Blog Wars - The Elevatorgate saga

[mr friendly guy]

Episode I : The Phantom Rapist

A long time ago, (well only in June 2011) in a place far far away, (yeah in Dublin, Ireland). A bunch of people attended a convention for those people who don't believe in God. What are they called again? Those people who are more likely to be a huge asshole about it to everyone around them. Oh yeah atheists.

Now there was this girl. And there was this boy. This girl gave a speech, then had some drinks and then took an elevator to her room. In that elevator she encountered this boy. He asked her if she wanted some coffee at his room. She declined. He got out and she got out. Totally boring story right? I mean, where is the conflict from this situation? But since this is fiction, we can um, sex things up a bit. Er I mean spice things up a bit. No I mean we can change this from a simple situation into all out Bold and the Beautiful style conflict among atheists. Right, we need to generate conflict. Ok muses the writer of the story which shall be named Elevatorgate, how can I do this? Oh I know. I will have the girl go on youtube portraying this boy as kind of creepy and watch the shitstorm ensure.

But first, we need to give these characters names. Lets call the girl, Skepchick. Cool name right? We will give her a real name as well as the handle she uses on the internet. Lets call her Rebecca Watson. Now what shall we call this boy? Well he doesn't need a name, but for now lets call him ... Elevator Guy. It will be clear later on why he doesn't really need a name, because he can be anyone as required for the purposes of propaganda plot. Heck, he doesn't even need to be a real person.

Still sounds like bad fiction right? Maybe in the vein of Graham Kennedy's Portal, or Stardestroyer's Day Out. Or that trilogy with sparkling vampires. Unfortunately Elevatorgate is all too real, and the conflict has is threatening to restart in this far corner of the internet, on the isolated Rim on a system known as SD.net. Already the conflict has infested us here and earlier here

Now curious denizens of SD.net might ask, so what is big freaking message that started the whole saga. Well its this. (The relevant parts after 4 minutes)

The response at the conference itself was wonderful, um, there were a ton of great feminists there, male and female, and also just open-minded people who had maybe never considered the, um, the way that women are treated in this community, but were interested in learning more. So, thank you to everyone who was at that conference who, uh, engaged in those discussions outside of that panel, um, you were all fantastic; I loved talking to you guys—um, all of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because at the bar later that night, actually at four in the morning, we were at the hotel bar. Four a.m., I said I’d had enough, I was going to bed. So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?’ Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and – don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Shortly after her video, the first phase of what is now known as a shitstorm began. Historians will later note this is the prelude to what would be known as the Blog Wars.
First Watson began receiving disgusting messages from people threatening to grope her, some even threatening rape. Of course if those people had class they might have used the phrase "I am going to ask you to have some coffee", which is rather innocuous,not a threat and mocks her video nicely. The actions the above people are indefensible even if a lot of them are merely trolls trying to get a rise out of her and not really a threat (as evidenced by the fact that none of these threats materialised). However Watson also received some more legitimate criticism, from butthurt misogynistic men who sort of wondered where is the harm. One early example of legitimate criticism is from a university studentSith Disciple by the name of Stef McGraw.
This Sith apprentice would do something dastardly, like saying the following

It’s possible the man actually just wanted to talk and do nothing more, but I’ll even give that point to her; I obviously wasn’t there, and don’t know what sort of vibes he was giving off. Fair enough. My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

[MFG's note - the original link to this dastardly riposte is dead, so I will link to another blog which reproduced the relevant section of McGraw's reply
At this point my observant readers would note, the guy asked her for coffee. He likely wanted more, but that's about it. This little detail in the plot would be very relevant shortly. Going on..
Such a challenge by the upstart Sith lackey could not go unchallenged by the glorious Feminist Republic, so here was Watson’s counterstrike. It occurred when she was due to give a speech about the religious right vs every women. Oh, did I mention for extra military value, she struck while McGraw was in the crowd? Many of the enemy fell that day.


MFG's notes - at around 10.48 Watson states that a guy should proposition a women and around 12:23 she calls out Stef Mcgraw.

"This is, unfortunately, a pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought."

You see, according to Feminism as espoused by Watson and co, if you disagree with her then you have clearly been influenced by the Dark side of the Force power of misogyny.

Just in case you didn’t get it the first time, she repeated it on her blog.

I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”

Stef Mcgraw didn't have a problem discussing Watson's argument, she did however had a problem with the manner in which Watson did it. Putting it up on a keynote speech which was not about SEXISM AMONG ATHEISTS and because the format did not afford her a right to reply.
Any claims by Watson's supporters that she only said "guys don't do that" and didn't escalate the shitstorm disappears the moment she not only attacked a legitimate criticism when she was a keynote speaker on a topic UNRELATED to Elevatorgate, but then followed up with her blog post. One also has to wonder that despite talking about misogyny in the atheist and sceptic community prior to Elevatorgate, she only managed to give up hard evidence after she stirred the pot and got the trolls to come out. That doesn't mean the potential wasn't there in these communities, but it does put things in perspective on how bad it was. After all, if a man asking a woman out for coffee is considered an example of misogyny by Watson, then what other interactions does she consider misogynistic? And is perhaps the standards she holds is so different from people who aren't rabid feminists, that no wonder other people wonder just what the fuss is about. With this in mind, here is where the next twist of this tale starts.

Episode II : Attack of the Extremists

Thus did the shitstorm begin anew. Arguments got heated on the blogosphere. Now we just need to put more oil onto the fire. What we need is a privilege white heterosexual male. Enter Chancellor Palpatine Richard Dawkins

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Yes. The shitstorm is brewing. Now I just need some atheists to start going after Dawkins and we have an atheist civil war. Just what the Creationists world needs.

Richard Dawkins your privilege is showing

Frankly, this is disappointing for a number of reasons. One, because it was so refreshing to read PZ’s post and knowing a guy out there "gets it." Two, because you’re kind of an idol of mine, and it makes me want to cry a little when you live up to the stereotype of a well-off, 70 year old, white, British, ivory tower academic. But let me spell it out for you instead of just getting mad (though I’ll do that too):

Words matter. You don’t get that because you’ve never been called a c*nt, a fa**ot, a ni**er, a k*ke. You don’t have people constantly explaining that you’re subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal. You don’t have people saying you shouldn’t have rights. You don’t have people constantly sexually harassing you. You don’t live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road.

You don’t, because you have fucking privilege.

MFG's note - some really offensive words have been edited, but its obvious what were, and you can look at the original blog post to see for yourself.

Note to self - Richard Dawkins has never been called a c*nt, a fa**ot, a ni**er or a k*ke. Unfortunately he kind has received death threats, which is kind of pretty bad as well, if not worse. His privilege totally makes him insensitive to the plight of women. That's why he has never ever criticised Muslims for their treatment of women... oh wait.

