When Women Confuse Being Asked Out With Being Raped At Knifepoint In An Elevator
It's amazing how an atheist can so easily make being a feminist sound like a religion.
There's been some brouhaha between a blogger who leads (and is known as) Skepchick (real name: Rebecca Watson) and Richard Dawkins that professor friends who follow me on Facebook have been asking me to comment on.
Who is Rebecca Watson? From her bio on her site:
Rebecca leads a team of skeptical female activists at Skepchick.org and appears regularly on the Curiosity Aroused podcast, the weekly Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, and the Little Atoms radio show. She currently lives in London but travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism. There is currently an asteroid orbiting the sun with her name on it. You can follow her every fascinating move on Twitter: @rebeccawatson.
I vaguely know who she is. (I think I follow her -- and about 500 other people -- on Twitter.)
I had a long and rather fruitful writing day, so I didn't check into the brouhaha until I got home. Gawker lays out what happened here.
Basically, at 4 a.m., some guy at a conference committed the heinous crime of asking her out while riding the elevator with her.
I couldn't believe it. That was why people were going after Richard Dawkins, because he made light of what a big deal she made of it?
After Watson flew home from the conference, she posted a long and dull video about it on her blog (I'm reminded of why I haven't started podcasting yet -- I'm terrified of boring people).
Here's the part about her elevator experience:
Just a word to the wise here, guys. Don't do that. I don't know how else to explain how this makes me very uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out: I was a single women in foreign country in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I--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.
Wait, once again?
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.
Oh, hurl.
Men "sexualize" women. Ladies, they want to have sex with you, your sister, your sister's friend, your sister's friend's friend, the cashier, the waitress, the lady with the big luscious ass who's crossing the street, and her sister and her sister's friend. If men weren't like this, the planet would be filled with plants and cockroaches instead of human beings.
If it is troubling to you to be sexualized, stay home, or only leave the house in a big black burka.
But enough from me. Here's Dawkins' response to Watson's mewlings:
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
Watson's response (before calling for a ban on Dawkins' books) -- and go read it...not to be missed:
[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. Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they've done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.
Be sure to read the comments on her site. I think the words "male privilege" are some kind of secret code you have to use to be one of the tribe.
And my thoughts, which I posted on a grad student's Facebook page while watching Watson's video. My first impression:
First of all, her video is boring. Also, some guy asks you on in an elevator. Good for him, putting himself out there, going for what he wants. Verbally. Not at gunpoint. Boohoo, does the 4 am coffee suggestion not work for you? Say, "No, thanks."
Regarding her bit about the drink invitation making her "incredibly uncomfortable":
It makes me "incredibly uncomfortable" when people wear flipflops in public. I tough it out. You don't have a right to not be offended. The notion that women should not be offended is infantilizing. I'm listening to the video now. If I hear the word "misogyny" one more time, I'm going to be over my lifetime ration.
On Watson complaining about the need to explain where the jokes were:
It's probably hard to know when she's joking ("straw man/straw person") because if that woman has a sense of humor, they probably have to give her a colonoscopy to find it.
On Dawkins:
Dawkins has never come off as the most likable person, but I find him more likable than ever now. My dad told me to worry when men stop asking you out, when construction workers stop whistling. You want to "have the power"? When somebody whistles at you, smile and wave and be on your way. Don't be (and act) all offended down to your ugly feminist-approved shoes.
On my little diatribe:
Yeah, I know...I'll work on doing better in the political correctness department. Uh...eventually. Uh..on the day Rebecca Watson blows Dawkins in an elevator.
Four words: Grow. The. Fuck. Up.
Here's how this plays out for a woman whose entire existence doesn't revolve around being a victim, women as victims, and seeing men as victimizers of women every time they open their mouths or so much as salt their food:
A guy asks you out. You're not interested. Say, "Thanks, think I'm going to turn in." Forget it happened.
UPDATE: PZ Myers' tepid huffings and puffings on my odiousness here.
If I may play devil's advocate just a bit, maybe she wouldn't have responded so strongly if it hadn't been in an elevator. After all, it IS unnerving for a woman to find herself alone with a man in such a situation, where you can't get out that quickly.
Let's not forget that there IS such a thing as etiquette,and some rules aren't even in the books, so we have to learn them anyway if we're going to get the dates we want.
lenona at July 8, 2011 12:47 AM
Just like the last post, I wonder if this kid had a loving father in the home, too... There's got to be some reason for a grown woman to be spooked about evil masculinity it such an unremarkable context.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 1:14 AM
But Lenora, what about love in an elevator? Livin it up while going down?
My guess would be the dude was not up to skeptic gal's standards and thus she was extra peeved. Dude who floats her boat steps in at hits on her, odds are she's all smiles.
Sio at July 8, 2011 1:18 AM
One day (and soon, by the looks of her) men are going to stop asking Watson out for anything. Then she'll start writing bitter diatribes a-la-Maureen O'Dowd about how shallow men are for valuing looks over substance and who needs men anyway blahblahblah but deep down underneath her crusty barnacle skin she'll regret her shrill, hysterical reaction at being asked to spend time with someone who actually found her so attractive he was willing to cross the etiquette bar and risk being rejected. Is it the fact that this all happened in an elevator that's got her knicks in a twist? Really? Does she have any idea how many human beings have starved to death on this planet in the last 24 hours? Perspective can be a beautiful thing.
Kirstin S. at July 8, 2011 1:29 AM
Jeez, what meathead. Skepchick, that is. Look, I'm 6"2, I'm lean and I'm strong. If I'm in an elevator with a woman asking her out, I'm not trying to rape her. If I wanted to rape her, I would. Like the average woman can put up any kind of resitance to a man who wants to rape her. But, this is the interesting part - we don't want to. Of course 90% of all women know this. Of course we don't want to rape you. We really, really like you. We don't want to hurt you. You smell nice, you look good in skirts, some of you are even kind enough to give the occational blow job. We don't want to hurt you.
When some idiot like this spreads the notion that a guy asking her out is a potential rapist, she's insulting everyone. She's insulting the women who are supposed to believe her, she's insulting us, the men, suggesting we are rapist. She's insulting those poor, unfortunate women who really have been raped. Even worse, perhaps some men will think "damn, could that really be perceived in that way? I'm never asking anyone out in an elevator"...and next week, she'll be complaining that some guy in a bar offered her a drink. We need MORE dating and MORE screwing in this world. With women like this in power there'd be less screwing. We'd still be screwed, though.
Jesper at July 8, 2011 2:27 AM
He wasn't asking her out. Here in England, in this sort of situation, "a cup of coffee" is the codeword for sex.
She's a little too fastidious but she has a point in this situation. Sure, men sexualize women. But a guy offering up a gauche, semi-drunken pass at 4 in the morning - after getting no encouragement other than in his fevered imagination - deserves to get slapped down.
kevin_m at July 8, 2011 3:12 AM
Rebecca's video is a bit rambling (she says so herself) and doesn't make her case well. Rebecca's main point (and she has explained this in other vids) is that women in atheist/skeptical groups are approached by men so much that it's a problem. For example, say that you're at a business meeeting and men constantly are asking you out, sending you rude emails, and behaving in ways that are just rude (remember most of these atheist meetings are dominated by undergraduate guys.) Once again, neither Watson or Dawkins chose to frame their optimally. Meh, they're only human.
Andrew Hall at July 8, 2011 3:58 AM
The funny part? He asked, she said no, he let it drop. Jesper said it, a rapist is not going to ask for permission, or offer an invitation. And really, to be fair, Skepchick isn't the one who blew this out of proportion. A blogger did when he said this bad pass was a potential sexual assault or rape. That's when Dawkins made his muslim comment.
But this really has turned into an "all men are rapists" stance for a lot of people.
Steve at July 8, 2011 4:00 AM
As a mother seeing something like this pains me. I've raised my boys to be friendly open people. The thought that some bitter twisted bitch could go off at such length and act as if she were now suddenly a survivor of a sex offense gives me the creeps. I'm surprised though that the man in the elevator would have asked her out. She seems like she'd give off a stiff cold vibe to me. My poor sons. I hope they never have to deal with women like this.
Kristen at July 8, 2011 4:34 AM
I hope this doesn't become a big deal at TAM in a week. I'm not driving across the country for something I can get for free from HR sexual harassment classes at work.
Fortunately, we didn't make reservations soon enough to get into the convention hotel, so I have no risk of finding myself in an elevator with attendees other than my wife.
The lesson those and similar HR classes have taught me is "never speak to anyone about anything personal, ever". It's enough to make me not want be a supervisor ever again.
Dwatney at July 8, 2011 4:44 AM
Watson isn't an attractive woman. She probably wanted people to know she was hit on, and this enabled her to talk (and talk and talk and talk) about it without acknowledging she cared that some guy found her worth pursuing.
In other words, she wanted people to know she was hit on without dropping her image of men/women as an oppressor/victim.
Trust at July 8, 2011 5:12 AM
I mean I can understand feeling a tad uncomfortable when stuck in an elevator with a stranger in general at 4am, but for heavens sake, it's not like he touched you. He asked you out. You said no. He moved on. If he had continued after you said no then you may have a reason to complain but holy shit... get.over.yourself.
I don't really understand why some women get offended when a guy checks them out in general. A glance at your hotness does not= sexual harrasment. He's a guy. He thinks your hot. Go with it. Be flattered. Worry when guys STOP checking you out.
Sabrina at July 8, 2011 5:23 AM
One day (and soon, by the looks of her) men are going to stop asking Watson out for anything.
This. And The funny part? He asked, she said no, he let it drop. Jesper said it, a rapist is not going to ask for permission, or offer an invitation. this.
What is the big damn deal? She's over-dramatizing the situation. For what? She's that much of an attention whore?
Flynne at July 8, 2011 5:27 AM
Worry when guys STOP checking you out.
Absofuckinlutely.
Flynne at July 8, 2011 5:28 AM
It was elevator etiquette that was breached not her sexuality. A few of the unwritten rules are… don’t talk, step to the rear and face forward, don’t fart, ladies first, etc.
Roger at July 8, 2011 5:58 AM
FYI, Watson sexualized herself to the skeptic community by posing nude for a calender a few years ago. I remember her as having a nice butt.
Scott at July 8, 2011 6:01 AM
It's her reaction to Dawkins that I find precious.
I guess being rude, condescending and dismissive is appropriate behavior when addressing religious people, but is a capital offense when directed at self-important feminists. She is horrified, horrified that Dawkins would treat her the way he treats several billion people on the planet.
Hey, it's his schtick. You've been his cheerleader as long as you weren't the target, but now I'm supposed to feel your pain?
I don't think so.
Dale at July 8, 2011 6:08 AM
Context is everything. If "get a cup of coffee" is code for have sex in Britain (good thing to know before traveling there), and it's 4 am...and maybe he smells of liquor or seems kinda creepy...I can see being a little unnerved until the elevator stops and I can get out, which is, usually, what...all of 15 seconds?
In a dark alley or streetway, at 4 am, where I really may not be able to escape, I'd be more unnerved, but elevators? Aren't most of them under camera surveillance nowadays anyway? Who would rape someone in an elevator?
Her point is valid in the sense that guys really shouldn't ask a strange woman to go shag with them at 4 am - I mean, she might be a feminist atheist! You've got to be more discriminating.
However, asking her OUT ON A DATE is a different matter, so it depends on what was really being asked.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2011 6:08 AM
Wow. She needs help. How does she expect to raise any little atheists of her own if she isn't comfortable being, well a GIRL? I would love to know what the guys in this "community" she belongs to are like. Are they all gay by necessity? I couldn't imagine being a guy surrounded by women like this.
Sheepmommy at July 8, 2011 6:19 AM
Watson has issues with men, but there's no reason that she should expect men to accommodate her eccentric requirements. That's really the issue here. She's wrapping herself in Feminism, and the plight of rape victims and third world women, when in reality she's just a bigoted woman who is uncomfortable with men. It's not reasonable, and rather narcissistic, for her to expect that no man should ever propose having a cup of coffee to her while she's in an elevator.
Emma at July 8, 2011 6:24 AM
Dawkins' somewhat poorly-made point--that this woman has relatively no problems or struggles in life worth thinking about, so she makes some up--is a bit of red herring. Yes, it is her annoying and useless way of making herself seem more interesting and wise, when she is a confused, talentless hanger-on. But in her dramatic, silly reaction, she is touching on one thing guys should remember: have a little class in the whole thing, and try not to overly embarass yourself or others when approaching a gal.
But that is not her point, it seems. She is he type for whom the word "hysterical" was used back before it became synonymous with "funny". She takes a non-event and spins a trauma out of it.
And I agree with the above poster who noted that if this gal had been into the guy's looks and such, her reaction would not have been horror and revulsion, but interest and excitement. The same action by the guy, no physical effect on anyone, just a different subjective emotional reaction in the gal. Yet she makes the propriety of the man's actions depend upon *HER* subjective reaction to them, EX POST.
It is a bizarre world she wants to create with her hysteria.
Spartee at July 8, 2011 6:31 AM
From a website description of her: "Rebecca is the founder of Skepchick (www.skepchick.org), an online magazine focused on women and critical thinking. Her articles and essays have appeared online and in newspapers and magazines across the United States. Her daily ramblings can be found at www.skepchick.org/blog. She occasionally poses in skeptic pin-up calendars. "
I am all for people doing whatever they want, so long as no one else gets hurt, billed, imposed upon, etc. So this gal can and should get naked for whatever calendars, blogs or person she wants to, and people should shrug and not care, let alone get upset or stop it.
But...if you are going to pose for calendars, presumably in the same alluring manner I saw on a website, you probably need to have something less than a nun's reaction to "men sexualize[ing] me in that manner".
Just to let any ladies know, if you appear apparently nude in calendars, YOU are sexualizing yourself to strange men. Some of whom may eventually approach you. Not perfect world, I know.
Spartee at July 8, 2011 6:39 AM
Anyone remember the Seinfeld episode when George turned down a woman's offer to "come up for coffee" by saying he doesn't drink coffee late at night? He then leaves her a phone message saying that he didn't realize that "come up for coffee" didn't mean come up for COFFEE. It seems that code isn't just a British thing.
Steamer at July 8, 2011 6:40 AM
"And I agree with the above poster who noted that if this gal had been into the guy's looks and such, her reaction would not have been horror and revulsion, but interest and excitement."
Again, it depends on what he was asking. It doesn't sound like he was suggesting they catch a movie or have dinner tomorrow night. If he was suggesting she come to his room at 4 am, to screw a total stranger, it wouldn't matter how good-looking he was, the reaction would probably still be the same...at least from this woman.
I rarely go out alone at 4 am. Can't remember the last time I did. Some guys, seeing a woman out alone at 4 am, might presume she is sluttier than a woman who is out alone at 4 pm. I don't know why, but there's something about those bewitching hours that send more of a sexual signal. Maybe because it's obvious the woman doesn't have a partner (or presumably she'd be home). Perhaps, he thought, "Here I am getting ice, and here you are, and we're both alone at 4 am in the elevator, so why not have sex?" But it's not the most respectful move.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2011 6:49 AM
"Let's not forget that there IS such a thing as etiquette,and some rules aren't even in the books, so we have to learn them anyway if we're going to get the dates we want."
Here's the problem with that: Other than things created explicitly for dating (online dating sites, speed dating, etc.), there is no social situation in which it is not inappropriate to ask a woman out. It's inappropriate (and can get you fired) at work. It's inappropriate at church. It's inappropriate at the grocery store, and the laundry, and the apartment swimming pool. It's inappropriate at a friend's house. It's not even very appropriate at a bar.
So the risk in asking a woman out has gone way up. It's not just a matter of being rejected any more. If you ask a woman out, and she doesn't find you attractive, you run the risk of being publicly branded a boor at least. Legally, the charge may be laughable, but socially, the accusation of being inappropriate with a woman is devastating and nearly impossible to defend against. Guess wrong two or three times in a row, and you can find yourself cast out of your social circle, as the starting point of a whole menu of harms and punishments.
(And as for the venues created for dating: Just wait until the courts start imposing requirements on those venues that they extensively screen and filter their male membership, and take financial responsibility for any harm that befalls any of the female membership. Once that happens, most of these venues will disappear.)
Thus, feminists reinforce what they claim to be opposed to -- they select for men who are either irresponsible, or so narcissistic that they don't care about the consequences of their actions.
Cousin Dave at July 8, 2011 6:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2337371">comment from DwatneyHe wasn't asking her out. Here in England, in this sort of situation, "a cup of coffee" is the codeword for sex.
She's American, and I think we all know nobody drinks coffee at 4am in their hotel room.
She's a chick who poses for atheist cheesecake calendars AND gives speeches on not being "sexualized"? (Please pronounce "sexualized" in the last sentence the way the Brits do -- I love that.)
Her whole rap is that of wanting special, kid-gloved treatment for women, not equal treatment, and it makes me sick.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 6:50 AM
The obvious answer is elevators for women only. We don't even need new legislation, just make it part of the ADA. Extreme feminism can be a disease, and the government can make us accommodate it.
Enough sarcasm. I've led a sheltered life. I never met anyone remotely like her in sixty years on three continents.
MarkD at July 8, 2011 6:51 AM
"have a little class in the whole thing, and try not to overly embarass yourself or others when approaching a gal. "
Well, we've only heard her side of the story, so we don't really know if he was as uncouth as she said he was. But even if we assume her telling of the facts is on the level, keep this in mind: When an activity carries a low probability of reward, and there is a high risk associated with error, most people will avoid that activity.
Cousin Dave at July 8, 2011 6:55 AM
"It's inappropriate (and can get you fired) at work. It's inappropriate at church. It's inappropriate at the grocery store, and the laundry, and the apartment swimming pool. It's inappropriate at a friend's house. It's not even very appropriate at a bar."
Other than work, I don't think the rest are inappropriate. Maybe with rabid feminists (who one wonders how they get dates), but not with most women.
"The obvious answer is elevators for women only. We don't even need new legislation, just make it part of the ADA. Extreme feminism can be a disease, and the government can make us accommodate it."
That's funny...and scary, because it could happen.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2011 6:59 AM
It seems that code isn't just a British thing.
Ummm..."come to my room for a night cap" has been used for the better part of what? by men and women.
Deer Ms. Watson:
You need to get laid. Please, get laid soon. You'll feel better.
The Goddess writes:
It's amazing how an atheist can so easily make being a feminist sound like a religion.
A lot of people need something to believe in. Me? I believe that I'll have a steak with avocado slices this evening.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 8, 2011 7:08 AM
There have been several brutal rapes and a murder in elevators in Harlem. I have trouble getting into elevators alone with strange men. Fear of strange men in a biologically inborn trait. I can't blame her, except for the feminism. Ah, how they confirm our biological differences by their behavior even as they deny them with their tongues.
Melissa at July 8, 2011 7:23 AM
She justifies this with "..people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable..."
Seriously? Here on Earth, we have other people around most of the time and some of them WE DO NOT KNOW (or know well). How are we supposed to know that might make them uncomfortable? This is what I need to worry about now?
He took a chance and asked you, you said no. That was it. Get the **** over yourself already you self-important c***.
Oh and I'm sure the guy is probably a bit 'uncomfortable' now himself. Good job!
DrCos at July 8, 2011 7:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2337497">comment from DrCosIf you don't want to be around people who don't know how to behave exactly, perfectly, according to your needs, it's best to not hang around with male (and female) geeks who probably have a tendency to be socially awkward or verging on Asperger's.
Personally, I've always had a soft spot for a guy who seemed socially awkward but didn't let that stop him from asking me out.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 7:36 AM
Awesome post, Amy.
Jeff at July 8, 2011 7:37 AM
There's a legendary and apocryphal story about Harlan Ellison. In an elevator at a convention, he espied an attractive woman, and wasted no time.
"Excuse me," he said, "but what would you say to a little fuck?"
She looked (down) at him calmly, patted him on the head, and " 'Hello, little fuck.' "
Vinnie Bartilucci at July 8, 2011 7:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2337548">comment from JeffThanks, Jeff!
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 7:54 AM
"have a little class in the whole thing, and try not to overly embarrass yourself or others when approaching a gal." ~Spartee
Well said. Thank you. Can we get that into fortune cookies?
"When an activity carries a low probability of reward, and there is a high risk associated with error, most people will avoid that activity." ~C. Dave
True. The ability to do some version of quick SWOT analysis is a helpful social skill that some people are slower to develop. The ability to assess the situation: the environment, one's value on the market, how to determine what to go for in light of what one wants to accomplish and with what one can be happy.
And while I'm here - CRID! Great to see you back!
Michelle at July 8, 2011 8:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2337596">comment from MichelleDon't know who Dave True is, but that's an oversimplification. Here's my column referencing Error Management Theory:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/01/too-mush-of-a-g.html
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 8:15 AM
She doesn't want to be sexualized!? WTF!? She's appeared in a girly pinup calender. It's not "Hustler" but it's def "sexualized"
You can see her pic here
http://ericingrum.com/2009/04/rebecca-watson-on-double-feature.html
Perro at July 8, 2011 8:55 AM
A gauche, semi-drunken pass at 4 in the morning in an elevator still doesn't make him a potential rapist.
And, if he found her attractive and wanted to ask her out, was he supposed to follow her from the elevator to a more congenial setting? What if he had to follow her for a while to get to a congenial setting? That's called stalking.
Have you ever been in an actual business meeting? One with adults.
And seeing a fictionalized on on television or in the movies doesn't count.
Men [and women] in actual business meetings don't behave that way. They've been conditioned by sexual harassment law not to.
They've also learned that offending a potential client or potential boss is not a good way to move up in the company.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2011 9:31 AM
Reading this just put me in a good mood. Brilliant post. Thank you, Amy. On-the-nose accurate as ever.
Primateus at July 8, 2011 9:33 AM
women in atheist/skeptical groups are approached by men so much that it's a problem.
Oh, please.
You don't have a right to not be asked out.
I dated an actor for a while. A famous one. Women would approach him while we were together. Pretty rude.
Nevertheless, he very politely turned them down: "I'm with my girlfriend."
No need for anybody to get hysterical. Just say no and be glad they're asking instead of ignoring you.
If being approached by men is a huge problem for you, wear figure-covering clothes and avoid posing naked for calendars sold to geek boys.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 9:37 AM
"Watson's response (before calling for a ban on Dawkins' books)..."
There's an awfully thin veneer of open-mindedness over a rotten core of fascism in this person.
Martin at July 8, 2011 9:40 AM
Wait wait wait - "skeptic pinup calendars?"
Did I miss something?
This brouhaha is going on over at Manboobz as well - apparently there's a whole lotta griping about the atheist community in general being somewhat hostile to women/dominated by douchey guys.
Which is totally news to me, having no idea there was a cohesive atheist/skeptic community at all.
Choika at July 8, 2011 9:43 AM
Didn't read any comments yet. Not a defense of Watson, but what you may not know is that the atheist community is trying to get more women into it, and trying to strengthen the voices of the women already there. Unfortunately, apparently there are a number of men in that crowd who act like smarmy schoolboys toward women, although I doubt Elevator Guy was one of them.
In response to this, PZ Myers posted an etiquette guide to Pharyngula the other day that basically suggested men should act like adults, not drooling fools.
DaveG at July 8, 2011 9:50 AM
Can someone please find a poor black woman to criticize her? Apparently she doesn't accept criticism from rich white men. Not that she's classist, or racist, or a misogynist, of course. It's just that rich white men are so ... white. And rich. And male.
Also I'd like to note that she's up at 4:00 a.m. and that's kinda hip. He's up at 4:00 a.m. and he's a drunken pervo molester.
Vanity, thy name is blogger.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 8, 2011 9:53 AM
If she's the best the atheists can offer for a pinup, the churchlady has nothing to worry about.
The rest of this is so absurdly blown out of proportion it past funny to sad again.
momof4 at July 8, 2011 9:55 AM
[Hey Gog, see the comment near the bottom of this.]
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 10:00 AM
momof4, Rebecca's got nothing on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brtRbQ-gOoA&feature=related
DaveG at July 8, 2011 10:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2337833">comment from DaveGwhat you may not know is that the atheist community is trying to get more women into it, and trying to strengthen the voices of the women already there.
I fucking hate this kind of talk about "voices" and all -- it is just fucking infantilizing. You want to be heard, speak the fuck up. That's what I do.
PZ Myers is such a fundamentalist leftist (and PC apologist) that his head has probably stopped turning right.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 10:29 AM
"Also I'd like to note that she's up at 4:00 a.m. and that's kinda hip. He's up at 4:00 a.m. and he's a drunken pervo molester."
So true. And isn't it odd that this woman, who has such a fear of being raped, is out and about alone at 4 am? Not that I think that women should cower in fear at home, but the chances of being raped must go up exponentially at that hour. If she's so concerned about rape, shouldn't she be locked safely in her hotel room at 4 am? Or, for that matter, not doing pinup calendars?
Like I said, I try not to go out alone after midnight. If I must, I will, but for a petite female, it's riskier. There are more unsavory characters out and about, or, at least where I live, they've had many more hours to hang at the bar getting drunk/high, and therefore, more dangerous and impulsive.
Maybe I'm wrong or terribly old-fashioned to do this, but I tell my daughter the same thing. I want her to feel liberated, empowered, and all, but I think she should be with a friend or two at that hour, not alone if she can help it.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2011 10:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2337911">comment from lovelysoulI thought that, too, about the 4 am, thing, lovelysoul.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 10:36 AM
The irony of this entire story for me is that this is a community of skeptics.
Yet if anyone within the skeptic community is skeptical of Rebecca Watson's interpretation of events and hence calls into question her interpretation, they are immediately branded a sexist or a misogynist.
Apparently there are some things you aren’t allowed to be skeptical of within the skeptics community.
Reality at July 8, 2011 10:56 AM
Well, the group's larger injunction is to not be a shrewish idiot.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 11:09 AM
Lovelysoul, I so agree with you. I was thinking the same thing. I also don't understand how she turned "asking me to coffee" into "he's going to rape me."
I visited her skepchick website. There's a lot of hateful women there.
Jules at July 8, 2011 11:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2337955">comment from RealityYet if anyone within the skeptic community is skeptical of Rebecca Watson's interpretation of events and hence calls into question her interpretation, they are immediately branded a sexist or a misogynist. Apparently there are some things you aren’t allowed to be skeptical of within the skeptics community.
Exactly. This is why I noted the similarity to religious fundamentalism. This is victim fundamentalism.
Well, I'm not a victim, and I like attention from men, providing they aren't giving it to me with a weapon in an alley. Again, a simple "No, thanks" will do if you aren't interested in accepting their invitation.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 11:20 AM
Well, the group's larger injunction is to not be a shrewish idiot.
Or, so one wishes.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 11:21 AM
Funny. She doesn't look Shrewish.
Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2011 11:21 AM
I've said it before and I will again.
Women are their osn worst enemies.
Robert at July 8, 2011 11:26 AM
I meet Rebecca briefly at DragonCon a couple of years ago, and we spoke for a few minutes. I think she's just discovering the power of an injudicious on-line rant -- making a mistake.
Although I must point out that it is difficult to convey what else, gestures, position, etc., went on in the elevator to set her off like this.
She'll be at DragonCon again this year, and so I plan, in front of mutual acquaintance Phil Plait, to offer to get her a cuppa. Not at 4AM, though.
I'll letcha know what happens.
Irony: one of the Skepchick, umm, sayings is "Give a SkepChick an inch and she'll measure it."
One more time, with feeling: Amy, the Skeptrack at DragonCon needs you. I really doubt that any of them have studied people as much as you have, and that is key to getting the public to accept reasoning as a day-to-day tool.
Radwaste at July 8, 2011 11:38 AM
About skeptics and hate:
There are a lot of people who really, really have a high opinion of themselves. This ego thing gets in the way whenever there is something to be learned, and the person of a skeptic is the ideal target for umbrage taken at being shown wrong about a closely-held belief.
Think of being on the Sadly, No site for a while. Some people who think a certain way distinguish themselves and their friends by the way they think, and everyone else is an outsider and therefore a barbarian.
Skepticality, a religion, though? NO.
Unless you think that requiring supporting evidence for every observation is a religion. Then you'd just be perverting the language to try to discredit the practice, rather than learn how to investigate things you don't really want to know about - being comfortable.
Ignorance is bliss. That's why skeptics get attacked, and not just by the religious.
Radwaste at July 8, 2011 11:47 AM
The only time anyone hit on me, wouldn't take a "no thanks" gracefully and made me feel excruciatingly uncomfortable was when it was a woman hitting on me and she followed me into the ladies room to continue pitching her woo. Men were much more gracious when I declined.
LauraGr at July 8, 2011 11:51 AM
This woman is just pretty damn dumb.
Richard Cook at July 8, 2011 12:08 PM
Rebecca's main point (and she has explained this in other vids) is that women in atheist/skeptical groups are approached by men so much that it's a problem
I'd be willing to bet the reason they are approched so much is beacuse the guys think they scored the jackpot in finding the rare, elusive, rational female.
Suprise boys, even in "rational" member groups the girls are just as nuts.
My advice to Rebecca and women like her, advertise the fact that you are nearly just as irratioal as regular women and the number of guys hitting on you will plumet to regular levels.
Seems even in rational circles the rational woman is in short supply
lujlp at July 8, 2011 12:26 PM
Again, it depends on what he was asking. It doesn't sound like he was suggesting they catch a movie or have dinner tomorrow night. If he was suggesting she come to his room at 4 am, to screw a total stranger, it wouldn't matter how good-looking he was, the reaction would probably still be the same...at least from this woman.
Well in this guys defence the 'lady' was parting in a bar until 4 in the morning. IN my experince women who close down bars after hours of drinking arent virgina school marms offended by offers for sex
lujlp at July 8, 2011 12:35 PM
There have been several brutal rapes and a murder in elevators in Harlem. I have trouble getting into elevators alone with strange men. Fear of strange men in a biologically inborn trait. I can't blame her, except for the feminism. Ah, how they confirm our biological differences by their behavior even as they deny them with their tongues.
Posted by: Melissa
Lets see, Harlem, one of the worst neighborhoods in the entire US, and an international conference center with cameras everywhere in Ierland populated by a bunch of eggheads subscribing to the notion that men must be subservient and apoplogise every moment of every day for being born with a penis.
Yep exactly the same danger quotent for rape
lujlp at July 8, 2011 12:41 PM
Proper elevator etiquette is the man enters first, so if the extra weight causes the car to crash, the woman is safe. Women exit first.FYI
Mnruce at July 8, 2011 12:45 PM
> I've said it before and I will again.
>
> Women are their osn worst enemies.
I bet it didn't go over very big the first time, either.
(Offtopic- Arts & Crafts, Theme: "1970's thrillers from Hollywood!")
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 12:54 PM
It does sound like the Skepchick made much ado about nothing. But it also kinda sounds like we're giving obnoxious guys a free pass by saying, "What do you expect? They're MEN. It's in the genes, so suck it up, bitches!" (I'm exaggerating, of course. No one actually said that, but you get the idea). I'm thinking specifically of a good friend of mine who happens to be a lesbian. She was meeting a date for drinks in a straight bar, and her date happened to be pretty smokin'. My friend could understand that guys were going to notice her hot date, but on a few occasions their approaches crossed over into aggressive. One guy actually grabbed her arm and moved into her space. The hottie is used to guys approaching her, but that's beyond a clumsy but endearing first try.
Now I know one has to expect a certain amount of idiocy in a bar (people drinking and all), but I also can't fault someone for being overly wary if they've had a few encounters like that. It just seems to me we're alternating between calling out rude behavior (Skepchick's example excepted) and brushing it off as, "Well, that's a man for you." Shouldn't guys be expected to know how to act regardless of where they landed on the evolutionary chain? If I'm misreading the points being made, by all means tell me. I could be completely misinterpreting here.
JonnyT at July 8, 2011 12:57 PM
If you don't want to have sex with someone at 4am, don't accept their invitation to "have coffee" in their hotel room.
If more women realized this, we'd have less "rape" charges out there right now.
The guy himself really didn't want to rape her; he wanted consensual sex. He was looking for company and assumed she might also. She did not. She completely missed an opportunity to help the few dumb girls that fail to analyze that he didn't just want coffee....the ones that do drink a little bit too much and happen to wake up feeling victimized.
Cat at July 8, 2011 1:01 PM
But this woman woke up feeling "victimized" anyway.
Women are freaky.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 1:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2338211">comment from JonnyTShouldn't guys be expected to know how to act regardless of where they landed on the evolutionary chain? If I'm misreading the points being made, by all means tell me. I could be completely misinterpreting here.
Neither men you are unacquainted with nor TSA agents of any sex should be grabbing parts of your body. However, if you go into a bar, chances are you will encounter drunks there. Gregg and I went to a bar after we saw the Woody Allen movie and some woman put her hand on my shoulder, and I didn't like it a bit. However, I didn't assign some sociopolitical relevance to it -- I figured she was a bossy drunk and went back to my conversation with Gregg.
Nobody's saying it's okay for some strange man to grab your ass or even your elbow, but that's not what we're talking about here, so let's not get overly expansive in bringing in these supposedly heinous injuries to women.
Wow. A guy grabbed an elbow. Will you ever recover from the trauma?
Luckily, although I'm getting up there in years (47), guys still hit on me. I'm polite and grateful to them for putting themselves out there, and let them know I have a boyfriend.
Why is this a big deal?
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 1:10 PM
And eeeuw! on that sperm photo, Crid!
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 1:11 PM
You should see the movie.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 1:24 PM
You're all missing the truth here.
'Becca's a les. If Amy was the one on the elevator and asked 'Becca if she wanted to come to her room for a cup of coffee, 'Becca'd say, "I hope it's instant."
Jay J. Hector at July 8, 2011 1:25 PM
Amy,
I wish you would rescue that facebook post of yours -- the parts you excerpted are absolutely terrific.
jerry at July 8, 2011 1:42 PM
"You're all missing the truth here.
'Becca's a les. If Amy was the one on the elevator and asked 'Becca if she wanted to come to her room for a cup of coffee, 'Becca'd say, "I hope it's instant."
