@PennJillette, Your Friend Is Wrong

First post. Good job big boy/girl.

The moment you make a “community” out of an idea, someone’s bound to get hurt.

Unfortunately, it is.  I say this from my own experiences within it, hearing stories from friends, etc.

This entire thing reminds me of S.E. Cupp… Fox News’ fake atheist character meant to get under real atheists’ skins. Except that this friend of Jillette’s is unfortunately real.

Still is!

Not really into the drama. For me, being up front and honest with the person who just so happened to offend or make me uncomfortable at that particular moment works wonders. Almost always the person didn’t even mean it the way I interpreted it.

This is coming from someone who is hispanic, atheist, vegan, and female…

I’m enjoying the varied content, including this.  I’m just having a hard time keeping up with everything.

Spot on. It isn’t about treating women like men, but treating women as equals. Congrats to Mallorie. She has chosen a very easy solution… not bothering to consider if the concerns of others are important. Must love some Ayn Rand.

Actually I prefer discussion on Facebook, I really hate the character limit on twitter.

Thanks.

Is that real? Are you really saying that when someone makes an argument you think is wrong, you shouldn’t express your disagreement? 

Wow, all the fucking stupid comments being upvoted on this blog really makes me consider who’s reading it.

Made the edit to Megan’s post.

I think the sexism is mixed from group to group. I know we at Harvard try our best to make everyone feel welcome, men, women, trans, etc. That said, I am a little amused at the dogpile on this woman’s experience. While I disagree with her conclusions, I don’t think that her experience is illegitimate. They are only one data point. Disagree with her if you want. But realize that her perspective exists and is just as valid as Jen’s, Hemant’s, and mine.

Thank you, Megan.

We hear that women are not well represented in atheist circles but then we are told that women who are feminists are feminazis, that men aren’t accorded equal rights, that when a women says that some men in the atheist community are not behaving in a way that is conducive to women feeling comfortable such as hitting on women when they have them trapped alone in an elevator , that women are drama queens and that men are being lumped into the all men are sexist pigs category.

Couldn’t guys take the time to listen to what is being said by the women who are not uncomfortable with a few jokes but are uncomfortable with nasty, scary jokes or being cornered when alone?  Instead of leaping onto the aren’t women sensitive band wagon couldn’t some of the guys think a  little bit about the message that is being delivered and do start 

 “Treating everyone equally, instead of presenting the problem as the “manly dudes just being normal people” versus the “sensitive ladytypes who get oh-so-offended.”

Going along with this theme is men who get sidetracked onto the gal didn’t say it just right so I am not going to listen to the message but instead attack on the basis that I felt the gal generalized too much or didn’t state that a huge percentage of guys who are atheists and the best people in the world.  Aha, maybe that was wrong of the guys but since you didn’t say just right I will marginalize the message and pick on the messenger.

I would make a comment, but her vagina is keeping me from saying what I really feel.

“I feel this all goes back to Dawkins comment about skepchick’s experience and her feeling awkward at being asked back for coffee at a guys house and telling guys everywhere not to do this. ”
That is actually not what happened. Watson announced pointedly her desire to go to sleep at 4 AM, and a man she’d never spoken to before followed her onto an elevator. This man proceeded to ignore her stated intention of ending her evening by inviting to his hotel room for coffee. 

Saying that men should not do this is not requesting “special treatment” or “superiority.” If someone says that they want to go back to their and go to sleep, assume they mean it. If you would like to meet someone you don’t know personally, don’t do it by following them into an enclosed space late at night. That seems straightforward enough.

Unfortunately, when women make statements and suggestions along these lines, a lot of people diminish their concerns. Most of the people who do this are men, but some are women.

Here is Watson’s first written post recounting the event, for those who are unclear on the details (and still care):
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/

You really need to do something about making the “Submitted By:” line larger then, its so small its like reading the fine print on a contract.  It sometimes takes me to end of the post before I figure out it wasn’t written by you and others posts, like now, I have wait until I get to the comments.

Or you could  have your guests write a nice little blurb at the beginning, I’ve seen you do that on other guest posts and it really goes a long way toward figuring out who’s talking.

Because this is your blog I assume you are doing the writing, when you’re not your guest should make it quite clear that it isn’t you.

Way to further the discussion.

Nah. The byline’s at the top and bottom for regular contributors now. People will get used to it.

As a female and an atheist, I’m still saying the same thing I said the day all of this Reddit sexism nonsense happened.

Is it terrible that this girl was ridiculed and made to feel like an outcast in the atheist community? No.
It’s terrible that a PERSON was ridiculed and made to feel like an outcast in the atheist community.

People are making this into a sexist issue when it really isn’t one.

I like your jokes. I like your humor.

Hmm… I wonder what “male humor” she has in mind.

…dick/fart/vagina jokes…

Oh………….:-(

This is super not helpful, imho.

Thanks, I deserved that for H-bombing.

This is what you get when you associate yourself with egalitarians, who think that indiscriminate treatment of every human being is the rational and more importantly the progressive thing to do.  Well, here goes: there are inherent differences between the sexes beyond dick, balls, cunt and tits.  Not accepting these natural, genetic and social distinctions is as irrational as any religious dogma I’ve come across and is unfortunately promulgated through a community that claims to be skeptical of all claims but especially of the most well-established.  Mallorie is pointing out that men should not stop being men, stop acting like men act, because they are worried they will put off some sensitive women.  And this is no machismo trip.  I don’t consider myself ultra masculine.  I get shy and weirded out by frat boy treatment of women and treatment of human beings in general.  This doesn’t mean people shouldn’t respect natural boundaries between the sexes or that we must accuse as an aggressor any man who maybe wants to plow some pretty atheist chick and takes action to that end.  Sorry but you’re not being repressed or marginalized because men sexualize you.  It’s what we’re always going to fucking do, so deal with it.  Girls are pretty and we want to stick our rods inside them until we go blorp and fall asleep.  It’s the same in any community.  It’s not rampant in the “skeptic” community.  It’s rampant in humanity.  Beyond some sort of gene selection process, I don’t think we’ll be getting rid of the barriers between the sexes, nor should we hope to do so. Act the way you want to act, the way that seems right.  Don’t change yourself, your nature that has never harmed anyone so that you can get some more people into your community.  Your community should rise or fall based on the intellectual virtue displayed.  And I must say, it’s not looking all too good if you can’t challenge social norms such as this.

“If a man had complained about being hit on in an elevator, he’d be ridiculed.”

This is not a compelling argument. If the man had been hit on by another man big enough to overpower him in an enclosed space no one would ridicule him for complaining. The reason a man would be ridiculed is because women are rarely seen as a threat to men, especially not as a sexual assault threat (not true, women can and do rape men but it’s not that common).

In this case, simply being a man is cause for being a threat. As most men could overpower most women. 

The comments about Mallorie’s statements seem to be more annoyed with her using a single data point to make large generalizations about an entire group. She definitely could have used a few more “in my opinion” disclaimers in front of her sentences, in my opinion (pun intended).

The rest is calls of sexism from all sides. Penn’s tweets appear to provide the correct path – “Oh right! She was talking only about herself. Maybe she should have said that.”

Sexism is rampant throughout human civilization. I am not certain but I think this is a pretty safe generalization. Though there may be some small groups which manage to escape the more egregious effects of sexism.

It seems that she was talking about her own experience with a particular Freethought group, and not her experience with feminists in the movement in general. She probably should have made that more clear from the beginning though.  I find her statements to be refreshing. But I don’t see them as a way or even an attempt at a way, of shutting down the other side of the argument in general. It reads like she was venting about her own experience. If she’s not a regular pundit in the movement in the first place, I think folks should relax. We need all types of Atheists anyway.

Hey look at that!  We don’t have real concerns!  We’re just emotional women!  It’s just too fucking easy.

She seems to like reducing a lot of people to rather puerile boxes.

Why bother? Nobody who is interested in this discussion is approaching it with an open mind.

She is absolutely free to have and express her own experience, but her exhortations to “men” to not change generalized her experience. Essentially she said “I love things they way they are, so guys keep going exactly the same”. She severely misrepresented the concerns of other women (and many men), dismissed them as nonsense and made a call for continuity. This is not merely sharing her experience, this is deciding that her experience is the only one that counts and other women’s concerns are to be dismissed.

1. I urge people to look up sexism/racism in the dictionary. It’s more than just making someone “feel” comfortable and avoiding using sexist/racist humor

2. it bothers me that folks dismiss claims of sexism/racism but catch a fit if one artist changes ONE word in a song

3. I appreciate Mehta for bringing up these issues.

4. I love the fact that we are discussing it, it demonstrates that we are as rational as we say we are (despite the trolls and the sexist responses by some folks)

What an excellent use of time!  Gentlemen, keep your cocks out of the discussion, unless it is that sort of room.  Women, don’t judge all men by the actions of a few. Internet, you aren’t that important to what happens in the real world, and we are figuring that out.  Internet, you are all ID, not enough of the grit and grinding that destroys somethings and builds others.  That happens when we walk away from you, and deal with each other.