Ok so the rabid feminists supporters of Skepchick , could come up with this criticism

I’m guessing that Richard Dawkins (if this was truly him) has never lived in an environment where larger, stronger men are constantly offering him chewing gum, and getting aggressive and even violent if he declines. The uncomfortable reality is that we live in a society where sexual harassment and sexual violence against women is accepted and condoned to a far greater extent than any remotely comparable violence against men. Men who fail to grasp this and act as if women are being unreasonable to fear it are just flaunting their own ignorance.

Hmmm. Oh damn it. He totally destroyed Dawkins with that one. Well he totally destroyed Dawkins if we ignore the fact that Dawkins has received death threats. Oh, and before some idiot tries to downplay the death threats to Dawkins, I should point out Watson supporters are complaining about the threats she had from dickheads threatening to rape, grope etc her. You can't suddenly say its bad when these threats are to her, and then not so bad when they are against Dawkins. Unless you want to accuse Dawkins of being "privileged" of course. Yeah that would totally work.

Ok, I got this. How about This one.

Let’s be clear. Sexual assaults and other bad things happen on elevators. Dawkins is wrong, and his assertion is not one of fact, but rather, of backpedaling. He can’t possibly think that a) a woman can just decide to walk away from a sexual assault or b) that if a woman is in fact made to feel uncomfortable in a given situation that she should keep quiet about it, and if she does not, that she should be told to shut up about it.

Most of the voices telling Rebecca Watson to quiet down and get a grip on herself are coming from, I think, men who just don’t want there to be a rule that says that they must modulate their behavior in connection to the idea that a very large number of women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime, and that the vast majority of sexual assault comes from men, and that the world is full of Demonic Males.

At this point observant readers might realise that, um even by Watson's own account, the guy didn't sexually assault her. He asked for for coffee. A smart reader might point out this kind of makes Laden’s criticism like a man drawing a very long bow.

Watson of course, herself got into the act, trying to dismiss Dawkin's point as privilege and saying she will boycott his books.
I am sure Richard Dawkins is now cowering in a room with his white privilege, in the company of his wife crying his eyes out that Skepchick and her like minded ilk are no longer buying his products. After he shrugged off those death threats. Yeah, she totally showed him.

But it gets better. You see, when I read Dawkins statement, I didn't think he was saying that just because Muslim women experienced greater problems that we should ignore problems closer to home (as people alleged), I think he was saying that Watson's so called problem, wasn't a problem. So Dawkins clarified even further just in case people failed to get it the first time.

Did you just make the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home?”

No I wasn’t making that argument. Here’s the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.

If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics’ privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn’t physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings. The equivalent would be if PZ had nailed not a cracker but a Catholic. Then they’d have had good reason to complain.

Richard

Just in case we didn't get it the first and second time

Many people seem to think it obvious that my post was wrong and I should apologise. Very few people have bothered to explain exactly why. The nearest approach I have heard goes something like this.

I sarcastically compared Rebecca’s plight with that of women in Muslim countries or families dominated by Muslim men. Somebody made the worthwhile point (reiterated here by PZ) that it is no defence of something slightly bad to point to something worse. We should fight all bad things, the slightly bad as well as the very bad. Fair enough. But my point is that the ‘slightly bad thing’ suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story.

But not everybody sees it as end of story. OK, let’s ask why not? The main reason seems to be that an elevator is a confined space from which there is no escape. This point has been made again and again in this thread, and the other one.

No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here’s how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.

No, I obviously don’t get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.

Richard

Now here comes the interesting part. Astute readers might have realised that Watson's original complaint was that the guy made her uncomfortable. Dawkin's response was that this is "zero bad." So how come all these people are accusing Richard Dawkins of ignoring the plight of women being raped. Watson herself gets in on the act.

So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.

You see, this is why Elevator guy doesn't get a name. He can be whatever the plot dictates, er I mean whatever Watson and co want him to be. First he was just that creepy guy in the elevator. Now he is a potential rapist. Thus when Dawkins dismiss the concerns of the former (which was Watson's original complaint), we just pretend he is also dismissing the concerns of the latter (which occurred after Dawkins had spoken). Somewhere between Watson's original video and her subsequent blog posts, Elevator Guy got transformed into a supervillain. Skepchick’s supporter Greg Laden explains it here

Chances are that Elevator Guy was just a socially ignorant slightly drunk dweeb of no consequence.
Or not. And it is the "or not" part that a woman MUST pay attention to in order to live her life as long as she can before her first sexual assault, or to increase the amount of time spent between her last sexual assault and her next one, or to make the next sexual assault hopefully non-fatal or something that she can get out of quickly or minimize in some way. Because very few women get away without something happening in their lifetime.

[MFG’s notes – if you read the article, he uses an unfortunate analogy of how he is afraid of a lot of dogs, and how some women are afraid of a lot of men. I am going to have fun with later on]
Now I found out this type of Force transformation technique is known as Schrodinger’s rapist.

Schrodinger was a physicist who supposedly did his best work after making love to women, but I never knew his relationship was non consensual. Oh hang on a minute. Schrodinger's rapist is supposed to be a clever play on the words from the thought experiment known as Schrodinger's cat, where he asks a question is the cat alive or dead under a certain condition.

Schrodinger's rapist is described here. In short any man can be a potential rapist.

Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

[…] When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

[…] To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%.

This article was also posted in a previous thread where Elevatorgate keeps on coming up.

Sounds fair enough. Unfortunately when you are allowed to label anyone you meet as a potential <insert bad thing here>, coupled with the ability to "set your own risk tolerance", you can run into some problems. For example any incident can be blown up into a full scale war, a behaviour you don’t like can be interpreted as sinister etc.
Schrodinger’s rapist could be counteracted with the hypothetical known as Schrodinger’s black mugger. Sounds offensive right. You better believe it.



Was the woman racist for unconsciously stepping to the side or holding her hand bag tighter when a black man steps into the elevator? Can I do the same thing. I mean if a black man steps into the elevator with me and starts trying to strike up a conversation like "buddy, do you have money for some cigarettes," and nothing happens after i say no. How should I respond afterwards? * Maybe make a youtube video telling about my holiday and then giving a words of wisdom to black men, don't talk to me when we are in a confined space. Remember, I get to "set my own risk tolerance."
So would I be unreasonable tell a black man getting an elevator with me who subsequently tries to start up a conversation with me as "buddy, don't do that," on the grounds that I am scared of black people.* I mean with the elevator its a confined space, I can't get out if this black man decides to assault me. By talking to me its a sign that I've drawn his attention somehow, which may or may not lead to something serious. Offended yet people? You should be. Because its meant to show the blatant hypocrisy and special pleading here. Sure you can say most black people don't commit crimes, just like most men aren't rapists. But remember, people must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. With that type of leeway, I can justify anything.