Posted by: Jay J. Hector at July 8, 2011 1:25 PM"
Well, not according to her wiki page which discusses her marriage (now ended) to Sid (A man) -- you can actually google their wedding on youtube if you have any doubts.
If you have news otherwise, you should fix her wiki page, otherwise, I guess your sad little joke is more part of the problem than part of the solution.
jerry at July 8, 2011 1:49 PM
All of this is reminiscent of this xkcd cartoon.
I can't get any link by the spam filter, maybe this obfuscation will help: xkcd.com/642/
jerry at July 8, 2011 1:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2338404">comment from jerryAmy, I wish you would rescue that facebook post of yours -- the parts you excerpted are absolutely terrific.
Actually, I think I pulled all the bits off that posting except for the bit about how nice it is to not need tenure. Makes for much freer speech.
I'll see if there's more I said on the posting Diana Fleischman put up the other day.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 2:20 PM
JohhnyT - a drunk agressive guy in a bar pawing you is one thing, a guy asking you a question without laying a finger one you,accepting your refusal, and not bothering you afterwards is not the same thing.
And quite frankly treating the two as the same will only encourage more of the former, after all if your going to be demonised, ridiculed, and possibly subjected to civil or crimial court proceeding no matter how innocuos your behavior, why wouldnt you just go for broke act and an asshole as your going to be treated like one anyway?
lujlp at July 8, 2011 2:32 PM
I've got to say, that's one of the lamest nude photos I've ever seen.
Cousin Dave at July 8, 2011 2:34 PM
Brilliant commentary. Politicizing a request for a date is exactly the kind of thing that makes feminists such a joke anymore. Anyone with real shit to worry about doesn't have the time or energy to vilify people for liking them.
Gilbert Smith at July 8, 2011 2:59 PM
Amy and Lujlp, true enough on the difference between drunks and a random guy on an elevator inviting a woman to his room. While frequenting gay bars I've had my share of handsy encounters with guys. If we're talking someone putting a hand on my shoulder so they can squeeze by, no big whoop. Beyond that my knee-jerk reaction tends to be "Dude, please stop touching me", or at least moving to a less crowded area. I just meant I can understand how if someone is hit on often enough by strangers, they might be more inclined to have their defenses up. I didn't mean to suggest that a hand on the elbow was traumatic. And to reiterate, I do think the woman in the original post is making a huge deal over nothing.
And I don't object to getting hit on, either. It still makes my day. :-)
JonnyT at July 8, 2011 3:04 PM
[Hi Michelle]
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 3:11 PM
"It's amazing how an atheist can so easily make being a feminist sound like a religion."
The only significant difference between a religionist and a feminist is the explicit worship of sci-fi characters on the part of the former.
MRDA at July 8, 2011 3:37 PM
Amy: "Men "sexualize" women. Ladies, they want to have sex with you, your sister, your sister's friend, your sister's friend's friend, the cashier, the waitress, the lady with the big luscious ass who's crossing the street, and her sister and her sister's friend."
At the same time.
Steve Daniels at July 8, 2011 5:18 PM
"Neither men you are unacquainted with nor TSA agents of any sex should be grabbing parts of your body."
See? That's experience. Amy recognizes the six or so "opposite" genders found in California - generally identifiable by their choice of vehicle.
Radwaste at July 8, 2011 5:25 PM
Hahahaha, I love how men can do anything to women and hey, as long as he's not RAPING you or mutilating your genitals, we're supposed to shut up and take it.
I love how a woman saying "Hey, don't be rude" is so incredibly threatening to so many men. I had no idea so many men considered their own masculinity so fragile that it would be damaged by a simple display of mannrs.
I love how men apparently don't care that the bar of expectations is set so incredibly low that they get praised for NOT raping people.
dljaoieuaoeurap at July 8, 2011 5:33 PM
"I love how men apparently don't care that the bar of expectations is set so incredibly low that they get praised for NOT raping people."
Ok, the three orange beads in front of the spinner and the treble hook are expected, but don't you think the feather was just a *bit* over the top?
Steve Daniels at July 8, 2011 5:53 PM
Amy,
I was sexually assaulted when I was 15.
It is people like YOU who made me terrified to report it. Women who disrespect, belittle and mock other women for daring to "make something out of nothing." Because you know what? The guy who assaulted me did not start with direct assault. He started with little violations - he'd corner me when he talked to me, he'd stand too close, or he'd bombard me with sexual innuendos.
But hey, it's just WORDS! I guess I was just being some silly hypersensitive little girl to think there was a problem, right? LOL! I mean I was 15!
Of course, after he did assault me, everyone wanted to know "But why didn't you mention his creepy behavior SOONER?"
Well, according to you, Amy, I was just being silly and stupid.
If the shoe is ever on the other foot one day, I hope you receive more compassion than what you've offered in this column.
annabelle at July 8, 2011 6:06 PM
> Hahahaha, I love how men can do anything
> to women and hey, as long as he's not RAPING
> you or mutilating your genitals, we're
> supposed to shut up and take it.
That's a lot of youthful, yet bitter sarcasm. Plus the complicated, I'm-certain-in-some-private-context-meaningful signature.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 6:14 PM
Everybody saw this, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 6:15 PM
OK, as I understand it now, men are not to ask for sex. To be fair that means women cannot ask for sex either. Hard to believe the human race is actually going to come to an end because something called "Skepchick" got its feelings hurt.
Several billion years of evolution, meteors, earthquakes, predators, diseases, famines and wars were all survivable. But radical feminism...
Voluble at July 8, 2011 7:20 PM
"Well, not according to her wiki page which discusses her marriage (now ended) to Sid (A man) -- you can actually google their wedding on youtube if you have any doubts."
Well jerry, no gay men or women were/are/have been married to the opposite sex, eh? You must be anti-gay since you believe marriage is for heteros. What's marriage got to do with it?
Jay J. Hector at July 8, 2011 7:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2339431">comment from annabelleAnnabelle, I'm very sorry to hear about this sexual assault, but your response above, attacking me, is not legit. You write: "It is people like YOU who made me terrified to report it. Women who disrespect, belittle and mock other women for daring to "make something out of nothing."
You don't seem to understand the difference between persistent sexual harassment and a man asking once for a date, not getting a yes, and going away.
Do you really not understand the difference?
Did you not have a father living in your home? I was bullied by a group of girls when I was in seventh grade. I told my father and he went to the principal and the bullying stopped. This is what dads are for.
Where were you at 15, that you were alone persistently with a man who would do this to you, and why would you say nothing?
I understand that you had something awful happen to you, but equating a grown woman being asked on a date once (by a guy who right away takes no for an answer) with persistent harassment of a sexual nature -- on a 15-year-old -- well, you can't safely navigate the world if you don't understand that those two things are very different, and that one is acceptable and one is very unacceptable
I feel compassion for you about what happened to you. I also feel for you in that you maybe didn't have a father in the house or otherwise were raised in such a way that you were lacking in adult supervision and protection at 15, and now, because of it, have a warped and irrational view of the difference between being raped and being asked for a date. This has to have a very negative affect on your ability to find love and have relationships.
I suggest you see a cognitive behavioral therapist to work on a rational approach to what happened and a rational approach to seeing men and courtship.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 7:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2339437">comment from dljaoieuaoeurapAnd P.S. Please don't put up two comments in a row under different names. I see that the IP is the same for "annabelle" as it is for "dljaoieuaoeurap"
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 7:55 PM
> To be fair that means women cannot ask
> for sex either.
They have rhetorical options.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 7:59 PM
I don't know why everyone is making this about feminism. It's about manners.
Watson had just given a speech at the atheist convention. In the speech, she said she did not like to be hit on by random guys at atheist conventions. The man in the elevator complimented her on her speech, so presumably he had been present and heard what she said. He proceeded to hit on her anyway.
Forget gender roles for a minute. If someone tells you "hey, I don't really like it when people do X to me," and then you immediately go and do X to them - even if X is a perfectly harmless activity, you are being a rude jerk. Go find somebody else who HASN'T just told you they have a problem with X, and knock yourself out.
Is this really so difficult?
jordan at July 8, 2011 7:59 PM
Amy,
You are so far out of line to blame my father, who is a wonderful man, that it isn't even funny.
annabelle at July 8, 2011 8:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2339461">comment from annabelleAnnabelle, I can see you don't take the time to read or think.
I didn't "blame your father."
I asked whether you had one in the house, and said that you "maybe didn't have a father in the house."
I don't know your family situation, and thus I can't blame anyone. Nor did I.
I asked you some questions.
How did you not have anyone looking out for you, anyone that you could go to at 15 if you have a father who is a "wonderful man" when all this was going on?
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 8:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2339466">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and you also posted just above under the name "jordan." Same IP.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 8:08 PM
> you can't safely navigate the world if you
> don't understand that those two
> things are very different
Thank you Big Red. Per the logic of the 6:06 PM email, I should never brush my teeth, because her assailant brushed his teeth, too.
Props also for your linguistic sensitivity, Amester: "Wonderful man" is not how well-loved daughters describe their fathers, even if they adore them and believe it to be true. They usually reach for words that he'd find more comfortably flattering. (What I'm saying is, I'm wagering on YOUR gamble on this woman's environment.)
And now, some kitten mood-mastery.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 8:16 PM
Love the mood-changer, Crid. Kitten-snack.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 8:19 PM
We've all had sex like that, where it was so good there was nothing left to grab but your own cranium.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 8:46 PM
"Don't take this the wrong way. I think you're really interesting and I like to talk to you some more. What you like to come to my room for coffee?" (or something like that) is asking for sex, being sexually threatening and inappropriately sexualizing a woman? I think my mind is made up now about this. Wow! I wish people hadn't made so much fuss about this non-event.
Ben at July 8, 2011 8:57 PM
'After all, it IS unnerving for a woman to find herself alone with a man in such a situation, where you can't get out that quickly.'
In a downtown parking garage, maybe...but in most situations I do not feel threatened by being in an elevator alone with a man. I simply do not think that every man is potentially a rapist.
"It is people like YOU who made me terrified to report it. Women who disrespect, belittle and mock other women for daring to "make something out of nothing." Because you know what? The guy who assaulted me did not start with direct assault. He started with little violations - he'd corner me when he talked to me, he'd stand too close, or he'd bombard me with sexual innuendos.
But hey, it's just WORDS! I guess I was just being some silly hypersensitive little girl to think there was a problem, right? LOL! I mean I was 15!
Of course, after he did assault me, everyone wanted to know "But why didn't you mention his creepy behavior SOONER?" "
'Would you like a cup of coffee' isn't the same as systematic stalking/standing too close/sexual innuendo. It is not the same as sexual assault. I don't understand your logic about being sexually harassed and not being able to tell anyone because of 'women like Amy'. That makes no sense at all....the ones to tell were your family, before it got out of hand, not random strangers.
I was harassed at a hospital I volunteered at when I was 16. One of the orderlies followed me around, accidentally bumping into me,making comments as he passed me...it made me very uncomfortable and I went directly to the head nurse on the floor and told her. I also told my parents. He was spoken to and didn't bother me or any of the other high school kids again. Whether it would have helped or not in your situation I have no idea, but the events as you present them just don't make a lot of sense to me.
crella at July 8, 2011 9:32 PM
Oh, come on... Is there any excuse for her being such a timid little ninny? At four AM in some dangerous, faraway city from the meager little simpleton's village of her birth?
No.
Let's say the guy had said: "Why don't you reach in to that pretty little clutch of yours, freshen your lip gloss, come to my room and blow me like a trumpet?"
Even then, I'd expect a GROWN woman to be sturdy about it.... At 4am in a hotel elevator. Offended, fine! But not so rattled, or surprised, that she needs to charge to the internet to share her vapors & heartbreak, on video, for fuck's sake, with other prominent dickwits in the Sisterhood, let alone the rest of the world. (One of the best passages we've ever seen from Alkon: "I fucking hate this kind of talk about "voices" and all -- it is just fucking infantilizing.")
A woman who has such a brittle comprehension of human sexuality has no business involving herself in anything called a "pinup", no matter the state of undress depicted.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 9:43 PM
in most situations I do not feel threatened by being in an elevator alone with a man.
Also, I just talked to a friend on the phone about this. I go to alt newspaper conferences from time to time, and if you get in an elevator with somebody from the conference, they LOOK a certain way. LIke they're there for the conference. Chances are, this guy looked like a geek from the conference. In fact, I'd bet on it. This was probably mainly upsetting to this girl (I'd guess) because he wasn't of the requisite fame/status to hit on her, and thus it became an insult.
And Crid above is EXACTLY right. Cridster, so glad you're back.
Amy Alkon at July 8, 2011 10:06 PM
Exactly, Amy. I go to conferences too (with DH) and usually the majority of those staying at a hotel in that situation are conference goers....wearing name tags or carrying conference promo bags, materials. It's not like some random scary person jumped on the elevator out of nowhere and threatened her.
This timidity and being frightened of men is really ridiculous, when taken to this level. What's especially ironic is it's so often those women who espouse Grrrl Power and who can supposedly do anything better than a man who are are doing the screaming. Aren't they independent kick-ass women!?
crella at July 8, 2011 11:22 PM
People, the most obvious point is being missed.
Rebecca is NOT pretty. She is maybe a 5 or a 5.5 out of 10.
Ever notice how the women who crow most about being 'sexualized' and 'raped' are women very unlikely to experience either?
Conversely, how come no woman who is a 7 or higher in looks ever complains about some rampant rape epidemic in America? The pretty girls would presumably be at greater risk.
This is a lesson in how women think. Claiming that she is 'sexualized' makes her think she is more desirable than she is. It is merely a mechanism to help her feel good. Women more attractive than her have no need to do this.
Read Roissy for a month, and the thought process of women like Rebecca becomes easy to understand.
TTT at July 8, 2011 11:28 PM
> This was probably mainly upsetting to
> this girl (I'd guess) because he wasn't
> of the requisite fame/status to hit on
> her, and thus it became an insult.
Not to extrapolate too far, but...
...oh fuckit, that's what we're here for, right?
This is what we object to in every misuse, or misapplication, of feminism discussed on this blog.
There's a certain kind of princess out there whose life has been so comfy, and whose prospects have been made so good, that she doesn't recognize that feminism is a dare... That at it's best, it challenges women to be tougher, stoic, and resourceful in unfamiliar circumstances.
It's annoying when women think that their encounters are supposed to endlessly flattering. Otherwise, society has failed them... Even if they've never brought anything particularly charming to society themselves. (Middle age often cures this foolishness, and when it doesn't, you were never going to be dealing with courageous soul anyway.)
See also the "Army general" link in the preceding blog item.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 11:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2340110">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Crid, your comment above reminds me of an attractive older woman, probably about 80, who sat next to me on a plane. Being the nosy, chatty broad that I am, I talked to her. Turned out she was a scientist at NASA. She taught me a few things to help me with my motion sickness (told me the pressure points thing really does work and that the body has an easier time being pitched side to side than front to back, so if I'm on a boat that's flopping over waves, stand sideways instead of facing the front of the boat).
I looked her up after the flight -- she was a scientist at NASA. And she was pretty and used none of this precious, coded feminist-speak. That woman is somebody. She's doing something, and has done something with her life, and at a time when that was probably tough as hell for a woman. These days, there's a whole industry of being a victim-woman, and a special language to go with, and the industry and the coded way of speaking allows a woman to keep from doing meaningful work in the real world.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 12:25 AM
Oh, and you also posted just above under the name "jordan." Same IP.
She's trying to be clever - she was pointing out that "If someone tells you "hey, I don't really like it when people do X to me," and then you immediately go and do X to them - even if X is a perfectly harmless activity, you are being a rude jerk. Go find somebody else who HASN'T just told you they have a problem with X, and knock yourself out."
You see, you already told her not to post under different names, so she did it again - just like what that creepy guy did to Skepchick!
But this too is immature. Either take issue with something, or do it back. But don't do both.
Gilbert at July 9, 2011 12:41 AM
Funny. She doesn't look Shrewish.
Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at July 8, 2011 11:21 AM
Thats just what we need, a Shrewish Princess.
The pinup calendar angle makes this story oh so more amusing now.
Sio at July 9, 2011 1:57 AM
"Well, not according to her wiki page which discusses her marriage (now ended) to Sid (A man) -- you can actually google their wedding on youtube if you have any doubts."
Well jerry, no gay men or women were/are/have been married to the opposite sex, eh? You must be anti-gay since you believe marriage is for heteros. What's marriage got to do with it?
Posted by: Jay J. Hector at July 8, 2011 7:31 PM
Hector, first you claim she is a lesbian when the evident proof is not, then when I point that out you make the claim I must be anti-gay.
The truth Hector, is you are a smear merchant and a troll, so take a flying leap off of a cliff.
jerry at July 9, 2011 4:17 AM
"if I'm on a boat that's flopping over waves, stand sideways instead of facing the front of the boat."
Now that's interesting!
jerry at July 9, 2011 4:25 AM
I suffered through her interminably long video until I got to the part about "straw man/straw person" being a "joke." It was at that point that I realized she was a disingenuous little princess and I turned it off.
Sloan at July 9, 2011 5:11 AM
"The truth Hector, is you are a smear merchant and a troll, so take a flying leap off of a cliff."
Jerry, hectoring is a skill.
Jay J. Hector at July 9, 2011 5:48 AM
I can't believe I'm agreeing completely with Dawkins.
Geoff at July 9, 2011 5:55 AM
May I just add that we've given her far more attention than she really deserves.
Flynne at July 9, 2011 5:59 AM
I read the elevator story last week, and was immediately bored by yet another offended feminist. Here we see her picture. Now I can understand her fear - any guy who hits on that in an elevator at 4 a.m. has to be really drunk. She's the living embodiment of the old joke that feminists are women no one wants to fuck anyway.
Capn Dan at July 9, 2011 6:11 AM
Any feminists who wonder why they are viewed as unreasonable people need to watch the video. The casual conflation of basic mammalian biology (man wants to hump pretty woman) with violent crime is stunningly stupid and is what is wrong with modern female supremacists who bill themselves as egalitarians and "feminists".
SGT Ted at July 9, 2011 6:16 AM
From her looks, perhaps Elevator Guy is simply a good samaritan...a mercy f**ker.
PD Quig at July 9, 2011 6:25 AM
"HELP HELP I'M A VICTIM! "
[No, you're a stupid Leftist; you're idiotically claiming people are racists/men are rapists/ etc]
Same meme, same damn gene.
Orson at July 9, 2011 6:32 AM
Suprise boys, even in "rational" member groups the girls are just as nuts.
Wrong -- they're even more nuts. Sane people don't join "rational member groups" (whatever that means). They're already sane and don't need to prove it.
Your Majesty at July 9, 2011 6:47 AM
"One day (and soon, by the looks of her) men are going to stop asking Watson out for anything. Then she'll start writing bitter diatribes a-la-Maureen O'Dowd about how shallow men are for valuing looks over substance..."
But the people here do this - as you have done:
"If she's the best the atheists can offer for a pinup, the churchlady has nothing to worry about."
"Rebecca is NOT pretty. She is maybe a 5 or a 5.5 out of 10."
"From her looks, perhaps Elevator Guy is simply a good samaritan...a mercy f**ker."
Real nice. There are more roaches than people, you know. Make sure others can tell the difference.
Radwaste at July 9, 2011 6:55 AM
Someone far up at the start of the comments noted how atheist women at these things are very often hit on by atheist men. Are atheist women really surprised by this, even the feminists? That is, surprised by the reason why?
If you say you're an atheist, the assumption everyone will make - fairly or not - is that you must lack any fixed moral foundation and so might be very willing to screw a fellow atheist at the drop of a hat. I know I assume it to be true whenever I meet a self-described atheist; I've known many who were in their 20s and male and female, they screwed anything that moved. They sexual activity was second only to the male homosexuals I knew. No other group even came close.
Did the guy in the elevator know that? Was he banking on it? I'd guess, yes he was.
gorgo at July 9, 2011 6:56 AM
"There's a lot of hateful women there."
But, technically speaking, frigid misandrists shouldn't multiply.
Cover Me, Porkins at July 9, 2011 6:58 AM
"There's a legendary and apocryphal story about Harlan Ellison [in which he said to a strange woman] 'what would you say to a little fuck?'"
I've heard it as "go away little fuck". Harlan himself admitted that he made a practice of walking up to women he didn't know and asking if they'd like to have sex. He said that although he got turned down a lot, he also got a lot of sex. Sleeping his way across the continent, he said.
pst314 at July 9, 2011 7:04 AM
What PD Quig said above. Maybe if you were drunk enough you could find her attractive...until she opened her mouth. I wouldn't fuck that misandrist hosebag with a stolen dick.
Anybody want to lay odds on how long it is before she moves in with a lady truck driver and they start raising cats?
Uncle Jon at July 9, 2011 7:08 AM
Crikey. I received a marriage proposal in an elevator. I met "Mr. Right" on Floor 1, said the usual pleasantries in Arabic (when I was in practice I could volley the requisite Q and A in Arabic for about 90 seconds), and by Floor 6 he decided that adding to his hareem a blonde woman who could speak Arabic would be the perfect thing. He even told me I was smart! Sadly, I had to break his heart and decline. He eventually recovered.
I believe most of us can rejoice that Miz Skepchick will not be reproducing. Can you imagine the violation she would feel at giving birth to a baby BOY???
MathMom at July 9, 2011 7:13 AM
Actually the feminist crazies who are doing this are invaders into the skeptic community. Skepchicks should really be called Gullibabes.
These invaders are actually quite irrationally religious about their belief that merely having white skin, or penis makes you "privileged". Tell that to all the guys out of work. Tell that to the guy who has to work through college without a trust fund. In their world Oprah Winfrey is oppressed and the child who has to start working at eight years old because he notices his mother is not eating so the kids have more is a privileged oppressor. Only because he's white and he's male.
Brian Macker at July 9, 2011 7:19 AM
Ok, I had to read the link, and then I had to read the comments, and most of them were every bit as head up the ass as I expected. But one in particular left me fairly gobsmacked.
"1 out of every 6 men is a rapist."
WTF???????? Where do people get shit like this? The commenter goes on to say that 6 bullets is what a revolver holds, and, um...something about Russian roulette...and then, just as you must treat every gun as if it were loaded, you have to treat every man as he if were a potential rapist.
I want to hope the comment was meant as parody. But that crowd doesn't strike me as one who appreciates, or recognizes, parody.
Kinsey at July 9, 2011 7:34 AM
The assumption that "coffee" has a one to one relationship with "sex" doesn't take into account the preceding "don't take this the wrong way".
If the guy knows it is a euphemism and is really talking about sex, how are you going to take it the wrong way? "Please don't assume I am talking about coffee"? But, if the assumption is that "coffee" is more clearly "sex" than "coffee" (the way you need to take the statement to agree with Watson), the only sensible interpretation is the opposite.
It is equally credibility straining to believe that he is unfamiliar with the euphemism, thinks he has a good pick up line and feels he needs to underline that it is not coffee he is after.
We don't have enough information to know who this guy was, all we know is he found her ideas interesting. Maybe he was in the bar and wasn't able to converse with her in the way he wanted because he was drowned out by better conversationalists. Since it may have been his only chance ever to make an impression on her, he took his chance..
NB: I can accept that it was a marginal situation and the guy may have been a little on the desperate side (in the sense that he wouldn't have a chance again).
anomdebus at July 9, 2011 7:38 AM
I've decided, upon much reflection, that if I'm ever in an elevator and this silly little bint is approaching me, I will raise my hand to stop her from boarding the elevator, and say "sorry, I'm afraid that if you get on this elevator, you're going to falsely accuse me of rape or thoughtcrime, and I just can't take that risk. Wait for the next one, you heartless, insensitive, vicious, potential perjurer!"
-jcr
John C. Randolph at July 9, 2011 7:45 AM
Looking at the fat mess of ugly in the video, 4 AM sounds about right. After about a fifth of rum and a twelve pack. Then chew your arm off in the morning to escape.
(I said, she's ugly son.)
Foghorn at July 9, 2011 8:05 AM
Amy:
"You don't seem to understand the difference between persistent sexual harassment and a man asking once for a date, not getting a yes, and going away."
It seems to me that you are ignoring the difference between asking someone out on a date and asking a stranger in an elevator to follow you to your bedroom. A "date" would be getting together for coffee at breakfast, "to talk more."
It's the ex post facto feminist garbage that's over the top, not the woman's anxiety -- which even the guy in the elevator apparently anticipated when he prefaced his invitation with, "Don't take this the wrong way." He might have looked like a nice young man, or he might have been a 6'5" 250 lb. drunk getting way too close for comfort in a literally boxed in space.
Your advice to women who need to get over being sexualized is dead to rights, but it seems to me that a lot of folks sitting in their comfy chairs here are just as quick to jump to self-righteous conclusions as Skepchick did.
JM Hanes at July 9, 2011 8:05 AM
"'1 out of every 6 men is a rapist'. WTF???????? Where do people get shit like this?"
You haven't met many feminists, have you? And "1 out of 6" means this is a moderate feminist; some say all are.
pst314 at July 9, 2011 8:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2341096">comment from JM HanesHe might have looked like a nice young man, or he might have been a 6'5" 250 lb. drunk getting way too close for comfort in a literally boxed in space.
That's not how she described it, and if that were the case, don't you think she'd have made much hay about it?
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 8:15 AM
After listening to her description of the event it seems perfectly possible to me that the guy, after listening to her self-important feminist screed, was winding her up. She strikes me as the sort of person who'd not recognize a joke if one fell on her.
MikeD at July 9, 2011 8:52 AM
Maybe the problem is that she's just sick of being hit on. Such an extreme reaction is absurd, of course, but I can feel her pain.
My guess is that there are about 10 men for every woman in that crowd, and about 80% of the men are single.
Anyone know why our society's interests are so segregated by sex? Every event I go to seems to have far more single men than women, and yet I hear women complaining about a shortage of single men all the time.
Anyone know where the women go?
D
David Dennis at July 9, 2011 9:05 AM
If he'd just attended her presentation about not being "hit upon by random guys at conventions", I suspect he was just "Yanking her Chain" - Apparently it worked.
John at July 9, 2011 9:06 AM
Stop whining, will you, Muslimino? Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated at birth, and ... yawn ... don't tell me yet again, I know you are forced to wear a beard, and you can't listen to music, and your local law enforcement is allowed to whip you, and you'll have your hand cut off if you commit theft. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American brothers have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, he calls himself "Dawkins", and do you know what happened to him? A woman from the internet called another man "creepy". I am not exaggerating. She really did. She made a nasty video about the other man, and Dawkins watched it! Of course he didn't save it to his computer, and of course she didn't email it specifically to him, but even so...
NicoleK at July 9, 2011 9:13 AM
| Maybe the problem is that she's just sick
| of being hit on. Such an extreme reaction
| is absurd, of course, but I can feel
| her pain.
No.
No. No.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2011 9:15 AM
>>"in her dramatic, silly reaction, she is touching on one thing guys should remember: have a little class in the whole thing, and try not to overly embarass yourself or others when approaching a gal."
Is there a "classy" way to proposition another person for sex? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Within the spectrum of non-classy ways "would you like to come back to my room for coffee?" is on the classy side.
MikeD at July 9, 2011 9:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2341253">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]| Maybe the problem is that she's just sick | of being hit on. Such an extreme reaction | is absurd, of course, but I can feel | her pain. No. No. No.
What Crid said.
If it is "painful" to you that men ask you out, I suggest you go to this link -- The Albert Ellis Insitute: http://www.rebt.org/ -- and use their therapist locator to find psychological help near you. Fellows at the Institute (with higher training) have * by their name.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 9:22 AM
| Anyone know where the women go?
They're out in the menstrual gazebos, jus' tryin' to stay out of the way..
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2011 9:23 AM
>"I love how men can do anything to women and hey, as long as he's not RAPING you or mutilating your genitals, we're supposed to shut up and take it."
That's right, honey. We men can stand within a few feet of you! We can look at you! We can even TALK to you! And you just have to shut up and take it!
(Or walk away, but that spoils your narrative)
Life must be unending misery for you. Have you considered joining a nunnery?
MikeD at July 9, 2011 9:37 AM
| in her dramatic, silly reaction, she is
| touching on one thing guys should remember:
| have a little class in the whole thing,
| and try not to overly embarass yourself
| or others when approaching a gal.
She's not "touching on" the thing anybody wants touched. YouknowwhatImean, Jellybean?
Here's the question which can oh-so-often cleave away the native feminine foolishness in so many topics: Whose feelings are we talkin' about here?
(Masculine foolishness requires a completely different toolkit.)
'See, idiot women, especially when they're being idiotic in womanly ways, will assume that when people are feeling the same thing, then they're all kind of the same person. So that a guy who's hitting on some self-important blogger in an elevator at 4am is supposed to, y'know, just somehow feel that he's dealing with a meek, naive, erotically undercooked schoolgirl. She's disappointed that we're not all living up to a model of intimacy so plain that she shouldn't even have to put it into words....
He's disappointed that she's not buying into HIS model of intimacy, which mostly involved hiking her skirt and bending over the hotel chair in his hotel room.
But he's going to be OK. He'll move forward without having to write a chapter in his journal or make a goofy video for his friends. Because he knows the next elevator might carry a woman who's more concerned with fun or excitement (or maybe even his feeelings) than with what Spartee calls "class".
I've always thought "class" was a pathetic word. When I was a kid, it seemed to come straight out of the Sinatra era, something just before the Rat Pack years. It was pathetic, and ironic, because it was always going to be used as shorthand for a set virtues which mean nothing unless they're described and deployed explicitly. The people most eager to be "classy" are those least equipped for it.
More later. All you guys are wrong about everything.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2011 9:42 AM
Y'know, Mr. Elevator understood that they were never going to be feeling exactly the same things anyway, no matter how the evening unfolded. He was trusting her to have the emotional life she wanted for herself.
She wanted to trust him to be a walking, talking Savage Garden lyric, taking for granted her interior skittishness as the centrality of the human project.
"I knew I loved you
Before I met you...
Etc.
Blechh.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2011 9:58 AM
This is what happens when mental illness is rationalized as a political philosophy. Anyone who has read the Unabomber manifesto knows what I'm talking about. Intelligence and sanity are not mutually inclusive.
Women are not victims. Women are not oppressed. The equality that pseudo-feminists claim to want has existed in the US for decades now, and men couldn't be happier. The world presented in shows like Mad Men seems like such a bizarre anachronism because it is. The only thing stopping a woman from achieving anything she desires is herself.
I'm especially disgusted at her suggestion that self-proclaimed feminists have worked so hard to free women living under fascist rule in Muslim nations. They threw those women under the bus long ago. Why? Because they are Gramscian marxists pretending to be advocates for women. They threw American women under the bus to protect Bill Clinton in the 90's and Muslim women under the bus to demonize George W. Bush soon after that. They've lost all credibility with anyone who is paying the least bit of attention.
I'm sick and tired of encountering people who are my equals and having them tell me how oppressed they are when they enjoy all the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that I do.
Far from trying to oppress such people, I do my very best to avoid them. Crazy people make me very uncomfortable, in no small part because it is difficult to communicate with them. You say one thing and they hear another (or maliciously misinterpret your words to that effect) and you spend all your time just trying to find a way to get a message across without it being garbled by their own delusions and dishonesty. So I just avoid them.
Lee Reynolds at July 9, 2011 10:00 AM
I thought I was of the "nothing to see here" persuasion, but something's been nudging my hindbrain about this dust-up.
Unfortunates unable to navigate the basic pathways of adult interaction have been with us through all generations, so that's not it. Previous generations knew not to dignify such matters with commentary, but I generally applaud the contemporary trend to air it all out. After all, at some point you're bound to look in the mirror, snap to and exclaim, "Jeez, I need to get a life!" So that's not it.
Then it hit me. This woman and Dawkins and many of the commenters no longer represent the academic fringes. This is what passes for our intellectual elite today. Lord help us! Time for a purgative.
Charlie at July 9, 2011 10:17 AM
NicoleK, good to see you've got that sense of proportion almost working. But don't do any driving until you can distinguish between mountains and molehills.
She was being silly. Dawkins told her she was being silly. She took such deep offense as to suggest his works be banned.
So, we know a few things about Skepchick.
She cannot gracefully deal with being approached by an interested stranger and is so traumatized she makes a video about it hours later. Most women probably have difficulty remembering the number of times they were casually approached by an interested stranger.
She cannot gracefully handle criticism. See above.
What I've really learned from this is not how better to interact with women but merely to avoid this one as she seems terribly unpleasant and pseudo-religious in her accessorized intensity at not being religious.
One reason I stopped participating in organized skeptic groups is the obnoxiousness of the Unholy Warriors.
epobirs at July 9, 2011 10:25 AM
"Rebecca's main point (and she has explained this in other vids) is that women in atheist/skeptical groups are approached by men so much that it's a problem."
So what you're saying is that the "atheist/skeptical" community has too many men and not enough women, and the men can be crass jerks who assume that non-religious women are easy?
We are surprised about this, why?
She wants to dump the patriarchy, and get rid of religion (and thus get rid of all the religious codes of conduct), and then she's upset when the men who take her up on these things aren't chivalrous, and treat her like she's a hole for their sexual gratification, rather than one of "God's special creatures"?
Sorry, but actions and ideas have consequences. If you don't like the way that men who share your beliefs behave, you might want to start by examining the beliefs you share with them. Start with the fact that classy people with actual lives tend to have better things to do with their time than go to meetings where they prattle about their religious belief that God doesn't exist (you can not PROVE that there is no God. So you have an unprovable belief about the Divine. That's a religion.)
Greg Q at July 9, 2011 10:29 AM
Watson wrote:
"Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they've done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives."
I call bullshit on this claim. When have feminists in the West ever lifted a finger to help the women being brutalized in Muslim countries (which are, after all, fascist patriarchies)? Name ONE THING that they have done that actually made a difference.
As I recall, the United States fought a war that actually overthrew one of those male-run oppressive theocracies, replacing it with a democratic government, and greatly increased the freedoms of women in that country. Did any feminist organization support these actions?