She’s not disagreeing so much as she is misrepresenting what people are saying and disagreeing with that caricature–a caricature which, unfortunately, echoes a boy’s club SD and SU attitude that has become second-nature to some–though not all by any means–men.  And there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out.

The atheist/skeptic internethood is full of badly-socialized man-children who are either afraid of girls or just oblivious to why someone wouldn’t want to be chatted up in an elevator, for example. They know they’ll never have a shot at a relationship with a healthy, intelligent, attractive woman, and they shore up their shame and frustration with “make me a sandwich” and “tits or GTFO”. News fucking flash, the internet is full of bitter nerds. Every time a self-identified “angry feminist skeptic” gets on a tear about this embarrassing pack of 30-year-old virgins we have tied around our collective necks like an albatross, it derails the larger conversation for a month.

Ladies, they aren’t going to stop doing and saying things that make you feel icky. They won’t respond to social pressure; they’re already marginalized. They don’t care what you think because they already know you’re not going to fuck them, and it makes them sad in their man-places, so they act out. The rest of us aren’t bending over backwards to deal with this problem because we don’t want those troglodytes to be what our community does with our time. We’re trying to ignore them and get on with business. Can you get on board with that?

Her opinion is “don’t listen to those silly women.  They don’t have real complaints.”  

Nice straw man.

Some people will like you for your sense of humor, or your fashion sense, or your amazing command of the scientific canon. Some people will like you for your wet hole. These are all components of a whole person. Why do you assume that somebody who is primarily interested in one aspect of you doesn’t see the rest?

If Mallorie’s point had been “I don’t have a problem with the community’s behavior, so don’t change forme,” I don’t think anyone would have objected. Unfortunately, the point that came across (whether intended or not) was “I don’t have a problem with the community’s behavior, so don’t change foranyone.”
That perspective is seen as going beyond expressing your opinion to dismissing the opinions of others.

Who the fuck are you arguing with? Or why? 

Richard who died?

Clearly the answer to responding to bigotry and stereotypes is to fashion more of them. Good job on this new front in the fight for equality and acceptance!

Yeah, after all, it’s only Mallorie being the silly woman with no valid point of view.

I’m not sure why you’re surprised. The most common response to knowing that someone’s being bullied (in my experience as a bullied kid) is to deny that the bullying is a problem at all. Blame-the-victim is alive and well in all walks of life.

Oh, you had your head slammed in a locker? What did you do to provoke it?
Oh, you came home in tears because other kids spent all day making fun of you? You’re too sensitive.
Oh, kids destroyed  your lunch? Why were you dawdling over it?
Oh, someone stole your book and tore it up? Why weren’t you playing on the playground like a normal kid? And don’t tell me that the other kids won’t let you play, you’re just being anti-social!
Etc.

This is no exception.

No, Mallorie has made the adjustments, and is quite happy to be part of the community, and has expressed that happiness, shame some have decided to piss on her parade.

Definitely trolling

“These communities are about our minds, not our genitals and as far as I can tell my mind is just like yours.”

Gender is not reducible to genitals. And if you think your “mind” is independent of your body or social context, then you need to show more skepticism.

Yep, once again, some uppity little female thinks that because we aren’t cowtowing to her and the vagina community, we are all assholes and douchebags.

I have a penis, I am proud and I am FED UP with this canard that women are asking for equal rights, when the actions say there is a pattern of DEMANDING and EXTRACTING special rights.

I am so sick of the PZ Myers “be ashamed of your skin pigment and penis” bullshit.

Get over it women. Seriously. Funny thing is, this seems to be an American women phenomena; I lived in Europe for quite some time, and the women there EMBRACE their femininity and know they have equal rights. They do not have this sense of entitlement and idiocy that seems indicative to American chicks. Why? Because American chicks are like little children who just discovered something new for the first time and do not know how to use it properly.

Apparently sexism is rampant in the skeptic community. It is probable that he-man woman hating club are more likely to get upset about this post and so are more likely to respond.

However there is I think there is a real ‘I’m all right so screw you’ libertarian contingent attracted to atheism. The kind for whom male privilege is such a fundamental part of their self-image that any woman who asks to be treated with dignity is seen as a threat.

The only thing to do is keep going regardless, keep on calling out the hate and making an issue of it. You’re not going to convince the trolls but you’ll probably open a few minds and empower others to speak up as well.

Hooters, boobs, melons, bazangas, tits, breasts, flappy-fun bags, the family fluffies, sweater meat, shirt bunnies….I LOVE ‘EM!!!

Vaginas, twats, pussies, nappy dug-outs, cunts, hairy tacos, fish tacos, finger-pie….great stuff.

Dick, penis, cock, rod, swantz, Mr. Happy, one-eyed trouser mouse, skin flute, Celtic love flute, et al…..good stuff.

Chick, broad, dame, hoes, bitches, chiquitas, babes, girls, money-drains….gotts love that.

Dudes, dogs, bros, dickheads, knuckledraggers, mouth-breathers, Fido, Rovers, men, beasts, cavemen…yep.

Call a chick’s personal room the “hen house” and you are scum — if you are a man saying it.

Call a man’s study a “man cave” and it is acceptable, even though it promotes negative stereotypes. WTF? 

HYPOCRISY!!

Did your mother try to call the bluff on those cigarette package warning labels when she was knocked-up with you? Because you make some pretty broad (double entendre intended) statements without any proof or citations.

This just sickens me. YOU are the one propagating false information, yet you try and invert it to make like you are in the right. Wow. That is way fucked.

Again, I ask: what, besides making outraged noises that just encourage the most egregious trolls, are we supposed to do about this? The black civil rights movement had real-world problems that demanded solutions through action. The “problem” we’re facing here is subjective on two fronts: the discomfort of women and the self-justification of misogynists. We can’t magically make the women feel more welcome, and we don’t have the ability to police the thoughts and speech of the misogynists. What can we do besides try to ignore the assholes and just move forward?

Not in the stories I’ve heard. They’re pretty obvious examples of there being boys’ clubs and women being treated as nothing more than sexual objects. You don’t see those examples being talked about as much online, but they happen all too often. We tend to get mired in arguments about whether certain anecdotes are truly misogynistic or as bad as they’re made out to be. But the ones I’m thinking of (which I’m not obliged to share) are pretty clear-cut. I think everyone would say, “That’s not right. The men shouldn’t be doing that. The women shouldn’t be subject to that.”
So I don’t think it’s just seeing what we want to see.

But the whole blogosphere sure does an awful job communicating our thoughts about these issues effectively. Too much shouting and arguing about completely different things, when I suspect most of us are on the same page regarding how everyone should be treated.

This gets back to “they’re immune to social pressure”. They know we don’t like it and they don’t care. Next?

ahh yes, another example of a woman within the skeptic community who doesn’t agree with what apparently is the “official” viewpoint a woman in the skeptic community should have, so all hell breaks out on the internet at her. So great, continue to put off most of the women I know from the movement who don’t share y’alls cultural sensibilities since they know if they speak up for themselves, they’ll just get trashed too (all in the name respecting women right?)

Yea, there is some sexism going on around here, but it’s not what everyone thinks. And it’s mixed with a whole lot more cultural elitism than anyone will admit!

You’re damn right they’ll get trashed – for their ideas. Not because they’re ugly or slutty or hysterical or deserving of violence. See the difference? 

Sorry don’t know what happened to the layout?

Actually, it is perfectly possible, through public derision, to police the speech of misogynists, and doing so does a lot to make women feel more welcome.

No. Being a man who approaches a woman for sex in an elevator at 4AM after said woman has stated she’s going to bed comes across as a lot more threatening than just riding up to your floor with her in the car.

SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, that was dimissive.  Please. No one group is totally immmune to social pressure.  That’s just you throwing up your hands and deciding it’s too much effort.  If they were piled on every time they posted something sexist or vile, like our community does for homophobic or racist comments, they’d be posting here (and other atheist forums) a lot less frequently.   Please explain why this would be any different.

If you really want to take the stance of,” Oh, well, it’s not worth the effort,” then be prepared to have more discussions with nasty people like that, and less with the people who are made to feel marginalized and uncomfortable but might actually have something worthwhile to say.

Context Chico, context.

And I did not attend the University of Google there Slappy….kinda have that literacy thing going for me….

“Culture” is a pretty vague term, and I can’t think of how it could be meaningfully distinguished from a set of ideas. What kind of culture are you referring to? And are you intending to imply that culturally-based ideas should be immune from harsh criticism?

Well played!!!

I propose we hold a “World’s Hottest Feminist” contest.

The chicks can submit some nude photos, please tasteful nudes only. And then perhaps they could write up a little something highlighting their talents. 

Men like to read how the woman has great shorthand, or knows a tasty recipe for some quick-and-easy muffins.

And to round out the contest, the entrants should showcase how they apply make-up and tampons, or perhaps swap a few pregnancy tips. Because we all know that getting pregnant is such a skill intensive ability.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Yeah, I’m sure you’re an expert on women, both American and otherwise.

