure there are some idiot atheists out there thinking, “She already thinks I’m a rapist, so maybe that would lend credibility to a rape threat.”    I don’t have a very high opinion of atheists as a general class because such a large percentage are communists, and socialists.   Not exactly the badges worn by a deep thinkers.   So I’m never surprised at the idiocy of my fellow atheists.   Of course, I have about zero in common with most of them, so I don’t take it personally.

That was supposed to be “I certainly wouldn’t be happy as a slave holder”.

It sounds about the same.  Violent assault from men comes from all racial backgrounds. It is a male aggression thing.  It isn’t limited to whites.  Further,  it is only SOME men (black or white) who commit these crimes,  which makes my statement continue to be correct and fair, while Guest’s was an all or nothing “You people”  …hysterical blah blah  let me teach you a thing or two…blah blah.

wow,  I think I have come close to putting my finger on the source of all that “rejection” anxiety, and rejection rage among a minority of men.  The ones like Trolls who disrespect women and seem to actually hate them –  or, more likely, hate that you want them and that gives them what you perceive as “power” over you –  the kind of men who sensible, desirable women can tell do not approach them with good  or honest intentions and would never willingly choose for a partner.
  And you know it, too, don’t you?  You know most women probably sense your antipathy and won’t want to say “yes” to you.  That explains the “fear of rejection/humiliation” (I always wondered –  as have most women I know –  because none of us have ever said No to a decent guy who asked for a date,  much less had any desire to humiliate him).
Is this why the door must always be kept open –  if persuasion and social pressure doesn’t force a woman to “be nice”,  then of course there are always darker avenues to explore –  and it is all justified because he “risked” his feelings and she dared to say “Please don’t do that.”

Thank you again for providing such an excellent example of male privilege and additionally providing a pristine example of why we still need to have this conversations.

Look, all I’ve done is comment in this thread, and I got an email saying ‘you just wish you were cute enough to get raped’

Ah, but you are an example of the behavior you are denying exists.

The only reason you have to be up in arms here is that someone suggested that you shouldn’t hit on women in elevators as it makes them uncomfortable.  The only possible basis you could have to object to that statement is a feeling that a man is entitled to hit on a woman whenever he feels like it regardless of her feelings in the matter.

*hugs*

In order to solve a problem you must first understand it.

looks like you will not be solving this problem. Not only do you not understand, but you have made no attempt to understand.  In fact,  you’ve now gone out of your way to lecture everyone here on your own strangely skewed views on privilege (it doesn’t exist – except perhaps for blacks and women and other minorities who have stolen advantages over you!)

I am sorry that I just gave up 5 minutes of my life to read that dreck above.  I saw it earlier and actually made time for it tonight, stupidly thinking “Hey this BM fellow feels strongly enough about this topic to craft a really long comment.  Maybe he is not a troll fool after all and I have been unfair to judge him as such. 

Haha.  Foolish thought.  Thanks for the repulsive, mansplainin’, racist, bigoted, verbal diarrhea there, BM.

Don’t let anything I actually said get in the way of your lies.

 Thank you for demostrating how the concept of “male privilege” is properly used.     Ad Hominem at its finest.

Don’t bother, he’s just projecting like a drive-in movie theater.

Says someone hiding behind a handle.

 You  fantasize

Yeah, it has nothing to do with you making false accusations about others with no basis in reality.  Like when you claimed I hit on women in elevators.    Never happened.   You are the type of person who lies on the witness stand.   You aren’t credible.

“It sounds about the same. ”

racist

LOL, because we wouldn’t want skepticism to stand in the way of being sexy?  

Yep, disagreeing with you is the sure sign of a rapist.

Male Privilege theory.

Haha.  I don’t believe you have a wife, Troll, but if you have one, I pity her…deeply and profoundly.

wmdkitty, it appears that BM is a loser who puffs his flaccid ego up a little by lashing out against what he hopes are female posters on comment threads like this.  I picture him in his parents’ basement typing away!  If he really is married, then pity the poor Mrs BM!  Imagine how it must be to live with someone who says “This is the way I like things and you better like it too –  or I will TEAR you down  – my reason over your emotional outbursts!”
Lucky for some of us, we have men who recognise that possibly an appeal based upon emotion is – you know – because there is genuine pain and painful experience there.  And, of course, a man who is not an emotional and moral cripple would respond to that with loving protective concern. Seriously doubt this Troll fool with his woman-hating AGENDA is capable of anything of the sort.  He is all about “FUck women who fear assault..what matters is MY feelings! I might want to hit on one and she can say NO and I might feel bad!”
Emotionalism, BM?
Indeed, losers like BM are not desirable mates,  but selectively fit they are because they prop up rape culture and benefit by it by snagging occasional partners who will do what they can to survive that culture,  or who are unlucky enough to never meet a better man.
And no, Troll fool, I did not just call you a rapist.  I called you a supporter of rape culture  – which you are, with a deeply ugly vengeance.

Haha  I know wmdkitty,  but even Troll fools have to eat!

No we wouldn’t.   Every human being has a right to expression, sexual or otherwise,  without being made the target of abuse or intimidation.
What some men have implied is that she should not dare to express her sexuality: that if she does (or any woman does, I presume) then she is “asking for it”.
For you or Neil or whomever else brought up nude photos (I don’t know, I do not know RW blog),  the standard may be “Nude pictures?  She is free game”.  Another set of men may say, “low cut blouse?  Fair game”.  Another set may say, “Uncovered face/out in public? Fair game.
What point is acceptable for a woman and what point not?  Groups of high school runners go by my house every day in short shorts and nothing else.  Are those boys “asking for it” because they are virtually naked?
Just because RW’s nude photos made you or other men uncomfortable does not mean you can then project that discomfort onto her and say she “deserved” to accept unwanted advances in creepy situations and just shut up about it.