I stopped believing that feminists actually cared about the welfare of women when all the feminist organizations chose to look the other way when Bill Clinton was exposed as a sexual predator and probably rapist. They had a chance to demonstrate their principles, and they blew it. Given the choice, they opted to throw all of Clinton's victims under the bus and give tacit support to the predator/rapist, because he was their political ally, and they would lose political power if he was removed from office.
They sold out actual, living, breathing, individual women for the sake of political power. And they've continued to do so ever since. From that point on, I have known what feminists actually are. They are whores.
Harry at July 9, 2011 10:38 AM
Be more understanding people. This is the closest SkepChick has come to being a victim of anything or anyone in her entire life, a life predicated around her sense of victimhood. OF COURSE she had to blow it out of proportion and broadcast this traumatizing stone's-throw-from-an-iota-of-victimization. Now if only she could find another man willing to proposition her.... Hey, she only had to wait 30 years for the first one.
Alec Rawls at July 9, 2011 10:38 AM
I know it sounds bitchy, but the lady probably feels lost when men ask her out. I mean, look at her: how often does she get hit on? It must be a strange experience for her, so she overreacted.
edge of the sandbox at July 9, 2011 11:15 AM
Rebecca Watson is a one of those very, very humorless, boring and self-centered types who loves the sound of her own voice. Would somebody please shut her and her whinny "sisters" up?
Okay, she doesn't like men, and that's fine. But does she have to share with the world the political construction she's built for her obvious frigidity?
Thanks for reading.
Jonas Frank at July 9, 2011 11:17 AM
I was at a conference and one of the presenters (a biggie in his field - I had met him previously) invited me to his hotel room that night. Being more than a little naive, I went. We had a nice conversation. Turned down his advance when it occured, no harm done. P.S., it was in a foreign country and I was a woman alone. No he wasn't scary. No, I wasn't offended.
Miriam at July 9, 2011 11:46 AM
Look, I think Dawkins was mostly right and Watson mostly wrong, but all you folks complaining so much about her looks....
Please post a photograph of yourself.
It's pretty trivial to post a picture of yourself on picasa, flickr, imgur, yfrog, .... SO IF YOU COMPLAINED ABOUT HER LOOKS, take this as a dare to post a picture of yourself.
If you're not going to do that, I'm going to assume you're a typical overweight, doughy, american male, definitely in the league of studman69 (google studman69 if you don't know).
FWIW, not much, I think Watson is a dumbass, no better or worse than most of us, and plenty attractive for most of us, especially for the likes of me.
This doesn't mean I agree with her in 99% of her remarks.
But it does mean the continual ad hominem attacks on her looks, and her sexuality, just mark you dumbasses as cretins who have nothing to say but who make it trivial for jackass feminists to ignore any amount of criticism no matter how correct.
Jeez, the mirror dumbassery of Watson complaining about the behavior of all men, is the greater internet fwads in this thread proving her correct.
Call her a dumbass, point out how full of shit she is, point out that she wants to criminalize normal human behavior, call her out as a princess, and just keep your stupid remarks about her looks to yourself.... until you post a picture of yourself, and your girlfriend, holding up a sign that says, spelled correctly, "Fuck you Jerry, you goddamn moron."
jerry at July 9, 2011 11:49 AM
The knifepoint is particularly important. It's not rape if there's no weapon right, Amy? And there's no right to complain unless you're brutally napolied.
The guy didn't ask her to his room for "coffee" at 4am because he thought she was purty. He knew she'd say no and she'd just given a talk on how this sort of thing is why more women don't show up to skeptic conventions. He hopped into that elevator after that talk and asked her to his room to put the bitch in her place. Don't tell men shit, we'll do what we want was what he was really saying.
taxtherich at July 9, 2011 12:17 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2341698">comment from jerryPlease post a photograph of yourself.
Here you go!
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/28/la_press_club_a_4.html
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 12:21 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2341701">comment from taxtherichTaxtherich, here's one of my columns on using euphemisms for plausible deniability:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2008/06/gurus-just-wann.html
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 12:23 PM
I'd love to drop a load on this chic's face... cover her glasses, have it drip off of her nose, get stuck in her hair,.... make her look at you like Popeye.
ranger98 at July 9, 2011 12:36 PM
I wonder if the skepchick believes in global warming?
Oh my. WHole heartedly. Without a shadow of a doubt.
She needs to change her nickname. Something closer to the reality of her world view.
Boguschick would fit, if that one's not taken.
Oh and about her looks. She seems to be cultivating the Jenine Garafalo look.
papertiger at July 9, 2011 12:36 PM
Amy Alkon about that picture.
I'm one of the ugliest little trolls on the planet and not a chance in hell of scoring a hot chick like you, but I'd still give a wolf whistle, or ask you up for coffee in the elevator.
Cause I got the audacity of hope.
papertiger at July 9, 2011 12:45 PM
Well, I wasn't talking about you Amy, I was talking about the many readers here describing how Watson is way below their standards, how she can't get laid, or how she is certainly a dyke, or how she has no morals, or any of that crap.
jerry at July 9, 2011 12:48 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2341794">comment from papertigerAmy Alkon about that picture. I'm one of the ugliest little trolls on the planet and not a chance in hell of scoring a hot chick like you, but I'd still give a wolf whistle, or ask you up for coffee in the elevator. Cause I got the audacity of hope.
papertiger, my now-47-year-old/then-46-year-old ass thanks you.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 12:52 PM
Amy,
Please do not take that woman's advice on how to stand on a ship. Roll is higher frequency and greater angle, and more likely to abruptly change direction (this can be accentuated by stabilizers), than pitch. Motion sickness has no standing in this, you'll still be motion sick while in sickbay having bones set or being stitched up. The appropriate way to stand is similar to a martial arts stance: wide, lower, with one foot leading the other; facing fore or aft; fluid and ready to put a foot on a bulkhead. My advice is less applicable to the truly large ships such as cruise ships as my experience was on a cutter about 378' by 40'. Spent about 13 to 14 months underway with 8 months or so along the Aleutians and in the Bering Sea from calm to very heavy seas.
As for this woman, why would anyone give so much credence to the hypersensitive who lack all perspective? You're spot on in your post.
Ariel at July 9, 2011 1:16 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2341865">comment from ArielAmy, Please do not take that woman's advice on how to stand on a ship.
Luckily, I won't have to, since I will only board a boat if I am carried on by armed pirates.
(I get sea-sick standing on a dock -- and car-sick from my own driving.)
And thanks re: being spot-on in my post.
Women like this always amaze me.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 1:19 PM
Ms. Watson said: "Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere"
That is a lie. They have been utterly silent.
Walter Sobchak at July 9, 2011 2:02 PM
She just needs to find a good church and meet a nice boy.
Joel Mackey at July 9, 2011 3:32 PM
I don't know why everyone is making this about feminism. It's about manners.
Right. Becuase its just so uncouth to talk to a woman who just spent HOURS partying in a bar
But, technically speaking, frigid misandrists shouldn't multiply.
The dont multiply by procreation, they multiply by infection
lujlp at July 9, 2011 4:25 PM
Utter madness on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.
But most people have already said everything that needs to be in one way or another, and if it isn't the way I'd have said it, well the points are nonetheless made.
I will add only one more of my own.
Female comfort and Human Freedom are rapidly becoming at odds with one another.
Can we claim to support free speech if we blackball, criminalize, or sue people for words that make others "uncomfortable"? No matter how crude those words may be, wasn't free speech created to protect unpopular words?
Can we claim to support equality under the law, if assertion and allegation are treated as evidence? If the accused can be destroyed in the media, whilst the accuser is protected from public scrutiny?
We could go down the list of freedoms threatened in the name of making women specifically "comfortable" around men, and the way in which that threat appears.
But chances are most of you will do that in your own heads anyway, either to debunk my statement or to support it.
In the end the truth of the matter is revealed by false accusations, false arrests, overturned convictions, (increasingly well documented), by speech codes on campuses and lawsuits by women claiming discrimination when they're expected to work at their 6 figure jobs instead of taking months off for family time.
I wonder how far the pendulum will swing this way, and what will happen to society when it goes very far in the opposite direction.
Robert at July 9, 2011 4:28 PM
My understanding is the guy said at first, "I don't want you to take this the wrong way but.." and then he asked her if she would like go to his place and discuss what he had heard.
Now that sounds like a polite guy, not some drunk sex crazed poodle (like Al Gore) hitting you up while trapped in an elevator.
Anyway thanks Advice Goddess, you sounded level headed about this.
And for all you gals that get stuck in an elevator with unknown men, take some Krav Maga and if you legally can pack heat. You don't have to be a feminist to do that.
Paul at July 9, 2011 5:33 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2342183">comment from PaulThank you, Paul!
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 5:38 PM
Annabelle
I don't think Amy is belittling women to put up with degrading, demeaning and threatening behavior. The behavior you describe was all of the above.Beyond a little inappropriate. She,and any woman on this board,as well as the men, I would would have found the behavior of this person malicious and threatening, and just downright filthy.
What was happening to you was not the equivalent to being propositioned, being told no and that's the end of it. I'm sorry that being in the situation you were in, you felt that you couldn't pull the rug out from under him.
There truly is a difference in being asked for a 'cup of coffee' in an elevator, and backing off when told no, and the type of person who assaulted you. Elevator Guy was hoping to get lucky, your perp was motivated by the need for control and degradation.
I'm not minimizing your anger, but if you ever want to move on and function, you really need to find some way of coping. I think you'd be surprised how many have found themselves in similar situations, and could help you out with this. What point is there in holding onto it? Who else are you angry with?
Kelly at July 9, 2011 6:17 PM
Nice "profile" pic AA. Now, don't take this the wrong way, but would you like to come back to my room for a cup of coffee?
archangel at July 9, 2011 6:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2342281">comment from archangelNice "profile" pic AA. Now, don't take this the wrong way, but would you like to come back to my room for a cup of coffee?
Let me see what my boyfriend thinks about that!
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 6:48 PM
And thanks, Kelly, for the reply to Annabelle.
One problem with how offended many feminists act when men merely hit on them is that there's nowhere to go from there. To say this another way, if all come-ons get treated, in terms of the upset expressed, like rape-lite, where does actual rape go on the scale?
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 6:58 PM
You guys are missing the whole point of SkepChick's posting. You'll understand it if you'll read it as a tweet (in a teenage-girl voice): OMG! RICHARD DAWKINS hit on me in the hotel elevator!! And I TURNED HIM DOWN!!!!!!!!!
RNB at July 9, 2011 7:22 PM
The most disturbing thing about this is that a man wanted to have sex with her after talking with her for any length of time. I assume she usually has the dour look of a spinster even from afar, so someone being close to her and after a quick 'hello' still thought she was someone he wanted to sleep with.
Caiden at July 9, 2011 7:34 PM
You know, to ME, one of the most important aspects of feminism would be to get a woman recognized as an equally sexual being therefore allowed to be as monogamous or promiscuous as they choose just like a man. Also this would eliminate the oddness of a woman for once hitting on a man.
But feminazis (because she is not a feminist to the highest degree and I refuse to classify her as such) like her ruin this potential gain for me by freaking the fuck out and acting like they don't have a sex drive and it's socially unacceptable in ALL situations for a potential for sex to be brought up from male to a female.
Therefore, there's dozens of potential guys, everyday, I KNOW they look at me and are quite possibly interested, but feminazis like this dumb cunt make it seem like if they say anything to me they're going to to get an earful of how terrible that is and I shall out them as a pervert. Especially because glasses and a quiet demeanor pins me as a potentially shy girl (really I'm not) and that's definitely not okay to hit on a poor shy girl and make her uncomfortable!
Except, unlike these bitchy feminazis, I'm a sexually liberated person who's not afraid of a "cup of coffee" if we hit it off and if I'm not interested I can have the goddamn MATURITY to accept it as something I should be flattered about and just call the fucking cops or attempt to defend myself if the worst happens which this stupid bitch is of the incorrect opinion that most rapes are a back alley situation and therefore she needs to avoid all strangers when someone she knows and trusts is more likely to end up doing that. Except I believe there is no male she lets near her for enough time to build that kind of relationship, which speaks volumes of her (bragging) telling people so much about getting hit on at 4 am.
So stfu and stop ruining my potential getting laid, seriously.
Rhianna at July 9, 2011 8:12 PM
I assume she usually has the dour look of a spinster even from afar, so someone being close to her and after a quick 'hello' still thought she was someone he wanted to sleep with.
Posted by: Caiden
I think he was confused by the fact that she stayed up til 4am drinking and partying in the hotel bar
lujlp at July 9, 2011 9:56 PM
Google the term "First World Problem".
When women are uncomfortable the world must change. When men are uncomfortable they must "man up"
Scott M at July 9, 2011 10:12 PM
Watson wrote:
"Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they've done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives."
I call bullshit on this claim. When have feminists in the West ever lifted a finger to help the women being brutalized in Muslim countries (which are, after all, fascist patriarchies)? Name ONE THING that they have done that actually made a difference.
Well, Rachel Corrie did get run over by an Israeli tractor so that Palestinian thugs could continue brtualizing Arab women.
Your Majesty at July 9, 2011 10:26 PM
Y'know, I was so eager to put my own piss-stream into the mix this morning that I forgot that this isn't the first time we've had one of these in the internet age.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2011 10:50 PM
Sorry, I meant this--
http://tinyurl.com/3ruhm86
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 9, 2011 10:52 PM
Feminists are so delicate...
The Observer at July 9, 2011 11:00 PM
Forgot about that Naomi Wolf dealie. And Rhianna, you're fierce -- and you're right.
Amy Alkon at July 9, 2011 11:06 PM
papertiger, my now-47-year-old/then-46-year-old ass thanks you.
Extraordinary.
Grandma was 39 years old up until the day she died.
(It more running joke, than an expression of vanity - she particularly liked telling of the time a highway patrolman inquired.)
I think he was confused by the fact that she stayed up til 4am drinking and partying in the hotel bar.
Or maybe he was tired of hearing her bullshit, and decided to rattle her cage a bit for a giggle.
Otherwise - if this had been an actual pass - imagine the set this guy had that he could weather a drunken evening sitting across from this forbidding scold, then still have the pod to give it a go.
Not likely I'm thinking.
Rhianna is so correct. In my experience "Watson" types seem to be the majority, but that might be a function of their omnipresent need for attention, coupled with an aversion to anyone in their presence having the slightest bit of fun, joy, happiness.
Or California is full to the brim with castrating bitches.
papertiger at July 10, 2011 12:35 AM
The assumption that "coffee" has a one to one relationship with "sex" doesn't take into account the preceding "don't take this the wrong way".
I always thought - in this sort of situation anyway - that "coffee" means "I've made up my mind and I'm hoping for sex", after which it is up to the other to signal what they want over said coffee. Not so much a code as a formal declaration of interest.
A positive response should be viewed as "I'm thinking about it", then see how it goes.
I'm sure even if he was trying to put her at ease (unsuccessfully, obviously!) by saying "don't take this the wrong way" that he was at least thinking about it. And wouldn't have said no.
Ltw at July 10, 2011 4:37 AM
In a church parking lot, and with a group of friends, I recently asked a rather plain looking woman (with a sparkling personality) to join me for a cup of coffee soon. Her reaction was a surprise to me: stammering uncomfortableness, as if I'd asked to rape her pet beagle. My intentions had nothing to do with sex (at least immediately), I simply enjoyed her company. I had no idea that asking a woman out for coffee was a "buzzword" for sex !
So, at this point in my 54 year old life, I've about given up on women. I don't know what's become of the world, of what's become of women (and men)in my short lifetime. If that is the reaction to my honorable request (from a financially secure, hard working and good man who enjoys giving back rubs), then it is hopeless.
Great column, and great conversation, my advice to the world is to lighten up and enjoy what God has given us...
DaveinPhoenix at July 10, 2011 6:35 AM
You know, the guy could've been joking. He'd just heard her give a lecture about how much she hates being hit on, so he gets on the elevator and rather tounge-n-cheek suggests "coffee". I think I like this guy! At the very least, it might've gone differently if she had a sense of humor.
lovelysoul at July 10, 2011 6:56 AM
Jesper: "But, this is the interesting part - we don't want to [rape]."
I (a man) no longer believe this. I think the only thing holding men back are the legal consequences. Why do I think this? Because almost everywhere I go, I'm called an "extremist" or a "troll" for merely asserting that rape is inexcusable and absolutely evil. As far as everyone else is concerned, to rape or not rape is just a preference, like deciding what flavor of ice cream you want. It's not a moral issue anymore.
someone at July 10, 2011 10:59 AM
>>Because almost everywhere I go, I'm called an "extremist" or a "troll" for merely asserting that rape is inexcusable and absolutely evil.
I seriously doubt that you are called an extremist or a troll for merely asserting that rape is inexcusable or evil
>>As far as everyone else is concerned, to rape or not rape is just a preference, like deciding what flavor of ice cream you want.
I suspect opinions like this are the reason why people call you an extremist or a troll...and, in fact, I think they are probably being kind and giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Al at July 10, 2011 2:59 PM
To "someone":
I hate to ask, but can we get a few more details on these disagreements you've said you've had? After all, the men you're describing should, logically speaking, also be saying that rape should be legalized, but you didn't say they said anything like that, so something's missing here. Thank you.
Lenona at July 10, 2011 3:38 PM
It's a bit interesting to read such a rude post while your book, "I See Rude People," is positioned right next to it.
Hypocrisy is rude, too.
For example, "I vaguely know who she is. (I think I follow her -- and about 500 other people -- on Twitter.)" You must be so important!
Another, "It's probably hard to know when she's joking ("straw man/straw person") because if that woman has a sense of humor, they probably have to give her a colonoscopy to find it." Classy lady, you are.
And another, "Here's how this plays out for a woman whose entire existence doesn't revolve around being a victim, women as victims, and seeing men as victimizers of women every time they open their mouths or so much as salt their food:
A guy asks you out. You're not interested. Say, "Thanks, think I'm going to turn in." Forget it happened." Because Watson defines her whole existence as victimized. Yes. This is what she said. This is not an overly dramatic statement used to manufacture validity for your poorly thought-out point. No.
Watson first mentioned the elevator encounter because it made her feel a bit uncomfortable. That's it. It was the response to it that turned into "Elevatorgate" and the response to the response (your type of response) that does not realize the original context.
Connor at July 10, 2011 4:10 PM
Never seen this ugly Amy Aklon woman before, but she's a fucking clown.
Tom Strong at July 10, 2011 4:21 PM
It's a bit interesting to read such a rude post while your book, "I See Rude People," is positioned right next to it.
Do explain what's "rude" -- i.e., inconsiderate -- about expressing my disagreement with her thinking, which she posted publicly.
I recognize her name because I follow her on Twitter and she's often quoted/tweeted by skeptics/atheists, and I think I've even linked to a blog item or two of hers, but I'm not a joiner and don't really know or follow any atheists closely beyond Hitchens, Pat Condell, and a few others.
I said I vaguely know who she is (basically, my knowledge of her is that she's some well-known skeptic) to make it clear that I'm not very informed about her work, not to put her down. I like to be honest about where I'm coming from (and you'll note that when I get a blog item recommendation from somebody, they get credit below it unless I'm not sure they want it -- if they've emailed me privately). But, hey, let those assumptions fly to try to make a point!
A lot of people have no idea who I am because, although I have a lot of readers numbers-wise, I run in a lot of small papers throughout the country...some of which don't even have websites. If you say you don't know who I am, I'll just assume you're telling the truth, not accuse you of lying to somehow aggrandize yourself.
P.S. I also didn't know Keith Moon was the drummer of "The Who" until my editor told me when I was looking for pun titles of a column. If, however, you want information on research in ev psych and anthropology, come to me.
I am not a feminist, nor do I approve of the idea that men are being offensive by exhibiting male sexuality.
She's a woman who poses naked in an atheist calendar, then throws around words like "misogyny" and "sexualized" like they're rock salt. Ridiculous.
Here's this, from her video: 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.
Men will sexualize you. If it makes you "uncomfortable," move into a lesbian bar.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 4:22 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344455">comment from Tom StrongNever seen this ugly Amy Aklon woman before, but she's a fucking clown.
You go, Tom Strong!
Do let us know which website is sending over you huffy geniuses.
Oh, and it's "Alkon."
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 4:26 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344558">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and love this quote from Sci-tech-watch.com:
http://www.sci-tech-watch.com/2011/07/who-provides-security-at-security.html#39
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 4:47 PM
"Therefore, there's dozens of potential guys, everyday, I KNOW they look at me and are quite possibly interested, but feminazis like this dumb cunt make it seem like if they say anything to me they're going to to get an earful of how terrible that is and I shall out them as a pervert."
Honestly, no, it is worse. I, as a guy, are more afraid of women picking up their cell and dialing 911 as soon as I walk away. I am not at all ugly but I am not some massive movie star level prize either, if I am quite sure they will say no I do what you just said and don't ask.
I am about to go off about little Becky for exactly what you posted and of course the content of this post.
Seriously how am I supposed to know what a woman deems as appropriate without asking. What one thinks is harassment another may find charming.
NakkiNyan at July 10, 2011 4:50 PM
Crap, I knew I forgot something important due to my need to rant... saying thanks.
Amy Alkon, thanks for posting this. I think it was important that a woman do so because if I did it it would not have gone over well, at all.
NakkiNyan at July 10, 2011 4:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344609">comment from NakkiNyanPart of what makes me so ticked off about her posturing about how men should (supposedly) behave is that few guys have a harder time asking women out than the nerdy, geeky guys -- who are probably much of the population at a skeptics'/atheists' conference.
Here's a column I wrote to help those guys have the guts to approach women:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ago-293164-connection-miffed.html
Also, this is just a guess on my part, but if it were some Big Man On Campus atheist, do you think she'd be as offended as she was? Women often are offended when they're asked out by a man they consider "below their station." I appreciate anybody -- man or woman -- who lays their ego on the line to try to go after a person or a job or something they want. And I act accordingly when some guy I find unattractive or unsuitable asks me out -- I'm kind and polite and appreciative that he put himself out there.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 4:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344617">comment from NakkiNyanThanks, NakkiNyan.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 4:59 PM
What's rude about it is how you went about the expression, and I cited examples I found to be rude.
About the "I vaguely know who she is" sentence, I can understand that you didn't mean it in a condescending way. It came off to me as such, though. It did seem to me that you wanted to, like you said, "aggrandize yourself." I still get that feeling when I read it, but I could just be misinterpreting it.
Your not being a feminist is perfectly good, and I think it's productive to let people know why you feel Watson overreacted. But I also feel that even if the situation isn't that important to you, it is to her. To assume that she feels her whole existence is victimized and that she needs to "grow the fuck up" is a bit rude. To call that "expressing my opinion" is an understatement.
That being said, I totally want to read your book now!
Connor at July 10, 2011 5:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344635">comment from ConnorIt may be "important to her," but that doesn't mean it's good for her to express her feminism-driven advice to men without any dissent. I'm dissenting. I think her view is damaging, ugly and infantilizing of women.
Any woman who poses naked on a calendar and then scolds men for sexualizing her is a hypocritical ass.
Regarding my book, I'm not Emily Post. I swear a lot (though not around children or old ladies, unless they're similarly foul-mouthed). I used research in anthropology, behavioral economics and ev psych to figure out why people are rude -- ie, behave as if they are the only ones on the planet and nobody else matters, like by shouting on their cell phones in a coffeehouse, effectively privatizing shared public space as their own -- and how we can change things.
In case you care, I'll paste in the macro I put in at the bottom of my emails:
PS I hope you'll consider buying a copy of my book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society. It's only $12.37, brand new, with Amazon's discount at this link. Buying a new copy helps me earn back my advance -- and give advice, free of charge, to people whose questions will never make my column.
Here's a link that goes to Dr. Helen's account, because somebody should make money from the sale, and until I can work out how to get my Amazon Associates account reinstated with a partner, I like somebody I like (and respect) to get the money.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071600213/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=0071600213
*She's another writer and thinker I find is fair to men, and I really appreciate that.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 5:12 PM
To Connor,
Trust me this is in no way an attack I just had to say it and since you brought it up I wanted to just refer to your post. I just have to ask how a guy is supposed to know three things,
1. How are we supposed to know what women find inappropriate (by that I mean he didn't grope her which is always inappropriate.)
2. If the guy is not used to being sociable they are likely to ask in private, how can this be a bad thing? At least he has the guts to ask at all.
3. Why should guys tolerate being called misogynist jerks? I am assuming Rebecca would be pissed if I said all women were bitches... or other things I don't want to add here so everyone please use your imagination.
NakkiNyan at July 10, 2011 5:16 PM
The saddest part is that Ms. Watson envisions herself as a 'leader' and as a 'leader' she is encouraging a disruption of a conference that has been planned for one year, a conference that so many others have been looking forward to, paid for, paid for travel, hotel, and taken vacation to attend.
The selfishness is astounding. She will innocently claim that she is not doing anything to encourage such behaviour (although she also would like Lawrence Kraus' head on a pike), but she could aks her loyal acolytes to behave like adults. But that would take maturity, thoughtfulness and courage... all qualities Watson so apparently lacks.
elisa at July 10, 2011 5:47 PM
To NakkiNyan,
1. Through experience with talking to them. You can never really know, though, just as you can never know what people in general will find inappropriate.
2. Asking the girl in private is fine. It's the fact that it was 4 AM and it was in an elevator. Admittedly, I am jumping to conclusions here, but when a guy asks you to come to his room for "coffee" in an elevator at 4 AM, that's a red, sexual flag. If one of the factors had changed, I think things would be different. If it wasn't in an enclosed space, if it wasn't private, if it wasn't so late (or early, depending on how you think of it). I understand it's hard to ask a girl out, but the situation really was pretty creepy.
3. They shouldn't unless the guy in question is actually a misogynist jerk. Such a strong generalization of so many people (men) is usually wrong.
To Amy,
I think you have a valid point. I'm put off by how you said it only because I've (unfortunately, I think) been following the whole episode from the beginning, read multiple posts and a lot of the comments, and I had pretty much made my decision. But that's my problem.
Thanks for the info. about the book.
Connor at July 10, 2011 6:16 PM
I agree with the elevator being a bad choice but 4am should not be a factor, the person could be used to staying up at those hours (for example I have worked night shift). As for being a sexual flag, that is Rebecca hearing what she wants to hear.
NakkiNyan at July 10, 2011 6:29 PM
The time is a factor because that's when people are usually going to sleep. She had decided to go on to bed. Regardless of what the guy is used to doing, unless he has 0% social perception, he should be able to recognize that she's tired. That people in general are tired at 4 AM.
Regarding the "sexual flag" and it only being Rebecca hearing what she wants to hear, you could easily turn that around and say that it being totally innocent is you (or anyone feeling it was innocent) hearing what you want to hear. The only person who was there to hear it was Rebecca and this anonymous elevator guy. Considering the time and the place, I would say the offer for coffee was suggestive. If he had asked her somewhere better, more populated, or at a better time, to interpret "coffee" as "sexualization" would be ridiculous.
I think where Watson went wrong, maybe, is when she decided to make an example of this case. It really isn't the best situation to use in that it can be interpreted in a couple different ways. And unfortunately, as Amy pointed out, it can be viewed as "infantilizing" toward women. It gives the impression that they are too innocent, too immature to accept any kind of sexual advance.
Connor at July 10, 2011 6:50 PM
My advice: don't quit your day job. I'm a woman, and let me just say: lady, you disgust me.
Brains of the Operation at July 10, 2011 7:06 PM
Well then I will have to go with Amy's comment when talking about her."Four words: Grow. The. Fuck. Up."
"too immature to accept any kind of sexual advance."
This describes many American women, just look at all the sexual harassment cases for a guy saying hi.
"when she decided to make an example of this case."
This is the entire problem, a single tweet saying "some guy asked me out while in an elevator... creepy" and left it at that it would have been OK. Sadly instead she went on a tweet competition with spammers on the situation and then made a video when she thought that wasn't enough.
NakkiNyan at July 10, 2011 7:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344907">comment from Brains of the OperationMy advice: don't quit your day job. I'm a woman, and let me just say: lady, you disgust me.
Because I don't demonize mail sexuality?
I haven't had a "day job" since I was 23 -- I write a syndicated column and books and make appearances -- but good work on the creative insult!
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 7:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344913">comment from ConnorIf you only want to hear what you want to hear, if it is upsetting to you if somebody says something to you that you don't entirely like or approve of, you should not go out in public.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 7:20 PM
PZ linked to your post, just fyi.
Larky at July 10, 2011 7:40 PM
If I hadn't read and heard all of the accounts from people who were actually there, I would have found your version credible. It's a good reminder to not believe a blogger without confirmation from several sources.
Tamika Watson at July 10, 2011 7:45 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344946">comment from Tamika WatsonUm...I quoted the woman and posted her video...what's not to believe?
PZ Myers' blog item is really weak tea. Just skimmed it.
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 7:49 PM
So this is the hot coffee patch?
GTA at July 10, 2011 7:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2344952">comment from GTAKeep coming...love the traffic!
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 7:51 PM
PS They also made a song about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Yrhv33Zb8
GTA at July 10, 2011 7:55 PM
I would totally blow richard dawkins in an elevator
amanda Moorman at July 10, 2011 8:07 PM
Connor Says:
“But I also feel that even if the situation isn't that important to you, it is to her.”
I have been watching what I can best describe as a “non-event” take on a life of it’s own for the past few days and seen a rendition of the above argument several times.
While in some sense I am all for the fuzzy “everyone’s feelings are valid” sentiment that you and others have been trying to put forth. The problem for me in this particular case is that this level of sensitivity to personal feelings is not a general trend amongst this group of skeptic atheists.
For example, what do you think their general response is to theists for whom religious belief is both personal and important? Does this group tend to say to themselves “well this is just their personal interpretation and is important to them” and hence let’s the issue go?… of course not.
The much more common approach is for them to declare that ones subjective personal experience is completely irrelevant when evaluating the truth value of a claim. They go on to demand objective proof of the claim based upon evidence, and all of that personal revelation stuff is tossed aside as complete hogwash.
So my question is the following. Why should her subjective interpretation of an invitation she received in an elevator be treated any differently just because the situation is “important to her”? After all, aren’t those religious beliefs “important” to the people who cling to them?
If someone is going to demand such sensitivity when it comes to their subjective interpretation of discomfort for a particular personal experience, then they must invariably offer the same level of sensitivity to other peoples subjective interpretation of comfort for their personal experiences.
If one does not do this they simply make a hypocrite out of themselves. Another reasonable alternative of course is to not get overly upset when your own subjective interpretation is criticized or called into question.
Put more simply, don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Reality at July 10, 2011 9:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345045">comment from RealityWhile in some sense I am all for the fuzzy “everyone’s feelings are valid” sentiment that you and others have been trying to put forth. The problem for me in this particular case is that this level of sensitivity to personal feelings is not a general trend amongst this group of skeptic atheists.
Hah. Very good point. (And I say that as a sometimes abrasive atheist...just scroll through any post here on religion.)
Amy Alkon at July 10, 2011 9:10 PM
So a women told you what happened to her and how it made her feel and you fucktards think you have to tell her how wrong she was. Have you no sense of irony about the power and privilege you are showing?
Yeah, this blog is a waste of electrons. ta ta!
Lymie at July 10, 2011 9:15 PM
Lymie Says:
“So a women told you what happened to her and how it made her feel and you fucktards think you have to tell her how wrong she was. Have you no sense of irony about the power and privilege you are showing?”
The only irony here is that this is a group of skeptic atheists who spend many hours per week telling people that how they feel is “wrong” and then get all tied up in a knot when their feelings are questioned or skeptically analyzed.
People should treat others how they want to be treated, it really is that simple. You don’t get to spend your time telling others how unimportant their feelings are about a personal issue and then get bent out of shape when the same thing happens to you.
This isn’t about “privilege”… it is about common courtesy.
If anything, the person who expects to be treated differently than how they treat others is acting out of a sense of power and privilege, don’t you think?
Reality at July 10, 2011 9:45 PM
2. Asking the girl in private is fine. It's the fact that it was 4 AM and it was in an elevator. Admittedly, I am jumping to conclusions here, but when a guy asks you to come to his room for "coffee" in an elevator at 4 AM, that's a red, sexual flag. If one of the factors had changed, I think things would be different. If it wasn't in an enclosed space, if it wasn't private, if it wasn't so late (or early, depending on how you think of it). I understand it's hard to ask a girl out, but the situation really was pretty creepy.
Factors like she was partying in a bar until 4am and made a very public announcment that she was leaving and heading up to her room?
lujlp at July 10, 2011 9:48 PM
I think the issue is if I was asked out in an elevator I would be fine with it. I am sure that guy would have been too since he thought it was OK.
He wasn't tactful but bashing the guy for weeks is terrible even if she won't give any of his info out. How would she have liked it if he was on twitter saying "this man-hating self-important woman at the conference acted like a bitch, you should all ban her." That is pretty much what she is did and when called out on it she went off the deep end.
NakkiNyan at July 10, 2011 9:54 PM
"Factors like she was partying in a bar until 4am and made a very public announcement that she was leaving and heading up to her room?"
Ya 4am does not mean she is done for the day, I know I said it before but people are seeming to miss it (likely due to the amount of comments.)
If she wasn't making a scene about it I would feel bad for her because she was trapped in a box with a stranger but she instead gets no sympathy from me, at all.
NakkiNyan at July 10, 2011 9:58 PM
This whole thing has been such a stupid clusterfuck... it started off innocently enough. Some guy makes a pass at Rebecca Watson... she apparently says no... they both feel awkward and uncomfortable as they continue to ride the elevator in silence... they get out and go their separate ways... end of story. Or it would be if Watson hadn't gone on to publicly humiliate a fellow female blogger (a much less privileged one) at a conference. When she gets called out on it, then all fucking hell breaks loose. She and her mindless minions deflect attention from her boorish behavior by going ballistic over the elevator incident, and screaming that anyone who criticizes the almighty Rebecca Watson is a rapist. And anyone who points out that she did not actually get raped, that what she experienced is pretty fucking negligible compared to, say, female genital mutilation, is... you guessed it... a rapist.