Get a life, EJC.  You are being inappropriate.

THANK YOU.

I don’t bother because EJC knows he’s being an asshole. He’s childishly poking you with a stick, and the more it looks like he’s disturbing us, the more satisfaction he feels. If we report him for abuse, he’ll do it again somewhere else, or come back here from a different IP. We can’t engage him to change his mind because he’s not motivated by an ideology, he’s just a loudmouthed casual chauvinist.

Congratulations, you’ve now wasted both of our time and attention on a discussion about how a misogynist troll is treating you. Please explain to me how this exchange counters discrimination against atheists and the religious erosion of civil rights.

Speaking of bullshit

“Rebecca Watson dictated behavior to ALL men about how they should NEVER approach a woman on an elevator, ANY woman ever?”

Maybe if you hadn’t opened your post with a big steaming pile of it you might be taken seriously.

But since the rest of it sounds like the ranting of an irate teenager, probably not.

You weren’t the creepy guy on the elevator by any chance, were you?

Trust me, they are not immune to social pressure.  When you directly admonish your best buddy for telling a “dumb blonde joke”, saying “Hey, joking or not, that kind of shit is disrespectful as hell to the women here – how about you tone it down?”, it’s going to sting.  And that’s the exact kind of calling out misogyny – when it occurs in groups of which you are an insider – that will be most effective, but also most difficult (it’s very easy to sit back quietly when you see your friends treating others like crap).

Well then, can you show where she specifically said “Look, I don’t speak for all women, but *I*, and probably a lot of other women don’t like that, and maybe you should think twice before hitting on a woman in an elevator. Even if your words are outwardly innocuous, it could come across as creepy.”

Or something similar, where she wasn’t trying to speak for all women to all men.

I’ll wait, it shouldn’t take you long, since the source material is easily available. Transcriptions or time stamps in the video work equally well as proof that I’m wrong in my view of what she said.

No man should ever approach a woman in an elevator.  You have to question this?

Look, John, you are quite probably not a rapist.  5 out of 6 men aren’t rapists.  You probably aren’t even a creeper.  You’re probably a really nice guy.

But rapists and creeper don’t wear signs identifying themselves as such.  You know who had a nice, attractive appearance and boyish charm?  Ted Bundy.  And women know that.  Women spend a lifetime learning that.  That the guy who comes across as charming may very well be a rapist.  And so, that until you know a bit about a guy, you consider that a possibility.  

You don’t go out on a date with a guy you met on the internet without leaving identifying information about him, in case you don’t come home.  Because they still don’t know where Donna Jou Jun’s body is.  

You don’t let yourself be separated from the crowd.  Like in an elevator.  Because you can be backed into a corner.  Seriously, when I was a teen, we were told not to get onto an elevator if a man was already on it.  And that if you were alone on an elevator and a man got on, to get off.  He might be setting you up to be attacked.  I think that this was before they put alarms on the stop buttons.  

I understand how horrible it must be to realize that many women you meet are at some level afraid of you.  I realize that it negates everything you do to live life as a kind and considerate human being.  I know it’s unfair that you are tarred with the same brush as criminals and sociopaths.  But I am less concerned with hurting your feelings that with being raped.

All I can suggest is that you try to imagine what it would be like if something awful happened to men on a regular basis.  The kind of soul-destroying, life-changing thing that rape is, but it happened to men.  A lot.  So that one in three men would have this done to them during their lifetimes.  And you could never know who might do it to you and when.  So you spend a small part of your thought processes every day looking at the people around you and considering those bigger and stronger and more powerful than you, and are you alone, do you have an escape path, what in your pockets is a potential weapon?

And if you can’t wrap your mind around it, try reading this:http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ 

Yeah, because every woman who just wants to shag considers the whole person of the man(or woman, as the case may be) she’s with at that particular moment.

I would have gone with ‘fucktard’ but that might just be fanning the flames of distraction.

Wow, that’s nice! Way to generalize an entire segment of the population.

“Not accepting these natural, genetic and social distinctions is as irrational as any religious dogma”

Weird then that most of those distinctions are the product of religious dogma.

“natural boundaries between the sexes”

Natural boundaries? What is this the nineteenth century? And just what social norms does reflexive misogyny challenge?

Come on Ryan step outside your man-bubble, do a little research. Male harassment and violence are a real world issue for women, threats to your ego aren’t.

EJC needs to get out of his parent’s basement

So… Yeah, you’re here defending a woman’s right to have an opinion, right?  That’s why you posted your comment defending one woman who was denying the OP’s evidence?

Or don’t you think evidence has anything to do with it?

I think every guy should know that hitting on people in elevators or small enclosed spaces has a high chance of being uncomfortable.

I think every guy should be told that asking someone back to a private space entails similarity to predatory behavior.

Or don’t you think that every guy should know, and we shouldn’t bother telling any guys, because a few might already know?

So women should ‘make adjustments’ to accept being treated like trash and assaulted?

What?

Do you really not see a difference between censoring speech (which absolutely no one on this thread suggested) and calling people out when they say something decidedly inappropriate??  Come on.

Look up rape conviction statistics and terms such as victim blaming, then look up female eating disorders and gender ratios of high ranking positions in mathematics, sciences, and politics. Then come talk to me about our ‘real world’ problems.

So again. Why is it okay for Rebecca to categorically tell ALL men something is ALWAYS wrong for ALL women, even though it is logically, and literally impossible for her to be correct, and yet COMPLETELY wrong for Mallorie to do the same thing?

What inherent differences mean that women should adapt to having their ideas reduced to sexual innuendo?

You got some people to give you a cookie and a hug, and to tell EJC what a big meanie he is. I’m sure he’s learned his lesson. If all you want is for some strangers to make you feel better about something another stranger said that you don’t like, I’m not surprised you don’t agree that the big picture of atheist activism is more important than an internal communications tone problem. Good day.

So you’re saying people should be able to speak out against things with which they disagree and not get trashed? Interesting.

Sigh, your kidding right? You need me to explain all of that to you, and in a comment forum formate at that?

Look, I gotta go back to work so just to use a bad ( i mean really bad, and based on automotive stereotypes) analogy to quickly try to make that point: The prius owners of the skeptic community constantly seem to be telling the camaro lovers (of both sexes) to get the hell out unless they act just like them.

It’s very very simple.

Mallorie wasn’t the one stuck on the elevator with the creep.

Sexual harassment and violence against women aren’t hypothetical situations.

If you don’t get that freedom from harassment is a basic right for women or if you don’t think that’s relevant then there’s no way anyone will be able to explain to you how puerile your complaint is.

 No man should ever approach a woman in an elevator.  You have to question this?

When I ask a large number of women I know, and they aren’t absolute about it, but rather say “Well, it depends on a lot of things”, then yes, I do question it, because it seems that while that statement is true for a lot of women, it is not true for just as many. So it is a subjective statement, not one that can be objectively proven to be always true in all situations for all people. Given that, yes, I do in fact question your assertion that it is ALWAYS true for ALL women in ALL elevators in EVERY situation, because your assertion to the contrary isn’t correct. Ergo, it is a subjective thing, and highly questionable when presented as hard fact. 

 Look, John, you are quite probably not a rapist.  5 out of 6 men aren’t rapists.  You probably aren’t even a creeper.  You’re probably a really nice guy.

Sometimes. Quite often i’m an loudmouthed opinionated asshole. Other times I’m something else. Mostly because I’m a person, and people are complex animals that you can’t easily sift and categorize like they were iron ore. But why does my personality, or lack thereof matter in the least? I’ve no idea about your personality, nor does it matter in this case. Mr. Rogers would be wrong were he to have made the assertion you are.

 But rapists and creeper don’t wear signs identifying themselves as such.  You know who had a nice, attractive appearance and boyish charm?  Ted Bundy.  And women know that.  Women spend a lifetime learning that.  That the guy who comes across as charming may very well be a rapist.  And so, that until you know a bit about a guy, you consider that a possibility.  

 
Ted Bundy actually creeped a lot of people out, if you read up on him. It was that people ignored their own instincts on him. However, if you actually look at statistics, (I know, I know, how dare I bring data into things of feeling and emotion), the stranger on the street is FAR less a danger than the person you know. So in terms of rape/sexual assault, it’s that nice guy you know who’s the greater danger than the stranger on the street. It’s the weird old uncle who you should watch out for far more than random people in elevators. But that doesn’t make for good press. 

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your assertion that Rebecca speaks for ALL women ALL the time with regard to elevators is simply not true, yet it is okay for her to say that, and not Mallorie. That would be the problem here, not Ted Bundy.

 You don’t go out on a date with a guy you met on the internet without leaving identifying information about him, in case you don’t come home.  Because they still don’t know where Donna Jou Jun’s body is.