Haha. You are such a fool.  It is almost funny.  Only it isn’t. You are a real human being behind the internet bravado – and real people must have to live with you on a daily basis.
Not, I hasten to point out, that you are a rapist,  but that you appear to be devoid of human empathy or normal human consideration for others,  except for others of your gender whose feelings must be safeguarded at all costs.
You are not just a fool.  You are a hypocritical fool. Reason and rationality, indeed! Hahaha. Fool.

Interesting.  And yet, you can’t point to a single thing I’ve said that’s actually untrue.

Honestly, when guys spend as much time defending male privilege as this asshole does, I do have to wonder.  Are they some of the guys that have coerced women into sex and/or otherwise rendered a woman incapable of consent?  Because it certainly seems like they are objecting to their behavior being labelled as wrong, to the point of cognitive dissonance.  I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if our troll here was a rapist and is furious it’s being pointed out that his stalker-ish behavior is actually wrong.

1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.84% of the women who are raped knew their assailants.57% of the rapes occurred on a date.Women ages 16-24 have 4 times higher risk of being raped than any other population group.1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape.16% of male students who had committed rape took part in episodes with more than one attacker’s gang rape.33% of males surveyed said that they would commit rape if they could escape detection.25% of men surveyed believed that rape was acceptable if: the woman
asks the man out; or the man pays for the date; or the woman goes back
to the man’s room after the date.

But no, the problem is RW’s behavior.

Like everyone on Rebecca Watson’s side you are missing the point.For about the previous two month Rebecca had been on a role complaining about sexism in the atheist community. She went to conferences and steered the conversation all the time to how horrible the atheist men were and never gave any real evidence (she cited a few emails, but they were mostly from religious trolls). Time and time again she asserted that atheist conferences were hell for women, like some kind of sexist gulag, never really giving other evidence, just claiming that other unnamed women agreed with her (even when other women disagreed with her about how terrible the atheist dudes were, she simple dismissed them out of hand).So people were very hungry for an actual example of the actual “misogyny” Rebecca kept ranting about so they could consider and debate the situation, but when if finally came it was utterly pathetic. Of course she got jumped all over, rightly so.

Thank you Kevin.  It’s nice to know someone actually watched the video, or at least Dr. Kazez’s part, before posting.

Gonna go with “YES” on that one.

And I think this thread is done for.

WithoutAMind, I’m not the one with an irrational ideology that has a concept like “Male Privilege” that allows me to dismiss an entire class of people.  You are.   

No one said that.   However if you advertise don’t get all offended when you get inquiries.

*yawn*

I never said “disagreeing with me is abusive”. I’m just pointing out that your behavior in this thread just happens to be the behavior of an abuser. Shouting down, dismissing women’s arguments as “emotional”, claiming that your so-called reasoning is absolutely correct because you’re a man and that makes you superior.

Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife?

Possibly she is…because any argument based in reality is susceptible to biased interpretation of events in reality.  She is not saying her perspective may or  may not be biased, she is describing her experience. 
You, on the other hand, are not making an argument at all, and are denying reality completely. 
Since it hasn’t happened to you,  it doesn’t happen.
Haha. What a fool you are, Troll.
Rational and reasonable, indeed. Haha.

News flash.  Rationality is not “Rape Culture”.    That a fact like this disturbs you is not my problem.  It’s yours.

It’s like you can’t help yourself.  You’ve hit bottom, but have this compulsion to just keep digging yourself in deeper.

Why don’t you go back to the MRA forum you came from?

You claimed that I thought it was “stupid that a woman should be able to expect to not be harassed” which is not the case.

I thought it was stupid that you think that every other male is guilty, and needs your lecturing.

False.   Read it again.     You run into some random rude guy at the airport and your expectation is that complaining to a bunch of atheists on the internet is going to solve that problem.     That’s a pretty stupid expectation.  You don’t even know if I go to atheist conventions, and your claiming I hang out on elevators.    Pretty detached from reality.

You assume that your perspective is infathomable because of “male privilege” but it’s totally obvious why you’d be upset with airport guy.

Meanwhile you are clueless about any other perspective.

You think that if a ran into some random rude black guy, then when to some black rights website to complain to them they are going to think I’m rational.   No they are going to look at me like I’m nuts and treat me like the ignorant bigot that I would be acting like.

LOL, hyporite.

Thank you again for being an example of the very behavior you are denying exists.  You are the reason we keep having to have these conversations.

Like everyone else who doesn’t get it, we’ve been there.  We’ve experienced the misogyny.  We’ve been harassed, assaulted, stalked, and raped.  We’ve had our concerns dismissed. 

We’ve also been called “paranoid”, “sexist”, “misandrist”, and far, far worse for the “crime” of wanting to be safe in public spaces.

There’s a reason I left my ex…

“Don’t do that” = belittling the guy.

Your definition of belittling needs revising.

Yes, because of course everyone sending her a shitty email must be a troll!
What a convenient way to avoid acknowleding that there is any sexism amongst “reasonable” people.

Thank you Chrissy!