This is actually standard operating procedure for Watson... do a Google search on how she attacked scientist Laurence Krauss and had her cultists screaming that he was a pedophile. This woman is a really nasty piece of work who can't stand anyone disagreeing with her or calling her out on her superficiality and vanity. What really disappoints me is to see people like P. Z. Myers and Phil Plaitt jumping on the more-feminist-than-thou bandwagon and totally misrepresenting the whole story.
Jesus Murphy at July 10, 2011 10:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345252">comment from Jesus MurphyThanks, Jesus Murphy, for reminding me about this other blogger, Stef McGraw, who was quite sensible and reasonable. McGraw blogs:
http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-32.html
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 12:19 AM
For fucks sake, we ALL know that the rules of social interaction on elevators are different than in the hotel lobby bar (or at work, or the DMV, or anywhere else that isn't a temporarily inescapable metal box).
(For those of you who don't, here's some remedial help: www.elevatorrules.com.)
Assuming we've never met, if I'm alone on an elevator and you get on after me, please do what any normal human being would do and stare at the door or the floor numbers or the buttons or your shoes. Don't try to read the flyer about the hotel brunch buffet if it's on my side of the elevator if there's even a possibility that it might seem like you're looking at me.
Have diarrhea of the mouth and your urge to chat is uncontrollable? Well, control it, for fuck sake. Nothing you have to say can possibly tell me more about you than your inability to follow one of the most accepted and adhered-to societal norms: that you should STFU on an elevator.
Just because I don't intend to rape you doesn't excuse me from not knowing that NO sentence that begins "Don't take this the wrong way" should EVER be said to a stranger on an elevator. Just because you don't intend to rape me doesn't mean that, if I'm alone and standing on the left side of the elevator when you board, you have any business choosing to stand anywhere other than as far to the right side as possible. It's just common courtesy and social etiquette in the big city, Jethro. It's a set of rules we agree to live by because being on an elevator with strangers is unbearly cramped otherwise.
You can't make jokes about sneaking a bomb onto a plane when you're in the airport security line and then complain about the extra attention you get, and you can't follow a woman into an elevator at 4:00 a.m. and hit on her and then complain about how you came across as creepy.
feenie at July 11, 2011 1:51 AM
@lujlp
"Factors like she was partying in a bar until 4am and made a very public announcment that she was leaving and heading up to her room?"
So you mean if one of those factors would have changed, then the situation wouldn't have been as creepy? I would think that if she had just slipped out of the bar without saying anything, the creepiness would still be there.
I see where you're getting at, though. I think you're suggesting that obviously someone approached her in the elevator because she publicly announced that she was going to bed and that it was in the bar where people drink. So she contributed to it.
I don't think we know the exact context. From the video, she said "I've had enough guys, I'm going to bed." I don't know if that is "very public" or not.
@feenie,
Yes! Thank you.
@Reality
I can honestly say I've never thought of that point... Point taken!
Connor at July 11, 2011 3:30 AM
Al: "I suspect opinions like this are the reason why people call you an extremist or a troll...and, in fact, I think they are probably being kind and giving you the benefit of the doubt."
Now I'm an extremist/troll for drawing attention to the fact that rape is considered only a matter of opinion.
Thanks for proving my point, asshole.
Lenona: "I hate to ask, but can we get a few more details on these disagreements you've said you've had? After all, the men you're describing should, logically speaking, also be saying that rape should be legalized, but you didn't say they said anything like that, so something's missing here."
Logic does not necessarily dictate human behavior (look at feminists and liberals for instance). Calls for the legalization of rape aren't that uncommon among so-called men's rights activists, though.
Lymie: "So a women told you what happened to her and how it made her feel and you fucktards think you have to tell her how wrong she was. Have you no sense of irony about the power and privilege you are showing?"
"Power." "Privilege." Lol.
someone at July 11, 2011 3:41 AM
someone: "I (a man) no longer believe this. I think the only thing holding men back are the legal consequences. Why do I think this? Because almost everywhere I go, I'm called an "extremist" or a "troll" for merely asserting that rape is inexcusable and absolutely evil. As far as everyone else is concerned, to rape or not rape is just a preference, like deciding what flavor of ice cream you want. It's not a moral issue anymore."
So you think rape is exclusively a legal, not moral, issue because people call you an extremist or a troll for saying that rape is evil or inexcusable? I don't think I understand that fully. In my experience, I don't think I've met anyone that considers rape a matter of opinion. Most people think it's inexcusable like you did. Either we have had radically different experiences or I'm just not interpreting what you've said right.
Also, what about feminist and liberal behavior is illogical to you? I ask because when listening or reading to rhetoric from the liberal or feminist side, I hear the same thing said about conservatives and non-feminists.
Connor at July 11, 2011 4:05 AM
Sorry, I forgot - and what about the concepts of "power" and "privilege" makes you laugh?
Connor at July 11, 2011 4:06 AM
Rebecca didn't make a "big deal" out of it, everyone following her original post (including you) has turned it into a big deal.
Graham Martin-Royle at July 11, 2011 4:17 AM
Power and privilege? Unbelievable! Where the hell did that come from? Having a reasonable exchange of ideas is showing power and privilege? Seriously? What an idiot.
And, Reality, you're making brilliant points. It's when their own hypocrisy is revealed that these types go off.
I do agree that the guy didn't ask her out on a date. It's not fair to summarize it that way. He was very boldly hitting on her, trying to get laid at 4 am. But so what? Would Erica Jong have freaked out about this? What has happened to feminists? Are you all so fragile and sensitive now? I thought the goal was to have the same sexual freedom as men do, not whine about every awkward moment. It's embarrassing.
Plus, some women WANT to get laid at 4 am, and this absurd villanization of any guy who might ask impedes the process for those women. If you don't want to get laid, just say "no thanks." Don't make out like he's a rapist...or even wrong to ask. He's not.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 4:35 AM
Also, if anybody is showing "power and privilege" it is Watson herself. That's why Dawkin's response was so spot on hilarious. Here's a western woman revealing her power and privilege by insisting that she never have to suffer a moment of discomfort. And now, her minions are crying that it was "important to her" when there are women all over the world truly suffering.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 4:48 AM
What next? Rape victims are asking for it?
"Advice goddess" my arse.
My arse at July 11, 2011 5:34 AM
"What next? Rape victims are asking for it?"
Yeah, because that's really the same thing as saying that women should be mature enough to handle an awkward elevator encounter.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 6:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345566">comment from lovelysoul"What next? Rape victims are asking for it?" Yeah, because that's really the same thing as saying that women should be mature enough to handle an awkward elevator encounter.
Luckily, people here are able to think for themselves, unlike those coming over from PZ Myers site. What's funny is, he and Watson are really fundamentalists, just fundamentalists of a different sort. Myers is a fundamentalist leftist who must put together what claims to be logic but isn't at all in the service of going after anybody who doesn't share his PC politics. Look at his thinking about me on this issue...the notion that the two things he tried to connect even connect. When women get older, they lose their sex appeal. It's true. And what he says I said was power wasn't power...but he is just an old goat of a lefty, blinded by PC, and he must go after me because of it.
What lovelysoul says above is a briefly stated statement of sense that wipes out PZ Myers silliness in just a few words.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345576">comment from lovelysoulAlso, if anybody is showing "power and privilege" it is Watson herself. That's why Dawkin's response was so spot on hilarious. Here's a western woman revealing her power and privilege by insisting that she never have to suffer a moment of discomfort.
Again, batting cleanup, we have lovelysoul.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345583">comment from lovelysoulPlus, some women WANT to get laid at 4 am, and this absurd villanization of any guy who might ask impedes the process for those women. If you don't want to get laid, just say "no thanks." Don't make out like he's a rapist...or even wrong to ask. He's not.
Again, right on, lovelysoul.
And Rebecca did make a big deal out of it by mentioning it and complaining that she was being "sexualized," as if it's a horrible thing that a guy expresses interest in her. And what a shocking thing after setting herself up as an atheist pinup, that a guy would look at that picture of her, starkers, on her bed, reading a book, and not think that he should "respect" her enough to not hit on her.
Dawkins was entirely right.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345591">comment from ConnorSorry, I forgot - and what about the concepts of "power" and "privilege" makes you laugh?
Hilarious. I get email every day from guys who are too terrified to endure 10 seconds of possible humiliation in order to ask women out. "Power" and "privilege"? Try terror and meekness. These are code words from the feminist industrial complex that we all must use and bow to or we will be considered bad citizens. I don't like fundamentalism of any kind and certainly not the kind that not only demonizes men and male sexuality as disgusting and wrong, but makes me, as a woman, out to be some sort of perpetual victim who needs protection of feminist fundamentalist thinking so a guy won't ask me out in an elevator. Thanks, again, I'm perfectly capable of saying, "No thanks, think I'm going to just turn in." Or, in a different, boyfriendless time, like lovelysoul said, I might have gone in for sex with a fellow conference-goer.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345599">comment from feenieAssuming we've never met, if I'm alone on an elevator and you get on after me, please do what any normal human being would do and stare at the door or the floor numbers or the buttons or your shoes.
Again, I've been to an Atheists Alliance conference (invited, comped -- I'd never go to one of these things without invitation, or pay) and the people there ALL look like Members of the Tribe...same as at an alt newspaper conference. They aren't strangers...they're fellow travelers, and it's obvious. That's why this silly chick talked about him as if he'd heard her speak. She maybe even recognized him, but surely recognized him as a fellow traveler.
Love that PZ is sending over a bunch of dittoheads. I'm an atheist, but I recognize fundamentalism and good soldiers when I see 'em. Here, people like lovelysoul disagree with me on many issues. There isn't one Advicegoddess.com-mind like with PZ's followers. People who comment here frequently think I'm an ass -- and sometimes they're right.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:43 AM
Connor: "So you think rape is exclusively a legal, not moral, issue because people call you an extremist or a troll for saying that rape is evil or inexcusable?"
That's how men feel about it now. Not sure why though.
"Also, what about feminist and liberal behavior is illogical to you?"
Everything. Nothing they say or think makes any sense at all ("Biology is socially constructed!").
"Sorry, I forgot - and what about the concepts of "power" and "privilege" makes you laugh?"
As feminist concepts they are idiotic gibberish.
someone at July 11, 2011 7:08 AM
You guys! This horse is dead already!! Let it go. Watson's a twit, we got that. Dawkins is an insensative arse, but so freakin' what? We got bigger fish to fry!
Flynne at July 11, 2011 7:17 AM
"They aren't strangers...they're fellow travelers, and it's obvious. That's why this silly chick talked about him as if he'd heard her speak."
First, it's a little more likely that she talked about him as if he'd heard her speak because he said "I find you very interesting and I'd like to talk more..." Durrrrr.
Second, are you saying that "fellow travelers" can't be creepy? "Whaddya mean I can't hit on you in an elevator? We're both atheists, right? Plus I just LOVED your speech today and I've been following your blog for years. I'm your #1 fan, and it's so exciting to finally meet you! As long as we're stuck on this elevator together, can I take this chance to as if you'd have sex with me? Don't take it the wrong way: I'm really not a stalker." Thanks for pointing out that he's a "Member of the Tribe"; I hadn't considered it in this light, but it really makes him come across as even creepier.
"Love that PZ is sending over a bunch of dittoheads. I'm an atheist, but I recognize fundamentalism and good soldiers when I see 'em."
Your ad hominem doesn't do much to address why this behavior isn't creepy or anti-social.
Really, I can't believe people are so clueless about how anti-social it is to get all chatty in elevators (I don't believe it either; people know how to behave on elevators and just take silly positions on comment sections of blogs). And it works both ways: I wouldn't touch a woman who hit on me in an elevator with a 10 foot pole. If she's starting out with a clear indication of how clueless she is to appropriate behavior (including how to approach someone for sex), chances are she'll be less able to grasp other behavioral norms, such as how to pleasantly, uneventfully GTFO n the morning.
Sometimes the hook-up just wasn't meant to be. If the only opportunity you have at the hook-up is a proposition on the elevator, then that's one of those not-meant-to-be times. But if you need to make the proposition SOOOOO BAD that you just CAN'T let that opportunity on the elevator go, you're way too vested in the opportunity already. You're either desperate or overly aggressive. It doesn't matter how timidly you make the pass. You're creepy.
feenie at July 11, 2011 8:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345733">comment from feenie"Love that PZ is sending over a bunch of dittoheads. I
So...do you see even one comment over there disputing anything in Myers' blog post?
Plenty of people who are regulars here disagree with me all the time.
I've already disputed the rest of your silliness above.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 8:23 AM
"Your ad hominem doesn't do much to address why this behavior isn't creepy or anti-social."
Because it's not antisocial. It might be creepy, depending on the guy's delivery, but all these "elevator rules" you speak of exist only in your head because there is no rule that a man can't hit on a woman in an elevator...or anywhere else.
Declining the proposition may be more awkward in some places than others, but so what? Grown women put on their big girl panties, politely reject the guy, leave the elevator, and feel no need to whine about such a non-event to anyone, much less the entire world.
And I love how now, in an attempt to validate Watson's absurd reaction, her dittoheads are morphing him into a stalker/fan. First, he was a potential rapist, and after that didn't fly, he's become a deranged fan, who scared her with too much...flattery? C'mon!
Be intellectually honest. This was a stupid overreaction, based on a culture of victimization and villifying males, and Watson got called to the carpet on it. What you're hearing is a chorus of women saying, "This overly sensitive little twit doesn't speak for me! We don't want men to tip-toe around us, for fear of offending us...because we don't NEED that. We're not babies. We're strong women who can handle ourselves in such situations."
That used to be what feminism was all about. Now, it's about asking for special treatment and concessions.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 8:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345782">comment from lovelysoulThis was a stupid overreaction, based on a culture of victimization and villifying males, and Watson got called to the carpet on it. What you're hearing is a chorus of women saying, "This overly sensitive little twit doesn't speak for me! We don't want men to tip-toe around us, for fear of offending us...because we don't NEED that. We're not babies. We're strong women who can handle ourselves in such situations." That used to be what feminism was all about. Now, it's about asking for special treatment and concessions.
Exactly right once again, lovelysoul.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 8:55 AM
I suspect that the person who said that he was called an extremist and a troll for asserting that rape is inexcusable and evil, is not being entirely truthful.
I would suggest that the discussion was more along the lines of what constitutes rape.
Some people assert that a woman and a man whom are both intoxicated and have sex in that state can be broken down into "victim/rapist" solely because the woman was drunk. That both made a decision they might not otherwise have made is not relevant to those who hold this position.
To them, any choice by a woman is the responsibility of the man.
I suspect that, when these men disagreed with the person who posted here, in the poster's mind they were saying that rape was OK.
That they genuinely disagreed with his reasoning meant that in his mind they were held back only by the force of the law. At best they were dangerous potential rapists.
In short, the poster is not really "lying" just a living example of cognitive dissonance and not really being totally truthful about the context of those conversations.
The only men I've ever met who thought rape was OK were...wait, I don't know any. To find some, one would likely have to look in a prison or a Mosque.
Robert at July 11, 2011 8:56 AM
"If the only opportunity you have at the hook-up is a proposition on the elevator, then that's one of those not-meant-to-be times. But if you need to make the proposition SOOOOO BAD that you just CAN'T let that opportunity on the elevator go, you're way too vested in the opportunity already. You're either desperate or overly aggressive. It doesn't matter how timidly you make the pass. You're creepy."
Desperate or overly aggressive? I don't think 4 am in a hotel elevator is such bad timing. If a woman might be interested, it's worth a shot. The worst that will happen is that she'll say no, which is apparently the worst that happened here.
But that's not good enough. You want ALL guys to get the message to never hit on a woman in an elevator and probably a host of other places you'd deam inappropriate. Well, speak for yourself! Many other women feel differently, and we don't want to project that we're too precious and fragile to be approached. We don't want men to fear we'll cry "rape" at the mere proximity of a male in an elevator.
I've gotten hit on all my adult life. Much worse when I was younger. Some were quite comical, and others were just sweet or lame, but I've never found them "offensive."
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 9:05 AM
Yes! Someone else who views this issue with perspective!
Chris Willett at July 11, 2011 9:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345859">comment from lovelysoulI don't think 4 am in a hotel elevator is such bad timing. If a woman might be interested, it's worth a shot.
Absolutely. Error management theory, which I explain above (per Buss & Haselton - it's from their work), tells the guy to make the least costly mating error, which would be taking a chance that a woman will say no rather than missing a potential mating opportunity.
I'm not a fragile flower who can't handle an expression of interest. If some women are, they should have protectors around like in the olden days...never see a man except at tea in the family parlor with the aunties all around.
What's kind of amazing is proclaiming one's equality with men while maintaining one's status as a fragile, protected class.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 9:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345860">comment from Amy AlkonHere's more on equal vs. special treatment:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 9:43 AM
You appear to be suffering the sexually frustrated wrath of many white knights here, Amy.
I agree with you. The one gigantic hole in this girl's assertion that 'men shouldn't sexualize women with this behavior' is that there are plenty of women out there who might have said 'yes' when asked the same question, at the same time, in the same elevator. Her personal reaction is not anywhere near indicative of what all women think and want. And yes, she said beforehand she didn't want to do anything but sleep. But people are capable of changing their minds. This guy had a feeling she would I'm sure, and so he went for it.
This guy had a 0.01% chance of a fun night if he asked. He had a 0% chance if he didn't.
As an aside, I'm not surprised at all by the reaction by the Phil Plait's and PZ Meyer's of the world. I've been into parapsychology for a few years now and I'm continuously astonished by what the so called 'rational' side gets away with in terms of misrepresenting that research. I don't know this blog's conception about that material and am not going to bother arguing about its validity, but my point remains... I expected to see this sort of unfair public condemnation, absolute statements, and childish logic. There are no surprises here for me.
Goonch at July 11, 2011 10:01 AM
Okay.
I can honestly say that after thinking about stuff for awhile, I really don't know what to think. I feel as though it's impossible for me to take a good, firm position on the issue because going back and forth from different ideas in my head, I get convinced of each one. I get too drawn into the rhetoric! Each argument has its way of making the other side appear as the scum of the Earth, and it's so damn convincing.
That does make me a "dittohead", actually, in a very real sense. Not because I like PZ's blog (and many others!), but because I change my opinion on shit so often. I try to be open-minded, but that eventually leads me to not being able to think straight about this issue or any issue for that matter. Does anyone else ever feel that way? Or am I just a total idiot? It's totally possible that I am. Not denying it.
My opinion as it stands is I can't get over how creepy it is to be propositioned in an elevator at 4 AM, but if I think real hard, I do realize that this isn't so creepy for everyone. I understand that Watson felt sexualized, but I do feel that that is more on her than on the guy (though I can't say for sure because I don't know the vibe the guy was giving off). And the danger in this issue is that it does make women feel like victims. I am in no way in favor of "infantilizing" anyone.
Could I be any more indecisive?
At any rate, even if my opinion is all mixed up, I haven't thought this much about gender-related stuff before, so that's a good thing. And even if I came into the post a flaming, hypercritical bitch, I did leave with some perspective. So that's good, too. I should probably just stop thinking about it and come back when I'm not so messed up in the head!
Connor at July 11, 2011 10:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2345976">comment from ConnorSaying you're not sure means you have my respect.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 10:49 AM
"Have you no sense of irony about the power and privilege you are showing?"
"Power and privilege" of having an opinion?
Lymie is butthurt.
lsomber at July 11, 2011 11:00 AM
Lovelysoul.... don't take this the wrong way but after reading all your posts... You wanna go have a cuppa coffee? :P
Seriously, you are saying exactly what I am thinking. Exactly. You can speak for me on this subject anytime.
Sabrina at July 11, 2011 11:15 AM
As the mom of a son and daughter, one thing that bothers me, which I touched upon earlier, is that, more and more, women are "sexualizing" themselves. Girls today wear skimpier clothing than ever, starting in grade school. Most of the female celebrities have sex tapes, followed by lucrative reality shows, and even this young woman, a feminist, is a pin-up girl, and hanging out at 4 am...yet, all the while, demanding not to be thought of sexually.
Of course, this logic gets awfully close to blaming the victim, which I absolutely don't believe in. If Watson had been raped in that elevator, of course, she wouldn't have deserved it, no matter what the hour or even if she was falling down drunk.
Yet, what concerns me is this growing mentality among young women, especially those entrenched in feminist rhetoric, that because men are *supposed* to behave in a certain way, there is little responsibility upon them to be accountable for their own actions. It's all on the guy's side to control. Women can send out all the sexual vibes and still it's the man's fault for "sexualizing" them or misreading their cues. The whole thing is very one-sided, and it seems to have led a lot of young women to believe they can behave in ways that are risky and provocative without any consequence.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 11:44 AM
"Lovelysoul.... don't take this the wrong way but after reading all your posts... You wanna go have a cuppa coffee? :P"
Thanks, Sabrina. lol I'm married, and straight, but I still don't find that one bit offensive. :)
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 11:46 AM
Rebecca's main point (and she has explained this in other vids) is that women in atheist/skeptical groups are approached by men so much that it's a problem
Rebecca needs to learn to live with the consquences of her philosophy. To wit --
(1) In the absence of religious belief, men have no reason to restrain their sexual impulses. If atheists or skeptics find a girl sexually attractive, they will make a play for her. Why not?
(2) Her own philosophy gives her no compelling reason to say "no" to such an approach, other than, she just doesn't want to -- and how can a man know that in advance?
(3) How can she complain about being "sexualized" after posing nude for a calendar? Truth is, she has SELF sexualized her public image.
If the consequences of her philosophy are unpalatable, she needs to find God and spend her social time in conservative religious venues where men, if they approach at all, generally do so for the purpose of marriage-oriented courtship rather than one night stands.
van Rooinek at July 11, 2011 12:05 PM
Here's the problem with that: Other than things created explicitly for dating (online dating sites, speed dating, etc.), there is no social situation in which it is not inappropriate to ask a woman out. It's inappropriate (and can get you fired) at work. It's inappropriate at church. It's inappropriate at the grocery store, and the laundry, and the apartment swimming pool. It's inappropriate at a friend's house. It's not even very appropriate at a bar
That's insanely wrong.
Granted, I met my wife online, but most of my friends met their wives in church or through friends. And I even know some co-workers who fell in love, conducted their romance with great circumspection and respect for corporate rules, and got married. (Management was thrilled and threw them a wedding shower in the corporate cafeteria.)
As to the bar scene, it's not my thing, but if I know anything at all about it, I know this -- meeting the opposite sex is the whole point of it.
So if we rule out churches, friend's houses, work, and bars (and en passant connections such as the grocery aisle, laundry room, etc) -- then, where in the hell are people supposed to meet?
Oh, wait, I forgot the feminist mantra: "all (hetero) sex is rape". So the disruption of our mating patterns is INTENTIONAL. They actively seek to prevent us from getting together. Now I get it.
But if they win that battle, women will be heartbroken, and will eventually start bitterly ranting on their blogs that men don't ask them out any more. As the CS Lewis character "Aslan" once put it, "All get what they want. They do not always like it."
van Rooinek at July 11, 2011 12:32 PM
Shorter Rebecca: Flirting While Beta = Sexual Harassment.
lsomber at July 11, 2011 1:18 PM
@lovelysoul - how about respect for our fellow human beings as a reason for restraint? As a human being myself, I have a deeply-vested interest in how we treat each other.
And I can't help but notice that so many people are ignoring the context that this occured in. Rebecca Waston was asked for her opinion on how to get women more involved in atheist/skeptic conferences, which are currently attended almost entirely by men. She was pointing to this thing that happened to her as one sign of a larger issue, which is explained here: http://awurl.com/sGtYLVdUh
MercuryChaos at July 11, 2011 2:40 PM
What's so ironic about this Watson character is that anybody listening/reading should take it on faith that she was actually hit on in at 4 am in an elevator.
uh huh.
And on the 7th day, God rested.
Until she puts forth proof that she was hit on, it never happened.
See? Being a skeptic is quite easy.
Jen Wading at July 11, 2011 3:04 PM
Your ad hominem doesn't do much to address why this behavior isn't creepy or anti-social.
Well feenie, just off the tp of my head, if guy didnt proposition women for sex there would be no babies, and therefor no society at all.
I wouldn't touch a woman who hit on me in an elevator with a 10 foot pole
feenie hat means your either gay, or have to take a little blue pill four hours before sex, or that you dont like sex
And again people the woman spent hours drinking and partying in a bar, and made sure everyone knew she was leaving. She went out of her way to inform everyone she would be alone for the next few minutes. $20 bucks says she intended someone more attracitve to her to follow her out to the elevator.
lujlp at July 11, 2011 3:18 PM
So, mercuryChoas, you position is Watson was saying the reason more women dont become involved in the atheist/skeptic community is because they are incapable of dealing with men as equals?
lujlp at July 11, 2011 3:22 PM
I'm so happy for you that Rebecca's off hand suggestion has given you such cause for generating traffic.
PrimevilKneivel at July 11, 2011 3:36 PM
"What next? Rape victims are asking for it?"
Yes, that's exactly what came next, post after post after post.
Sometimes I wonder why logicians dismiss the Slippery Slope argument as a fallacy. It's just so accurate and darned convenient to use.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 11, 2011 3:55 PM
Robert: "I would suggest that the discussion was more along the lines of what constitutes rape."
It wasn't.
"In short, the poster is not really "lying" just a living example of cognitive dissonance and not really being totally truthful about the context of those conversations."
Conversations that you have never witnessed and know nothing about. You're a living example of making things up.
"The only men I've ever met who thought rape was OK were...wait, I don't know any. To find some, one would likely have to look in a prison or a Mosque."
Go to any perfectly ordinary website full of perfectly ordinary men and you should find several in no time. If you want to really maximize your chances, go to any MRA or PUA site.
someone at July 11, 2011 3:57 PM
"Until she puts forth proof that she was hit on, it never happened.
See? Being a skeptic is quite easy."
lol. Good one, JenW.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 4:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2347686">comment from PrimevilKneivelI'm so happy for you that Rebecca's off hand suggestion has given you such cause for generating traffic.
Not as happy as I am. Instapundit's link sent me 20,000 more visitors than I usually have in a day!
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 4:21 PM
someone, the reason you seem to find so many guys 'dismissive' of rape is becuse these days rape isnt just sex forced on a woman against her will, its become any sex a woman later regrets even if its months later.
When a woman spends the night in her rapisist bed after the sex without fleeing an unlocked apartment, has breakfast with him in the morning and then gives him directions to her home as he gives her a ride in his car, and then waits a couple of days before going to the cops claiming rape under the theory that she couldnt consent beause she drank a couple of beers . . .
Well you shouldnt be too suprised when anyone other than feminists dont see that act as anything similar to acctual rape
lujlp at July 11, 2011 5:18 PM
Oh, I see. Because feminists are distorting the meaning of rape for political reasons, it must somehow follow that rape isn't a big deal at all!
As expected, it didn't take long for a rape apologist to show up. They are as ubiquitous as cockroaches.
someone at July 11, 2011 5:32 PM
"It makes me "incredibly uncomfortable" when people wear flipflops in public."
That wouldn't be a big fat lie, would it? It's true there are some unusual phobias out there, but you'd think someone rendered uncomfortable by a person's shoe choice would have at least a little sympathy for another's discomfort.
You know, in all of the lunacy that poor Ms Watson inspired with one offhand comment, the thing that I've not seen mentioned, is the parents. I imagine there is a parent somewhere that would advise a daughter that it's perfectly normal to be propositioned at 4am in elevators, but most would not. Most parents of daughters actually employ an ongoing conscious and concerted effort to teach their daughters of the dangers of men they don't know. This is reinforced regularly in young women's literature, tv, advise columns (the irony - it burns), churches, teachers, just to name a few. And when I say parents, I don't mean man-hatin moms. I can't count the number of times I've heard fathers say, "I won't let her date till she's 30. I know how men are; I am one!"
I wouldn't be surprised if the advisegoddess didn't actually give advise at some point in her career extolling the virtues of caution when considering dating partners, and not the kind of caution that might help one avoid the viewing of unwanted footwear.
Amii Lockhart at July 11, 2011 5:38 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2348218">comment from Amii Lockhart"It makes me "incredibly uncomfortable" when people wear flipflops in public." That wouldn't be a big fat lie, would it?
Sorry...didn't think to take into account the level of humorlessness of people sent over by PZ Myers and other victim-feminist apologists.
"Pooooor Ms. Watson..." having a man express interest in her.
Insert Richard Dawkins' very apropos note here.
The rest of your posting is unintentionally hilarious and requires no comment.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 5:49 PM
Nice attempt at distraction, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt there. You either know I was not referring to the man propositioning Ms Watson when I called her poor or you fail to graps simple sentence structure.
Either way, doesn't bode well for the recipients of your advise.
Amii Lockhart at July 11, 2011 6:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2348294">comment from Amii LockhartLet's just say I'm being kind here in my restraint in responding to your second comment as well as your first...tempting as it is to let it fly.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 6:17 PM
Well you shouldnt be too suprised when anyone other than feminists dont see that act(not rape) as anything similar to acctual rape
Posted by: lujlp at July 11, 2011 5:18 PM
Oh, I see. Because feminists are distorting the meaning of rape for political reasons, it must somehow follow that rape isn't a big deal at all!
As expected, it didn't take long for a rape apologist to show up. They are as ubiquitous as cockroaches.
Posted by: someone
So just to be clear someone I write
Things that arent rape are not treated as rape except by idological feminists(who view all sex as rape anyway)
and you see
I think rape is just fine
Are you fucking INSANE? What is your malfunction?
Incedentaly if you think that by not classifing consentaul sex as rape makes me a rape apologist, that can only mean you are a sexist.
Also I didnt 'show' up, had you bothered to read any of the resposes posted days before your arrival you'd have seen I've been here all along
lujlp at July 11, 2011 6:31 PM
Also Amii Lockhart, flip flops are kinda gross.
Most people dont take care of their feet to begin with, many have cracked dry skin, they dont wear socks with the flip flops so airborne dust mixes in with the sweat and god only knows what else they have growing on their feet creating this fithly film of oil like crude which coats the soles of their feet and rubber of the sandles eventually leading to a gross squishing sound everytime they take a step and their feet shift sliding in that sweat based mud
lujlp at July 11, 2011 6:36 PM
You're either justifying rape or trying to draw attention away from the fact that rape is inexcusably evil by bringing up completely unrelated matters. Either way you're a rape apologist.
someone at July 11, 2011 6:41 PM
Yeah, lujip you misogynist! Rape is whatever any particular woman says it is at any given time. If she felt raped it doesn't matter what the man actually did. Off to prison with him!
Anything else is being a rape apologist
perro at July 11, 2011 7:00 PM
Found your site today for the first time thanks to PZ Myers. I think PZ is terrific 95% of the time but he is SOOO wrong about the Watson/Dawkins situation. I consider myself to be an atheist, a liberal, and a feminist, but for daring to agree with Dawkins on this matter I was called every name in the book (and then some) by the pack of rabid, bitter, odious misandrists that seem to have usurped control of Myers' blog. I abhor Rush Limbaugh and everything he stands for, but I have actually started thinking - to my amazement - for the last few days that he may actually have a point about "feminazis".
I agree with much of what has been said above, and disagree with quite a bit also, but I commend you and your readers for the (mostly) polite level of discourse. I dislike the accusations of "ugliness" directed against Miss Watson, which are cruel, irrelevant, and inaccurate. She has done some good things and I think some people are being overly harsh on her, though she does seem to be rather fond of attention. Obviously she was 100% entitled to decline the elevator guy's polite, if awkward, offer, but was clearly wrong to criticize Miss McGraw(?) who had no opportunity to rebut. Wrong also to denounce Dawkins for pointing out the triviality of her "problem", and I think she owes him an apology.
Anyway I thank you for your comments at the top of the page. I think PZ is feeling a lot of heat from the community, and deservedly so.
peter at July 11, 2011 7:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2348372">comment from peterThank you, peter. Truly appreciate that.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 7:12 PM
Amii, it's GRASP and ADVICE.
If you're going to criticize someone's sentence structure, you should strive for correct spelling in posting the criticism.
Just sayin'.
And here I am imagining that most parents would be employing a conscious and ongoing effort to teach their daughters not to be in elevators after leaving bars at 4am.
I don't imagine many parents begin a conversation with their daughter(s) with, "honey, when you're leaving the bar at 4am...." Perhaps they should, but I don't imagine many do.
Think back to "date rape." It was cried falsely so many times and politicized so much that it lost all meaning for anyone but the actual victims of it.
By bringing up the specter of rape every time a guy inappropriately propositions a woman, you risk desensitizing the public to actual rape. And pointing that out doesn't make someone a rape apologist.
Conan the Grammarian at July 11, 2011 7:59 PM
"You know, in all of the lunacy that poor Ms Watson inspired with one offhand comment, the thing that I've not seen mentioned, is the parents. I imagine there is a parent somewhere that would advise a daughter that it's perfectly normal to be propositioned at 4am in elevators, but most would not. Most parents of daughters actually employ an ongoing conscious and concerted effort to teach their daughters of the dangers of men they don't know. This is reinforced regularly in young women's literature, tv, advise columns (the irony - it burns), churches, teachers, just to name a few. And when I say parents, I don't mean man-hatin moms. I can't count the number of times I've heard fathers say, "I won't let her date till she's 30. I know how men are; I am one!"
Like Conan said, and as I posted long ago above (you must've missed it), I advise my daughter not to be out alone at 4 am if she can avoid it.
But I also don't fill her with a bunch of man-fear, like the father in your scenario. Anybody who literally wouldn't let their child date until 30 is stunting their growth.
The comment of "knowing how men are" implies that men are inherently unsafe, and if a young woman believes that, she may indeed freak out if hit on in an elevator. I absolutely can see where the paranoia arises, as I've known a lot of parents (namely single mothers) who instilled that kind of "men are bad/dangerous" rhetoric.