And yet people go home with random strangers they meet on the internet and in bars by the millions with nothing bad happening. Why is that? Well, because again, random stranger is less of a worry than person you know/family member. Here, since you love da anecdotes:

my family moved to miami in 1970. I left there on what became a permanent basis in 1986. I lived through the McDuffie riots, Mariel, Cocaine Cowboys, Overtown riots, on and on. Bodies in the river, all of it. Pretty much everyone in my high school graduation class had seen a dead body in an inappropriate location. One of my school’s teachers, Beth Kenyon, was kidnapped and killed by Chrisopher Wilder. Another good friend was stabbed and decapitated when her boyfriend went nuts. Note that in neither case were these women killed by strangers. They were killed by friends and aquaintances. In fact, in a period of lawlessness and extreme violence, when I worked on the edge of Overtown, I was attacked/mugged…zero times. The reason I remember those two is because a) I knew them and b) they stood out, because even in a violent place like Miami in the 70s and 80s, people getting killed at random was not the norm. But again, anecdotes, which don’t say there is NO danger from random dudes. Just that people blow that crap out of proportion, because well, it’s easy to do so.

In Donna Jou Jun’s case, this wasn’t a random person. This was a guy she had talked to for over a month, and like a lot of crazy people, he managed to hide that well enough for her to trust him. He was someone known to her, just like Jerry Sandusky was known to the kids he assaulted. Why? Because it’s easier to attack someone who trusts you, their guard is down, they’ll do things they’d never otherwise do. 

Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your assertion that Rebecca speaks for ALL women ALL the time with regard to elevators is simply not true, yet it is okay for her to say that, and not Mallorie. That would be the problem here, not the person what offed Donna Jou Jun.

 You don’t let yourself be separated from the crowd.  Like in an elevator.  Because you can be backed into a corner.  Seriously, when I was a teen, we were told not to get onto an elevator if a man was already on it.  And that if you were alone on an elevator and a man got on, to get off.  He might be setting you up to be attacked.  I think that this was before they put alarms on the stop buttons.  

Okay, and that has what to do with the fact that your assertion that Rebecca speaks for ALL women ALL the time with regard to elevators is simply not true, yet it is okay for her to say that, and not Mallorie. 

The fact you got some advice not based on evidence, but on fear doesn’t change that. Can situations like that be dangerous? Of course, and you’d be foolish to dismiss that, but that does not mean that every woman agrees with you, nor does it mean that they are wrong or stupid to disagree with you. There are a lot of women who have different methods of handling those situations, and as long as they work, they’re not wrong either. Your tactics are correct for you. You are not every woman on the planet, and I know rather a few that would turn anyone smaller than The Rock into a bloody smear if they tried something. Their tactics are correct for them and you’re not wrong to disagree with them.

But again, why is it okay for Rebecca to claim speakership for all women, and not Mallorie? If it’s wrong for one, shouldn’t it be wrong for all?

 I understand how horrible it must be to realize that many women you meet are at some level afraid of you.  I realize that it negates everything you do to live life as a kind and considerate human being.  I know it’s unfair that you are tarred with the same brush as criminals and sociopaths.  But I am less concerned with hurting your feelings that with being raped.

It hurts me not at all, because I’m not a rapist, i’ve never raped anyone. Nor am I a potential rapist, idiot theories about rape switches thoroughly discounted. Nor am I going to spend a lot of time reading people’s minds, because I cannot. I will behave in the way my morals and ethics guide me, while not assuming I am the only right person on the planet, and if there is a need to change, I shall. However, why is it okay for you to assume I’m maybe Ted Bundy from cradle to grave, (because after all, if I’m alive, I could, in (bad) theory, rape someone), and yet, any assumption I make about women as a gender en masse is wrong? 

Indeed, based on numerous studies, I should assume that all women may assault me, with a weapon. 

From a NIMH-funded study in 1985, conducted at UNH:

Between 1975 and 1985, male-against-female domestic violence decreased, while women’s violence against men increased. In Straus and Gelles’ second study, in 1986, 1.8 million women suffered assaults from a husband or boyfriend, but two million men were assaulted by a wife or girlfriend.

I should also fear women killing my children:

Mothers kill their children. After surveying murder cases in large urban counties in 1988, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that women made up more than half the defendants (55 percent) in cases involving parents killing their offspring. (1994-95 U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Publications Catalog, publication #. NCJ 43498, “Murder in Families

According to a 2006 UF study, I should definitely fear any woman I date:
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/

According to a more recent study, women are equally physically abusive as men in relationships:

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

and so forth. Yet, were I to espouse that all men should treat women, ESPECIALLY women they know as potential abusers until “proven” otherwise, (by what mechanism no one will ever know), the howlocaust would be huge, and right, because it’d be a damned stupid thing to say, even though the data supporting such a stupid statement is not small. 

Maybe that mindset doesn’t really bother me because I live in the real world, where a bit of caution for all is never a bad idea, yet I don’t confuse that with living in fear that the guy on the train next to me is WAITING TO KILL ME AT ANY SECOND, because the data shows, that’s just not true. It’s the same reasons I don’t worry about bear attacks in airports in the U.S. Maybe it doesn’t bother me for reasons you don’t wish to consider.

 All I can suggest is that you try to imagine what it would be like if something awful happened to men on a regular basis.  The kind of soul-destroying, life-changing thing that rape is, but it happened to men.  A lot.  So that one in three men would have this done to them during their lifetimes.  And you could never know who might do it to you and when.  So you spend a small part of your thought processes every day looking at the people around you and considering those bigger and stronger and more powerful than you, and are you alone, do you have an escape path, what in your pockets is a potential weapon?

Ah, the “you’re not a man you don’t know fear” gambit. So wrong. From…hmm…let’s see, from 3rd grade until I graduated high school, i was regularly beaten up, in class and out, (Hey, I was a fat kid, I deserved it), by the girls too. That whole “never hit a girl” thing? Man, that sucks when a cheerleader decides to take a stick to you. By the way, while sticks and stones, (yeah, had rocks thrown at me too), hurt like hell, they don’t always break your bones. Oddly, that’s not a comfort. Anyway, yeah, regular beatings from kids, drunken verbal abuse from the ‘rents.

What else…oh, had a guy hit me with his car, because I rode my bike in front of him at a stop sign when he was already stopped, had two guys in a car try to run me down because apparently I shouldn’t have been walking down the street my house was on(?). A few years of various levels of sexual assault between 3rd and 5th grade. In fifth grade, one kid took such a delight in beating my ass that they moved me to a different teacher, because the one I had said it was my fault. (This includes it being my fault when he was trying to push me over a railing on the second floor of my school, onto the concrete below. Evidently I should have let him? Not complained so damned much?)

Oh, every day I rode the school bus home in High School, there was the “chase john down and terrorize him/Beat his ass” game. When the bus driver is letting you off the bus first, telling you to run like hell and doing her best to give you as much of a head start as possible before the assholes manage to force their way off the bus, something’s messed up. Oh, you can complain, but it was the 80s, this whole “anti-bullying thing” hadn’t taken hold.

I’m sorry, what was it I didn’t understand?

(also, men get raped a lot, even outside of prison. It’s just underreported, and hey, the FBI didn’t even count it as rape until 2011. So yeah. It happens.)

And none of this, NONE of this, not even my personal youthful horrorshow has ANYTHING to do with the fact that your assertion that Rebecca speaks for ALL women ALL the time with regard to elevators is simply not true, yet it is okay for her to say that, and not Mallorie.

 And if you can’t wrap your mind around it, try reading this:http://kateharding.net/2009/10…

I did. Was unimpressed by it, but then again, I don’t do fearmongering. ALso, it’s titled wrong. It should be Schroedinger’s POTENTIAL rapist. For it to be Schroedinger’s rapist, you have to assume all men have ACTUALLY RAPED someone, until proven otherwise. It’s a horrible abuse of schroedinger’s theory, and, maybe if you ponder that, you might understand why being told “you’re a rapist until you prove otherwise” makes some folks twitchy.

Also, schroedinger’s (potential) rapist has nothing to do with the fact that your assertion that Rebecca speaks for ALL women ALL the time with regard to elevators is simply not true, yet it is okay for her to say that, and not Mallorie.

If he was threatening he would not have asked her. No threat means no danger. She got hit on turned him down and he went his way.

Why is Mallorie’s evidence invalid, yet the OP’s evidence correct? Both would seem to be anecdotal.

So why is it okay for Watson to speak to ALL men for ALL women, and not Mallorie? 

Should not the same standard apply to both?

also:

 I don’t know if she speaks for all women but I can guess most women are firmly down on the against side when it comes to threatening and creepy behavior.

Yes. They are. The problem is, not all women classify threatening and creepy behavior the same. Yet you’re pretty clear that if they don’t classify it in a way you agree with, they’re wrong.

Seems kind of messed up when the whole thing is subjective.

However there is I think there is a real ‘I’m all right so screw you’ libertarian contingent attracted to atheism. The kind for whom male privilege is such a fundamental part of their self-image that any woman who asks to be treated with dignity is seen as a threat.