Surely Skepchick supporters would be defending how its totally ok and not racist whatsoever for me to apply the same standards here. Maybe Greg Laden would start comparing people to dogs, and say that he is afraid of some dogs, MFG is afraid of some black people. See the analogy. Oh how clever.
Sure the statistics show not all black men are violent criminals. Just like not all men are rapists. But I "get to set my own risk tolerance. If anyone accepted this type of pseudo intellectual argument I would strongly suspect they are racist as well as stupid. Yet why is this type of special pleading allowed for Watson and her supporters?
Now before some apologist tries saying, well men are stronger than women so its more of a risk. If you are going down this route then I can just revise the scenario and say the black man who got into the elevator was 6 foot tall and worked out. He has got several inches on me and much more mass. Totally justified to being a racist douchebag right? Or maybe just admit no matter how you spin the Schodinger's rapist scenario, it gets demolished when you realise a racist can't use the racial equivalent scenario, without being labelled over reactionary.
But we all know Watson supporters will hand wave this away. Somehow. Maybe accusing me of being a misogynist. Or how about white heterosexual male privilege. You at least get 2 out of 3 right.

* I am not really scared of black people, its just to illustrate a point

Episode III : Revenge of the white heterosexual males

One of the consequences of this debacle was a blog war among some of the "heavy hitters" of the atheist bloggosphere. Those people with thousands of hits. The Blog War was characterised by numerous feuds which made WWE like a bunch of preschoolers. Both sides engaged in intellectual combat which could only end one way.

PZ Meyers who for years was one of the stalwarts of evolution against crazy Creationist took Watson's side. He engaged in blogwars against the likes of Russell Blackford, Abbie Smith (aka ERV) a virologist who hosted her own science blog and Franc Hoggle.

Now I am going to be upfront and say that besides PZ Meyers and Abbie Smith I have not heard of these other people. Which goes to show how much I give a shit about the blogosphere.
Skepchick's call for jihad er I mean letter writing against Richard Dawkins resulted in people writing letters addressed to him beginning with "Dear Dick."
Now when I was a kid I thought how Dick being a short form for Richard with all the sexual connotations was the height of comedy. Ironic considering I liked the acting of various actors with the name of Dick, like Dick Yorke and Dick Sargeant. There was also Dick Van Dyke. Now that Dick joke isn’t amusing anymore. Still I could see the obvious attempt at trying to be insulting.

So could others as well. Abbie Smith decided to call Rebeca Watson "Twatson", a portmanteau of Skepchick's sir name and the word twat. Of course I am not above calling someone a twat, meaning a foolish or despicable person. It has of course a second meaning, that being slang term for vagina, which was undoubtedly Smith's intention.

Yup! I used the word ‘Twatson’. A very mild political jab in response to ‘Dear Dick’.

http://kazez.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/fe ... 2684487461

Abbie Smith then had a feud with Ophelia Benson.

By now the blogged war had been picked up by the mainstream media.

Washington Times and The Guardian.

Then came the final days of the war. If you thought this was bad already, well you weren't there. You never saw what was born. But if the time lock's sanity gets broken then everything is coming through. Not just the Feminists, but the Amazing Atheist, Thunderf00t, Mr Deity and his army of satirists. The war turned into hell! And that's what you’ve opened. Right above SD.net. Hell is descending.





Now this soap opera would not be complete without some type of twist before the final act. Wouldn't it be such a predictable plot twist if the person complaining about being sexualised engaged in activity which kind of um, sexualised women. But alas real life isn't like a day time soap opera. Or is it?

Looking for Nude Skeptics?

Rebecca Watson October 26, 2010


Of course you are. OF COURSE YOU ARE, pervert.

We here at Skepchick haven’t been in the pin-up game for awhile now, but that doesn’t mean we don’t support those who are still snapping sexy pics of themselves for a good cause.

To fund Skepticon, the annual free atheist-y conference in the heart of the Bible belt, the Missouri State students are selling both sexy lady and sexy dude calendars for $14.99 each or both for $27.98. And man, are they sexy. (See right.)

Want something you might be able to give your mother without embarrassment? I’d be remiss if I didn’t also mention the slightly less naked but still awesome Geek Calendar, starring Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, Gia Milinovich, Brian Cox, and other proud British geeks. They’re £11.75 each with all proceeds benefitting the Libel Reform campaign. Go buy that one, too!

So that’s Christmas solved for you.

It gets better. How about this? Or the following.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK

Youtube videos of her calendar.
Or how about this semi risque pics.
For someone who just sexualised herself and other women, she then has the cheek to say “makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.” No doubt they will say they use a different definition of sexualise besides the usual one of make sexual, endow with sex, attribute sex to.

Conclusion
When I first heard the story it was mentioned on a youtube video without context. Then I found out Richard Dawkins dismissed her complaint. How could he dismissed a serious threat as merely a guy asking for coffee. Then I found out. He really did ask her go have coffee. Nothing more.

In summary here is the story of a lady with a textbook first world problem. She complained about it on a youtube video and got varied responses. From idiots who should be condemned. And from sane people with legitimate criticism. Unfortunately she treated both in the same manner, that is all of them were misogynist or influenced by the powers of misogyny. When she couldn't win against those people who actually had good points, she resorted to crying about white privilege. Or more specifically the privilege inherent in being a white heterosexual male.

She did demonstrate one things though. White privilege is alive and well. Only white privilege could allow a white female blogger who is unknown outside of the atheist and sceptic communities, to wield the ability to convince women, men who are supposedly sceptic, and the mainstream media to label a well respected scientist a misogynist, despite the fact that he was not afraid to criticise the appalling treatment of women by religion. All the while she engaged in blatant double standards on her own conduct. If the Chinese Communist Party wanted this much influence in Western nations, they would have to expend millions of dollars for it. White privilege is definitely alive and well, but in this case we were looking for it in the wrong place.

As for Dawkins. During that same year he realised another book The Magic of Reality. Here what happened to it on best seller list.

[Kitsune]

I am on the SGU forum. . . .If I never hear about elevator gate again, it will be too soon

[mr friendly guy]

Hey, elevatorgate has invaded our little corner of the internet. I figured I better put it out there.

[Eleas]

I will have the girl go on youtube portraying this boy as kind of creepy and watch the shitstorm ensure.

Yeah, because fuck forbid someone go on the Internet to speak her goddamn mind about being put in a position that statistically leaves her exposed and vulnerable for no good reason other than the man being oblivious about how convention rapes tend to start.

Still sounds like bad fiction right?

No, you mostly sound like a smarmy motherfucker out trolling for sympathy.

Now curious denizens of SD.net might ask, so what is big freaking message that started the whole saga. Well its this. (The relevant parts after 4 minutes)

You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and – don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Which is a fair thing to say, because if you want to signal interest in someone, maybe you shouldn't wait until after the end of a speech in which she professess her dislike of being put in awkward situations and then place yourself with her in a situation that isolates you and her alone before you hit on her.

Shortly after her video, the first phase of what is now known as a shitstorm began.

Which, you know, totally her fault. How dare she use the dread word "creepy"? People (and you, apparently) might get hurt in their amygdala.

Of course if those people had class they might have used the phrase "I am going to ask you to have some coffee", which is rather innocuous,not a threat and mocks her video nicely.