This is not healthy. It's a wonder these young women are even able to have relationships with men...and, in fact, many don't. An increasing number of my 17 yr old daughter's friends seem so distrustful of men that they're becoming lesbians. Nothing wrong with that except if it's rooted in fear.
All the modern teachings about males - the media focusing on pedophiles, etc - has brought about an extremism, and that is what we are saying is wrong! If it's gotten so bad that girls are going to freak at what was once a common male/female encounter - a dude trying to score - then things have gone way off track!
Like I said, Jong wouldn't have freaked. She probably would've said yes. So, why are modern feminists so overly sensitive and fearful? This guy was not a rapist. He didn't make any move that indicated he'd be a rapist.
I teach my daughter to be cautious but not paranoid. She will be hit on by guys throughout her life, maybe sometimes in elevators. One of them might even end up being her husband because that's how courtship works.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 8:41 PM
Someone, I dont know what happened to you, and given the way you treat men I dont give a fuck.
But you need therapy, and alot of psycotorpic drugs.
Maybe with a few years of medication and intensive help you can one day realise that saying hello is rape, that propositioning a woman for sex isnt rape, that having consentual sex with a woman isnt rape, that the ONLY thing which is rape is acctaully rape.
Dont beive me? Ask a woman how has actually been raped if she thinks getting propositioned in an elevator and the guy taking no for an answer is the same as what she went thru
lujlp at July 11, 2011 8:48 PM
Btw, my first husband chased me down a street in New York city. He saw me paying my bill in a coffee shop, threw some money on the table for his just-ordered breakfast, and ran me down. Asked me out on the spot.
Can you imagine what a field day I could've had making him out to be a stalker? Wanna bet that would've been Watson's reaction? But I always thought it was rather romantic, not creepy.
So, creepy is really in the eye of the beholder, and what we're suggesting is that there seems to be a whole lot of distortion in the way some women are viewing ordinary encounters with men. They're seeing creepy where it doesn't actually exist.
lovelysoul at July 11, 2011 8:53 PM
Conan: "Think back to "date rape." It was cried falsely so many times and politicized so much that it lost all meaning for anyone but the actual victims of it."
Ok, and this somehow makes rape acceptable? That is what you're saying, isn't it? If it isn't, then why are you diverting attention away from the actual topic? Why is that? I'll tell you why: because you're a rape apologist. You don't want people discussing and being exposed to the idea that rape is absolutely wrong. So you change the subject.
"By bringing up the specter of rape every time a guy inappropriately propositions a woman, you risk desensitizing the public to actual rape."
I wasn't even talking about his proposition.
lujlp: "But you need therapy, and alot of psycotorpic drugs."
Yes, clearly anyone who opposes rape is in dire need of psychiatric intervention.
"Maybe with a few years of medication and intensive help you can one day realise that saying hello is rape, that propositioning a woman for sex isnt rape, that having consentual sex with a woman isnt rape, that the ONLY thing which is rape is acctaully rape. "
Maybe with a brain transplant you'll learn to not make things up. At no point did I say or imply that saying hello or consensual sex is rape.
someone at July 11, 2011 9:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2348549">comment from lovelysoulBtw, my first husband chased me down a street in New York city. He saw me paying my bill in a coffee shop, threw some money on the table for his just-ordered breakfast, and ran me down. Asked me out on the spot.
Love that.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2011 9:32 PM
hmmm.
I see that labeling posters as "rape apologists" is what passes for intelligent debate tactics by femi-facists these days.
Nice shaming tactics being used there from Feminism 101 - 104, btw.
Jen Wading at July 11, 2011 9:46 PM
And there's another common tactic: accuse anyone who opposes rape of being a feminist. It's not like any sane person would ever oppose rape, am I right? They must all be feminists.
It's also a ridiculous tactic since feminists do not actually oppose rape. They find it politically useful and encourage it as much as possible (while maintaining the fiction that they're doing the opposite).
Try again, asshole.
someone at July 11, 2011 10:07 PM
At no point did I say or imply that saying hello or consensual sex is rape.
Posted by: someone
Acctually you did imply it, via calling me a rape apologist for saying consentual sex is not rape
lujlp at July 11, 2011 10:22 PM
If you're not a feminist, then I don't have a hole in my ass.
You try again.
And put your back into it this time while you're at it, sugar tits.
Jen Wading at July 11, 2011 10:24 PM
lujlp: "Acctually you did imply it, via calling me a rape apologist for saying consentual sex is not rape"
Except I never did that either. Try again!
Jen: "If you're not a feminist, then I don't have a hole in my ass."
Being opposed to rape does not make anyone a feminist. Try actually using what few brain cells you have.
someone at July 11, 2011 10:28 PM
Try actually using what few brain cells you have.
Wait. But how, exactly, does an asshole have brain cells?
Kindly explain that one to me.
(If you find you're too befuddled to do so, you can always resort to calling me a rape apologist, too, you know. You seem rather fond of that clever term.)
Jen Wading at July 11, 2011 11:05 PM
I hope you're being facetious.
I guess, since I'm opposed to using the simplistic invocation of rape or the fear of rape as a debating tactic every time a woman encounters male behavior she doesn't like, I must be in favor of rape.
I guess, since I expressed concern that the continued invocation of the specter of rape in debates in which it is not relevant will desensitize the public to the claims of rape (much like it did with date rape), I must be in favor of rape.
There are appropriate times to introduce rape or potential rape into a debate. And it's not every time the debate is about some drunk guy's behavior.
While Watson may have initially had legitimate concerns about Elevator Guy when he propositioned her, his non-aggressive behavior afterward should have left her mildly agitated at his rudeness but not cowering in a mental corner trying to find her happy place. He was just a semi-drunken idiot taking a last, clumsy shot at getting laid that night.
But, the debate around this story has been turned into an "all men are rapists" lecture from ideological fanatics.
All men are not rapists, not even potential rapists.
And trying to convince the world that they are slowly and incrementally diminishes the impact when an actual rapist is accused. Too many false or exaggerated accusations and a jury begins to look for false accusations.
Too many stories like the Duke lacrosse team or DSK and even a real "he raped me" begins sound to too many people like "I'm trying to get a book deal out of this."
You don't do the real victims any favors by equating their actual rape with someone being nervous in an elevator.
And you don't do the world any favors by instilling in every woman a fear that any man might rape her at any time.
You're not raising awareness. You're instilling fear, inciting the mob.
But, what do I know? Apparently I'm in favor of rape.
Conan the Grammarian at July 11, 2011 11:16 PM
From a poster there that goes by "oldsfiled" (it's right at the end of the comments):
Check your privledge - men have never had to suffer from sexual abuse, while woman suffer from it every single day. Her fear of men is perfectly justified.
Wait....what? Men have "never" had to suffer from sexual abuse? Really?
And somone, you really are a disgusting human being.
Steve at July 12, 2011 4:57 AM
"Check your privledge - men have never had to suffer from sexual abuse, while woman suffer from it every single day. Her fear of men is perfectly justified."
This is absurd. I am a woman, and I don't "suffer from sexual abuse every single day."
How? By being hit on? I'm a fairly attractive woman, who gets hit on frequently - sometimes by the guy mopping the floor at the grocery store, or the clerk at the post office. I simply smile and say I'm already taken. No harm; no foul.
I don't consider this "sexual abuse", and it demeans the suffering of victims of real sexual abuse to even put it in the same category. That's what these feminazis are doing - hurting true victims, and it's all the more disturbing how they don't even see, through their own self-absorption and need to wallow in victimhood, what they are doing to women.
As Amy says, this infantilizes women. Oh dear, we can't handle being on an elevator with a guy who awkwardly propositions us. How fragile and tender our sensitivities are because we must "suffer sex abuse every single day."
If you're really suffering sex abuse every single day, then call the authorities. Have your abuser arrested. But a guy finding you attractive and asking you for a cup of coffee is NOT sexual abuse.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2011 6:11 AM
Jen: "If you find you're too befuddled to do so, you can always resort to calling me a rape apologist, too, you know. You seem rather fond of that clever term."
You are a rape apologist and I've already explained why.
Conan: "I guess, since I'm opposed to using the simplistic invocation of rape or the fear of rape as a debating tactic every time a woman encounters male behavior she doesn't like, I must be in favor of rape."
You are changing the subject because you don't want people dwelling too much on the moral wretchedness of rape. Your whole comment is totally irrelevant.
"You're not raising awareness. You're instilling fear, inciting the mob."
There is every reason to be afraid when rape ceases to be a moral issue.
Steve: "And somone, you really are a disgusting human being."
Haha yes I am disgusting human being for opposing rape!
This thread just keeps proving me right.
someone at July 12, 2011 6:13 AM
Someone, I'll make it real simple for you.
Forcing a woman to have sex against her will = rape = horrible evil very very bad.
Politiely asking a woman to your room and taking "no" for an answer = NOT rape = not a big deal
Get it?
perro at July 12, 2011 6:30 AM
"Haha yes I am disgusting human being for opposing rape!"
You're awfully proud of yourself and self-important, like you're the only "someone" who has any morals in the world.
Every rational person opposes rape. Just as every rational person opposes sexual abuse.
This, however, doesn't mean that everyone agrees on the definition, just as we've seen here. For some, riding an elevator with a guy who hits on you is "sexual abuse". Yet, for most thinking people, that is an absurd broadening of the definition.
And it's the same way for rape whenever extremists try to make consenual encounters out to be rape. It waters down what true rape is, and tries to make almost every woman a victim of rape in some form or another.
You are trying to transform rational objections to this kind of extremism as being "pro-rape" or "rape apologist", which is absurd. And it sounds like you're doing so because you need to believe you're the only one left in the universe who is truly anti-rape. That is a self-aggrandizing, grandiose point of view, which suggests mental illness. I think you need to seek some help.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2011 6:41 AM
Someone,
You don’t really grasp what anyone else here is saying.
Your behavior in this thread is very creepy. Especially so with your repeated insistence that a conversation about an invitation in an elevator be transformed into a conversation about rape and that anyone who resists your controlling influence be called a “rape apologist”.
Just a word to the wise here… don’t do that.
I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes others incredibly uncomfortable but I’ll just sort of lay it out that these are reasonable people on a blog having a rational discussion about a conversation that took place in an elevator. Don’t try and turn this into a rape discussion right after we explain to you that this topic never was about sexual assault.
This is especially true now that I have explained how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when people like you sexualize a conversation in this manner.
Oh… and before I forget… if you don’t stop then I’ll have to brand you a verbal abuser and any time you try and defend yourself against that assertion I will call you a verbal abuse apologist.
Thank you for your attention.
Reality at July 12, 2011 7:28 AM
perro: "Forcing a woman to have sex against her will = rape = horrible evil very very bad.
Politiely asking a woman to your room and taking "no" for an answer = NOT rape = not a big deal
Get it?"
Entirely irrelevant. I never said or implied anywhere that asking a woman to come to your room is rape. The only thing I said that rape is evil and inexcusable, which is something that a lot of people here seem to have a really big problem with. Hmm, I wonder why?
lovelysoul: "You're awfully proud of yourself and self-important, like you're the only "someone" who has any morals in the world."
Doesn't seem like anyone is in much of a hurry to prove otherwise.
"Every rational person opposes rape. Just as every rational person opposes sexual abuse."
And most people aren't rational.
"This, however, doesn't mean that everyone agrees on the definition, just as we've seen here. For some, riding an elevator with a guy who hits on you is "sexual abuse". Yet, for most thinking people, that is an absurd broadening of the definition. "
ENTIRELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT. You are trying to change the subject ergo you are a rape apologist.
someone at July 12, 2011 7:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2350846">comment from someoneThe only thing I said that rape is evil and inexcusable, which is something that a lot of people here seem to have a really big problem with.
I see no evidence anyone here finds rape anything but "evil and inexcusable," which it is.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 7:33 AM
Reality: "Your behavior in this thread is very creepy."
Yes, being opposed to rape is very creepy indeed!
"Especially so with your repeated insistence that a conversation about an invitation in an elevator be transformed into a conversation about rape and that anyone who resists your controlling influence be called a “rape apologist”."
I never insisted any such thing anywhere. You are making things up.
"Don’t try and turn this into a rape discussion right after we explain to you that this topic never was about sexual assault."
I simply mentioned to somebody that to most men rape is strictly a matter of opinion and at best an inconvinient legal issue.
"This is especially true now that I have explained how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when people like you sexualize a conversation in this manner."
Haha what?
"Oh… and before I forget… if you don’t stop then I’ll have to brand you a verbal abuser and any time you try and defend yourself against that assertion I will call you a verbal abuse apologist."
Oh no I am verbally abusing rape apologists I am a horrible person :( :(
someone at July 12, 2011 7:36 AM
Amy: "I see no evidence anyone here finds rape anything but "evil and inexcusable," which it is. "
Then you are willfully ignorant.
someone at July 12, 2011 7:37 AM
Someone,
Apparently the irony of my statement was lost on you.
I wish you luck with your mental issues.
For the record, rape is a horrible thing. However this conversation is not about rape. You are trying to thread jack this conversation.
Reality at July 12, 2011 7:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2350858">comment from someoneAmy: "I see no evidence anyone here finds rape anything but "evil and inexcusable," which it is. " Then you are willfully ignorant.
Or...I have read the comments and see no evidence that anyone finds rape anything but evil and inexcusable.
Because someone disagrees with you, and finds your claims unsupported by evidence, doesn't mean they're an idiot, willfully so or innately.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 7:42 AM
Yes clearly anyone who opposes rape has mental issues blah blah blah.
I am not thread jacking anything, it's everyone else who is changing the subject and talking about irrelevant things.
someone at July 12, 2011 7:43 AM
"Or...I have read the comments and see no evidence that anyone finds rape anything but evil and inexcusable."
The only reason why they are so desperate to change the subject is because they don't want anyone dwelling on the moral dimensions of rape. And of course from "feminists are distorting the meaning of rape" it's real easy to segue into "is rape really such a big deal after all?" Seen it happen many times before.
someone at July 12, 2011 7:45 AM
Someone,
There is of course a more reasonable explanation why people would want to change the subject.
It is because you are the one trying to shift the conversation and everyone else wants to get back on the original topic.
I think I now understand why you believe no one is as interested in rape as you are. You seem to have a habit of jumping into conversations that are not about rape, try to transform them into rape conversations, and then get really pissed off when the people involved in the conversation want to get back on topic.
I can easily imagine you jumping into a thread about almost anything and pulling the same trick you are pulling here in order to feed your obsession.
No one here likes rape, rape is a bad and horrible thing, there is nothing else to say about it beyond that in this particular thread.
Can we get back to the original topic please… you know, before you thread jacked things?
Reality at July 12, 2011 7:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2350882">comment from someoneit's real easy to segue into "is rape really such a big deal after all?" Seen it happen many times before.
Maybe you have.
It's not happening here.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 7:59 AM
"It is because you are the one trying to shift the conversation and everyone else wants to get back on the original topic."
A thread can more than one conversation. Mine was not about feminism or the elevator thing or any of the other irrelevant shit people kept desperately bringing up in an effort to draw attention elsewhere. I was not talking about those things and they are not at all relevant.
"You seem to have a habit of jumping into conversations that are not about rape."
Except people were very clearly talking about rape all along. But keep making things up, maybe next time nobody will notice!
"I can easily imagine you jumping into a thread about almost anything and pulling the same trick you are pulling here in order to feed your obsession."
More shit that can be filed under "Thing That Did Not Happen."
"No one here likes rape, rape is a bad and horrible thing."
It's far too late to try to claim this.
someone at July 12, 2011 8:02 AM
Someone,
I am going to give it one more shot to converse with you as a fellow human being and then I am going to ignore you if your behavior doesn't change.
You say the following:
"I am not thread jacking anything, it's everyone else who is changing the subject and talking about irrelevant things."
Please, for the love of god really think VERY hard about what you have said here.
You are asserting that in a conversation with many other people it is "everyone else" who is off topic and that you are the only one discussing the topic of the thread and the only one saying anything relevant.
Do you realize how crazy that sounds?
If you were involved in a conversation at a pet shop with 10 other people and they are all talking about their pets and you kept ranting and raving about the movie you saw last night, who is on topic and who isn't?
My assertion is that the nutty obsessed person who keeps insisting that the topic is the movie while EVERYONE ELSE is talking about their pets is the one who is way off topic. You are asserting that the topic is whatever you say it is, therefore it doesn't matter if everyone is talking about their pets, you want to talk about the movie, therefore the topic is the movie!!!
Do you not realize how rude and self centered that perspective is?
It isn't everyone else who is off topic here, it is you.
Reality at July 12, 2011 8:12 AM
"You are asserting that in a conversation with many other people it is "everyone else" who is off topic and that you are the only one discussing the topic of the thread and the only one saying anything relevant."
No, I am asserting that in the conversation I was having people started bringing in irrelevant matters in an effort to change the subject. Pretty obvious difference. Well, obvious to anyone with half a brain anyway.
someone at July 12, 2011 8:16 AM
"I simply mentioned to somebody that to most men rape is strictly a matter of opinion and at best an inconvinient legal issue."
And you know this from going to blogs, trying to talk off-topic about rape, and when people try to get back on topic, you conclude they support rape or believe it's no big deal?
The way you're gathering information is not valid, and only designed to feed your grandiose delusions that you're the only person who cares about rape. Your threadjacking is a perfect example. You purposely do that to get the response you're looking for. You're not "having a discussion" with anyone.
You honestly need some help.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2011 9:06 AM
Guys, "someone" is totally batshit wacked. Ignore the troll.
No, I am asserting that in the conversation I was having people started bringing in irrelevant matters in an effort to change the subject. Pretty obvious difference. Well, obvious to anyone with half a brain anyway.
You were asserting nothing of the kind, because you weren't having a conversation at all! You were imposing your opinions about certain posters on this thread, and actually obsessing over whether other people think rape is wrong! Everything everyone else posted here was wrong in your eyes - I wonder, did you even READ what others posted before you lashed out at them? Can you actually comprehend that fact that every poster here is OPPOSED to rape? That we all think that it's wrong? And that we're able to tell the difference between CONSENSUAL sex and rape? Or is that what you're NOT getting?
(man, I cannot BELIEVE we're still beating this horse. It's been dead for almost 4 days now! o.O)
Flynne at July 12, 2011 9:28 AM
lovelysoul: "And you know this from going to blogs, trying to talk off-topic about rape, and when people try to get back on topic, you conclude they support rape or believe it's no big deal?"
Where have I talked off-topic about rape? Where has this happened?
"The way you're gathering information is not valid, and only designed to feed your grandiose delusions that you're the only person who cares about rape."
A "grandiose delusion" that people keep affirming time and time again.
"Your threadjacking is a perfect example."
I have done no such thing.
"You honestly need some help."
Yes anyone who opposes rape needs help!
Flynne: "Guys, "someone" is totally batshit wacked. Ignore the troll."
Opposing rape is trolling hur hur herp derp.
"You were asserting nothing of the kind, because you weren't having a conversation at all!"
If I never had a conversation it means I was never here, so how is it that you're talking to me about this? You're responding to something that never happened perpetrated by somebody who never existed.
"Can you actually comprehend that fact that every poster here is OPPOSED to rape?"
Hahaha.
someone at July 12, 2011 9:39 AM
Then somebody owes the Catholic Church an apology and an awful lot of money.
Conan the Grammarian at July 12, 2011 9:44 AM
You're not opposing rape, you're insulting people who you think aren't opposing rape.
If I never had a conversation it means I was never here, so how is it that you're talking to me about this? You're responding to something that never happened perpetrated by somebody who never existed.
You are here posting, but you were never conversing, you were TELLING people who oppose rape that they don't oppose rape.
Seriously, you're quite the asshole.
Flynne at July 12, 2011 9:53 AM
They don't oppose rape, they support it. That's why, when it's brought up that rape is wrong, they immediately begin steering the conversation somewhere else.
someone at July 12, 2011 10:52 AM
They don't oppose rape, they support it. That's why, when it's brought up that rape is wrong, they immediately begin steering the conversation somewhere else.
???????
OMG, you're delusional. Forget I posted anything to you. Believe what you want, but you are 100% wrong.
Flynne at July 12, 2011 11:22 AM
There's no other reason why people are so intent on changing the subject and why it happens so consistently.
someone at July 12, 2011 12:03 PM
Someone says:
"There's no other reason why people are so intent on changing the subject and why it happens so consistently."
Yup, there can be no other possible reason, I am completely convinced. Whenever someone talks about something else it must invariably be because they support some horrible crime.
This variety of logic of course brings us to the rather disturbing conclusion that this “someone” person must be a staunch advocate of murder, extortion, child molestation, torture and genocide.
I mean, why else would they not be talking about those horrible things?… I see no other reason unless they support those horrible crimes.
Oh wait… sometimes when a person talks about something else it is simply because they are trying to continue with a conversation they were having previously.
Needless to say, reasonable people do not declare detailed knowledge of another persons belief set based solely upon the fact that they are talking about something other than a particular crime.
That type of thinking amounts to stupidity of the highest order.
When I am interested in knowing what another person thinks about a particular topic I ask them, I don't have the audacity to TELL them what they believe, especially when the belief is ethically indefensible.
Reality at July 12, 2011 12:37 PM
There's NO other reason? Maybe because what you are saying is equivalent to, "the sky is blue". Everyone here already knows that, just like we know rape is evil and abhorent, so when someone comes on here and keeps repeating something that we all already know and agree upon, there's no need to discuss it. We keep changing the subject because it's a non-issue: WE ALL AGREE RAPE IS BAD. There's no debate here. I've been on this blog for over 3 yrs, and I've never seen anyone post that they "support rape" or wish they could rape if not for those pesky legal issues.
Yet, in your warped way of thinking, the fact we don't NEED a discussion to settle the matter - any more than we need to discuss what color the sky is - means we "support rape", which is the most absurd logic ever.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2011 12:38 PM
Thanks, Reality, you said it much better than me. As Flynn noted, we're beating a dead horse here, and I'm not sure why, except sometimes that horse soooo needs a beating that it's kinda fun. :)
lovelysoul at July 12, 2011 12:42 PM
Reality: "Yup, there can be no other possible reason, I am completely convinced. Whenever someone talks about something else it must invariably be because they support some horrible crime."
That's not what we're talking about. Try again.
"Oh wait... sometimes when a person talks about something else it is simply because they are trying to continue with a conversation they were having previously."
There was no previous conversation.
lovelysoul: "We keep changing the subject because it's a non-issue: WE ALL AGREE RAPE IS BAD."
The subject is changed for the reasons I already explained.
someone at July 12, 2011 1:05 PM
@Jesper -- I read what's his face's blog, the one Amy links to in her postscript, and saw his quote of you, and thought, I like this guy, where's his blog? Didn't realize you were a commenter here. Applause!
ps. female
NB at July 12, 2011 1:20 PM
Lovelysoul,
No problem at all, at least no one can say we didn't try our best to reach out to a delusional member of society.
I really like your example by the way. What has occurred here is akin to someone barging in on a cancer conference amongst medical professionals where they are discussing the nuances of cancer therapy and treatment and that person yelling out in the middle of the room “you have to wash your hands before performing surgery” as if this was some profound discovery. Then when the medical professionals nod their head and go back to their previous conversation the person insisting that they don’t care about patient health because they are ignoring hygiene.
The professionals already understand that, it is fundamental, it is basic, it doesn’t warrant further debate or discussion. In fact it is a waste of time that detracts from conversations where true progress in understanding can be made. Hygiene is a topic you teach at a less sophisticated level, professionals already get it.
Similarly, the adults here already get that rape is bad, it doesn’t warrant further debate or discussion here and such discussion will not help our thinking evolve because we all already agree it is a terrible thing.
In any case, there is no reaching this individual and I’d rather have productive conversations with the reasonable people here like you and many of the other people who make me think about new points anyway. I don’t need to spend my time pondering the mysteries of tying my shoe laces, I figured that stuff out when I was a child.
Reality at July 12, 2011 1:21 PM
"Similarly, the adults here already get that rape is bad."
No, they don't.
someone at July 12, 2011 2:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2351729">comment from someoneI get that rape is evil, let alone bad. There is no commenter here that I've read whose thoughts reflect otherwise.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 2:35 PM
"No, they don't." Again, the equivalent of "nah,nah,nah" What, are you three?
In debates such as these, you need to provide subjective proof. Quote anyone here on this thread who has even been positive towards rape. It's not enough to tell us what you believe we believe with no evidence other than "you change the subject."
I don't know what your problem is - whether you were raped, raped someone, or know someone who was raped, but your obsession with villifying everyone else in the world with regard to this topic is unhealthy. That's the only reason I've kept answering you is because I think you are crying out for help.
lovelysoul at July 12, 2011 2:40 PM
Who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men... the "someone" knows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMlRpN8ANrU
Reality at July 12, 2011 3:21 PM
Well, thank God we've got you, someone, to tell us that rape is bad. And here I thought guys like Paul Callow and Thomas Grettenberg were just gettin' lucky a lot; just bein' guys.
How's murder? Is it okay? Or is it evil, too? I was thinking about doing some murdering this weekend, but now that I've got you as my moral compass, I thought I should check with you first.
In fact, you should give us all your home number so that whenever any of us are thinking about leaving our houses, we can check with you to see if what we're about to do is moral and righteous.
How on earth did people even know to write laws against rape, murder, assault, theft, and other evils before you were here to let the world know what was evil?
You know, since you're the only one in the world who knows what is in fact moral and righteous.
/sarcasm
Conan the Grammarian at July 12, 2011 4:04 PM
Pee Wee Myers and Phil Phathead - followed by all the freaks, midgets, and cows born with extra hooves that make up their fan-base, will be showing up to bore us with their worthless opinions.
Ain't that grand?
Maybe Amy will give me the vicarious pleasure of disenvowelling some of the choice comments ala Pew Wee, you know, to make the degenerates feel more to home. (It's the next best thing/internet equivalent to grinding them up into hamburger. Don't think it harsh. It's what they would do to you, or anybody else who crossed them, given half a chance.)
Phryngl
Been waiting years to do that! Felt good.
papertiger at July 12, 2011 4:58 PM
Oh and since Phathead has jumped on the bandwagon, you know its just a matter of time til Discover does a feature with Rebuka (the cock blocker) Watson, in order to "re normalize" her aberrant behavior.
Three ... Two ... One ... blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/12/announcing-my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-rebecca-watson/
Tada!
Is it wrong for me to hate them?
Good question for an advice column.
Please ignore the two times this post was tossed in the spam filter. I'm a slow learner.
The link to Discover Mag was the bug.
Heh. Even your spam blocker has discerning taste.
papertiger at July 12, 2011 5:27 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2352043">comment from papertigerJust went to the link, paper. Wow. There are a lot of wet prominent male atheist lips fighting to plant themselves on Watson's naked-posing ass.
About the call to boycott Dawkins' work...is this how women show they're equal? Somebody disagrees with you, thinks you're kind of an ass, and you have to shut down their ideas because of it? Ideas you previously thought were valuable?
I sometimes link to people who don't really like me much. I don't really care what they think of me. If they have good ideas, their ideas are of interest to me. And last week, some police administrator I was talking to, come to think of it (about neighborhood problems), said, "I don't think less of you for it (about my thoughts on the issue). I said something pretty close to "I don't care if you think I'm a Satan-worshipper with a really big ass. I just want the noise laws enforced."
Somehow, many of these women who proclaim themselves feminists seem to be these snivelly little girls who believe their worlds must be perfectly controlled and exactly to their liking, or they are victims of the most evil and sordid sorts of discrimination.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 6:09 PM
You know I was going to respond to someones bizzare waffleing on whether or not he called me a rape appologist, but after those last few posts.
I was wondering if it was BOTU playing around, but even he never seemed deranged
I was kinda joking when I first suggested mental help for the guy, but chirst, he needs to be locked in a rubber room for a month or two.
Everyones a rape aplolgst, even those who parrot his exact phrasing on how rape is wrong back to him,
Ayone else get a feeling of this guy in a crowd shouting, "I'm not crazy - its all of you who are crazy"
lujlp at July 12, 2011 6:22 PM
lovelysoul: "Again, the equivalent of "nah,nah,nah" What, are you three?"
I've already explained many times why they don't. What, are you unable to read?
"I don't know what your problem is - whether you were raped, raped someone, or know someone who was raped, but your obsession with villifying everyone else in the world with regard to this topic is unhealthy."
Yes how unhealthy of me to vilify rape apologists. They're all such great, stand-up guys.
someone at July 12, 2011 6:26 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2352073">comment from lujlpBOTU might be a troll, but he's a fun troll, and usually, basically, is beating off with words not beating a dead horse.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 6:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2352075">comment from someoneHey, I can really use the traffic since I lost my Amazon buckeroos (working on that...Snake may have a solution he thought up), but NOBODY. HERE. THINKS. RAPE. IS. OKAY.
If somebody does think rape is okay, they're a monster.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 6:33 PM
Well to be fair you can be a monster and still think rape is evil
lujlp at July 12, 2011 8:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2352198">comment from lujlpGood point, luj. My logic was looking out the window at the palm trees when I wrote that.
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 8:06 PM
Yes how unhealthy of me to vilify rape apologists. They're all such great, stand-up guys.
The more you post, the more you prove yourself to be batshit loony.
I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.
Flynne at July 12, 2011 8:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2352220">comment from FlynneI don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.
Good one, Flynne. Original?
Amy Alkon at July 12, 2011 8:20 PM
Nah, that one's an old joke, but it's bloody apt in this case.
Primateus at July 12, 2011 8:45 PM
Re-reading "someone"'s posts....I sense genuine psychosis, not trolling.
Rebutal: "now ur tRying to shut mE down, cuz ur a RaPe ApoLogist!!111"
Some feminist once breathlessly called me an "active supporter of rapists" (online of course) because I said the SlutWalk was a stupid idea.
Primateus at July 12, 2011 8:52 PM
The long and short of it is that this woman is mentally ill and emotionally disturbed.
Crazy people do crazy things for crazy reasons and then look for others to validate their insanity. When they don't get that validation, they flip out.
Sane people need no such reassurance, do not ask for it, and are not troubled when we do not receive it.
Lee Reynolds at July 12, 2011 9:21 PM
Anyone frustrated?
I've read all the comments, and went back to where "someone" started and reread. Lovelysoul did a good but fruitless job. On the Internet, when you have to deal with "someone" like you have, nothing you write will make a difference. Nothing. You've been labeled (see the late Sidney Hook's definition of "epithet of abuse") and nothing you write after that will dissuade "someone" from that label. They've summed you up, they've pigeonholded you, so they no longer have to listen. They can't listen.
In real human interaction, the "someone" would be looking at people's backs, even those who agree to some extent, because the "someone" went too far and that would be recognized as unacceptable, boorish, even dishonest behavior. Unhinged behavior.
All of you have said that rape is bad, it's not even an issue on Male Rights websites. Rape is rape, like murder is murder, unless the definition is so tortured that it becomes meaningless. "Someone" is operating from that endpoint where the definition becomes meaningless (no definition has come forth). It serves the need where self-righteousness fills "someone" with the assurance that "someone" is better than the rest of us, as many of you have addressed.
You won't save "someone", you won't change them. The die is cast.
Personally, "someone" is a real case calling for intervention by a PhD psychologist for cognitive therapy or a psychiatrist for meds. I've never met a "rape apologist" in 57 years, I've met some that go into personal responsibility, so maybe that's rape apologia, but that is, of course, not germane in context. (Don't bite, that was a set-up, after 18 years in sales I can be a manipulative SOB and that was sarcasm.)
Ariel at July 13, 2011 2:06 AM
Good one, Flynne. Original?
Nah, as Primateus said, it's an oldie but a goodie. I've trotted that one out many times, but it seemed particularly apropo for this nutjob.
Flynne at July 13, 2011 5:43 AM
Flynne: "The more you post, the more you prove yourself to be batshit loony."
Opposing rape is batshit loony herp derp hur hur.
If you're trying not to prove me right, you're doing a really bad job.
Primateus: "Re-reading "someone"'s posts....I sense genuine psychosis, not trolling."
Well of course. Only a psychotic would oppose rape.
Lee Reynolds: "he long and short of it is that this woman is mentally ill and emotionally disturbed."
Like I already said, I'm a man.
Ariel: "All of you have said that rape is bad, it's not even an issue on Male Rights websites."
It is especially an issue on MRA sites.
"Rape is rape, like murder is murder, unless the definition is so tortured that it becomes meaningless. "Someone" is operating from that endpoint where the definition becomes meaningless (no definition has come forth)."
See, this is yet another example of trying to change the subject. The definition of rape has nothing at all to do with this. It is so transparently obvious that you are attempting to divert attention away from the issue.
someone at July 13, 2011 6:20 AM
Of course the definition of rape has something to do with it. You have contended that everyone, besides you, "supports rape".
The first, and most logical response to that is to assume that you meant date rape, not taking a woman by gunpoint and brutally attacking her.
There is some disagreement about date rape being real rape. So, that is what we assumed at first you meant (we have to assume because your vagueness and propensity just to hurl insults leaves us no choice).
I suspect male rights blogs often debate the blurred lines of when "no means no" and scenarios where a woman is very drunk and seems to consent, only to change her mind. That has been discussed here too. But I've never heard anyone, male or female, defend the brutal stranger type rape.
So, I think it matters what your definition is. At this point, you sound so crazy we must assume you mean all situations where a woman might claim rape and that you believe everyone supports brutal rape, and that all men would rape if given the chance to do so without going to jail.
This is not true. I lived for over 20 yrs with a man who had a great attraction to rape fantasy - and often argued that rape was "natural" in a animal kingdom/tribal sort of way - but even he would not have raped anyone in real life. He had too much conscience, and I think that is what stops most men, not mere laws.
If not, we would see far more rape when there aren't any consequences, in wartime for example. There is some, of course. I contend that when a man can dehumanize a woman, he is more likely to be able to rape her...or kill her. That is the psychological basis of war, and what allows men to kill each other.