Wow, you just nailed something that I’ve witnessed sooooo many times in Skeptic discussions and on Skeptic message boards.  You really articulated that beautifully…..someone else described this attitude/behaviour as it being like they’re wearing a ‘badge of honor for being an a**hole’ 🙂  And with some of the people you’re describing, it’s not just in relation to women, but to everyone)

It’s often been commented on how welcoming the atheist community is of LGBT folks.

And from Greta Christina’s experience, the reverse isn’t quite the same:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/12/being-an-atheist-in-the-queer-community.html

I haven’t finished reading everything I_Claudia has written (because there is so much) but I think I agree with her.

While I do think that sometimes people overreact or the like, I think it is a very dangerous thing to make blanket statements about issues where it is very clear that many claims of problems are very real and very serious.

Frankly, my experience on the matter is limited. I personally don’t really know any feminists, and part of me doesn’t like the idea of being villianized for being a man.

But… is that what feminists are doing? I don’t know. I’ve always thought that women’s movements were about social justice and it’s always seemed to me like the right thing to support.

In my own personal life, I recieve quite a bit of villianization, but that has less to do with my penis and more to do with the fact that I am both arab and look like a troll. People are crossing the street not to walk next to me because they are worried I will mug them or explode, not make dick jokes. But that’s a seperate issue; sorry to tangent.

I’m not sure. I don’t think that because something is hard that we should just throw up our arms and give up in frustration and I don’t think that my own personal experiences are enough for me to be able to decide what is right or wrong for other people in different circumstances (or even in similar circumstances).

I think that because this is an important issue, we should devote more thought and work towards it, and not less. I did not like the part (or parts, I forget) where she said, “Don’t ever change.” or something like that. To me, I think that is the part where she said, “Don’t try to learn. Don’t ever consider the idea that you could be wrong. You are perfect.”

And I think that line of thinking is bad. I think that sort of ideology promotes problems and creates problems all on its own.

I do like the general contention of, “Women are human beings first and females second.” but I think the reason it was recieved so badly was because that message, which I believe is the main message she wanted to deliever, was caught up in the message that all men are perfectly awesome and if there is a problem it’s a woman’s fault. And I don’t think that she meant to do that.

I think it probably is something derived from her personal experiences and so on. I don’t really think that it makes up for it, but at the same time it does make me think of her as simply someone who is mistaken or misguided or in need of further learning (or some sort of combination) rather than someone who is a villian and deserves my hate.

What I mean to say, is the I think I should try to sympathize with her as an imperfect human being rather than allow myself to be too furious with her. I know I myself have also said things (often while thinking of specific life experiences or specific people) which were basically terrible blanketing statements of a similar nature. (I am remembering something about vegetarians as I write that.)

But having said that, I think it’s important to be loudly challenge all ideas and I think that is being done here (and elsewhere).

Sorry, shouldn’t post when I’m that tired. That’s CHRISTOPHER Hitchens, of course.

Where the heck did my brain pull “Richard” from?

This post and the comments remind me of why there is such a high divorce rate.

Female:  You aren’t listening to me.  You need to be sensitive to my needs.

Male:  I am listening and I’m sensitive.  Hey, could you pass me a beer the game is on.

Wow. A zinger. Shot to the nuts.

Oh okay, Mr. Barometer of Internet etiquette. Thank you. I was going to call Miss Manners, but you saved me the time. Many MANY thanks.

Me <— Big Meanie.

Whatever you need to tell yourself. Honestly, you are among the most humorless and frightening 'tards around here, because if you really read what you advocate, you advocate the EXACT same thing the religous idiots advocate, which is MIND and thought control. I could substitute your words into a xian rant and they would ask for the same thing, just on different sides of the fence.

People like you scare me because you work yourselves up into this oppressive lather always thinking you know best, just like religious fucks.

Am I being a prick? You are damn right I am, because frankly, you are so fucking uptight that you must be dealing with permanent constipation.

Yeah, I advocated mind control.  Fuckwad.

You’re consistently one of the nastiest, least logical posters on this site.  I used you as an example because you made a really stupid comment that perfectly proved my point about how women are treated on these boards, and how people (don’t) react.  Sorry it went right over your head.  I could give two shits about what YOU actually think about me (it was Portlander who called you a “big meanie,” BTW).

Before you worry about the stick in my ass, I suggest you remove the telephone pole from yours.

Wait,t his doesn’t sound like Hemant. Oh wow… how long have their been this big of guest posts? Probably forever, but I didn’t notice before. I guess I would expect this type of near-screaming flame wars on mostly-feminist blogs but on here I just feel disappointment. -1 point.

Apparently there is a disconnect on the meaning of the original post. there is a HUGE difference between “I love you guys so don’t change for anyone” and “every other person’s opinion is invalid”.  The first is the entire point of her entire post. The second is extrapolated by people who are seeing what they want to see.

Well I already did, in a way. It was in response to a previous incident, but it’s mostly applicable to almost all of them. That said I’d be happy do to others if Hemant wanted 🙂

*snrk* Did you become a guard?

“I’m sorry, what was it I didn’t understand?”

Pretty much everything

Who are you to tell everyone else what is funny? What is not funny is that the prison system has a bad track record, or that a particular person was raped. However, these jokes do make me laugh. Like the “This is your asshole, this is your asshole after spending time in jail for shoplifting sign”. The Rob Schnieder movie Big Stan is one long prison rape parody yet I found it hilarious. Especially that his main concern about our prison system was that he would be raped.

It’s called black humor. Monty Python’s movie the holy grail is full of such jokes. In some cases they are thing I shouldn’t laugh at if they happened in real life but I would. For example a rabbit attacking someone and actually managing to sever a jugular. If the person was pestering the rabbit I might not be able to contain myself.

Sorry, I don’t share your PC correct attitudes and frankly it reminds me of the drab seriousness of Puritans, or the Amish. No one is forcing you to laugh or participate but don’t assume it’s about moral depravity, or something.

Laughing at a prison rape joke is not the same thing as laughing at (and ignoring) an actual rape charge.

How do you know they are straw men? In fact there are complaints being made about jokes. Apparently black humor and vulgar jokes are not allowed. Certainly there are situations where such are inappropriate but the complaints are very poorly made and amount to blanket bans on large swaths of humor, in every situation.

Did she address every cop ain’t in every situation. No. But she’s making one of the same mistakes the other side is. Not being specific enough. That doesn’t mean it is an a straw man argument. It works for the argument it addresses. You want her to address additional topics then ask her.

Let me get this straight. Just because you believe there are boundaries between the genders that one gender should be treated as second class?
You be a doormat & a coward in real life too.

Well actually they are being trashed for being slutty. Every pure woman should be offended by any sexual proposition made, however veiled, on an elevator for the good of all womankind. Anything less undermines the narrative that all men are pigs, and danger merely for being larger (on average than most women).

You can be sure that elevator guys actual size doesn’t matter. No one said this was OK behavior for shrimps.

Actually very little of what has been claimed makes sense and sounds like post hoc rationalization.

“A Man” sounds like a bigot. Mansplaining? I’ve only hear that used when the logic was valid and the goal was to demean the commenter for their gender without actually addressing it.

The whole issue is that it’s her word … against no ones.

We can’t verify what happened.

We’re arguing over something that has no data.
Some skeptic women claim they feel marginalized – others, like myself feel accepted and valued.

I’ve seen it happen.

In fairness, it’s tiny. Is there any way to crank up the font size?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

When they are subjective. You going to question my tastes in humor, food, and offense at the behavior of others? If I’m offended or not is subjective. Just because I am offended doesn’t mean the behavior that offended was criminal, immoral, or even objectively offensive. Not every girl is offended by under the circumstances described, or threatened.

Some women clutch their purses around black men alone on the elevator and some do not. I don’t think that even if the majority do that is any reason for black guy to wait for the next elevator.

Her point that she isn’t offended by certain behavior, like being hit on at conferences, lays false the idea that these are opinions on objective, not subjective tastes.

Wealth has little to do with acceptance into Harvard. Legacies are a small fraction of the student body, and most of them have exemplary records. Harvard offers generous scholarships (I know, I received one for my grad degree there) for students who can’t afford it, and Harvard is FREE for undergrads whose parents make less than 80k a year. Not perfect, but they’re doing a decent job.

1. Pay attention to misogynists. Observe their speech patterns and their patterns of behavior.

2. Adopt speech patterns and patterns of behavior that are easily distinguishable from those of misogynists.

3. Whenever you witness a misogynist doing or saying something sexist, speak up and say that it’s not cool with you, could he please keep his sexism in his brain, at least while you’re around.

4. When women talk about their experiences with sexism, LISTEN.

It’s not hard, except the first part requires paying attention to genuine misogynists, which can be stomach-turning. I recommend http://www.manboobz.com.  

“No man should ever approach a woman in an elevator.”

I just asked my wife whether she agreed with that and she asked, “Why not.”

I then said, “You have to question this?” and she said, “What the hell.”

I said, “Because you might be raped.”