Wow, you're not at all incredibly privileged. It's not as if such a thing is contextual at all, after all, and it's obviously really necessary to mock her video for saying she feels creeped out when someone contrives to place himself alone with her in a setting that renders her unable to escape. COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE AND HORRIFIC.

This Sith apprentice would do something dastardly, like saying the following

It’s possible the man actually just wanted to talk and do nothing more, but I’ll even give that point to her; I obviously wasn’t there, and don’t know what sort of vibes he was giving off. Fair enough. My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”

Proving that he doesn't understand the issue any more than you. He thinks that the man showing interest was a problem. It was obviously not, but you both appear to find it a convenient strawman.

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

Watson is not. You just pretend she is, because that's an interpretation that makes her come across as unreasonable, allowing you to dismiss the very real point she's making. The fact that you can be a condescending asshat in doing so seems to be a bonus achievement.

At this point my observant readers would note, the guy asked her for coffee. He likely wanted more, but that's about it. This little detail in the plot would be very relevant shortly.

No, it would not.

You see, according to Feminism as espoused by Watson and co, if you disagree with her then you have clearly been influenced by the Dark side of the Force power of misogyny.

Whereas it would clearly be far beyond you to ever hint of attributing ludicrous interpretations to feminist concerns, or referring to some overarching and nebulous agenda. That sort of thing is clearly above you.

Just in case you didn’t get it the first time, she repeated it on her blog.

...and yet you still managed to misinterpret her actual fucking meaning. You're right, it really is sort of impressive. By saying,

But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the “object” in question.

, it is obvious to all except the clinically brain dead that Skepchick is referring to the fact that if this man was interested in her valid opinion on an equal basis, he would not have isolated himself with her and prevented her retreat. He, in short, demonstrated a disinterest in how his actions would affect her, because he wanted to have sex with her.

Any claims by Watson's supporters that she only said "guys don't do that" and didn't escalate the shitstorm disappears the moment she not only attacked a legitimate criticism when she was a keynote speaker on a topic UNRELATED to Elevatorgate, but then followed up with her blog post. One also has to wonder that despite talking about misogyny in the atheist and sceptic community prior to Elevatorgate, she only managed to give up hard evidence after she stirred the pot and got the trolls to come out. That doesn't mean the potential wasn't there in these communities, but it does put things in perspective on how bad it was. After all, if a man asking a woman out for coffee is considered an example of misogyny by Watson,

Ah, I see. You're deliberately being a troll. There's not a whole lot of other interpretations that would explain your conscious and deliberate twisting of the situation. The asking out for coffee is not an issue here, and you god damn well know it.

Note to self - Richard Dawkins has never been called a c*nt, a fa**ot, a ni**er or a k*ke. Unfortunately he kind has received death threats, which is kind of pretty bad as well, if not worse. His privilege totally makes him insensitive to the plight of women. That's why he has never ever criticised Muslims for their treatment of women... oh wait.

Ah, fresh evidence of the fact that you have no fucking clue what privilege is. By now it was superfluous, but still it's illuminating. Dawkins faces death threats, yes, but that is not a result of structural opposition in the way that being casually called a cunt, faggot, nigger or kike is. Criticizing Muslims for their treatment of women while remaining a staunch misogynist is, furthermore, not difficult; national socialists and right-wing scum do it all the time, and they're among the most virulent anti-women movements in existence. But even beyond that, what Dawkins did was absolutely a fuckup of epic proportions. It's a classic minimizing tactic from those in power: "look at this other random person in a far worse situation! They're oppressed! You don't face the exact same situation, so you're obviously not impressed! Stop whining!" Of course, Dawkins used much more condescending language, but it did boil down to "you don't fulfill my fantasy about proper levels of suffering, so you should shut the fuck up."

Ok so the rabid feminists supporters of Skepchick

...you know what? Fuck you. Even reading this misogynistic tripe is demeaning to sapience. You have no cause other than your own desperate outrage. Instead of inflicting more of your sexual resentment on SDnet, I recommend you join an MRA group and just get it the fuck over and done with.

[Crazedwraith]

Not followed this at all since the initial thread we had on it way back when. And I wasn't even paying much attention then. Yeahm responding to someone criticisms of you in an unrelated forum where they can't answer back is a bit of a dick move.

On the other hand parading those nsfw images around proclaiming they undermine her point is just bullshit. Because they is totally no difference between sexualising oneself in voluntarily on one's own terms and being sexualised by other people against your will in a time and place that makes you uncomfortable right?

[Losonti Tokash]

Hey MFG, thanks for doing a public service and outing yourself (again) as a gigantic piece of shit.

[Wild Zontargs]

If anyone's interested, here's a board originally created for Abbie Smith and various commenters and bloggers who were hounded off ScienceBlogs and FreeThoughtBlogs for having different opinions than PZ, Laden, Watson et al. They've got archived threads dating back to the original incident. Now, it's a combination of joking around and snarky commentary on self-styled "social justice warriors". For those who are concerned about such things, consider it "Trigger Warning: EVERYTHING." They're more vulgar than SDnet in the Old Days.

[mr friendly guy]

I will have the girl go on youtube portraying this boy as kind of creepy and watch the shitstorm ensure.

Yeah, because fuck forbid someone go on the Internet to speak her goddamn mind about being put in a position that statistically leaves her exposed and vulnerable for no good reason other than the man being oblivious about how convention rapes tend to start.

Because I totally forbid her to speak her mind with the power of... oh wait I didn't. Fuck forbid someone to go the internet and speak their goddamn mind about an over reaction. Oh wait its ok for your side to speak their minds, but when the other side does it... good god you would think we are committing a war crime here.

Going on if you are going to play the statistics card, most rapes occur by people the victim knows, not total strangers. But that would be kind of missing the point with the Schrodinger's black mugger scenario. When you can automatically suppose everyone you meet as a "possible threat" and define "your tolerance level", then any event no matter how innocuous or innocent can be portrayed as something sinister.

Still sounds like bad fiction right?

No, you mostly sound like a smarmy motherfucker out trolling for sympathy.

Did I hit a nerve there? Good.

Which is a fair thing to say, because if you want to signal interest in someone, maybe you shouldn't wait until after the end of a speech in which she professess her dislike of being put in awkward situations and then place yourself with her in a situation that isolates you and her alone before you hit on her.

Being asked out by someone you don't want to go out with is awkward. Who knew?

Shortly after her video, the first phase of what is now known as a shitstorm began.

Which, you know, totally her fault. How dare she use the dread word "creepy"? People (and you, apparently) might get hurt in their amygdala.

Lets channel you for a moment. Its not about her use of the word creepy. Its the fact that under such criteria anything no matter how innocent or innocuous could be labelled sinister.

Of course if those people had class they might have used the phrase "I am going to ask you to have some coffee", which is rather innocuous,not a threat and mocks her video nicely.

Wow, you're not at all incredibly privileged. It's not as if such a thing is contextual at all, after all, and it's obviously really necessary to mock her video for saying she feels creeped out when someone contrives to place himself alone with her in a setting that renders her unable to escape. COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE AND HORRIFIC.