But if rape was in the hearts of ALL men, we'd see much more of it in those periods when they could get away with it. However, we don't. Even in those situations, it remains a small percentage of the population of men. And, among that small percentage, a certain portion will feel guilty and ashamed of raping someone.
So, from this, we can scientifically conclude that MOST men don't rape nor do they universally support rape.
lovelysoul at July 13, 2011 7:08 AM
herp derp hur hur.
'S matter, buddy, got a speech impediment?
LovelySoul is 100% correct. You, however, are 100% wrong.
Give it a rest, please.
Flynne at July 13, 2011 8:54 AM
Ariel,
Your thoughts are right on target. I for one am no longer frustrated by “someone”’s behavior. I stopped being frustrated the moment I realized that this person is just seeking ways to feel like they are better than everyone else, and that they do this by climbing up on a moral pillar that in their deluded mind only has room for one person. They then seek to use their perceived position of superiority as a psychological defense against any and all legitimate criticism.
For example, every time anyone so much as mentions that this persons behavior here is aberrant, antisocial and destructive they simply respond with some rendition of “yeah, because opposing rape is aberrant, antisocial and destructive”. Their belief system acts as the ultimate defense against any and all criticism for them. This person is either incredibly intellectually dishonest, or they legitimately do not grasp the concept that aberrant social behavior is not mutually exclusive with opposing criminal activities. Even people in prison can be opposed to rape, but that doesn’t suddenly make them model citizens, the same is true here. This person has social problems that they adamantly refuse to face and correct… it is everyone else who is the problem, not them.
I suppose what disturbs me most of all about this person is that if they really believe that they are morally superior to everyone else, they can and will use that belief to justify all sort of unethical behavior under the misguided assumption that the ends justify the means, that the targets of their unethical behavior somehow “deserve” to be treated that way. A person like that can ultimately believe that they are morally and ethically justified to mistreat and abuse others after they have effectively dehumanized them. To a certain extent “someone” has already done this by starting off their interaction with everyone here by insulting them instead of interacting with them like fellow human beings.
In closing, it is much easier to become an abusive individual when you believe everyone around you is deserving of abuse. When one accepts the concept that most people are generally decent human beings one tends to treat other people nicely and with compassion. I see no compassion in “someone”’s treatment of anyone here which leads me to believe that he isn’t a very nice person to deal with face to face either.
Reality at July 13, 2011 8:55 AM
lovelysoul: "Of course the definition of rape has something to do with it."
No, it doesn't.
"The first, and most logical response to that is to assume that you meant date rape, not taking a woman by gunpoint and brutally attacking her."
Yes, logical to subhumans like you.
"I suspect male rights blogs often debate the blurred lines of when "no means no" and scenarios where a woman is very drunk and seems to consent, only to change her mind."
No, they just outright support or trivialize rape.
"He had too much conscience, and I think that is what stops most men, not mere laws."
And yet the prevailing view is that rape is a matter of opinion and opinions have to be respected.
Flynne: "'S matter, buddy, got a speech impediment?"
At no point have I said anything that would indicate a speech impediment. Are you hallucinating?
Reality: "I stopped being frustrated the moment I realized that this person is just seeking ways to feel like they are better than everyone else."
I don't have to seek anything.
"And that they do this by climbing up on a moral pillar that in their deluded mind only has room for one person."
Not my fault if nobody else wants to climb up here.
"I suppose what disturbs me most of all about this person is that if they really believe that they are morally superior to everyone else, they can and will use that belief to justify all sort of unethical behavior under the misguided assumption that the ends justify the means, that the targets of their unethical behavior somehow “deserve” to be treated that way. A person like that can ultimately believe that they are morally and ethically justified to mistreat and abuse others after they have effectively dehumanized them."
You're just babbling incoherently at this point.
"To a certain extent “someone” has already done this by starting off their interaction with everyone here by insulting them instead of interacting with them like fellow human beings."
Rape apologists are not human beings.
"I see no compassion in “someone”’s treatment of anyone here which leads me to believe that he isn’t a very nice person to deal with face to face either."
Oh noes I am not compassionate towards rape apologists :( :( :( :( :( :(
someone at July 13, 2011 9:19 AM
Someone,
The irony here is that you are argueing that it is perfectly alright for you to abuse women if you do not believe that they sufficiently support protecting women.
That philosophy is self defeating. Rapists also dehumanize their victims just like you are doing.
You really aren't as ethical as you think you are.
While you may think you are standing on a pillar, from my perspective you are sitting in a ditch.
The positive thing here is that you can still grow as a person and improve yourself. I suspect you are still young because you like to quote southpark in your comments.
Here is an exercise that you might find helpful, please show your parents your online activities on this thread and get their opinion. Have a nice sit down conversation with them about what has happened in this discussion. I think it will be helpful for you.
Reality at July 13, 2011 9:28 AM
Reality: "The irony here is that you are argueing that it is perfectly alright for you to abuse women if you do not believe that they sufficiently support protecting women."
Things that never happened sure are ironic.
"That philosophy is self defeating. Rapists also dehumanize their victims just like you are doing.
You really aren't as ethical as you think you are."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I am unethical and on par with rapists because... I think rape apologists are not human? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
If you are trying to prove me wrong you are doing a catastrophically poor job. You may as well drop the charade already and just admit you're pro-rape.
"The positive thing here is that you can still grow as a person and improve yourself. I suspect you are still young because you like to quote southpark in your comments."
I don't watch South Park let alone quote it.
"Here is an exercise that you might find helpful, please show your parents your online activities on this thread and get their opinion. Have a nice sit down conversation with them about what has happened in this discussion. I think it will be helpful for you."
You are hilarious. You're actually trying to turn this upside down so that being pro-rape is normal whereas being anti-rape is not.
someone at July 13, 2011 10:05 AM
"Here is an exercise that you might find helpful, please show your parents your online activities on this thread and get their opinion. Have a nice sit down conversation with them about what has happened in this discussion. I think it will be helpful for you."
lol, Reality. You nailed it! I just remembered that this was how my son was when he was around 13 or so - going on the computer and joining in debates he really knew nothing about and attacking other people's opinions. He enraged some people once so badly that the server actually contacted us and shut down our service.
"Someone" is a kid! Just making stuff up to be provocative because, like my son, he probably has some Asperger-like social issues and not very many friends (though this has fortunately changed for my son, and I sincerely hope it will for "someone" too).
lovelysoul at July 13, 2011 10:09 AM
"You are hilarious. You're actually trying to turn this upside down so that being pro-rape is normal whereas being anti-rape is not."
Yeah, that's what we're doing, little boy. Go out and get some sunshine. lol
lovelysoul at July 13, 2011 10:12 AM
Glad to see that are responses lambasting Watson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqU9JFbtucU&feature=player_embedded
Jen Wading at July 13, 2011 11:12 AM
It's time to stop feeding this tard.
A guy named Xosgul wrote a pretty funny post on this whole brouhaha nonsense elsewhere:
"Hey Eggheads, this is quite silly. There is too much eductaion on this blog and too little common sense. Watson has every right to post whatever she wants on her blog. Regardless if others feel it is trivial. And, it was trivial (to others) and more appropriate for a high school blog. “Oh my god, like, some creepy guy, in, you know, the elevatooooooor, like, asks me to have coffee in his room. I was so like, uhh noo I don;t think so. Not with you loser”. And, clearly the guy was a loser. Who follows someone in the elevator to ask someone back to their room? Good gravy, send a drink over first, you cheap bastard. But, let’s put this in perspective. She was not being objectified in the elevator she was being hit on. Ladies, you never hit on a guy before? I know some of you must be lying. The clueless dude chose poorly: the wrong chick, the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong line. And, what was Dawkins doing responding to that? What, is this blog up for peer review now? He should have known it was a no win situation for him. How do you call out a feminst on her own blog for having an opinion on her own personal experiences? Guy is a genius, but not on that day. It is childish to boycott his work over a lil spat like this. And, what is with all the hate on the blogoshpere about this incident? Is this what education buys these days? Men this, women that?"
Naturally, like a wind-up dronebot, some idiot then brushed this off as a "rant".
Primateus at July 13, 2011 12:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2353433">comment from PrimateusIt's hard enough for guys out there without some chick with some standing insinuating that hitting on a woman (verbally, not with a weapon) is an offense against women, feminism, and everything right and good in the world.
It's not.
I have a boyfriend, but if a guy hits on me, I will 1. respect him for it, and 2. be polite and kind and let him know I'm "taken," and be glad that I am, since it allows me to turn him down in a way that involves nothing personal about him. (It allows him to believe that if I weren't taken, I would say yes.)
Amy Alkon at July 13, 2011 1:04 PM
Amy,
You should read The Misandry Bubble. It is an awesome essay about how the behavior we see from feminists has percolated into the legal system and dismantled the foundations of a healthy, free society.
TTT at July 13, 2011 5:32 PM
Remember that feminists have expanded the definition of rape to include :
1) Dating a woman more attractive than a feminist.
2) Being less attractive 2 weeks later than the night the woman slept with you.
3) Being a gay man who does not spend money on women.
There is no other crime that is exaggerated to the degree that rape is - where feminists make it out to be a crime 10 times more frequent than it is.
Of course, the golden rule of feminism :
Attractive women are never the ones complaining about some epidemic of rape, even though they would be the ones more at risk. Complaining about rape is just how ugly women (feminists) get attention for themselves.
Tom at July 13, 2011 5:40 PM
I see far more reasonable and measured discourse on Men's Rights blogs than on any feminist rag.
None of them are 'rape apologists'. Rather, feminists are apologists for narcissistic women who have no problem sending innocent men to prison for 15 years. Feminists still won't admit that Duke Lacrosse was wrong, OR that it happens much more often than it should.
That is why feminists harm rape victims more than men ever could. Feminists have ensured that *any* rape accusation is now suspected to be false. Just look at the DSK and Julian Assange cases (wait a minute, those WERE FALSE TOO).
Tom at July 13, 2011 6:20 PM
*****I have a boyfriend, but if a guy hits on me, I will 1. respect him for it, and 2. be polite and kind and let him know I'm "taken," and be glad that I am, since it allows me to turn him down in a way that involves nothing personal about him. (It allows him to believe that if I weren't taken, I would say yes.)*****
Jesus Christ on a cracker, this, in spades.
And, if I wasn't taken, I might have either a) taken him up on his offer of sex (hey, I'm human, and I'm NOT stupid - at that time of the morning, we ALL know what's up, am I right?) or b) politely refused.
Either way, nice to know someone is attracted to me.
OMG THE HORROR! A MAN FINDS ME ATTRACTIVE AND WANTS ME! OMG! ALERT THE PRESS!
WTF is her problem? I think she'd bitch just as hard if some man ignored her. She needs to pull her head out of her ass. Unfortunately, I think that even with a map and a flashlight that feat might be impossible.
Daghain at July 13, 2011 10:15 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2353940">comment from DaghainYes!
Amy Alkon at July 13, 2011 10:16 PM
lovelysoul: ""Someone" is a kid! Just making stuff up to be provocative because, like my son, he probably has some Asperger-like social issues and not very many friends (though this has fortunately changed for my son, and I sincerely hope it will for "someone" too). "
It enrages you that I am against rape? Then it is completely undeniable that you are a rape apologist.
Tom: "I see far more reasonable and measured discourse on Men's Rights blogs than on any feminist rag."
Rape is routinely characterized as a trivial matter or outright supported.
someone at July 13, 2011 10:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2353966">comment from someoneRape is routinely characterized as a trivial matter or outright supported.
Look, I really can use the traffic, but nobody here has characterized rape here as "a trivial matter" or "outright supported it."
Amy Alkon at July 13, 2011 10:40 PM
Lovelysoul nailed it--it's just some kid with asperger's. lmao. The interwebs is a funny place.
Primateus at July 13, 2011 10:52 PM
'someone',
Since you are an apologist for false accusations of rape, I'll make you a deal :
The next time a man is accused of rape that later turns out to be false (see : Duke Lacrosse), you get to go to jail in his place.
Since you think no woman has ever lied about rape, you should agree, no?
Agreed?
Tom at July 13, 2011 11:51 PM
I'm really starting to feel like the word "apologist" is being very misused in this thread.
An apologist is someone who crafts a defense for a particular idea or belief and expresses that defense with the written or spoken word.
Somehow the word apologist is being tossed around in this thread as an insult and is not even being used correctly by anyone.
Just for the sake of clarity, not talking about something or deciding to talk about something else makes someone a supporter or apologist of that topic in much the same way that not biking and avoiding bicycles makes you a biking enthusiast or a fan of the tour de france.
This is the same bs I see when people declare atheism to be a “religion”.
People seem to have real difficulty understanding that the lack or absence of something doesn’t actually imply anything about someone else’s belief set.
Or can I assume that since no one here is talking about biking that everyone here rides at least 5 miles a day?
Reality at July 14, 2011 6:28 AM
I just had a massive apostrophe. Epiphany(extra point if you know where the missuse comes from)
Sadly my fellow blogers someone is, in fact, himself, a rape apologist. Its true.
I just re read all 27 of his posts, on two occasions he claimed to be being harrased for previously saying that rape is bad and evil, and in almost everyone of his posts he asks questions as to why he is the crazy one for being the only one opposed to rape.
But not once, in any of his 27 posts, has he ever acctually unequivocally stated he is in fact opposed to rape. He has only alluded to being so.
Therefore, by the rules of his own dementia, someone is a rape appologist.
lujlp at July 14, 2011 8:43 AM
Captain Hook. Only because that movie gave me nightmares when I was a kid --seriously, I don't know why, but everything about it filled my soul with unspeakable bleakness and I have no idea why....
Also, @Reality, spot on. When someone, say, a 12 year old with asperger's, learns a new word that sounds sophisticated and sounds like it'd make a good intellectual weapon, they tend to mis- and overuse at every available opportunity.
Primateus at July 14, 2011 9:12 AM
I really think it was just a troll that kept waiting for the punchline from its name that never came.
All of its Tourette's-like regurgitated lines, coupled with insults, were feeble attempts to get posters wound up enough to keep feeding it.
Jen Wading at July 14, 2011 9:55 AM
Sure he was a troll, but more importantly he is a self loathing rape apologist troll
lujlp at July 14, 2011 10:25 AM
Primateus: "Lovelysoul nailed it--it's just some kid with asperger's. lmao. The interwebs is a funny place."
So anyone who opposes rape has aspergers, i.e. only a small minority of people oppose rape. Thanks for proving my point!
Tom: "Since you are an apologist for false accusations of rape..."
No, I'm not.
"Since you think no woman has ever lied about rape, you should agree, no?"
I have never said anywhere that women don't lie about rape. You're either hallucinating or making things up.
lujp: "But not once, in any of his 27 posts, has he ever acctually unequivocally stated he is in fact opposed to rape. He has only alluded to being so."
It is 100 % obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that I'm vehemently opposed to rape. But I guess not EVERYONE has a functioning brain...
"Sure he was a troll, but more importantly he is a self loathing rape apologist troll"
You are projecting.
Jen: "I really think it was just a troll that kept waiting for the punchline from its name that never came."
Being opposed to rape is not trolling. Try again, subhuman.
someone at July 14, 2011 1:19 PM
Someone,
I encourage you to seek out your parents or guardians and show them your behavior in this comment thread.
Since you are clearly very proud of yourself and your behavior here it would make sense that you would want to share your amazing accomplishment with your parents so they can be just as proud of you. How do you actually “oppose” rape more than the rest of us by the way? Just ranting on random blogs does not seem to be particularly spectacular and does less to make you an anti-rape advocate than say volunteering at a crisis center or volunteering to speak at local prisons about the problem of rape in the prison system. I also continue to find it ironic while you want to classify yourself as highly ethical you continue to demonstrate a huge lack of respect for women as you have called several of them here "subhuman" simply for them not seeing exactly eye to eye with you on your behavior. Just because someone thinks your behavior is inappropriate does not make them “subhuman”.
One thing I learned growing up was that if there was something I was doing that I didn't want my parents to know about, it was probably not a good idea to be doing in the first place (unless of course it was of an intensely private or personal nature).
Your conversations here are neither intensely private nor are they personal, so you should welcome your parents opinion about your activities here with open arms... unless of course you are ashamed of opposing rape.
I suspect that you will resist involving your parents in overseeing your internet activities because it will probably result in a limitation on your internet access and/or will result in a serious discussion with them that you do not wish to have.
I mean, it would be somewhat difficult for your own parents “subhuman” or “rape apologists” if they think your behavior here is less than proper.
If you cannot do this I will be forced to assume that you don't take your opposition to rape all that seriously.
Reality at July 14, 2011 2:35 PM
This is the most important subject ever.
Count the comments.
PZ, if you're looking, you're a god in the lab and in your profession, but exactly as Drucker noted 30+ years ago, that doesn't translate to this subject. You're not familiar with the field, that's all.
Radwaste at July 14, 2011 3:57 PM
someone if you were truly opposed to rape, you would say you are opposed to rape; as you have not said you are opposed to rape that means you are for rape
therefor, you are a rape apologist
28 posts and all you've ever done is say how everyone else is a rape apologist and how crazy everyone else is for not agreeing that rape is bad
but you yourself have never written rape is bad, only that everyone else is picking on your for having once written that rape is bad.
But sadly that original declaration is nowhere to be found - so you are a rape apologist
lujlp at July 14, 2011 4:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2355563">comment from lujlpIn addition to being entirely opposed to rape, I'm also opposed to biting the heads off whippets and that ugly, dark burnt orange color you see more and more on cars and passenger trucks and SUVs, but I didn't really think anyone would assume I was for any of these things without my making this remark.
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2011 4:19 PM
Reality: "I encourage you to seek out your parents or guardians and show them your behavior in this comment thread."
Are you projecting your dependency on your parents on other people? Anyway, I'm pretty sure my mother isn't going to faint when she finds out I'm not fond of rape. I assume your parents are different?
"How do you actually “oppose” rape more than the rest of us by the way?"
By opposing it 100 % rather than 30 % or 0 %.
"I also continue to find it ironic while you want to classify yourself as highly ethical you continue to demonstrate a huge lack of respect for women as you have called several of them here "subhuman" simply for them not seeing exactly eye to eye with you on your behavior."
Rape apologists don't deserve respect just because they have vaginas. Also thanks for proving my point about rape being seen as merely a matter of opinion.
"Your conversations here are neither intensely private nor are they personal, so you should welcome your parents opinion about your activities here with open arms... unless of course you are ashamed of opposing rape."
You seem reeeaaaally obsessed with this whole parents thing. Problems at home? Were you grounded?
"I suspect that you will resist involving your parents in overseeing your internet activities because it will probably result in a limitation on your internet access and/or will result in a serious discussion with them that you do not wish to have."
Yeah my mom will restrict the Internet access of a 27 year old living by himself and paying for his own Internet connection. You've really thought this through.
lujlp: "someone if you were truly opposed to rape, you would say you are opposed to rape; as you have not said you are opposed to rape that means you are for rape"
Again, it is perfectly clear to anyone with a functioning brain that I am vehemently opposed to rape.
"But sadly that original declaration is nowhere to be found - so you are a rape apologist"
You are projecting.
someone at July 14, 2011 4:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2355591">comment from someoneSomeone, I'll neatly explain why your notion that everyone commenting here is for rape unless they've stated otherwise:
To be for rape or violence against other people you have to have some serious antisocial personality disorders as most humans are hard-wired with empathy for others. Dr. Barbara Oakley writes about such people (malignant narcissist/psychopaths) in Evil Genes. I suggest you read the book, someone, because you are clearly quite unclear about human nature.
Amy Alkon at July 14, 2011 4:32 PM
"Yeah my mom will restrict the Internet access of a 27 year old living by himself and paying for his own Internet connection. You've really thought this through."
So, you're 27, living by yourself, and berating people you don't know on the internet. "Someone", as the mother of an Asperger's child, I understand you and feel empathy for you. There's an awful lot of hurt coming through your comments, and your obsession with rape.
Nobody here is a rape apologist. You're only reading that into the comments because you need to, but nobody here has said that - or anything close to that. Read through the thread, you can't find that anywhere here, so you're making it all up, which leads me to believe that perhaps you have been raped yourself.
It's terrible if that happened to you, and you need to tell someone and get some counseling. Coming on these blogs and taking your rage out anonymously may feel like a solution, but it's not what you need. Please seek some help, not in the virtual world but the real one.
lovelysoul at July 14, 2011 6:15 PM
On the Internet, no one can tell that you're really Chuck(les), furious that no one will continue to service him on the topic of homeopathy.
"Complaining about rape is just how ugly women (feminists) get attention for themselves."
And there's one here, thrilling to this indirect mention, trembling with anticipatory delight at the thought of reading another post of affirmation!
Radwaste at July 14, 2011 6:44 PM
Nobody here is a rape apologist - ls
Well, to be fair, someone is technically the only person to not unequivocally say rape is bad.
He's said he is peresectued for once having said it at some point in time on a different website.
29 posts and still no statement from someone that rape is bad, only that he is being persecuted for having once written it - and not on this website
lujlp at July 14, 2011 8:18 PM
Okay, Rebecca is complaining that guys are hitting on her all the time at conferences.
Well, okay but what does she mean by that?
Does that mean guys are flirting with her and that annoys her because flirting is sexualizing? Or does she mean that men are straight out constantly propositioning her for sex?
If it's the first case then I think she's a hypocrite because she does that to men. If it's the second case then maybe she's just interpreting men as propositioning her? I mean based on her knee jerk assessment of a guy asking her out for coffee, it sounds like she kind of projects sex on to men. Am I naive for thinking that way?
I mean if you watch her some of her speeches like this one where she talks about men's intuition she acts very flirty and practically "hits on" (ie. flirts with strongly) one of the members of the audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-X62CBTv44
I'm sorry but how can you complain about guys hitting on you at conferences when your hitting on men while your making a speech at a conference!
Jesus, what the hell is wrong with this world?
Richard Manning at July 15, 2011 2:32 AM
Amy Alkon: "I suggest you read the book, someone, because you are clearly quite unclear about human nature."
Oh yes. Who am I going to believe, a book or my own lying eyes?
lovelysoul: "So, you're 27, living by yourself, and berating people you don't know on the internet. "Someone", as the mother of an Asperger's child, I understand you and feel empathy for you. There's an awful lot of hurt coming through your comments, and your obsession with rape."
So again it's being asserted that being against rape means having asperger's, i.e. a normal person would never oppose rape. I also have no "obsession" with rape. Keep making things up, though!
"Nobody here is a rape apologist."
Except pretty much everyone.
"It's terrible if that happened to you, and you need to tell someone and get some counseling."
Oh, I was wondering when this "argument" would finally show up. As we all know, you can't care about something unless it affects you personally!
lujlp: "Well, to be fair, someone is technically the only person to not unequivocally say rape is bad."
You are projecting again.
someone at July 15, 2011 7:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2356655">comment from someone"I suggest you read the book, someone, because you are clearly quite unclear about human nature." Oh yes. Who am I going to believe, a book or my own lying eyes?
The book explains facts about human nature, and supports them.
Most humans are not for rape any more than they are for murder.
"So again it's being asserted that being against rape means having asperger's,"
No, but the way you twist the facts and are so wildly irrational suggests you are psychologically disordered.
Again, nobody here is "for rape." Only the tiniest, tiniest subsection of psychopathic individuals in society would be for it. To accuse nearly everyone here, or many people here, of being for it probably speaks, not only to some delusional disorder on your part but to a need for attention. Look at all these comments answering to you. But, we're all responding to the crazy guy screaming in the alley. It's not a discussion with a rational person.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 7:38 AM
Alright, someone, you got us! We are all supportive of rape. We giggle everytime we read about a woman getting raped, and I, personally encourage my son to rape women whenever he gets the chance. "Just remember to wear a mask and gloves, son," I say. "Don't forget your duct tape!"
Oh, and my 17 yr old daughter...I REALLY hope she gets raped this year before she heads off to college. I think every young woman needs that experience, at least once. So, I've been encouraging her to go out late at night, hang out in seedy bars and back alleys, just to increase her chances.
And, when it happens, I will be totally supportive of the guy who does it to her. I'll demand the cops drop any charges because he's just following his male nature, and I am, after all, a rape apologist.
Yep, you saw right through me, and the rest of us, you wise young man. This is secretly what we all want for our sons and daughters. We love rape and think it's a good thing. This blog is just a cover for the rape apologist group, or RAG, as we like to call ourselves. We've tricked a lot of people, but we sure couldn't trick you.
lovelysoul at July 15, 2011 7:46 AM
Thank you, Amy. I've been following your blog for a little while now. Long enough to read about this kerfuffle and immediately feel reminded of the video of men apologizing from... April, was it? It's like a war flashback.
Personally, as someone who used to be enamored with the "skeptical" community, I became somewhat disillusioned after nearly all of them came out of the closet as redistributionist know-nothings after the economy took a turn for the worse. Of note, Thunderf00t went from having the best science show on YouTube to being one of the most embarrassing examples of political illiteracy, practically over night.
And PZ Myers had already lost my respect some time ago, following an incident in which another atheist blogger (jokingly) put him on a list of the top fifteen sexiest scientists.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/i_have_been_objectified.php
Take note that after an initial chuckle, PZ immediately starts wringing his hands over the ethics of making sexy lists. He makes sure to become as condescending and pretentious as possible, lest his political correctness overlords suspect that he still has a functioning penis. And I'm sure he didn't want to issue an apology for having one of those.
Also, disappointingly, the person who had made the offending sexy scientist list, a man by the name of Luke... something or other... subsequently removed said list and apologized profusely to women everywhere for getting caught having a penis. (Gah! I just had another flashback to that damn video!)
I really appreciate that you took the time to post your thoughts on this. I was really upset that Watson had to blow this out of proportion (she says she didn't, but she DID) by accusing the guy of sexualizing her... for asking her out.
And YES, I am going to make a big god damn deal about it, because the moment you assume that being asked on a date qualifies as being sexualized, you've now made it impossible for men to do anything except objectify you. So yes, when I say that we've entered the culture of men who apologize for having a penis, I'm not joking around, because there's a popular female blogger on the internet who made the word "sexualize" meaningless by attributing it to nearly everything that men do around women.
I was really upset when this Rebecca Watson incident happened. Not just because I actually like Rebecca. I had a feeling that this was going to have a polarizing effect with me and a lot of my female friends. To my relief, a lot of women find this as ridiculous as I do, and the one friend who first brought this to my attention may have actually been more offended than I was.
But what most irritates me is not even the elevator incident or the Dawkins incident. It's that Rebecca has the audacity to sit in front of her computer and talk about how privileged men are, and yet she wields a power that no man could ever match. The power to call someone a name (misogynist, sexist, e.g.) and immediately garner the support of literally thousands. It's an instant win button. Once marginalized as a misogynist, it immediately becomes an uphill climb for any man who wishes to challenge Princess Victim and her court of internet drones.
Rebecca Watson needs to take a good hard look in the mirror before she starts talking about privilege. SHE'S the one who is demanding the privilege of being able to go anywhere she wants and not be inconvenienced by the awkwardness of men hitting on her.
TV's Mr. Neil at July 15, 2011 9:17 AM
Would somebody answer my question that I posted up earlier. I'm a total idiot when it comes to girls complaining about "being hit on constantly" and what they mean.
Poor Rebecca, she seems so sad that guys care about girls more than God not existing.(sarcasm)
My earlier post:
"Okay, Rebecca is complaining that guys are hitting on her all the time at conferences.
Well, okay but what does she mean by that?
Does that mean guys are flirting with her and that annoys her because flirting is sexualizing? Or does she mean that men are straight out constantly propositioning her for sex?
If it's the first case then I think she's a hypocrite because she does that to men. If it's the second case then maybe she's just interpreting men as propositioning her? I mean based on her knee jerk assessment of a guy asking her out for coffee, it sounds like she kind of projects sex on to men. Am I naive for thinking that way?
I mean if you watch her some of her speeches like this one where she talks about men's intuition she acts very flirty and practically "hits on" (ie. flirts with strongly) one of the members of the audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-X62CBTv44
I'm sorry but how can you complain about guys hitting on you at conferences when your hitting on men while your making a speech at a conference!
Jesus, what the hell is wrong with this world?"
Thank you for explaining.
Richard Manning at July 15, 2011 9:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2356811">comment from Richard ManningAt what time in the video?
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 9:47 AM
I mean at the beginning of the video. She is sexualizing Joe. Obviously she is impressed by him and wants him to know that...
And by the broadest definition of the term "hittin on" where "hitting on" equals flirtation and where flirtation equals sexualization...She was hitting on poor Joe.
Why can't Joe just be thought of as human being and not a sexual object? (sarcasm)
That is why I ask about what she means by guys "constantly hitting on" her? Like if that means guys are flirting with her then she is obviously complaining about nothing. She's complaining about something she does herself.
If it means guys are constantly propositioning her I think maybe it's in her imagination.
Is my analysis so far off? Am I crazy?
Richard Manning at July 15, 2011 9:55 AM
I hate to be the one to debunk this myself, but the "Joe" in question is Joe Nickell, who is approaching the age of 70. Call it a hunch, but I don't think she was sexualizing him.
TV's Mr. Neil at July 15, 2011 10:01 AM
Thats 30 posts now someone and you still have yet to say that you think rape is bad,
only that you are being persecuted and everyone else is pro rape
you're the one projecting mate
lujlp at July 15, 2011 10:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2356843">comment from lujlpThis is not about rape -- this is about a person ("someone") who desperately wants attention.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 10:03 AM
"I hate to be the one to debunk this myself, but the "Joe" in question is Joe Nickell, who is approaching the age of 70."
Okay fair enough. A sound debunking. I stand corrected.
Richard Manning at July 15, 2011 10:03 AM
Amy: "Most humans are not for rape any more than they are for murder."
Again: who am I going to believe, a book or my own lying eyes?
"No, but the way you twist the facts and are so wildly irrational suggests you are psychologically disordered."
So being against rape is irrational.
"To accuse nearly everyone here, or many people here, of being for it probably speaks, not only to some delusional disorder on your part but to a need for attention."
It's already been proven many times over that people here are rape apologists.
lujlp: "Thats 30 posts now someone and you still have yet to say that you think rape is bad,"
You are projecting. You are insane.
someone at July 15, 2011 10:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2356877">comment from someoneAmy: "Most humans are not for rape any more than they are for murder." Again: who am I going to believe, a book or my own lying eyes? "No, but the way you twist the facts and are so wildly irrational suggests you are psychologically disordered." So being against rape is irrational.
You're really in need of some serious help.
What I said is, in the population, it's the rarest of rarest of rare people who thinks that rape or murder is acceptable. Humans are hard-wired for empathy and for morality. A person who is not a psychopath doesn't think rape is okay or anything but evil. Psychopaths are extremely rare in the population.
Lujlp has been posting here for years and is one of the most highly rational people here. It's easy to look at somebody's postings and see if they apply logic -- ie, if they require evidence before they believe or contend something, and use logical reasoning for the conclusions they make.
You have decided, based on no evidence, that everyone commenting here is a "rape apologist" or for rape. Perhaps you have a psychiatric disorder (probably you do) that causes you to be delusional. Usually, Dr. Oakley tells me, people don't just have one disorder but a few. Whatever other disorder you have, it's one that seems to involve some pathological narcissism and a vast need for attention.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 10:25 AM
Well, I guess nobody is going to address the rest of my comments which aren't directly related to question of whether Rebecca flirted with Joe?
Richard Manning at July 15, 2011 10:35 AM
Richard, I bet nobody won't, but someone will.
While giggling about it about how s/he has everybody in this thread fooled. "Oh, man! They just replied to me again!! I'm really yanking their chain!!"
Radwaste at July 15, 2011 11:04 AM
"It's already been proven many times over that people here are rape apologists."
Go fuck yourself.
First of all, this situation has nothing to do with rape. It has to do with the fact that Rebecca Watson doesn't like being "sexualized". That's what she said. And even that is ridiculous hyperbole.
Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that Elevator Man's proposition was a sex invite. At no point was Rebecca Watson obligated to comply. She was given an invite, and she turned it down.
If a man chooses to ASK a woman her permission to have sex with her, then that's not a sexual objectification. Objects are not afforded the opportunity to respond to choices.
I'm sorry, but you are completely off base here. It appears that you have a sick desire to exploit the tragedy of rape so that you can win petty internet arguments.
By conflating the elevator incident to an incident of rape, you insult every woman who has ever experienced actually being raped.
Again, go fuck yourself.
TV's Mr. Neil at July 15, 2011 11:06 AM
While giggling about it about how s/he has everybody in this thread fooled. "Oh, man! They just replied to me again!! I'm really yanking their chain!!"
Yep, that's what I was going to say. Somebody here is a troll. But since my judgment has been undermined I didn't bother.
Richard Manning at July 15, 2011 11:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2357029">comment from TV's Mr. NeilWell-put, TV's Mr. Neil. And thank you.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 11:30 AM
Amy: "You're really in need of some serious help."
Well of course. It's not like any sane person would have anything against rape.
"You have decided, based on no evidence, that everyone commenting here is a "rape apologist" or for rape."
There is a large pile of evidence that keeps getting bigger every time one of you posts.
"Whatever other disorder you have, it's one that seems to involve some pathological narcissism and a vast need for attention."
Yes, being against rape must be a case of pathological narcissism and a vast need for attention.
Neil: "First of all, this situation has nothing to do with rape."
I'm not talking about that situation.
"By conflating the elevator incident to an incident of rape..."
I'm doing no such thing. Why do you lie?
Richard: "Yep, that's what I was going to say. Somebody here is a troll. But since my judgment has been undermined I didn't bother."
Yes haha I must be a troll it's not like anyone would SERIOUSLY oppose rape!
Is this website some kind of gathering place for subhumans?
someone at July 15, 2011 3:48 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2357433">comment from someoneThere is a large pile of evidence that keeps getting bigger every time one of you posts.
Saying that doesn't make it so.
Yes, being against rape must be a case of pathological narcissism and a vast need for attention.