She just smiled at me like I was an idiot.

BTW, we both have personal experience with rape and abuse. You really sound like you are parroting some ideological assumptions instead of thinking critically about this. Critical thinking requires asking all the kinds of questions being raised that are being squelched by charges of “misogyny”, “privilege” and “mansplaining”.

That is a straw man. She’s proven some complaints to be subjective personal tastes.

Pretty clear she’s talking about certain people and certain behavior. That’s the charitable interpretation. Pretty silly to assume she thinks ever atheist guy goes around making fart jokes and propositioning random women. She’s just saying she has no problem with it.

Being creeped out on the elevator by a veiled invitation for sex doesn’t count as either sexual harassment nor violence against women. Some would consider it a complement and leave it at that. It’s not like he was her boss.

The conditions for harassment are’t there either. It would have to be repeated, or singular with the clear intent to aggravate.

Notice that I’m not dismissing you on the ground that you are female. I will say that I don’t respect you because you don’t seem to be able to think clearly,and deduce properly.

Asking her might have been rude, or I’ll advised but it’s not criminal. Sexual harassment, harassment, and violence are all crimes.

You want to give charm school lessons at atheist conferences then go ahead. Just don’t make it out like we are a bunch of criminals.

Why ask someone to not do something they were not doing?

Suppose I told you that the reason guys avoid girls who are into horses is because there is anecdotal evidence that some at getting sexually arises in the saddle? Suppose I told girls in general this was a problem and not to do it if they want a boyfriend. That women interested in horses tend to be obsessed and pay more attention to the horse than the man.

Isn’t the sheer stupidity of the false deductions, prudishness, and gross over generalizations enough of a reason to object without assuming you must be “threatened” by such charges. Just because you have a pony avatar doesn’t mean you are an oversexed bestiality lover, and that every guy has such prejudices.

What if I wrote an article titled “Ponies make me hate women”?

That is how ridiculously these concerns are being communicated.

She didn’t make the generalizations you are claiming. She pointed out that much of the behavior being complained about doesn’t bother her. Elevator guy would flatter her.

She’s not claiming a female was never gang raped on stage at skepticon.

Holy crap Brian you are the Christopher Hitchens of mansplation except for the erm compelling argument thing.

Ever hear of a self affirming belief. Yeah, “the patriarch” is behind it. She had to post it because otherwise she her survival was in danger. Conspiracy theory much? You think “The Patriarchy” has a bomb strapped to her in her bra?

Misandrist? Is that even a word?

As I said in the comment, they were stories told in confidence. I’m not sharing those.

STFU, troll. How about you post under your real name coward?

Still waiting for that proof of yours, where Watson was clearly only speaking for herself and some women, not all women to all men.

You seem to be rather busy not showing it.

“So and if a man announced he was tired and going to bed and an acolyte followed him on an elevator…”

The situation you’re describing would make me uncomfortable, and I can imagine mentioning it in a Tweet. I don’t make YouTube videos or say much about my personal life or social interactions when I blog the way Watson does, though, but if a man described that situation and says “don’t do this,” I wouldn’t think ill of him.

“You know it is kinda fishy that she claims not to have spoken with him but expected him to know she was retiring…”

It seems from her video and the blog post I linked that she projected it loudly enough that anyone hanging out with the group would have heard. I’ve never met her personally but from watching some of her talks online, I get the impression that she’s the kind of person who would make an exit. And it seems to track that the guy who followed her was also paying attention to her. Not exactly resounding evidence, but we are picking a part an anecdote. I’ll say that if her story is accurate, than her discontent at the situation is valid and leave it at that.

“You understand that one function of bars is to get drunk, horny, and make pick ups, right? 

Perhaps he gets more tail than you.”
I’m not really sure how to approach that line of argument. I’m aware of how bars work, but hotel elevators seem like a different category. And I really don’t care that some men sleep with more women than I do via a strategy of making as many of them uncomfortable as necessary before succeeding. I’ve known guys like that before, and I’m not bothered by the fact that I’m not like them.

Well, I was thinking more in the “THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE” sense, but Thunderdomism works too. Also, Tina Turner > Christopher Lambert.

I um, did? And again, you haven’t, not even tried to answer a simple question:

Why is Rebecca’s assumption of title of  Speaker for All Women To All Men “correct” and yet Mallorie’s is “incorrect”. If it’s wrong to assume your viewpoint is reflected by all women, (and comments from women on this point prove Rebecca and others saying she speaks for ALL women is in fact, incorrect) for one, then it is wrong for all, barring proof to the contrary. 

Since it has been clearly, and definitively shown that Rebecca is not in fact, speaking for all women with regard to the elevator incident, then clearly she was wrong to do so. If Mallorie is wrong for her assumption, then Rebecca must also be wrong for her identical assumption. That assumption has been proven incorrect, and yet you insist that if I somehow keep widening my view, (or more correctly, just ignore comments from women who disagree with Rebecca), that somehow, all this inconvenient data won’t matter, and I’ll see how Rebecca’s assumption is actually correct.

Doesn’t work that way sport. I’ve got data on my side on this. If Mallorie’s assumption was incorrect because we can prove that she doesn’t speak for all women, than Rebecca’s assumption is just as incorrect because we have the same level of data showing she does not in fact speak for all women.

You going to stop trying to hand wave this shit and just admit that data and facts are not going your way anytime soon?

If every man listened to every woman every time she said No to a date request or whatever, there’d be an awful lot of lonely women.

I’ve read that half a dozen times trying to deduce anything other than a  “she says no but she means yes (wink wink)” meaning, and I’m not seeing it.  I’m tired.  I must be missing something.  PLEASE show me my stupid on this one.

 It’s not the article she was referring to. Read further into the comments and you’ll see where Mallorie crops up making some truly disingenuous and misleading comments and making excuses for violent rape jokes directed at a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL.

No. I did not ask what could be done to make women feel more welcome. People are responsible for their own feelings (or is that only what men are taught?). What I asked is how we’re supposed to curb the behavior of an element that gets off on causing outrage. The difference is that one is a problem, and the other is your reaction to that problem. If someone can’t exercise self-control and rise above provocation, I’ll deride them as whiny regardless of their sex.

As for solutions to misogynist bullying, “punch him in the nose” doesn’t work over the internet, and isn’t
justifiable short of physical self-defense in the real world, so we’re
left with “ignore the bully and he’ll go away”–or at least fade into background noise. That will only work if we make a commitment, as a movement, to staying on topic and tuning out irrelevant chatter.

You atheists get way too worked up over nothing.

You don’t agree with religious institutions being tax exempt*? Big deal. Get over it, crybaby.

*Feel free to insert your religious pet peeve of choice

The problem with your comment is that it isn’t actually an argument against what was written here by Megan. Instead you’ve glossed over it and resorted to name calling and shushing. Just like many religious people I know who would rather not argue for or against an argument on its merits.

If they aren’t straw men, then she should have addressed her words towards a specific person, article, forum, etc. 

Actually, speaking as someone who has been threatened for *daring* to say ‘no, cheers’ to a mere verbal come-on…you’re wrong. Not in most cases, not in that particular case, but it does happen.

i guess you want me to hold your hand to walk to school or feed you cornflakes in the morning. (thanks for the set up and the opportunity to provide another punch line)

‘Now, the problem as I see it is when people get emotional about the
issue and make a general statement, for instance that women are either
“special” and should be  treated in a “special” way or that there’s no
issue and they’re just nagging.’

That’s a bit of a strawman.  Who is saying that women should be treated in a special way? Certainly not the feminists as they are going for equality. It’s also one of the same strawmen that Mallorie Nasrallah used in her letter, and she didn’t exactly act very well about being called on it.

So when Mallorie Nasrallah basically derides feminists for asking for special treatment, even though that’s not what they are asking for, you’re saying that it’s not a strawman argument?

I think you may not know just what a strawman actually is.

Well, assuming this is actually an attempt at serious discussion, (if so, forgive my suspicion, but this entire Nukular Howlocaust is rather low on such things), then first, we have to decide what we mean by “harm”, and that this isn’t a terribly cut and dried issue. 

I think there’s a bit of a strawman in the “Mallorie is dismissing any and all reports of sexism” bit. I take her point as “by and large, people in the skepticism and atheism movements are cool, don’t let the demands and actions of an unfortunately loud minority force ALL of you to completely change who you are.” I’d have to agree with that. While it’s clear there are all too many sexist dipwads in the skeptic/atheist groups, I haven’t seen a lot, well, any really, evidence, (as in actual proof, not just “this one time, at TAM…”) that by and large the majority of people in those are sexist and misogynistic. 

(side note: the overuse and abuse of “misogyny” really needs to end. All impolite behavior from a man or men to a woman or women is not misogyny. The word is rapidly losing any value because it’s turning into “any thing a man does that involves a woman that I DON’T LIKE.”) 