You mean like how its really necessary for her side to turn (assuming Elevator guy is a real person) from some awkward person into a potential rapist. Totally reasonable right? Especially when nothing happened, and she escaped the impossible to escape elevator.

It’s possible the man actually just wanted to talk and do nothing more, but I’ll even give that point to her; I obviously wasn’t there, and don’t know what sort of vibes he was giving off. Fair enough. My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”

Proving that he doesn't understand the issue any more than you. He thinks that the man showing interest was a problem. It was obviously not, but you both appear to find it a convenient strawman.[/quote]


Here are the issues you missed. Turning a molehill into a mountain. Pretending all who disagree with her are automatically misogynists. Oh and also potential rape apologists as well.

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

Watson is not. You just pretend she is, because that's an interpretation that makes her come across as unreasonable, allowing you to dismiss the very real point she's making. The fact that you can be a condescending asshat in doing so seems to be a bonus achievement.

You know if you are going to quote me, at least have the good grace to use the quote function properly because it was from the blogger Stef McGraw. Going on, here we go again with the real point. She was in an unescapable escalator which she didn't even need to escape from because there was no assault. He could have really been a real rapist, except he wasn't. He ignored what she said, except obviously he left when she said no.

You of course ignore Watson's conduct in this affair. People who disagreed with her are automatically misogynist or apologist for rape.

At this point my observant readers would note, the guy asked her for coffee. He likely wanted more, but that's about it. This little detail in the plot would be very relevant shortly.

No, it would not.

Oh I am afraid it will.

You see, according to Feminism as espoused by Watson and co, if you disagree with her then you have clearly been influenced by the Dark side of the Force power of misogyny.

Whereas it would clearly be far beyond you to ever hint of attributing ludicrous interpretations to feminist concerns, or referring to some overarching and nebulous agenda. That sort of thing is clearly above you.

My statement is based on a fucking video of Watson herself calling someone who disagreed with her a misogynist and her own blog saying so. What is your evidence for your contention. Oh I know. You will just say "I don't get it" in lieu of an real argument.

Just in case you didn’t get it the first time, she repeated it on her blog.

...and yet you still managed to misinterpret her actual fucking meaning. You're right, it really is sort of impressive. By saying,

But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the “object” in question.

, it is obvious to all except the clinically brain dead that Skepchick is referring to the fact that if this man was interested in her valid opinion on an equal basis, he would not have isolated himself with her and prevented her retreat. He, in short, demonstrated a disinterest in how his actions would affect her, because he wanted to have sex with her.

I am sorry prevented her retreat? Are you fucking smoking crack, because I want some. He really prevented her retreat because you know, when she presumably said no, nothing happened. My god this fucking strawman gets bigger each time.

You demonstrate so well what is wrong with this idiocy. The story gets taller with each telling. Now he prevented her retreat? This is one of the points and I was pretty explicit about it, but I see your microcephalic brain missed it. So lets reiterate. One of the problems is that when she has the criteria (as seen above) anyone and anything can suddenly be portrayed in a sinister light. Don't agree with her, well you are a misogynist and a rape apologist.

Any claims by Watson's supporters that she only said "guys don't do that" and didn't escalate the shitstorm disappears the moment she not only attacked a legitimate criticism when she was a keynote speaker on a topic UNRELATED to Elevatorgate, but then followed up with her blog post. One also has to wonder that despite talking about misogyny in the atheist and sceptic community prior to Elevatorgate, she only managed to give up hard evidence after she stirred the pot and got the trolls to come out. That doesn't mean the potential wasn't there in these communities, but it does put things in perspective on how bad it was. After all, if a man asking a woman out for coffee is considered an example of misogyny by Watson,

Ah, I see. You're deliberately being a troll. There's not a whole lot of other interpretations that would explain your conscious and deliberate twisting of the situation. The asking out for coffee is not an issue here, and you god damn well know it.

I guess all those people who wondered what the fuck was this about are being trolls too. Because I am pretty sure I didn't say asking for coffee was the issue. It was how any situation could be twisted to be something sinister even when the evidence showed... nothing bad happened. Any one else who asked what is the big deal, were suddenly misogynists, rape apologists and now trolls too.

Ah, fresh evidence of the fact that you have no fucking clue what privilege is.

Ah, fresh evidence of the fact you don't know what an ad hominem is why its fallacious. Privilege might explain why someone thinks the way they do, it doesn't explain why they are wrong.

By now it was superfluous, but still it's illuminating. Dawkins faces death threats, yes, but that is not a result of structural opposition in the way that being casually called a cunt, faggot, nigger or kike is. Criticizing Muslims for their treatment of women while remaining a staunch misogynist is, furthermore, not difficult; national socialists and right-wing scum do it all the time, and they're among the most virulent anti-women movements in existence. But even beyond that, what Dawkins did was absolutely a fuckup of epic proportions. It's a classic minimizing tactic from those in power: "look at this other random person in a far worse situation! They're oppressed! You don't face the exact same situation, so you're obviously not impressed! Stop whining!" Of course, Dawkins used much more condescending language, but it did boil down to "you don't fulfill my fantasy about proper levels of suffering, so you should shut the fuck up."

Ah atheists face no structural opposition. Thanks for enlightening me on that. But going on, you're doing it again. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Suffering? Good grief.

I am sorry if she was in an awkward moment for like what... the time it took the elevator to reach her floor. But don't you think labelling a guy who did jack to her as a potential rapist and anyone who disagrees with her as misogynist an... I don't know an over reaction. Oh of course not. Because I am now a misogynist even with my posting history. Keep digging that hole genius.

you know what? Fuck you. Even reading this misogynistic tripe is demeaning to sapience. You have no cause other than your own desperate outrage. Instead of inflicting more of your sexual resentment on SDnet, I recommend you join an MRA group and just get it the fuck over and done with.

Ha ha ha ha. If you think this is about feeling sorry because Elevator guy didn't get laid, as opposed to how some guy got turned into a potential rapist and everyone who disagreed with her into a misogynist you are sadly mistaken, and how an intellectual can be turned with the right PC brigade mentality into a misogynist... yeah keep thinking that. I am sure it makes you feel better.

[mr friendly guy]

Not followed this at all since the initial thread we had on it way back when. And I wasn't even paying much attention then. Yeahm responding to someone criticisms of you in an unrelated forum where they can't answer back is a bit of a dick move.

On the other hand parading those nsfw images around proclaiming they undermine her point is just bullshit. Because they is totally no difference between sexualising oneself in voluntarily on one's own terms and being sexualised by other people against your will in a time and place that makes you uncomfortable right?

1. I felt the topic deserved its own thread. I have also PM one person who was interested. Especially since those who were criticising Dawkins ended up here where I can at least point out why I think Dawkins was unfairly treated.

2. Oh. Unless you are using a definition of sexualisation which isn't the usual meaning of "making one sexy" its a bit of a reach.