Nice try at twisting things to say what has not been said. Once again, it is the rarest of rare person who is for rape. You need to be a psychopath. Psychopaths are rare in the population. The average person is hard-wired for empathy, and will be against murder, rape, or clonking people over the head with a frying pan. Nobody here has expressed any sentiment indicating that they are "for" rape or condone it in any way.
Expressing the sentiment that it's okay for a man to verbally ask a woman on a date and then take no for an answer -- a verbal no -- doesn't indicate that one condones rape. If anything, it indicates that one condones courtship. Am I a "courtship apologist." Sure am! And then some.
Your posts here suggest that you are a person with deep-seated psychological problems. I wouldn't be surprised if your IP traces to an institution, you appear that sick.
And no, I'm not saying that because I'm "for rape," but because you give constant indications that you're seriously fucked in the head.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 3:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2357434">comment from Amy AlkonI see from your IP that you're posting from Finland. I hope you can access some mental health care there. And I mean that in the sincerest of ways. You give indications of being quite detached from reality. And no, I'm not saying that because I "condone rape," but because you appear detached from reality.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 3:59 PM
"I'm doing no such thing. Why do you lie?"
Fuck you.
You're accusing people of being rape apologists. This whole incident has been over making a mountain out of a mole hill, especially as it goes for Rebecca feeling discomfort in an elevator and trying to blame someone else for it. That's why I said you're conflating things. If you're not talking about the elevator incident, then I don't know what the hell else you could be talking about. You have no right to call me a liar based on that.
Your ridiculous sweeping generalizations (not to mention the fact that you keep twisting people's words) make it impossible to know what the hell you're talking about.
You're just a hyperbolic troll.
TV's Mr. Neil at July 15, 2011 4:48 PM
Finland, that makes sense, in scandanavia rape is any sex where the woman in question hasnt been given permision by a neofeminist approved sex therapist before every sexual encouter
lujlp at July 15, 2011 6:35 PM
Amy: "Once again, it is the rarest of rare person who is for rape."
And yet everywhere I go I keep running into hordes of people who either have no problem with rape or are outright in favor of it. Reality supercedes theory.
"Your posts here suggest that you are a person with deep-seated psychological problems."
Of course. It's not like any healthy person would oppose rape.
"And no, I'm not saying that because I'm "for rape," but because you give constant indications that you're seriously fucked in the head."
Do you live in some kind of Alice in Wonderland-esque upside down world where everything is the opposite?
"I see from your IP that you're posting from Finland. I hope you can access some mental health care there. And I mean that in the sincerest of ways. You give indications of being quite detached from reality. And no, I'm not saying that because I "condone rape," but because you appear detached from reality."
You're the one who needs help.
Neil: "You're accusing people of being rape apologists."
Because they are.
"This whole incident has been over making a mountain out of a mole hill, especially as it goes for Rebecca feeling discomfort in an elevator and trying to blame someone else for it."
I am not talking about the elevator thing. Why are you trying to bring it up?
"If you're not talking about the elevator incident, then I don't know what the hell else you could be talking about."
Try reading. It helps.
"You're just a hyperbolic troll."
You don't even know what that means.
lujlp: "Finland, that makes sense, in scandanavia rape is any sex where the woman in question hasnt been given permision by a neofeminist approved sex therapist before every sexual encouter."
I didn't know Scandinavia now consists only of Sweden. That sure is fascinating.
someone at July 15, 2011 9:49 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2357982">comment from someoneAnd yet everywhere I go I keep running into hordes of people who either have no problem with rape or are outright in favor of it.
I was thinking you were institutionalized somewhere. Eating lunch in the psychopath wing again?
No one here is for rape. What you're for is clearly getting yourself a lot of attention.
Amy Alkon at July 15, 2011 10:07 PM
Someone Says:
"Reality supercedes theory."
Thanks for the compliment.
You still appear to be a self absorbed attention seeking lunatic though... But admittedly a self absorbed attention seeking lunatic that keeps asserting that they oppose rape.
That is what is so hilarious about you. You act as if acting like a crazy person and opposing rape are mutually exclusive features.
Unfortunately I think that claim can be easily debunked by considering the fact that not every person who is put into an institution for mental illness is an ardent rape advocate.
It is entirely consistent to be a seriously mentally deranged individual and still find rape to be reprehensible, it just means that the derangement lies in a different aspect of their behavior.
You do not strike us as mentally ill because you oppose rape, you strike us as being mentally ill for several other reasons.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were a child, but if you really are 27 years old you should know how to debate in an intellectually honest fashion. As such, you are either a liar, or you are nuts, or you are an internet troll. I see no alternative given your activities here, but I am open to other suggestions.
Reality at July 16, 2011 2:08 AM
Amy: "I was thinking you were institutionalized somewhere. Eating lunch in the psychopath wing again?"
You are projecting.
Reality: "You still appear to be a self absorbed attention seeking lunatic though... But admittedly a self absorbed attention seeking lunatic that keeps asserting that they oppose rape."
Opposing rape is basic moral decency, not extravagant attention-seeking behavior. Not that a subhuman like you would understand.
"You do not strike us as mentally ill because you oppose rape, you strike us as being mentally ill for several other reasons."
Such as?
someone at July 16, 2011 4:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2358278">comment from someoneAgain, there is no one here who is for rape.
This isn't about that. This is about your insisting everyone is somehow pro rape, when that is, first of all, wildly rare in the population, the province of psychopaths. It is enormously unlikely ANYONE in any blog comments section is for rape, or murder.
There is zero evidence anyone here is for rape, and people here keep pointing that out, and you keep twisting words, like a man who sees a giant talking rabbit where there is only a tree.
Get help. You're in serious need.
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2011 5:31 AM
"Again, there is no one here who is for rape."
Except, you know, all the people who are.
"This is about your insisting everyone is somehow pro rape, when that is, first of all, wildly rare in the population, the province of psychopaths."
Reality > theory. Get used to it.
"There is zero evidence anyone here is for rape, and people here keep pointing that out."
I've already demonstrated otherwise.
"Get help. You're in serious need."
No, it's quite obviously you who's in need of help. But keep on projecting, maybe that will somehow cure you.
someone at July 16, 2011 7:08 AM
"And yet everywhere I go I keep running into hordes of people who either have no problem with rape or are outright in favor of it. Reality supercedes theory."
As Amy says, more evidence that you're either in prison or a psych ward.
"Outright in favor"? Seriously, someone? Did you read my little bit of sarcasm earlier? Do you understand I have a daughter? Do you honestly believe that the mother of a daughter would be in favor of rape?
Are your parents in favor of rape? Do you have a sister? Would your parents want you or your sister to be raped?
You are the one projecting. If you have no concept of how deeply a parent would be against rape, much less anyone else, it says to me that you've had really bad things happen to you, and no one helped or defended you.
You are projecting that evil onto people here, and that is why you seem very emotionally disturbed, not because you are anti-rape.
lovelysoul at July 16, 2011 7:21 AM
Someone asks:
“Such as?”
Okay, the reasons you come across as being mentally deranged; which apparently I must emphasize do NOT have anything to do with your position on rape what so ever; include the following:
1 - Your mode of communication here has not displayed a significant ability on your part to discuss things with your fellow human beings. You have been talking at people here, not talking to people. There is a fundamental difference between these two things and if you honestly cannot see that in how you have been conversing here that just suggests you are blind to it, not that the rest of us are failing to understand you.
One of the primary rules of communicating is that if your audience doesn’t take the meaning you are trying to convey that you should first critically examine your method of delivery, you do not begin by critically examining the audience.
2 - You appear to have serious issues comprehending the difference between what people actually say, and what you attribute as their secret and undisclosed thoughts on an issue. It is generally considered to be a sign of mental illness when a person spends an inordinate amount of their time telling everyone else how they feel in spite of everyone else saying directly otherwise.
What you are doing here is akin to telling everyone that they really enjoy eating piles of feces even though every single person has expressed a huge disgust for such a proposition. Despite their obvious distaste for fecal matter you continue to insist that everyone here is a bunch of shit eaters.
Only lunatics feel justified in telling everyone else how and what they feel without so much as a shred of positive evidence to back up their claim.
Yours is a claim of faith, you have faith that everyone here endorses rape, you have zero support for that contention yet you continue to shove it in everyone’s face. If you had real support for your claims you would be able to provide quotes instead of resorting to saying things like this:
“ENTIRELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT. You are trying to change the subject ergo you are a rape apologist.”
Those are your exact words (see, I made a claim and I quoted you as evidence to support my claim). You do not contend that people are rape apologists because they actually say anything positive about rape… you contend they are rape apologists because they “change the subject”.
That is as crazy as saying that someone loves to shove feces into their mouth just because they don’t want to talk about shit. If a person really thinks in that fashion and believes that type of argument is rational then they are either incredibly stupid, or they are insane.
Also, I use this disgusting example because as Amy says, people who actually support rape are incredibly rare… their rarity isn’t so dissimilar than those who actually enjoy the activity in my analogy above.
Furthermore, you continue to use the word “apologist” incorrectly. Please look it up and use it properly in the future. You cannot be an apologist for any cause or belief simply by not talking about it. The definition actually requires that you say something on the subject. Changing the subject isn’t enough to make someone an apologist for anything.
People become apologists for causes by writing books that support a belief or making speeches that support a belief, they don’t become an apologist by sitting there and talking about something else entirely.
Anyway, there are several other reasons why you come across as mentally unhinged that are entirely unrelated to your stance on rape, but I’ll let you chew on these two for a moment before you embark on making your next set of loony assertions that have no basis in fact.
Reality at July 16, 2011 7:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2358458">comment from RealityYou appear to have serious issues comprehending the difference between what people actually say, and what you attribute as their secret and undisclosed thoughts on an issue. It is generally considered to be a sign of mental illness when a person spends an inordinate amount of their time telling everyone else how they feel in spite of everyone else saying directly otherwise.
Well-put, Reality.
Amy Alkon at July 16, 2011 8:31 AM
lovelysoul: "As Amy says, more evidence that you're either in prison or a psych ward."
No, you're just in denial.
"Do you honestly believe that the mother of a daughter would be in favor of rape?"
Implying that anyone who has a child is a model citizen and never a psychopath. There are parents out there who rape their own children, but I guess you're too busy being in denial to even know that much.
"If you have no concept of how deeply a parent would be against rape, much less anyone else, it says to me that you've had really bad things happen to you, and no one helped or defended you."
And here we go again with the bullshit that one cannot care about something unless it affects them personally. It isn't true and repetition won't somehow make it true.
Reality: "1 - Your mode of communication here has not displayed a significant ability on your part to discuss things with your fellow human beings."
What human beings?
"2 - You appear to have serious issues comprehending the difference between what people actually say, and what you attribute as their secret and undisclosed thoughts on an issue."
It is extremely common for people to say one thing and really mean another, e.g. a feminist will swear up and down she's against rape, but she'll also vigorously resist any and all efforts to educate women about self-defense and personal safety. Pretty obvious what her real motives are, regardless of what she says.
"Those are your exact words (see, I made a claim and I quoted you as evidence to support my claim). You do not contend that people are rape apologists because they actually say anything positive about rape... you contend they are rape apologists because they “change the subject”."
Instead of simply accepting or affirming that rape is inexcusably evil and moving on, they suddenly start talking like politicians about feminism and false rape accusations and the definition of rape as if they had the slightest bit to do with the fact that rape is evil and inexcusable. Or if I tell them there are people who regard rape as merely a matter of opinion and not a moral issue, they'll do the same thing. It is so very obvious what's going on.
"Also, I use this disgusting example because as Amy says, people who actually support rape are incredibly rare..."
Every time you see a person say some variation of "I hope he shares a cell with Bubba," you are looking at a rape supporter. But I suppose you're now going to claim that nobody ever says anything like that.
someone at July 16, 2011 8:32 AM
"Implying that anyone who has a child is a model citizen and never a psychopath. There are parents out there who rape their own children, but I guess you're too busy being in denial to even know that much."
I did not say that I was model citizen, but PROVE to me that anything I said indicates I'm a psychopath or "in favor of rape". That is very different. I've volunteered as an advocate of children whose parents abused or molested them.
This is how it works here: If you're going to make a charge, you back it up with ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT THAT PERSON SAID.
People posting here go back and quote line after line, but you have quoted nothing. Therefore, you have no proof, and, unless you can provide proof, you are just proving yourself mentally unbalanced.
And, once again, you did not answer the question of whether or not you have been raped. The fact that you mention "parents out there who rape their own children" leaves me to believe that my assumption was correct - that you were a victim and your parents, the people you trusted most, didn't protect you, as they should have. That's why you can't hear other adults who are telling you clearly that they are AGAINST rape.
I'm sure you'll come back with. "Oh, so being against rape means someone is mentally disturbed?" but that's not what I'm saying. Being obsessed with rape and accusing everyone else of supporting rape (what happened to you) is mentally disturbed.
lovelysoul at July 16, 2011 11:19 AM
lovelysoul: "This is how it works here: If you're going to make a charge, you back it up with ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT THAT PERSON SAID."
I've already made my case conclusively.
"And, once again, you did not answer the question of whether or not you have been raped."
Of course I have answered it. Several times. Try harder.
"The fact that you mention "parents out there who rape their own children" leaves me to believe that my assumption was correct - that you were a victim and your parents, the people you trusted most, didn't protect you, as they should have."
Lol. And you actually have the nerve to call other people crazy. What kind of an idiot uses this sort of tortured reasoning? If I mention to you that there are starving children in Africa, are you going to suspect me of being a former starved African child?
"Being obsessed with rape and accusing everyone else of supporting rape (what happened to you) is mentally disturbed."
Except nowhere have I said, implied or indicated that I am in any way obsessed with it. Try again.
someone at July 16, 2011 11:46 AM
"Except nowhere have I said, implied or indicated that I am in any way obsessed with it. Try again."
Yes, you have. You brought rape up and you have been the one to talk about rape this whole thread. No one else was talking about it. We were talking about a girl being hit on in an elevator.
"I've already made my case conclusively."
No, you haven't. Once again, PROVE IT. Find ONE sentence in this thread that indicates I am pro-rape. Dare you.
You can't do it, and that's why you don't quote anyone because you can't. All you have is, "I have....I can...I did...no, you're not...you changed the subject...." and on and on, but nowhere do you offer proof because you can't.
No one has written anything here supporting rape. Quote one sentence. It's all in your messed up head. And if it's not, quote one sentence where anyone here has supported rape.
I'll bet you dodge that one with some childish variation of, "I've already proven this..." but if you had any case at all, you could find one sentence that proves someone here supports rape.
lovelysoul at July 16, 2011 1:21 PM
lovelysoul: "You brought rape up."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. The subject was discussed by other commenters before I even came here. Why do you lie?
"No, you haven't."
Yes I have. Deal with it.
"No one has written anything here supporting rape."
Yes they have. Deal with it.
someone at July 16, 2011 4:06 PM
"Yes they have. Deal with it."
Prove it. One quote. Can't do it, huh?
lovelysoul at July 16, 2011 6:50 PM
I already have. Many times. Not my problem if you can't read.
someone at July 17, 2011 3:50 AM
You've never quoted anyone here supporting rape. You can't do it because there isn't a quote here. It's all in your head.
lovelysoul at July 17, 2011 5:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2369335">comment from lovelysoulYou've never quoted anyone here supporting rape. You can't do it because there isn't a quote here. It's all in your head.
lovelysoul is correct.
You have not quoted anyone here supporting rape.
You cannot quote anyone here supporting rape because no one has supported rape.
Amy Alkon at July 17, 2011 6:32 AM
Just because you think that it's necessary for me to quote someone doesn't mean it actually is. It's all in your head.
someone at July 17, 2011 6:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2369341">comment from someoneIt's necessary for you to quote a person supporting rape here to prove a person has supported rape here.
Feel free to do that now to prove that you're correct.
We're waiting.
Otherwise, we will conclude what we've been surmising thus far: that you have a mental disorder that is affecting your ability to be rational.
Amy Alkon at July 17, 2011 6:34 AM
I've clearly explained my position several times already, I don't need to quote anyone.
someone at July 17, 2011 8:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2369463">comment from someoneI've clearly explained my position several times already, I don't need to quote anyone.
Actually, you do, to support your position with evidence.
There is, however, no evidence to support your position.
And this is why you CANNOT quote anyone to support it.
Your position is entirely UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. It exists only in your head.
You are certainly irrational and probably delusional and definitely in need of mental health help. And I would generally not say this on the basis of simply reading somebody's blog comments, but it's entirely evident from your inability to use reason.
Amy Alkon at July 17, 2011 8:34 AM
Someone,
You actually haven't "proven" anything. You just keep claiming the same thing over and over without any evidence.
Your position has zero evidentiary support.
The only time you even attempted to make an argument it was of the following form:
“You are trying to change the subject ergo you are a rape apologist.”
That is the best “logic” you can come up with… and that “logic” is completely and totally invalid.
Under no circumstances does it follow that someone changing any subject means that they therefore support that particular subject.
An atheist might choose to avoid talking about religion for example, but if an atheist changes the subject from religion to something else it doesn’t logically follow that they are a religious apologist.
In fact an atheist is essentially the exact opposite of a religious apologist, so such an argument wouldn’t merely be slightly wrong, it would be totally and completely wrong.
Your argument is as logically flawed as if you accused everyone here of being a space alien simply because we change the subject away from spaceships.
Needless to say, you haven’t proven your contention, you never proved your contention in the past. Therefore based upon your constant insistence that you have proven your ridiculous claim I must conclude that you are either a liar, are uneducated, are stupid, are mentally deranged or are some combination of those four options.
That argument, as opposed to your own is logically sound and has a basis in your chosen method of communication.
Reality at July 17, 2011 10:36 AM
Hopefully this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
Reality at July 17, 2011 10:53 AM
Amy: "Actually, you do, to support your position with evidence."
I have.
"You are certainly irrational and probably delusional and definitely in need of mental health help."
Yes yes, anyone who opposes rape is irrational and crazy and blah blah blah. How's life in Upside Down World?
Reality: "Under no circumstances does it follow that someone changing any subject means that they therefore support that particular subject."
It's not as simple as that. You're using a straw man now.
"Needless to say, you haven’t proven your contention, you never proved your contention in the past."
Yes I have.
someone at July 17, 2011 11:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2369738">comment from someone"Needless to say, you haven’t proven your contention, you never proved your contention in the past." Yes I have.
Prove it by quoting from a comment by a commenter here that shows they are "for rape."
There isn't such a quote, and whatever psychological disorder you have prevents you from acknowledging that and posting it.
See Reality's link to the Wikipedia page.
Amy Alkon at July 17, 2011 11:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2369742">comment from RealityTherefore based upon your constant insistence that you have proven your ridiculous claim I must conclude that you are either a liar, are uneducated, are stupid, are mentally deranged or are some combination of those four options. That argument, as opposed to your own is logically sound and has a basis in your chosen method of communication.
This, by Reality, is an argument supported by evidence. The evidence: Your constant insistence that you have proved your ridiculous claim without providing a single quote to support this insistence.
It's actually quite sad that you have not been treated for whatever psychological disorder you have. Talk therapy and medication and maybe even work with somebody who specializes in neuroplasticity can help a person like you have the sort of normal life that is possible when one is able to think with rudimentary rationality.
Amy Alkon at July 17, 2011 11:43 AM
Someone Says:
"It's not as simple as that. You're using a straw man now."
I wish that it was a straw man, but it isn't.
I know it isn't because you said the following to someone in this very thread:
"You are trying to change the subject ergo you are a rape apologist."
Those are your exact words. That quote is not taken out of context, I have not omitted details of your argument that would make it logically valid. If I were to actually dissect your argument it would take on the following form:
Premise 1 - The subject of conversation is rape.
Premise 2 - Person “X” involved in the conversation tried to change the subject to something other than rape.
Premise 3 - If a person attempts to change a conversation about rape to any other subject they are a rape apologist.
Conclusion - Person “X” is a rape apologist because they tried to change the subject of the conversation to something other than rape.
That is the argument you have left us to analyze. What I am saying to you is that regardless of the truth value of premise 1 and premise 2 (I disagree that premise 1 is even accurate, but it doesn’t matter for me to prove my case), premise 3 is completely invalid.
I showed premise 3 to be invalid by a comparison to the atheist as a religious apologist example I gave.
In ANY logical argument, if one of the premises is shown to be false, then the conclusion must invariably be false.
The argument you gave is just plain wrong. Not just a little wrong, but totally and utterly wrong.
If you have additional evidence and premises that you failed to include in your own argument that is no ones fault but your own. Anyone who reads your arguments cannot be expected to fill in the gaps of logic that you leave behind. As it is now your assertion is full of holes, it is unable to stand on it’s own merits.
This is why people keep asking you to quote people to show where and how they have explicitly supported rape in any form. No one here has done so as far as the rest of us can tell and we’ve read through the comments.
If you see something the rest of us aren’t seeing it is your responsibility to show it.
Please consider this conversation to be the equivalent of a mathematics exam where the professor insists that you show your work. You don’t just get to write down answers and expect everyone else to buy into the fact that you know what you are talking about. You must show all of us explicitly how you came to your conclusions. Thus far you have failed to do this, and insisting that you have over and over again is just an example of the fallacy of “proof by assertion”.
Repeating the same claim time and time again doesn’t make it more legitimate.
Reality at July 17, 2011 12:47 PM
Amy: "Prove it by quoting from a comment by a commenter here that shows they are "for rape."
I don't have to. Try again.
"It's actually quite sad that you have not been treated for whatever psychological disorder you have."
There's that projection again. How's that working out for you?
Reality: "I know it isn't because you said the following to someone in this very thread:"
Which was a simplified version of my argument. Your point?
"The argument you gave is just plain wrong. Not just a little wrong, but totally and utterly wrong."
You mean totally correct.
someone at July 17, 2011 1:44 PM
Someone,
"Which was a simplified version of my argument. Your point?"
My point is that is you have some super amazing and complex argument which establishes your conclusion that someone is a rape apologist you can't just tell everyone here the "simplified" version and expect anyone to believe you.
The fact that you have only offered a "simplified" version and the simple version is invalid means that any intelligent person must conclude that your argument is a load of rubbish.
For all the rest of us know the other more "complicated" portions of your argument include an assertion that you are a magical telepath who can read the minds of people who post on the internet.
If you expect anyone anywhere to take anything you say seriously you need to make your arguments clear and convincing. All you have done is made an unsubstantiated assertion and now are claiming that a proof exists but that you didn’t bother to include it to make things “simple”.
Sorry… but the argument you presented is so “simple” that is fails to validate your claim.
You need to do better than that to prove you are right.
Until then your claim is on par with an assertion that everyone here is an extraterrestrial.
It is time for you to put up or shut up. Give us the full and complicated argument which establishes your claim in a logical fashion.
Reality at July 17, 2011 2:06 PM
someone:
By your own logic, you must be a rape apologist:
P1.) By your claim, everyone posting here is a rape apologist.
P2.) You are posting here. Quite a lot, actually.
C.) Therefore, you are a sub-human rape apologist.
Prove it? No, I don't have to.
MacPrince at July 17, 2011 2:14 PM
Reality: "The fact that you have only offered a "simplified" version and the simple version is invalid means that any intelligent person must conclude that your argument is a load of rubbish."
I didn't tell just the simplified version. Why do you lie?
MacPrince: "By your own logic, you must be a rape apologist:"
No such logic exists.
someone at July 17, 2011 8:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2370577">comment from someoneSomeone, you have not provided evidence that anyone here is in favor rape, and obviously, that's because you cannot.
Either provide it or crawl away.
Here's how you provide it:
NAME OF PERSON HERE: "Quote supporting what you say."
You cannot.
Please, seek mental health help.
Amy Alkon at July 17, 2011 9:08 PM
"Someone, you have not provided evidence that anyone here is in favor rape."
Yes I have. Deal with it.
"Please, seek mental health help."
Stop projecting already, you loony.
someone at July 18, 2011 3:49 AM
No such logic exists.
Posted by: someone
At least he finally posted something rational,
lujlp at July 18, 2011 5:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2371325">comment from someone"Someone, you have not provided evidence that anyone here is in favor rape." Yes I have.
Tell us the time stamp where you did that.
Amy Alkon at July 18, 2011 6:03 AM
"MacPrince: "By your own logic, you must be a rape apologist:"
No such logic exists."
Hey, he admits he has no logic, and, therefore, no argument!
lovelysoul at July 18, 2011 6:26 AM
Amy: "Tell us the time stamp where you did that. "
I'm not going to scour through every post of this thread just because you like to keep pretending I haven't clearly explained my position several times already.
lovelysoul: "Hey, he admits he has no logic, and, therefore, no argument! "
I never said anything like that anywhere. Why do you lie?
someone at July 18, 2011 6:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2371528">comment from someoneYou're making a claim that we all say is unsupported. Show us that it is supported. I can claim somebody here said Adolf Hitler was really Jesus, but it can be assumed to be the claim of a liar or insane person if I don't support it with evidence.
You have spent wads of time here contending that there's support for your position.
Now provide that support.
You won't, because you can't, and all your posts here are feeding whatever psychological disorder you have that combines delusion and irrationality with a compulsive need for attention.
Amy Alkon at July 18, 2011 6:54 AM
It's right there in black and white, someone. MacPrince said, "by your logic" and you said "no such logic exists" lol
We all agree with that. You can't just come on here and claim everyone believes a certain way without providing hard proof, which you obviously cannot do.
For instance, I still believe you're about 13, because that's how mature you seem, but you say you're 27, so I have to accept that because I have no proof that you're a kid.
Likewise, you have no proof that I'm a rape apologist. Not one serious quote or comment. Therefore, you can't just make shit up.
lovelysoul at July 18, 2011 7:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2371549">comment from lovelysoulYou can't just come on here and claim everyone believes a certain way without providing hard proof, which you obviously cannot do.
Correct.
If there is proof, provide it.
There isn't, and you can't.
Amy Alkon at July 18, 2011 7:06 AM
Amy: "You're making a claim that we all say is unsupported. Show us that it is supported."
For the millionth time: I have clearly explained myself several times now. It is not my responsibility to go look for those comments on your behalf. If you can't read or aren't paying enough attention, that's your problem. Not mine.
"You won't, because you can't, and all your posts here are feeding whatever psychological disorder you have that combines delusion and irrationality with a compulsive need for attention. "
Yes yes, anyone who opposes rape is delusional and crazy and blah blah blah blah blah. How many times will you repeat this drivel?
lovelysoul: "It's right there in black and white, someone. MacPrince said, "by your logic" and you said "no such logic exists" lol "
Oh, I see. You can't comprehend what you read. That must be really inconvinient.
someone at July 18, 2011 7:23 AM
"For the millionth time: I have clearly explained myself several times now. It is not my responsibility to go look for those comments on your behalf. If you can't read or aren't paying enough attention, that's your problem. Not mine."
This is her blog, you little turd. She reads almost every comment, which is how she knows that NOBODY here wrote anything in support of rape.
You have not explained yourself at all because you cannot point to even one comment where anyone here has supported rape. You spoke of people on OTHER blogs...and "everywhere you go"...but not HERE.
For instance, I could call you anything I want - a nazi, a homophobe, or a racist. I mean, why not just make shit up?
Then, when you dispute that you've written or implied anything in support of those views, I could play the same little game you're playing:
"Yes, you have."
"Why do you lie?"
"Oh, I see, anyone who says you're a racist must be crazy."
"It's not my reponsibility to show you where you said you're a racist, but you are."
In fact, that's what I think we should all do to you, from now on, if you persist in saying we are rape apologists with no actual proof.
A sane, mature person would admit that they were mistaken, and that they have no evidence to support what they merely suspect.
lovelysoul at July 18, 2011 7:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2371634">comment from someone"You're making a claim that we all say is unsupported. Show us that it is supported." For the millionth time: I have clearly explained myself several times now. It is not my responsibility to go look for those comments on your behalf.
Actually, it is. You intimated there were plenty of people here who were pro-rape.
Prove it.
You cannot, because you asserted something for which there is no evidence.
Refusing to prove it doesn't get you out of this.
You've posted volumes making the assertion -- putting in a lot of time. But, it's too much for you to find even one comment that proves your point?
No, the truth is, there ISN'T one comment that proves your assertion. Not one.
You need attention and you found the best way to get it is to make a wild, unproven assertion so rational people would keep the spotlight on you.
Well, you've succeeded -- in getting negative attention by the bucketful...which is why you will not go up and find a post that proves your post. Also, because there isn't even one.
Amy Alkon at July 18, 2011 8:01 AM
lovelysoul: "This is her blog, you little turd. She reads almost every comment, which is how she knows that NOBODY here wrote anything in support of rape."
Then she is unable to comprehend what she reads.
"You have not explained yourself at all because you cannot point to even one comment where anyone here has supported rape."
Blah blah blah blah.
Amy: "Prove it."
Already have.
someone at July 18, 2011 10:06 AM
You've proven nothing, so you are conceding that you cannot prove anything.
lovelysoul at July 18, 2011 3:49 PM
I've proven my point very clearly.
someone at July 19, 2011 4:57 AM
I'm sure in your head it's very clear, but to the rest of the world, not so much.
lovelysoul at July 19, 2011 5:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2373708">comment from someoneI've proven my point very clearly.
The words of a delusional person.
You have people here asking for evidence to prove your point and you provide none.
Simply saying you've proven your point doesn't prove your point.
This requires evidence.
I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a brain that betrays you, a lack of rationality like you exhibit.
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2011 6:10 AM
"The words of a delusional person."
Yes, you are very deluded indeed.
"You have people here asking for evidence to prove your point and you provide none."
I've made my case many times now. You're just pretending otherwise or too stupid to comprehend.
"I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a brain that betrays you, a lack of rationality like you exhibit."
Looks like somebody is projecting again...
someone at July 19, 2011 8:10 AM
Someone says:
"I've made my case many times now."
No, actually you haven't. What you have done is said that you've made your case many times.
You haven't actually made your case even one time.
The only thing even remotely close to a "case" that you made I have already debunked... to which you responded that that was only a simple version of your actual argument.
I have read your posts, at best you are wrong, at worst you are lying.
Since none of your early posts were very long you should be able to reiterate your full argument in less than two paragraphs.
Your failure to do so is not indicative of you being correct.
A person who goes to great lengths to repeat their assertion over and over and continually refuses to explain their argument in full detail is a person who does not wish to allow anyone to scrutinize their logic.
A reasonable and skeptical person will therefore reject your assertion out of hand.
Reality at July 19, 2011 8:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2374038">comment from someoneNo. The request was simple.
You made an assertion, which you did not back up.
We asked you to back it up.
You dance around this, complain that it's too much work -- while posting thousands upon thousands of words here re-asserting your claim.
You haven't backed it up because you cannot back it up, because your assertion comes only out of your head, not any real evidence.
Saying that somebody is "projecting" without evidence is more of the same.
I'm highly rational, and check myself for irrational thoughts and behavior all the time. Albert Ellis, the founder of rational emotive behavior therapy, was a mentor of mine. My column is all about taking people's irrational, emotionally-driven behavior and helping them apply reason. While making them snort their Coke from laughing so hard...I hope.
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2011 8:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2374051">comment from RealitySomeone says: "I've made my case many times now." No, actually you haven't. What you have done is said that you've made your case many times. You haven't actually made your case even one time.
Well-said, Reality. Exactly right.
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2011 8:48 AM
49 posts by someone, and not once has he ever asserted that rape is bad
He has asked question about himslef being perescuted for once having said it on some other blog, or real life maybe
But in 49 posts he has never said "I think rape is bad/evil/immoral/ect"
Also given the fact he changed the subject from rape to the mental state of other posters, well, by his own twisted logic he himself is a rape appologist for having changed the subject
lujlp at July 19, 2011 9:56 AM
Reality: "No, actually you haven't."
Yes, actually I have.
"The only thing even remotely close to a "case" that you made I have already debunked... to which you responded that that was only a simple version of your actual argument."
Which was exactly the case.
"Your failure to do so is not indicative of you being correct."
It is indicative of me not having any responsibility to do your work for you.
Amy: "You haven't backed it up because you cannot back it up, because your assertion comes only out of your head, not any real evidence."
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
"I'm highly rational, and check myself for irrational thoughts and behavior all the time."
But clearly not often enough.
"Albert Ellis, the founder of rational emotive behavior therapy, was a mentor of mine."
Looks like he did a piss poor job.
lujlp: "49 posts by someone, and not once has he ever asserted that rape is bad"
Except about a million times. Why do you lie?
"Also given the fact he changed the subject from rape to the mental state of other posters..."
The two are related.
"...well, by his own twisted logic he himself is a rape appologist for having changed the subject."
No such logic exists.
someone at July 19, 2011 10:32 AM
Someone is obviously a rapist. The evidence is here...somewhere...I don't have time nor feel the responsibility to find it, but I have proven this about a million times.
Rapist.
That's the short version of my argument.
Someone...is...a...rapist.
That's the long version.
lovelysoul at July 19, 2011 12:06 PM
"Someone is obviously a rapist."
You're projecting.
someone at July 19, 2011 12:31 PM
No, you really are. I've proven this a million times. And you're a homophobe and a nazi too. The two are related. Why do you lie?
lovelysoul at July 19, 2011 1:46 PM
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 19, 2011 1:50 PM
See, you're trying to change the subject, which merely proves that you are a rapist, homophobe, nazi. I swear, everywhere I go, I meet them!
lovelysoul at July 19, 2011 2:00 PM
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 19, 2011 2:24 PM
Still a rapist, huh?
lovelysoul at July 19, 2011 3:10 PM
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 19, 2011 4:36 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 19, 2011 6:12 PM
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 20, 2011 4:04 AM
Wrong again. lovelysoul and lujlp are not projecting onto you… they are imitating you.
There is a difference.
Reality at July 20, 2011 9:22 AM
Someone Says:
“It is indicative of me not having any responsibility to do your work for you.”
I think I like this little game of yours, so I am going to play too.
I found where you made your fully articulated case, I also noticed that I debunked the whole thing earlier as well.