I also have some issue with the continual equation that disagreement = dismissal. It is entirely possible for there to be women who haven’t run into sexist behavior in the groups, for a variety of reasons. First, setting aside *blatant* shit, (ala “If you want to speak at TAM, you gotta put out”), a lot of “sexism” is subjective. Some women will look at dirty jokes as sexist, others won’t. Neither view is necessarily right or wrong, just evidence of different definitions for the concept. You can’t even get into “professional” behavior because, well, all professions are not the same. I’ve worked for:

a major university
a life insurance company
an advertising company

I can tell you that the standards of “professional” behavior between the three have rather a lot of variance. So we have an issue here with a behavior that while theoretically can have a fairly consistent definition, when you start asking people about situations, is all over the friggin’ map. Clearly, Mallorie and Rebecca have different definitions.  I don’t think either is wrong, as long as they aren’t actively trying to require anyone to “behave”. I think Rebecca loses a bit here, she’s a tad more imperative in her “don’t do that” than Mallorie is in her “don’t change for me”. But people will disagree here, as they do. So in mallorie’s case, I disagree with your presumptions of what she’s saying, which leads to other disagreements on her essay.

In the case of Rebecca’s statement, I think there’s some unintended consequences that you aren’t seeing. Aside from the provable incorrectness of her central point, (all women dislike this,  therefore all guys that do this are creeps), there’s another message in this: Women are helpless when confronted by a man. This isn’t blind conjecture mind you, there are a lot of people on your “side” who have implied, or explicitly said this. Greg Laden is particularly egregious there. 

This is, to me, an important issue, because it starts us down the road of infantilizing women. If I treat all women as being completely unable to handle being asked to coffee in an elevator, (and let us for now, not try to read minds in this case. We don’t in fact, know what the guy “really” meant. He might have wanted sex, in which case his “don’t take this the wrong way” was “Don’t think of me as a creep, but”, or he might NOT have wanted sex, in which case “don’t take this the wrong way” was “I’m not trying to have sex with you.” If you’re going to insist that all such offers must always mean sex, then I’d say you have some personal issues with interpersonal relationships that need examining. Since we can’t read minds here, and we have no direct proof, only here say, we’re stuck with a somewhat ambiguous phrase. Had he been more explicit either way, then things would be simpler, if not easier.) then we start down a rather silly road.

I’ve seen put forth, in a serious manner by Watson supporters that:

1) You should not even get ON an elevator if you are a man and the only occupant is a woman. (this is rather silly in the case of a building with only one slow elevator)

2) If you are a man in an elevator and a woman gets on, you should immediately get off, without a word to her, even though it’s not your floor. (what if she has her arms full. Kind of a jerk move. But, when you make everything binary, nuance dies)

Secondly, does this only apply to offers that might be able to be immediately taken as sex? What if the offer was for coffee in the morning in the hotel lobby? Same situation, slightly different offer. Do you just not talk to women at ALL on elevators? Not interact with them at all? What if their arms are full, do you do nothing until they explicitly ask you to push a floor button for them? “Don’t hit on women” sounds like an easy rule until you remember the original incident was kind of ambiguous. So how do you practically implement this? Well, the only way I can see is “don’t speak until spoken to” if you’re a guy on an elevator with a woman, because you can’t tell if she’ll take ANY attempt at conversation as a prelude to harm. (Schroedinger’s Rapist explicitly says that all women view all encounters with strange men as a potential attack situation so “what floor do you need” can be taken as “I want to know what floor you’re on so I may harm you later”. Yet another reason why that entire supposition is just bollocks.)

Do we apply this to all enclosed spaces? What about parking lots? Streets? It’s not the kind of rule that ONLY applies to elevators in certain situations. If so, it’s a rather silly rule.

So it seems men have a choice: assume women are all of a mind and if you are alone with one you don’t know, don’t speak unless spoken to, and do as little as possible to even acknowledge her presence. Be as obviously unthreatening as possible etc. I dunno about you, but if I get on an elevator, and the only other person on it doesn’t interact with me AT ALL, or barely minimally, THAT is going to creep me the hell out. 

Do you begin to see why this kind of thing can’t work? Not as an absolute anyway? You’re now thinking of women as being unable to handle any kind of interaction with a man in a 1:1 situation where both are strangers, because you have to assume that she will view any interaction as a possible prelude to harm, (I find that the majority of people on Watson’s side here view “Shroedinger’s Rapist” as some kind of Truth, and it’s pretty clear it drives their view on things, so I go with that. If you don’t, I apologize for the assumption.) That’s the ONLY way this kind of absolute rule will work, it ends up becoming the backing theory for it. In meaning well, you end up infantilizing women.

If you take EITHER viewpoint as THE ONLY RIGHT ONE AND ALL OTHERS ARE WRONG, neither works worth a damn in the real world. Actually, that applies to almost any viewpoint on subjective issues. 

So here’s the issue maybe: Stop thinking in absolutes? Maybe start making the assumption in cases like mallorie and watson, “They’re speaking for themselves, and maybe some others, not everyone.” Maybe allow for different experiences being equally valid, and don’t require that everyone agree to one point of view or the other. Possibly realize that someone seeing a situation differently than you doesn’t make them WRONG, it makes them DIFFERENT.

Take the title of this post: “your friend is wrong”. Wow. That’s nice. I mean, it’s unprovable, and arrogant as well, since the OP is writing from the idea that her view is superior to Mallorie’s. That’s kind of silly, because no, it’s not, for anyone but her. Nor is Mallorie’s POV superior for anyone but herself.

I think, in their own ways, both women meant well, but both made errors in communication. Watson has less excuses as she a) has a bloody degree in Communication and b) makes her living doing that. A “Pro” has less margin for error in such things, she should have known how her statement would be taken by many, and certainly not be surprised that not everyone agreed with it or her.

Finally, maybe the rest of us have some responsibility for the latest howlocaust as well. Possibly, when reading things, instead of looking for reasons to get angry about them, calm the hell down, and don’t make assumptions designed to piss ourselves off. When someone disagrees, don’t take a disagreement to mean you’re wrong, and when you disagree, don’t say that your disagreement makes THEM wrong. Maybe try, even if occasionally failing, to respond instead of reacting. Everyone’s guilty of that in this case, myself included. (A rather blatant example was Jen McCreight (among others) writing what looked to me as an epic slut-shaming piece about Mallorie. She may not have intended to do that, but it really comes across that way. I wonder if Mallorie weren’t as attractive as she is, would the reaction have been the same?) Maybe allow for multiple correct viewpoints and interpretations when you’re talking about a subjective issue? 

It’s less fun, and a lot more work, but ultimately, more constructive.

Or we can continue as we are, and look stupid doing it.

It’s pretty clear that Rebecca wasn’t
speaking to ALL men.  She was speaking to
the (hopefully) smallish group of men who weren’t/aren’t aware that making
advances towards a woman you’ve previously had minimal contact with in an enclosed
and isolated space is a great way to make her feel very uncomfortable.

The fact that you think this includes all
men tells me exactly which group you belong to.

and the fact that you think of women as helpless to handle a pass in an elevator tells me so very, very much about you.

Being an asshole, like you’re demonstrating right now, isn’t helping if you don’t want to be perceived as an asshole.
But I’m sure you’re just one of those cool guys who doesn’t care about what people on the internet think of you… which is why you keep replying to this thread, right?

You realize there are issues with degrees of subjectivity. For example, people can subjectively debate the relative merits of two professional bands and there’s probably no “right” answer there. However, when you look at a band where the players first picked up their instruments yesterday and a band where each player has about 15 years of experience, there is a right answer even though you’re still talking about music, a subject that is well-accepted to have a large subjective component to it.

In this case, sure there are some subjective parts to the issue, but there’s nothing at all subjective about, say, characterization of all people who complain about sexism in the community as “silly assholes” who deserve to be slapped.

Nobody says that she’s not allowed to not be offended by certain behavior, what we’re saying is that she’s not allowed to tell the rest of us that we’re silly assholes who deserve a slap if we think something is wrong with, say, the rape jokes directed at the 15-year-old on Reddit, or the threats Watson has received, or the fact that in some parts of the Internet, that I have a vagina and two X chromosomes completely invalidates anything I want to say, or that when I disagree about anything at all where I currently live with certain people who call themselves “skeptics”, references are made to my menstrual cycle and my argument is completely ignored.

I am not a silly asshole deserving of a slap because I think my arguments should be addressed on their merits, not on whether or not my boobs are pretty, my ass is too big or I’m on the rag. When Melanie addressed all men in the skeptic community and told them not to listen to people who tell them what they’re doing isn’t cool, and went on to say that she’d “like to slap the silly assholes who have given you the idea that you have mistreated me,” she was by extension calling me and everyone else who complains about the sexism that some of us actually do experience silly assholes. Whether or not that was what she meant, that’s what she said. I won’t judge her article on what I think she might have meant when she wrote it (I think she meant to address the men she associates with, but if that’s what she meant,  that’s what she should have written), I judge it on what she actually wrote.