[mr friendly guy]

Hey MFG, thanks for doing a public service and outing yourself (again) as a gigantic piece of shit.

Oh look the little chicken shit who called Dawkins Dorkins. My aren't we clever? Maybe you could actually refute the points made. You know like how NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED yet somehow this gets blown up so much that it causes a civil war among the so called atheist movement.

Although I am not sure why I outed myself again. The first time must have been a debate when you were too chicken shit to step in because I kind of don't remember you.

[Scrib]

I am on the SGU forum. . . .If I never hear about elevator gate again, it will be too soon

I thought we were done with Elevatorgate and on to Krauss (I think)/Shermer-gate. For those who don't know, they were accused by a "friend" of PZ's of sexual assault,Shermer with vague language like "put me in a position where I couldn't consent" and PZ put it on his blog .Cue shitstorm because unproven-accusations-of-sexual-assault followed by the shitstorm aimed at the people who started the previous shitstorm because victims. Still not sure how it ended really. Perhaps with PZ getting sued.

I mean, I have no problem believing that Skepchick and her Atheism+ people are insular, often abrasive and group-think-prone but this seems to have been the least of their crimes.

[mr friendly guy]

I am on the SGU forum. . . .If I never hear about elevator gate again, it will be too soon

I thought we were done with Elevatorgate and on to Krauss (I think)/Shermer-gate. For those who don't know, they were accused by a friend of PZ's of sexual assault,Shermer with vague language like "put me in a position where I couldn't consent" and PZ put it on his blog .Cue shitstorm. Still not sure how it ended really. Perhaps with PZ getting sued.

I mean, I have no problem believing that Skepchick and her Atheism+ people are insular, often abrasive and group-think-prone but this seems to have been the least of their crimes.

That's kind of the problem with this. If Krauss and Shermer did this they should be prosecuted, given a fair trial then punishment to fit the crime. However this thing gets mentioned on a blog, no evidence and its ok.

Can people not see how this character assassination is bad, unfair. Coupled with anyone who disagrees with them are automatically a misogynist.

[Wild Zontargs]

That's kind of the problem with this. If Krauss and Shermer did this they should be prosecuted, given a fair trial then punishment to fit the crime. However this thing gets mentioned on a blog, no evidence and its ok.

Can people not see how this character assassination is bad, unfair. Coupled with anyone who disagrees with them are automatically a misogynist.

B-b-but name and shame! Going to the police would re-victimize the victims! And their institutionalized privilege would ensure that they get off anyway! Stop victim-blaming, you privileged fuck! [No, really. That's the reaction pointing this out gets with those people.]

[mr friendly guy]

That's kind of the problem with this. If Krauss and Shermer did this they should be prosecuted, given a fair trial then punishment to fit the crime. However this thing gets mentioned on a blog, no evidence and its ok.

Can people not see how this character assassination is bad, unfair. Coupled with anyone who disagrees with them are automatically a misogynist.

B-b-but name and shame! Going to the police would re-victimize the victims! And their institutionalized privilege would ensure that they get off anyway! Stop victim-blaming, you privileged fuck! [No, really. That's the reaction pointing this out gets with those people.]

That type of thinking has spread here. Anyone who argued with me in the last few months can see what I think of rapists - just see the India to execute rapists thread. But apparently when you can't dismiss their argument, just call them a misogynist, straight out of Skepchick's playbook. Or better yet say that I am a misogynist only 50% of the time or some other bullshit. That way they can explain why I took a view that contradicts their claim but still hold a view that disagrees with them.

[Scrib]

That's kind of the problem with this. If Krauss and Shermer did this they should be prosecuted, given a fair trial then punishment to fit the crime. However this thing gets mentioned on a blog, no evidence and its ok.

Can people not see how this character assassination is bad, unfair. Coupled with anyone who disagrees with them are automatically a misogynist.

B-b-but name and shame! Going to the police would re-victimize the victims! And their institutionalized privilege would ensure that they get off anyway! Stop victim-blaming, you privileged fuck! [No, really. That's the reaction pointing this out gets with those people.]

Indeed. I can kinda see their point, however as with everything they go just..beyond. There's no easy answer but the gleeful jumping in to deal with rumor is problematic to say the least. I certainly don't imagine that this would be taken lightly if someone who wasn't a leader in their "movement" did it to one of theirs, like say, PZ.I can't think of how any analogous situation aimed primarily at women would be treated. But then, for all ideologues, the ends justify the means because their ends are Right, unlike the ends of others.

IMO it's another example of how tribal instincts overwhelm everyone, even these supposed "skeptics". As someone put it to me recently, it's to be expected, but you get just a little bit disappointed every time.

[Lagmonster]

Hey, elevatorgate has invaded our little corner of the internet. I figured I better put it out there.

I didn't honestly think that this issue was still 'at large' outside of the few demi-celebrities who can get likes for ranting about it, but I should have known better.

Still, it's best to talk about it openly, especially since so much of the discussion seems to have revolved around the debators discussing how they feel about other debators for participating on whatever side of the debate they're on. Which is fucking stupid (even though I've called people morons simply for taking the opposite side as me on similar debates, so I guess I get a few knocks from my own learnin' stick).

[Eleas]

Yeah, because fuck forbid someone go on the Internet to speak her goddamn mind about being put in a position that statistically leaves her exposed and vulnerable for no good reason other than the man being oblivious about how convention rapes tend to start.

Because I totally forbid her to speak her mind with the power of... oh wait I didn't. Fuck forbid someone to go the internet and speak their goddamn mind about an over reaction. Oh wait its ok for your side to speak their minds, but when the other side does it... good god you would think we are committing a war crime here.

No, little one, you're the one who flew off the fucking handle with the rest of the misogynistic douchebrigade because Watson decided to speak her mind. You know that.

Going on if you are going to play the statistics card, most rapes occur by people the victim knows, not total strangers. But that would be kind of missing the point with the Schrodinger's black mugger scenario. When you can automatically suppose everyone you meet as a "possible threat" and define "your tolerance level", then any event no matter how innocuous or innocent can be portrayed as something sinister.

A situation that has little bearing on convention rapes, i.e. a subset of the "most rapes" set, so your statement is completely invalid.

No, you mostly sound like a smarmy motherfucker out trolling for sympathy.

Did I hit a nerve there? Good.

What 'nerve' would that be, precious? I must know.

Being asked out by someone you don't want to go out with is awkward. Who knew?

Being asked to acknowledge the fact that he's crowding her, choosing a space where he's alone with her at night in a space where she's vulnerable, is awkward to you. Who knew?

Which, you know, totally her fault. How dare she use the dread word "creepy"? People (and you, apparently) might get hurt in their amygdala.

Lets channel you for a moment. Its not about her use of the word creepy. Its the fact that under such criteria anything no matter how innocent or innocuous could be labelled sinister.

And you're still as wrong as you were, because he did place her in a situation that he could have prevented if he'd just not been so completely oblivious.