To reiterate: I am not saying that she can’t have a good time in the community. I am not saying that she’s not allowed to enjoy the jokes her friends make. I am not saying she’s not allowed to flirt and enjoy being flirted with. I am saying that she’s not allowed to dictate to the rest of us what we can do, what we should find funny and whether or not we can like flirting under a variety of circumstances. Furthermore, if she characterizes those of us who do have a problem with rape jokes, being literally patted on the head when we say something in a discussion, and having any conversation we’re in revolve more around our appearance or bodily functions than our arguments as silly assholes because we disagree with her point of view or because we’ve experienced things she hasn’t, she is wrong and deserves to be called out for it.

You know that “uncomfortable” and “helpless” aren’t synonyms, right?

Lots of things make me uncomfortable. Lots of things make lots of people uncomfortable. Such is life. But, because I’m uncomfortable about the sound of a quarter rubbing across a formica counter, or the sound of a dull  #2 pencil, I’m not telling everyone on the planet how to behave over it. I’m an arachniphobe of the highest order, even HEARING about the little bastards creeps me out. But I don’t get to tell everyone HEY! STOP TALKING ABOUT, OR LOOKING AT, OR ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF SPIDERS, even though it really creeps me out. Because my needs aren’t, as it turns out, all that important. 

If someone’s deliberately doing something JUST to make me uncomfortable, that’s a different issue, but accidental uncomfortable? What the hell, who am I that everyone must care what makes me uncomfortable? When did I, you, or Watson become that important to anyone. Maybe if we stop assuming everything revolves around us, life gets just a little easier.

 Really? 
Okay, by that logic if I whipped down my pants and started playing with myself in public, it would be totally cool as long as I was doing it because I
was enjoying it and not because I was trying to _intentionally_ make people uncomfortable.

Oh aren’t you precious, you’re using the “EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY THE SAME” game. I’m surprised you didn’t go full stupid on it, with “WHAT IF I RAPE SOMEONE???” So really, not only did you use a stupid analogy, (illegal behavior compared to legal behavior), but you didn’t even have the spine to floor it. If you’re going to go stupid, don’t piss around. 

 Wait… no… that doesn’t seem to be how
society works.

Oh, right. 
If an action is expected to make a large enough portion  of people uncomfortable we recognize
it as inappropriate regardless of whether the uncomfortableness is accidental
or intentional.

 
And of course, you’ve interviewed every woman on the planet who uses elevators, and can show that they all dislike someone approaching them in a polite unthreatening manner in an elevator. Or even a majority.

Oh right, no, you haven’t. Your sole data source is a youtube video, with you and her other fans going REBECCA WATSON IS RIGHT. Of course, that’s what you’re *always* going to say about everything she does or says, so it’s a bit redundant.

See, when you’re saying things like “if an action is expected to make a large enough portion of people uncomfortable…” maybe you should be able to ACTUALLY SHOW THAT beyond the circle jerk response in a pitifully small group on the internet.

But you’re a skeptic you don’t need data or to show your work, all you need is an anecdote from authority, and You Are Right.

 (And yes, I get that people don’t have the
right to never feel uncomfortable and that there are times when actions considered by social norms to be inappropriate must be done… blah blah blah… but being able to hit on woman in enclosed, isolated spaces is not something I
really consider a moral imperative.)

 
I haven’t said it’s a moral imperative. I said discomfort does not require an entire gender to change their behavior especially when said discomfort is not shared by all.

Can’t really reply right here, so I’ll reply to the first one and see first one.

(The reply to this is a comment somewhere in this thread where things were about to go single letter per line on my browser.)

 Of course I don’t think all woman are made uncomfortable by a pass in an
elevator.  That is why I specifically wrote “portion”, not “all”.  Unlike you, I actually listen to the
words woman use and I can see that while many say that they are
uncomfortable in that situation some say that they are not.

And while this opinion is largely limited to the dozens to hundreds of
woman who make up the skeptic websites I regularly visit, this issue is
about an incident that happened at a skeptic conference.  The very same
conference these very same woman who are overwhelmingly expressing this
opinion are going to attend.

While I recognize this level of proof might not stand up in a peer
reviewed journal it would certainly get a lot farther than the
absolutely nothing you are bringing to the table.

(I’m going to have to point out that having twice completely changed key

parts of my argument  in order to make a point does not bode well for
the strength of the argument you are trying to make.  You even seem to
acknowledge that this isn’t the argument I am making but only after
arguing against the argument you admit I am not making.)

Then there’s the part where you use way too many words to claim I was
making a slippery slope argument when in fact I was just re-applying
your “logic” to show you that society does not work the way you were
trying to argue it does (i.e. that making someone uncomfortable is only inappropriate behavior if that was the intent).  The reason I didn’t use rape as my example is
because I wanted a behavior that would make many (but not necessarily all (and trust me, I know a handful of people who would not be uncomfortable with me playing with myself in public)) people uncomfortable.  Rape
doesn’t make people uncomfortable — IT ACTIVELY HARMS THEM AND IS AN
ACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THEIR PERSON.  The fact that you didn’t even
stop for a second to realize that makes me really, really concerned.
 

I am now going to point out the irony of you attacking me for claiming
to know how all woman feel (which I didn’t actually do) and then
claiming that your opinion represents the behavioral choices of the
“ENTIRE [male] gender”.  In fact, I’m so enjoying the irony that I am
going to just copy and paste your own words (with the appropriate
changes).

“And of course, you’ve interviewed every [man] on the planet who uses
elevators, and can show that they all [have to an overwhelming behavioral urge to hit on woman in enclosed, isolated spaces].

Oh
right, no, you haven’t. Your sole data source is [your ass].”

And then there’s that especially terrible part where you try and dismiss
me as some sort of blind Rebecca Watson ideologue.  Dude, I have no
problem saying that I do not like Rebecca Watson.  With the exception of
Steve Novella, I find the entire SGU crew extremely unlikable to the point that I
have failed to make it though any of their podcasts despite a number of
attempts.

The fact that the original point was made by Ms. Watson is irrelevant to me.  I can dislike someone but still respect them enough to recognize when I agree with them.  That you would claim that the only woman saying that the elevator situation makes her uncomfortable is Ms. Watson (in a thread full of examples of other people saying the same thing) worries me.  The fact that you would suddenly include her name in such a DRAMATIC and VITRIOLIC fashion worries me even more.

I don’t have to rely on the authority of some random YouTube video to tell me what makes woman uncomfortable.  I have plenty of woman in my life and after reading through this thread they all agree on one thing:  you’re not very bright.

Re: elevatorgate, I’m not sure why so much focus gets put on the ‘elevator approach’, as if she said that talking to a woman on an elevator is wrong/bad etc. The point is that she’d never spoken to this guy before, and his first attempt at conversation with her was in the elevator (as opposed to in the bar, or wherever) and was an invite back to his hotel room. Rebecca didn’t verily say unto thee ‘no man shall ever approach a woman on an elevator’.

While I don’t happen to view every man as a potential rapist, nor do I fear men in general, there are certain behaviours that tend to be red flags for some women. I’d imagine this depends on previous experience. However, it can be pretty fairly stated that many women will see ‘elevator guy’ as a red flag (regardless of his actual intentions, which of course only he is truly aware of). Rebecca merely pointed this out – hey guys, a lot of women are going to find this creepy. I had a similar thing happen, and I found it weird – guy didn’t speak to me all night, or even acknowledge my presence (and he was with my group of friends all evening), yet as soon as I was away from the crowd, on my own, at the end of the night, he jumped in with a proposition. Sorry, that’s a red flag to me. If a guy behaves that way bc he’s socially awkward, shy etc, then I feel bad for him, bc most women are going to (justifiably, IMHO) think he’s creepy.

Re: Mallorie, the issue seems to be that she mischaracterized the issues that some women in the skeptical community are concerned with… ie: it ain’t dick and pussy jokes 🙂

Agreeing with SphericalBunny – it does happen. Also, the threatening part includes the fact that she didn’t know they guy, and although he’d been in the bar (though not as part of her group), he chose to follow her to the elevator after she’d left the bar and ask her to his room. What is threatening about this? It gives the impression that he’d been watching her, and waiting until she was away from other people. Regardless of his intentions, that is creepy.

As for no threat = no danger, the danger bit can come with no warning at all. I once lent a stranger on the street a lighter (he asked, I handed it over, it was daylight, no apparent threat) and he proceeded to light a cigarette, hand the lighter back, follow me while undoing his pants, grab me, and try to drag me down an alleyway. I fought, broke free, ran into a store and people there called the cops, who were nearby and nabbed him.

So what are people supposed to do about it if you feel offended by something that somebody wrote on the Internet to get a rise out of you?

That’s exactly what it is, Brian. Unnecessary demonization of men. If you’re a man, you’re a sexist/rape apologist/misogyinst. If you’re a woman, you’re ignorant/ support misogyny/a gender traitor.

http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/2012/01/gender-traitor-theory-in-action.html

Does it really need to get this low? For what?For what really? This is Joseph McCarthyism now.