Wow, you're not at all incredibly privileged. It's not as if such a thing is contextual at all, after all, and it's obviously really necessary to mock her video for saying she feels creeped out when someone contrives to place himself alone with her in a setting that renders her unable to escape. COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE AND HORRIFIC.

You mean like how its really necessary for her side to turn (assuming Elevator guy is a real person) from some awkward person into a potential rapist. Totally reasonable right? Especially when nothing happened, and she escaped the impossible to escape elevator.

That has no bearing on the subject, and you know it. Her "side" is irrelevant to the initial issue which was exacerbated by raving idiots like yourself. The point is salient: he could have been anyone, and he did put himself in a position where he could have done anything without repercussions, when she was alone and vulnerable, having just spoken on a con about boundaries, at night, et cetera, and that was the reason for why she felt he was being creepy.

The second part of your sentence is pretty goddamn telling: the fact that he didn't rape her, and the fact that she could technically albeit not actually escape, apparently voids all concerns.

Here are the issues you missed. Turning a molehill into a mountain. Pretending all who disagree with her are automatically misogynists. Oh and also potential rape apologists as well.

Bullshit. I would contend it in more specific language, but as all you're offering is strawman generalities, I don't need to.

You know if you are going to quote me, at least have the good grace to use the quote function properly because it was from the blogger Stef McGraw.

My apologies. I screwed up there.

Going on, here we go again with the real point. She was in an unescapable escalator

Fuck you. In a dangerous situation, it would be, and this is the point. You may snigger about how it's not a technically impossibly exposed position, but that doesn't make it less exposed.

which she didn't even need to escape from because there was no assault. He could have really been a real rapist, except he wasn't. He ignored what she said, except obviously he left when she said no.

Again, this is why she said it was merely creepy, and asked guys not to do that because surprise! some of the guys who would like to do so would also like to go further into assault.

You of course ignore Watson's conduct in this affair. People who disagreed with her are automatically misogynist or apologist for rape.

"Automatically," is it? Really? This isn't just you engaging in hyperbole and falsehood, is it? Why, if we look at her blog, and count the people disagreeing with her, and look at her responses... wow, looks like she actually doesn't tar them with the misogynistic brush wholesale. Looks like you're just lying.

No, it would not.

Oh I am afraid it will.

You may think so, but you have no case. The salient point was the position he placed her in, at a feminist convention. It is what you want to ignore or belittle, but never truly face.

Whereas it would clearly be far beyond you to ever hint of attributing ludicrous interpretations to feminist concerns, or referring to some overarching and nebulous agenda. That sort of thing is clearly above you.

My statement is based on a fucking video of Watson herself calling someone who disagreed with her a misogynist and her own blog saying so. What is your evidence for your contention. Oh I know. You will just say "I don't get it" in lieu of an real argument.

No, evasions and/or lying is your modus operandi, and you full well know that. As everyone can easily read in this thread, my contention is that Watson does not wholesale attack everyone for disagreeing, which is easily proven. Calling someone who disagree with you a misogynist is a different matter entirely.

I am sorry prevented her retreat? Are you fucking smoking crack, because I want some. He really prevented her retreat because you know, when she presumably said no, nothing happened. My god this fucking strawman gets bigger each time.

This is not a strawman. It is what happened. If you purposefully enter a space where you will be alone with a person and want to ensure she's not able to leave, that means you've prevented her from retreating during the situation you've engineered.

So lets reiterate. One of the problems is that when she has the criteria (as seen above) anyone and anything can suddenly be portrayed in a sinister light. Don't agree with her, well you are a misogynist and a rape apologist.

And you're wrong about the criteria -- it actually takes a bit of contortion to create such a situation -- as well as your fantasies about her persecuting everyone, because she didn't.

I guess all those people who wondered what the fuck was this about are being trolls too. Because I am pretty sure I didn't say asking for coffee was the issue. It was how any situation could be twisted to be something sinister even when the evidence showed... nothing bad happened.

Putting someone in an uncomfortable spot through obliviousness and unquestioned privilege... doesn't really result in physical evidence. Imagine that.

Any one else who asked what is the big deal, were suddenly misogynists, rape apologists and now trolls too.

No, you're a troll on your own merits. I will also note that several people on that blog politely disagreed and that they were not tarred as such, so you're either confused or lying as per usual.

Ah, fresh evidence of the fact that you have no fucking clue what privilege is.

Ah, fresh evidence of the fact you don't know what an ad hominem is why its fallacious. Privilege might explain why someone thinks the way they do, it doesn't explain why they are wrong.

Ah, interesting. In fact, let's call in a moderator, right here and right now. Then you can explain why you're trying to misrepresent an insulting beginning to my argument as an argument in itself, which is either confused or actively mendacious.

Ah atheists face no structural opposition.

That's right, an atheist at the top of the food chain doesn't really face meaningful structural opposition.

Thanks for enlightening me on that. But going on, you're doing it again. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Suffering? Good grief.

Wait a moment, are we trying to argue oppression matters, or trivializing oppression as whining? Because you're trying to do both.

I am sorry if she was in an awkward moment for like what... the time it took the elevator to reach her floor. But don't you think labelling a guy who did jack to her as a potential rapist and anyone who disagrees with her as misogynist an... I don't know an over reaction. Oh of course not. Because I am now a misogynist even with my posting history. Keep digging that hole genius.

You're being an asshole, you're being wilfully deceptive, and you're more or less using "feminist" in the context of "the feminist conspiracy", which, yeah, is misogynistic.

Ha ha ha ha. If you think this is about feeling sorry because Elevator guy didn't get laid, as opposed to how some guy got turned into a potential rapist and everyone who disagreed with her into a misogynist you are sadly mistaken, and how an intellectual can be turned with the right PC brigade mentality into a misogynist... yeah keep thinking that. I am sure it makes you feel better.

This is not about me, really. It's about you spewing a lot of inaccuracies about an issue where both sides are various sides of wrong, and being a massive dick about it. Your very initial post established your central narrative position, which was that this was nearly entirely Watson's fault and that everyone should laugh at the crazy feminist and her insane conspiracy. You invited mockery by slathering mockery all over your own post.

The consequences of posting something pugnacious is that you might get an equally pugnacious response back. It would behoove you not to whine about it.

[Eleas]

EDIT: No, it wasn't a "feminist convention", Watson was just there to argue a feminist perspective. I was simply wrong on this point.

[Spoonist]

On the other hand parading those nsfw images around proclaiming they undermine her point is just bullshit. Because they is totally no difference between sexualising oneself in voluntarily on one's own terms and being sexualised by other people against your will in a time and place that makes you uncomfortable right?

2. Oh. Unless you are using a definition of sexualisation which isn't the usual meaning of "making one sexy" its a bit of a reach.

Uhm no??? Lets ignore the other parts of Elevatorgate. You can hash that out with others.
But if you think about it can't you see the misogyni (sp?) in that?
You are saying that someone can't dress/be sexy and at the same time complain about being sexualised by others, right? That is like misogyni 101 straight from the textbook. I could probably dredge up any typical large corporation's guide and that would be pretty much covered in the first chapter.
So since you obviously don't think that that is misogyni, lets see where you draw the line. How sexy can someone be before they lose the right to be upset about being sexualized by others?
If one does cosplay in a really revealing outfit like say, Jessica Nigri, what is OK for a random non-introduced fan to say at the convention floor?
A "Can I touch your boobs?"
B "Can I put my face in your cleavage?"
C "Are those boobs real?"
D none of the above
If Jessica Nigri in the revealing outfit is alone with a random fan in a closed setting, does that change what you think is appropriate for the fan to say?
If Jessica Nigri turns up to the convention in a typical lady-business suit (not that revealing but still formfitting), does that change what is appropriate/inappropriate for the fan to say?
If Jessica Nigri turns up to the convention in a non-revealing sweater and pants, does that change what is appropriate/inappropriate for the fan to say?

And finally, do you think that Jessica Nigri as a person (regardless of dress) due to her revealing cosplay persona is allowed to complain in public about the sexualization of women or misogyni in general, without being a hypocrit?

Please think about your answers and their implications.

[Covenant]

I have no idea what is going on here, nor have ever heard about this thing before, but what I take from this is apparently when feminism is mentioned people lose their fucking minds and decide that women should never be allowed to feel uncomfortable about anything and men should never be required to think about how their words sound.

What she said at the top is totally reasonable. If you invite someone to your own hotel room you are inviting them to put themselves in an intensely compromised position. Convention Rapes occur with great frequency, it was very late, and she was just giving a talk about the way people are treated being uncomfortable. Being asked to go to a hotel room while in an elevator is absolutely the sort of thing that would (and should) make her nervous.

Why anyone else really gives a shit enough to harass her for this is crazy, and people harassing her for it need to stop and just reevaluate the amount of energy they're putting into this. Atheism and Skepticism have entered a phase of public popularity that gives it a counter-culture allure to people looking to prove they're smarter than the unwashed masses, so this kind of stupid thought is bound to slip in.

Why MFG is so upset I have no idea but I don't have a real axe to grind here so I think this is a Tempest in a Thimble. Scientists at the University of Obvious theorize feminists can be slightly reactionary after women are treated like second class citizens literally until this very day, and the very whiff of this attitude drives a section of the populace rabid and deranged enough to startle a wolverine. News and Weather at 11?

Seriously guys, what the hell is this bullshit. MFG, what is your bullshit?

[Borgholio]

Looking at it from my perspective, it looks like simply a mental disconnect between the sexes in both directions.

Rebecca feels threatened by a guy asking her to come to his room. Yes, that could certainly end up being bad for her, and so she (reasonably) gets nervous.

From a guy's standpoint, all the guy did is ask a question. Whether he intended to do her any harm or not is unknown, but people tend to jump to conclusions about the guy's ulterior motives and assume he wanted to bag her. Thus, a guy would feel that she's being unreasonable when all that happened was an exchange of words and nothing actually took place.

I think the point should be made that if men are being asked to think about things from a woman's point of view, the opposite should be true. For matters of safety, women automatically assume the worst. That's fine...it's better to be safe than sorry. But at the same time, sometimes a guy asking a question is just a guy asking a question. While she might feel upset that a guy made her nervous, a guy might feel upset that he's automatically assumed to be a rapist.

TLDR - I'm not taking sides here, but saying that this appears to be a case of both sides making assumptions that the other finds uncomfortable. I would not place all of the blame on only one side.

[Kitsune]

I am on the SGU forum. . . .If I never hear about elevator gate again, it will be too soon

I thought we were done with Elevatorgate and on to Krauss (I think)/Shermer-gate. For those who don't know, they were accused by a "friend" of PZ's of sexual assault,Shermer with vague language like "put me in a position where I couldn't consent" and PZ put it on his blog .Cue shitstorm because unproven-accusations-of-sexual-assault followed by the shitstorm aimed at the people who started the previous shitstorm because victims. Still not sure how it ended really. Perhaps with PZ getting sued.

I stated at the time (on the SGU) that if Shermer is guilty, the case should have immediately be brought up to moderators of the convention and make sure it is in writing.

[mr friendly guy]

Why MFG is so upset I have no idea but I don't have a real axe to grind here so I think this is a Tempest in a Thimble. Scientists at the University of Obvious theorize feminists can be slightly reactionary after women are treated like second class citizens literally until this very day, and the very whiff of this attitude drives a section of the populace rabid and deranged enough to startle a wolverine. News and Weather at 11?

Seriously guys, what the hell is this bullshit. MFG, what is your bullshit?

You didn't read the OP did you? Lets reiterate for you.

Once she said no, that should have been the end of the story. The guy left.

Even when she posted he was creepy it wouldn't have been a big deal to me even if I thought it was an overreaction. However when people had the gall to disagree with her they are labelled misogynists in a very public fashion. When people said she was overreacting after that they became people who ignored the plight of victims of sexual assault, even though no was assaulted. All this from an event where not only did no one get hurt, no one was trying to hurt anyone else. Do you think Richard Dawkins is someone who dismisses the "concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault." Because that's what he is being accused off. I think this bullshit is unfair, so I figured I ought to defend him since in that other thread people are just attacking him without understand the context of which he made his statements, dismissing it on the grounds that he is a privilege white heterosexual male. So that's part of my problem. Yeah I know, defending Richard Dawkins from an unfair attack, the gall of me to do so.

Of course this thing sparked a bigger shitstorm where people were banned from various atheist boards for merely disagreeing with her supporters, and has split what we think of the atheist crowd into two camps. This of course means that what should have been a little thing had sparked quite a change. Oh and before Eleas jumps in with accusations about me being one of these guys banned... here is a hint... I can't be banned from something I never joined.

[Kitsune]

I think the point should be made that if men are being asked to think about things from a woman's point of view, the opposite should be true. For matters of safety, women automatically assume the worst. That's fine...it's better to be safe than sorry. But at the same time, sometimes a guy asking a question is just a guy asking a question. While she might feel upset that a guy made her nervous, a guy might feel upset that he's automatically assumed to be a rapist.

I just recently took a driver safety course because of a potential ticket which was then later dismissed
One of the parts tells you that if your car breaks down and somebody offers to help, just stay in your car.
This is due to potential danger.
I think though an actual look at the statistics, you will find this to be incredibly rare.
Tried to look a bit but did not do a comprehensive look.

[Lagmonster]

Convention Rapes occur with great frequency, it was very late, and she was just giving a talk about the way people are treated being uncomfortable. Being asked to go to a hotel room while in an elevator is absolutely the sort of thing that would (and should) make her nervous.

I'll bet you that casual consentual hookups between strangers (particularly at conventions) happen with far, far greater frequency than violent rapes. If I'm right, the guy's decision was as logical as her reaction was justified. In the same sense that the people who buy products from spammers are encouraging spam, the frequency of people who consent to hookups encourages off-the-cuff solicitations.