I don’t have any responsibility in doing your work for you, so you just have to accept that I debunked every negative claim you made about anyone here.
Reality at July 20, 2011 9:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2375732">comment from RealityReality is correct.
Amy Alkon at July 20, 2011 9:45 AM
Reality: "Wrong again. lovelysoul and lujlp are not projecting onto you… they are imitating you."
No they aren't.
"I found where you made your fully articulated case, I also noticed that I debunked the whole thing earlier as well."
This did not happen. Try again.
someone at July 20, 2011 12:56 PM
No they aren't...
No, you diddddn't! Did too. Did not....
Does anyone doubt that someone is, like, 13 yrs old? These are baby arguments.
A 13 yr old Finnish outcast, typing away in his parent's basement.
lovelysoul at July 20, 2011 1:57 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 20, 2011 1:57 PM
lovelysoul: "A 13 yr old Finnish outcast, typing away in his parent's basement."
Who are you talking about? Yourself? You must be, since I don't know who else you could be referring to.
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 20, 2011 3:16 PM
Someone says:
"This did not happen."
Prove it.
Reality at July 20, 2011 3:26 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 20, 2011 4:11 PM
Reality: "Prove it."
I don't need to.
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 20, 2011 5:29 PM
Someone: I don't need to...'cause I'm only 13 and don't know how to present an evidenced-based argument. I just know how to call people names and say things like, "Still projecting, huh?"
I learned "projecting" from last year's vocabulary list, and now I throw it out there at adults on blogs because I can't prove anything I said.
Every time I use it, I know I just look like a bigger loser, but I can't help myself!
lovelysoul at July 20, 2011 6:12 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 20, 2011 8:22 PM
lovelysoul: "I don't need to...'cause I'm only 13 and don't know how to present an evidenced-based argument. I just know how to call people names and say things like, "Still projecting, huh?"
I learned "projecting" from last year's vocabulary list, and now I throw it out there at adults on blogs because I can't prove anything I said.
Every time I use it, I know I just look like a bigger loser, but I can't help myself!"
I didn't know you are only thirteen and only learned about the concept of projection last year.
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 21, 2011 4:13 AM
Someone Says:
"Reality: "Prove it."
I don't need to."
Oh... I get it. When you say something without any evidence you don't have to bother proving it.
When I say something without any evidence I need to back it up.
Sorry, double standards don't hold up here. You live in an interesting little world where you think the rules you apply to everyone else do not apply to you.
That is interesting because in my world people who think that way that are called sociopaths.
I have proven wrong every single thing you have said here... and I don't need to bother showing to you that it happened, you just have to accept it because that is what you expect of everyone else.
Reality at July 21, 2011 10:29 AM
"Oh... I get it. When you say something without any evidence you don't have to bother proving it."
I've explained myself several times now, not my problem if you can't be bothered to pay attention.
"That is interesting because in my world people who think that way that are called sociopaths."
Ho ho, more projection.
someone at July 21, 2011 11:14 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 21, 2011 2:39 PM
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 21, 2011 4:03 PM
Oh, now, it's like mimic every word. Someone is so immature.
Let's give it up, guys. The best thing we can do is ignore him. He's a lonely, socially awkward kid, just wanting attention.
lovelysoul at July 21, 2011 5:41 PM
lovelysoul,
I'll ignore his silly antics after this one last statement.
Someone says:
"more projection"
I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with observing that we are making predictions about you.
Based upon our observations of your behavior and the evidence of your statements I do project/predict/forecast that you are a sociopath.
Reality at July 21, 2011 6:04 PM
lovelysoul: "The best thing we can do is ignore him. He's a lonely, socially awkward kid, just wanting attention."
You must be talking about yourself since I don't know who else you could be referring to.
Reality: "I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with observing that we are making predictions about you."
Projection is not the same thing as prediction. Go consult a dictionary.
"Based upon our observations of your behavior and the evidence of your statements I do project/predict/forecast that you are a sociopath."
Opposing rape means being a sociopath blah blah herp derp. You are the one with the problem, not me.
someone at July 22, 2011 4:57 AM
Someone Says:
"Projection is not the same thing as prediction. Go consult a dictionary."
Wrong again.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection
Dictionary says:
"6. a prediction based on known evidence and observations"
Reality at July 22, 2011 8:59 AM
"The attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety."
Yep, that sure does have a lot to do with "prediction."
Try harder.
someone at July 22, 2011 9:36 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 22, 2011 8:15 PM
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 23, 2011 5:17 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 23, 2011 7:37 AM
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 23, 2011 8:53 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 23, 2011 10:04 AM
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 23, 2011 11:22 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 23, 2011 11:43 AM
Still projecting, huh?
(And still unable to spell "apologist" correctly, after so many tries.)
someone at July 23, 2011 1:17 PM
Well, truth be told I never typed it, I just copied it from one of your posts and have been copying it ever since.
Also, since you changed the subject away from rape that make you a rape apologist
so
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 23, 2011 8:16 PM
"Well, truth be told I never typed it, I just copied it from one of your posts and have been copying it ever since."
And you never noticed the spelling error because you don't know how it's spelled.
"Also, since you changed the subject away from rape that make you a rape apologist"
Completely absurd and illogical. But what else can one expect from a subhuman such as yourself?
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 24, 2011 6:29 AM
I never noticed baecause at this point were just playing a game of "I know you are but what am I?"
Also it was you who originally postulated that anyone who changed the subject matter of the conversation away from rape was a rape apologist.
So, since you tried changing he subject to spelling . . .
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 24, 2011 7:05 AM
"Completely absurd and illogical. But what else can one expect from a subhuman such as yourself?"
Exactly. Since that was YOUR argument, you must be referring to yourself.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 9:00 AM
lujlp: "Also it was you who originally postulated that anyone who changed the subject matter of the conversation away from rape was a rape apologist."
Except I meant that in a specific way, not in a completely general and generic sense. But of course you're far too stupid to tell the difference.
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell, even after you've been informed of the error.
lovelysoul: "Exactly. Since that was YOUR argument, you must be referring to yourself."
It was never my argument. You are making things up.
someone at July 24, 2011 9:34 AM
Why don't you humor us and explain your argument again, since none of us can seem to find it in this long thread...other than you suggesting people changing the subject makes them rape apologists.
Are you afraid to state your argument? I've never met anyone on a blog who wouldn't expound on their point again if asked. I've never met anyone here who just kept repeating, "I've already explained what I meant!" even when they haven't.
Let's just say that you weren't very clear. Apparently, everyone here missed your argument, so why are you afraid to state it again?
Are you afraid it's not a very good argument? Because that's the way it looks to us. Every time you say, "I already have", it look like a cop out. Why don't you show some balls and state your position clearly?
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 10:50 AM
"Why don't you humor us and explain your argument again."
No.
"Are you afraid to state your argument?"
I've already stated it several times.
"Every time you say, "I already have", it look like a cop out."
No, what it looks like is you being too stupid or lazy to pay attention.
someone at July 24, 2011 11:16 AM
No, what it looks like is that either you have no argument or you're too cowardly to state it because you know we'll rip it apart.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 11:19 AM
PS: Calling people stupid, or lazy, or subhuman is not an argument. That's just name calling.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 11:22 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
Also, I'm still not typing, just copying and pasting - quoting you
It isnt my job to correct your spelling mistake
BTW, I had a "Nuh, uh - Uh, huh" throw down with my youngest brother a few years back - it took me 6 hours to drive him into the ground - he never said it again.
I'll out last you as well
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 24, 2011 11:29 AM
lovelysoul: "No, what it looks like is that either you have no argument or you're too cowardly to state it because you know we'll rip it apart."
Except I've already stated it.
"PS: Calling people stupid, or lazy, or subhuman is not an argument. That's just name calling."
Waah waah waah.
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
"Also, I'm still not typing, just copying and pasting - quoting you"
And still unable to comprehend the spelling error.
"I'll out last you as well"
Unlikely.
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 24, 2011 12:11 PM
"Except I've already stated it."
If so, then you shouldn't be afraid to give a brief summary of your views for the many people here who apparently missed the intellectual portion of your position. Why so scared to repeat your argument? What could it take, a few lines?
You're antirape...we got that. You believe everyone else is for rape, but we all missed the part where you backed that up with evidence. So, why don't you just repeat the argument that lead to your conclusion?
Show you have some balls, kid. Repeat your position. Otherwise, you're just name calling. If you have an argument, you shouldn't be so afraid to lay it out there.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 12:24 PM
"Why so scared to repeat your argument?"
Why so retarded? I've already explained myself. Deal with it.
"You believe everyone else is for rape, but we all missed the part where you backed that up with evidence."
Well of course you did.
"Show you have some balls, kid."
I'm in my late twenties. Why do you lie?
"Otherwise, you're just name calling. If you have an argument, you shouldn't be so afraid to lay it out there."
I already did.
someone at July 24, 2011 1:02 PM
Someone says:
“I've already explained myself. Deal with it.”
No you have not.
When you believe that something has occurred and EVERYONE else around you perceives that it hasn’t occurred, the odds are that you are not living in a delusional fantasy world or that you are lying.
Not one other poster has seen this amazing argument that you keep talking about.
No one else has even so much as posted something in support of your position.
Why do you suppose that out of dozens and dozens of readers you are the only person who can even attest to the existence of this explanation you keep talking about.
Your continued assertion that something exists that no one else can verify is no different than if you claimed to be a fairy princess from a magical world filled with unicorns.
To put is quite bluntly:
WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU.
So if you aren’t interested in providing evidence to convince anyone else then kindly shut the hell up and go play with your drool cup.
Reality at July 24, 2011 1:31 PM
"Why so retarded? I've already explained myself. Deal with it."
Everyone here, including the owner of this blog, has specifically told you that you have NOT explained, nor proven, your argument. You may think you have explained it, but you haven't, and, besides, if you really had an argument, you wouldn't mind explaining it again.
"I'm in my late twenties. Why do you lie?"
Then, why do you debate like a teenager? I highly doubt you are over 15. Actually, your style of debate is more like an 8 yr old: "nah, nah, nah" and copying people.
You refuse to even summarize your argument, preferring to call names instead.
If you are a grown up, you will show that you can debate like one. Summarize your argument. Give us two or three sentences even. How hard is that? You're spending far more time and energy writing insults.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 1:40 PM
Reality: "No you have not."
Yes I have.
"When you believe that something has occurred and EVERYONE else around you perceives that it hasn’t occurred, the odds are that you are not living in a delusional fantasy world or that you are lying."
Doesn't change the fact that I've explained myself.
"Not one other poster has seen this amazing argument that you keep talking about."
That's because you're all imbeciles.
lovelysoul: "Everyone here, including the owner of this blog, has specifically told you that you have NOT explained, nor proven, your argument."
And they're all wrong.
"Then, why do you debate like a teenager?"
I don't.
someone at July 24, 2011 1:47 PM
Someone Says:
"That's because you're all imbeciles."
Well if you were even half as brilliant as you seem to think you are you wouldn't be wasting your time with people you actually consider to be imbeciles.
Geniuses don't spend their time telling idiots how smart they are.
The simply truth is that your position has no foundation so you commit yourself to fallacious rhetorical tactics.
That is all you have, you’ve got nothing else.
You do not argue like an intelligent person does, you argue like a guest on the Jerry Springer show.
So just stop already, you are just annoying.
Reality at July 24, 2011 1:58 PM
"And they're all wrong."
This should be a clue to you that you are, as Reality suggests, delusional. This blog is frequented by many intelligent, articulate people, who rationally debate topics.
They never stoop to such juvenile comments as, "It's this way because I say so!" The whole point of debate is to clearly express yourself and possibly change other people's minds.
For instance, if your assertion was true, and we were all supportive of rape, you could possibly change our minds about that with a reasonable argument. In fact, if you were really anti-rape, you'd be passionate about expressing your argument and changing people's view about rape! But, instead, you refuse to even restate it. That doesn't sound too anti-rape to me. If you really cared about rape victims, you'd gladly express your argument again and again.
As Reality also points out, nobody has sided with you throughout this entire thread. You can lie to yourself and assume that means everyone else is an imbecile, but common sense should suggest that if you had made even ONE rational statement someone here would've agreed with you. There are hundreds of readers to this blog from all over the world.
So, think about that. Maybe it's you, not everyone else, that has a problem. You obviously haven't explained things very well if no one - out of hundreds of people - supports you.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 2:11 PM
Reality: "The simply truth is that your position has no foundation so you commit yourself to fallacious rhetorical tactics."
Nope.
"You do not argue like an intelligent person does, you argue like a guest on the Jerry Springer show."
Your incompetence has nothing to do with my intelligence.
lovelysoul: "This blog is frequented by many intelligent, articulate people, who rationally debate topics."
I'll believe it when I see it.
"For instance, if your assertion was true, and we were all supportive of rape, you could possibly change our minds about that with a reasonable argument."
You're very naive, aren't you?
"In fact, if you were really anti-rape, you'd be passionate about expressing your argument and changing people's view about rape!"
I've already expressed my argument, and it is not possible to change a subhuman's views about rape.
"That doesn't sound too anti-rape to me. If you really cared about rape victims, you'd gladly express your argument again and again."
If you really had even half a brain, you'd realize that your attempts at projection are far too obvious.
"As Reality also points out, nobody has sided with you throughout this entire thread."
Which means absolutely nothing.
"So, think about that. Maybe it's you, not everyone else, that has a problem."
Being the only sane and intelligent person in the room doesn't suddenly make you insane and unintelligent.
someone at July 24, 2011 2:48 PM
Someone,
You must really love spending your time chatting with people you consider to be subhuman, incompetent, imbeciles who you do not believe are qualified to read.
Even if you are correct in your assessment of everyone here you are still a nutcase because only someone who has mental issues spends their time conversing with people they would describe as subhuman, incompetent, idiots.
I’m done trying to reach you, your beyond all attempts at logic and reason.
I do hope that you enjoy living in your fantasy world where everyone else is a subhuman ignoramus, but it sure seems like a lonely place to me.
I think it is time for you to move on to a new blog and find some other "subhumans" to satisfy your superiority complex with.
Goodbye.
Reality at July 24, 2011 2:59 PM
Reality: "Even if you are correct in your assessment of everyone here you are still a nutcase because only someone who has mental issues spends their time conversing with people they would describe as subhuman, incompetent, idiots."
Your so-called arguments are becoming ludicrously desperate.
someone at July 24, 2011 3:31 PM
"Being the only sane and intelligent person in the room doesn't suddenly make you insane and unintelligent."
Believing yourself to be the only sane and intelligent person amid hundreds of other people -much less the only one who is "anti-rape" - reveals you to be a narcissist. Look it up. You have a serious mental disorder.
Btw, you are not anti-rape. You have not once expressed any empathy towards the victims of rape.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 4:05 PM
"You have a serious mental disorder."
And the projection continues...
"Btw, you are not anti-rape."
Oh look, more projection.
someone at July 24, 2011 4:09 PM
Have you even once mentioned rape victims or what they go through? No. This is about YOU making yourself feel important or special for supposedly being anti-rape.
I have volunteered at women's shelters and assisted women who have been raped. That is being anti-rape. Anybody can come on a blog and claim they care, but you have shown no empathy for rape victims.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 4:48 PM
And still unable to comprehend the spelling error.
Oh, I comprehend it, I just dont care, also as you must have missed it the first time -ITS NOT MY JOB TO CORRECT YOUR MISTAKE
So,
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 24, 2011 5:37 PM
lovelysoul,
It is very easy to get sucked into an argument with a person when they make a series of unsubstantiated claims and continually assert that they actually have a good case for those claims.
Here is the thing, this individual is wrong about 95% of everything they have stated and seems to be obsessed with making a circus out of conversations.
You will get no satisfaction from interacting with a person like this because they will never admit that their argument has flaws. This person is not interested in truth.
A person whose primary allegiance is to the truth strives to show how and why they are correct not in order to show everyone else how smart they are, they show how and why they are correct so others can inspect their logic and try to poke holes in it.
A person who is interested in truth wants others to look at their rationale because feedback allows them to strengthen their position and get closer to the truth.
Interaction with this individual will always be fruitless because they aren't primarily interested in ascertaining the truth, they are primarily interested in annoying others with their warped perspective.
The good news is that people like this don't tend to make it very far amongst people who do not share their dogma.
This person is the internet equivalent of a door to door bible thumper who insists you are evil and only by following them can you be saved.
If someone like that came to my door I would simply ask them to leave and close the door to them. We’ve got better things to do than waste time with this annoying joker.
Reality at July 24, 2011 5:44 PM
lovelysoul: "Have you even once mentioned rape victims or what they go through? No."
Has it been relevant? No.
"This is about YOU making yourself feel important or special for supposedly being anti-rape."
There's that projection again.
"I have volunteered at women's shelters and assisted women who have been raped."
So you say.
lujlp: "Oh, I comprehend it, I just dont care, also as you must have missed it the first time -ITS NOT MY JOB TO CORRECT YOUR MISTAKE"
It isn't my mistake. I'm not typing your messages. You are.
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
Reality: "Here is the thing, this individual is wrong about 95% of everything they have stated."
Nope.
"Interaction with this individual will always be fruitless because they aren't primarily interested in ascertaining the truth, they are primarily interested in annoying others with their warped perspective."
Yeah bro, it's the anti-rape people who have a warped perspective. Not you.
"The good news is that people like this don't tend to make it very far amongst people who do not share their dogma."
Oh man, you mean I won't make it far with rape apologists? This will really cripple my social life.
"This person is the internet equivalent of a door to door bible thumper who insists you are evil and only by following them can you be saved."
Rape apologists ARE evil. That is an irrefutable, self-evident fact.
someone at July 24, 2011 5:58 PM
"Rape apologists ARE evil. That is an irrefutable, self-evident fact."
Yeah, but we're not rape apologists. You can say it a million times, and that still doesn't make it true.
Reality, I'm with you. This psycho isn't worth our time. I was just kinda bored today and thought I'd back Luj up.
It's really hilarious. This person is the most immature poster there has ever been here. His childish, "No, I'm not" "Yes, you did" "you're projecting" bullshit is actually an interesting study in how to deflect inquiry and criticism.
lovelysoul at July 24, 2011 6:24 PM
"This psycho isn't worth our time."
Psycho. For opposing rape. And you still claim you aren't a rape apologist? Lol.
someone at July 24, 2011 6:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2380726">comment from someone"This psycho isn't worth our time." Psycho. For opposing rape.
No, for showing an inability to reason.
We are ALL opposed to rape.
Amy Alkon at July 24, 2011 6:40 PM
It isn't my mistake. I'm not typing your messages. You are.
God your think - I aint typing, you arent worth the effort to type the same messsage over and over. I copied from one of your posts and pasted
So,
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 24, 2011 7:28 PM
Amy: "We are ALL opposed to rape."
Nonsense.
lujlp: "God your think - I aint typing, you arent worth the effort to type the same messsage over and over. I copied from one of your posts and pasted"
So you're too incompetent to write a simple word like "apologist" yourself. Still not my responsibility!
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh?
someone at July 24, 2011 7:32 PM
lovelysoul says:
"This person is the most immature poster there has ever been here. His childish, "No, I'm not" "Yes, you did" "you're projecting" bullshit is actually an interesting study in how to deflect inquiry and criticism."
It is funny that you mention that because I was very tempted to post a youtube video of "someone" that was recorded back in the 1980's.
I'll share it with you for laughs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4
I am sure you will find this method of "rational argumentation" very convincing and intelligent.
It is clearly far more sophisticated than the sorts of debates and discussions that happen amongst academics.
Reality at July 24, 2011 7:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2380782">comment from RealityActually, Reality, what's been a pleasure has been reading you and luj and lovelysoul articulating what rational discussion is.
And the video so perfectly captures "someone's" debate style.
Amy Alkon at July 24, 2011 8:09 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 24, 2011 8:34 PM
lol, Reality. That clip sums it up. I was thinking last night that it reminds me of the challenge of dealing with a 6 yr old, and that very phrase came to mind, "I know you are, but what am I?"
And I thought we can't put him in timeout...or can we? We could just talk with each other. He has nothing to respond to if we don't direct any comments towards him.
So, how's life? lol
lovelysoul at July 25, 2011 5:02 AM
Amy: "Actually, Reality, what's been a pleasure has been reading you and luj and lovelysoul articulating what rational discussion is."
You are shockingly delusional.
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
lovelysoul: "And I thought we can't put him in timeout...or can we? We could just talk with each other. He has nothing to respond to if we don't direct any comments towards him. "
If you are not saying anything relevant then of course I have "nothing to respond to," Captain Obvious.
someone at July 25, 2011 6:23 AM
How 'bout them, Yankees?
lovelysoul at July 25, 2011 6:27 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 25, 2011 6:15 PM
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 25, 2011 6:49 PM
Amy,
I am glad that you appreciated the rational side of the conversation :)
lovelysoul,
Life is good so far, trying to figure out the details of moving in with my SO. I am looking forward to the next couple of months when it all gets worked out.
How is life with you?
Reality at July 25, 2011 8:07 PM
someone: "You are shockingly delusional."
Still projecting, huh?
noone at July 25, 2011 8:14 PM
I think it's rebecca's position that caused this reaction. If she weren't a feminist atheist, skeptic etc etc then she could have let it go but she probably spends her life looking for things to get mad at men about
lifts at July 26, 2011 2:11 AM
"Life is good so far, trying to figure out the details of moving in with my SO. I am looking forward to the next couple of months when it all gets worked out."
That's funny, Reality, as I just started living with my new husband. We got married in April, but each had our own home until recently. It's a bit of an adjustment.
He's moved into my house, while our new house is being renovated, and he's not that comfortable here. And I hadn't realized how many little things needed "man help". He's like, "What's wrong with this drain? Did you know this isn't working? Where's your screw driver?...your ladder?...your drill?" Um, I don't know...lol
Like Amy doesn't cook, I don't do home repairs. :)
lovelysoul at July 26, 2011 6:04 AM
noone: "Still projecting, huh?"
Nope.
someone at July 26, 2011 7:35 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 26, 2011 2:46 PM
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 26, 2011 5:09 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 27, 2011 10:03 AM
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 27, 2011 10:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2383941">comment from someoneLuj is dyslexic but is one of the most highly rational and valuable thinkers posting here. I find his spelling charming.
For you, it's one more thing you can use to defend your delusion views. Low blow.
Amy Alkon at July 27, 2011 10:45 AM
He has been informed of the error many times and he is aware of it. And still he keeps doing it.
He's an imbecile.
someone at July 27, 2011 12:16 PM
Yes, I have been informed of the error, I also told you I dont consider you important enough to retype the sentance every time I post it, I just copy and paste it
You want to fix it go ahead and fix it, no one is stopping you
Also by changing the subject away from rape to spelling that makes you a rape apologist
so,
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 27, 2011 3:38 PM
"I just copy and paste it"
And lack the intellectual capacity to correct the obvious error.
"Also by changing the subject away from rape to spelling that makes you a rape apologist"
This is idiotic and makes no sense. But you're a stupid subhuman, so I guess I can't expect anything more.
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 27, 2011 5:10 PM
Here's the thing that bothers me the most about this bruhaha. It's how Watson comes across in her video. Normally this would be a personal episode no sane person would make an issue of, but in the video she addressing all males in a very condescending and snide tone. I guess she's just so friggin hot no male can resist making a pass at her.
Ironically from my experience attractive and socially adjusted females don't behave this way. They just don't.
The Beast Rabban at July 27, 2011 7:00 PM
And lack the intellectual capacity to correct the obvious error.
Didnt see you correcting it either, son
Me:"Also by changing the subject away from rape to spelling that makes you a rape apologist"
You: This is idiotic and makes no sense. But you're a stupid subhuman, so I guess I can't expect anything more.
Idiodic and makes no sense? I agree acctually, but it was the very same reasoning you used to label others as such
So,
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 27, 2011 8:36 PM
"Didnt see you correcting it either, son"
I have pointed it out many times now, retard. And since I am unable to edit your posts I don't see how -- or WHY -- you expect me to correct it for you.
"Idiodic and makes no sense? I agree acctually, but it was the very same reasoning you used to label others as such"
Except it wasn't. Are you hallucinating?
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 27, 2011 9:29 PM
I have pointed it out many times now, retard. And since I am unable to edit your posts I don't see how -- or WHY -- you expect me to correct it for you.
Um, thats what I said to you, when you first brought it up and I told you I was just copying and pasting from your posts
Me:"Idiodic and makes no sense? I agree acctually, but it was the very same reasoning you used to label others as such"
You:Except it wasn't. Are you hallucinating?
Really? You do realize that everything you've posted to this page is still visable, right?
For example
You're either justifying rape or trying to draw attention away from the fact that rape is inexcusably evil by bringing up completely unrelated matters. Either way you're a rape apologist.
Posted by: someone at July 11, 2011 6:41 PM
Again in case you missed it
trying to draw attention away from the fact that rape is inexcusably evil by bringing up completely unrelated matters.
So as spelling is unrelated to rape, by your own logic, you are a rape apologist for changing the subject away from rape to spelling
So,
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 27, 2011 10:37 PM
"Um, thats what I said to you, when you first brought it up and I told you I was just copying and pasting from your posts"
And you're too retarded to fix the obvious error.
"Really? You do realize that everything you've posted to this page is still visable, right?"
You are not using the same logic I am (or any other kind of logic for that matter). Try harder, retard.
"So as spelling is unrelated to rape, by your own logic, you are a rape apologist for changing the subject away from rape to spelling"
I have not used such logic anywhere. Try harder, retard.
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 27, 2011 10:52 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 28, 2011 2:55 AM
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 28, 2011 10:15 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 28, 2011 10:25 AM
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 28, 2011 2:16 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 28, 2011 3:31 PM
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 28, 2011 4:48 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 28, 2011 7:09 PM
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 28, 2011 8:58 PM
someone: "You are not using the same logic I am (or any other kind of logic for that matter)."
What logic is this? It does not exist. Try harder.
noone at July 28, 2011 9:33 PM
"What logic is this? It does not exist. Try harder."
His logic (or lack of it) is not my responsibility, and I have no idea why you would think otherwise.
someone at July 28, 2011 9:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2385794">comment from someoneLuj is dyslexic -- and highly rational.
Because you don't have a rational case, you must try the low-blow attacks.
Dyslexics I've known (Marlon Brando was one, luj is another, although we've never met face to face) have been anything but stupid. They just process letters differently.
http://youtu.be/VLtYFcHx7ec
Amy Alkon at July 28, 2011 10:03 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2385801">comment from someoneHe's logical, you're not. You assert things and provide no evidence for them. It's a looking glass world you live in, up some rabbit's ass, and you think it's reality.
Amy Alkon at July 28, 2011 10:10 PM
"Luj is dyslexic -- and highly rational."
He is incompetent and irrational.
"Because you don't have a rational case, you must try the low-blow attacks."
I've made my case several times, and lujlp is such a fuckup that he deserves to be mocked. Like most subhumans.
"You assert things and provide no evidence for them."
Your failure to read my comments does not somehow mean they don't exist.
"It's a looking glass world you live in, up some rabbit's ass, and you think it's reality."
Oh look, more projection.
someone at July 28, 2011 11:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2386014">comment from someoneLike most subhumans.
Who talks like this? What IS a "subhuman"?
"Oh look, more projection"
You're an adult engaging, repeatedly, in "I know you are, but what am I"?
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2011 12:01 AM
"Who talks like this? What IS a "subhuman"?"
lujlp is.
"You're an adult engaging, repeatedly, in "I know you are, but what am I"? "
Your projection is not my responsibility.
someone at July 29, 2011 12:49 AM
someone: "His logic (or lack of it) is not my responsibility, and I have no idea why you would think otherwise."
The lack of logic I was referring to was yours.
noone at July 29, 2011 5:51 PM
"The lack of logic I was referring to was yours."
There was no lack of logic on my part. Try again.
someone at July 29, 2011 6:11 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2387090">comment from someoneLogic is entirely absent from your comments. You show no interest in evidence-based reasoning. You simply keep asserting the same things -- based in zero evidence -- and insisting that it's either too much for you to show evidence for your claims or that you've already shown it (which you have not). You are the most delusional person I have ever encountered in the eight years I've been blogging. It's sad. I hope you will seek out a therapist.
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2011 6:15 PM
"You show no interest in evidence-based reasoning."
You show no interest in reading. As expected of a subhuman.
"You are the most delusional person I have ever encountered in the eight years I've been blogging."
You sure love this whole projection thing, don't you?
someone at July 29, 2011 7:33 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2387172">comment from someoneYou show no interest in reading.
Hilarious. I have three studies I plan to read tonight, plus a few book chapters. My whole life has been shaped around my love of reading -- and my love of reason.
To simply accuse a person of "projection" isn't good enough. I've provided evidence for where you've erred -- that you make claims and provide zero evidence, and refuse to provide evidence, and alternately insist that you have provided it.
Now, if you're accusing me of "projecting," you need to substantiate that. This is what a rational mind does -- examines and evaluates evidence. Without it to back up your claim, it is no more founded than the claim that the sky outside my house is zebra striped.
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2011 7:42 PM
"I have three studies I plan to read tonight, plus a few book chapters."
Are you really this amazingly dumb or are you just pretending?
"I've provided evidence for where you've erred."
Nope.
someone at July 29, 2011 9:01 PM
Someone as you have tries to change the subject away from rape that makes you a rape apologist
so,
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 30, 2011 1:32 AM
"Someone as you have tries to change the subject away from rape that makes you a rape apologist"
Laughably idiotic subhuman logic. Your existence is a good argument for eugenics.
"Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
someone at July 30, 2011 3:29 AM
I can't believe Someone is really this stupid. It's a game. He knows he's full of shit. It's like watching Abbott and Costello's "who's on first" skit.
Either make a coherent argument or fuck off.
perro at July 30, 2011 9:19 AM
"Either make a coherent argument or fuck off."
I already made one a long time ago. Either pay attention or fuck off.
someone at July 30, 2011 2:15 PM
"I already made one a long time ago."
No you didn't. You are a fucking liar and a retarded troll
perro at July 30, 2011 2:42 PM
"No you didn't."
Yes I did. Why do you lie?
"You are a fucking liar and a retarded troll"
You don't even know what a troll is.
someone at July 30, 2011 8:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2388439">comment from someonesomeone, tell us why you keep coming back here? What's the draw for you?
Amy Alkon at July 30, 2011 11:54 PM
Maybe I just enjoy tormenting subhumans.
someone at July 31, 2011 3:47 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at July 31, 2011 6:42 AM
"You don't even know what a troll is."
YOU are a troll. You have nothing to say yet you keep blathering on just to be obnoxious.
If you had made a point you would not be afraid to restate it. Yet you wont. Which proves you are a fucking liar
perro at July 31, 2011 7:52 AM
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
perro: "YOU are a troll."
Nope. Try again.
"If you had made a point you would not be afraid to restate it. Yet you wont. Which proves you are a fucking liar"
If you weren't a worthless subhuman with an IQ of a rock, you could have simply read my point.
someone at July 31, 2011 2:43 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/08/watson_dawkins.html#comment-2389527">comment from someoneIf you weren't a worthless subhuman with an IQ of a rock, you could have simply read my point.
Luj and the others are regulars here. If we're all so "subhuman," what are you doing here?
Feel free to state your point at any time for us, your psychological and intellectual underlings.
Be sure to support it in clear terms, since we have the "IQ of a rock."
Amy Alkon at July 31, 2011 3:07 PM
"There was no lack of logic on my part."
It's beyond your grasp. After all, you're the one talking to noone on the Internet.
noone at July 31, 2011 8:46 PM
"It's beyond your grasp."
Projection.
someone at July 31, 2011 11:04 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 1, 2011 2:29 AM
"Projection."
Nope. Try harder.
noone at August 1, 2011 3:56 AM
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
Considering how furiously you're projecting, there's a very high chance you're an actual rapist and not merely an apologist. With any luck you'll get run over by a train or something, and the world will no longer have to put up with your subhuman ways.
noone: "Nope. Try harder."
There is no need to try harder. It is obviously enough to simply point out the fact that you're projecting.
someone at August 1, 2011 6:34 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 1, 2011 6:32 PM
"If you weren't a worthless subhuman with an IQ of a rock, you could have simply read my point."
---------------------------------------
What point? You haven't made one(zero zilch, nada). You're nothing but a worthless troll, a useless piece of garbage.
perro at August 1, 2011 9:04 PM
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still projecting, huh? And still unable to spell.
perro: "What point? You haven't made one(zero zilch, nada)."
Of course I have. Why do you lie?
"You're nothing but a worthless troll, a useless piece of garbage."
You don't even know what a troll is. And if being against rape supposedly makes me a piece of garbage, then that's just fine with me.
someone at August 1, 2011 10:35 PM
"There is no need to try harder."
Wrong. Try harder.
noone at August 2, 2011 8:06 AM
If you made a point you wouldn't mind restating it. But since no one on this board can find it and you wont restate it, that means it is you who is lying.
You are a troll. You are not against rape, you are a liar and a worthless piece of garbage.
perro at August 2, 2011 9:06 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 2, 2011 6:38 PM
noone: "Wrong."
Nope.
perro: "If you made a point you wouldn't mind restating it."
If you weren't retarded you could simply read it.
"But since no one on this board can find it and you wont restate it, that means it is you who is lying."
People are either lying about not finding it or are too retarded to find it.
"You are a troll."
You don't know what that means.
"You are not against rape."
Yes I am. Why do you lie?
lujlp: "Still a rape apoligist, huh?"
Still a subhuman rapist, huh?
someone at August 2, 2011 7:20 PM
"People are either lying about not finding it or are too retarded to find it."
---------------------------------------
YOU are the one lying about it, you worthless lying troll.
Why don't you just fuck off, you snivelling lying piece of shit.
perro at August 2, 2011 8:10 PM
"Nope."
Try harder.
noone at August 2, 2011 9:10 PM
perro: "YOU are the one lying about it, you worthless lying troll."
No. And you still don't know what a troll is.
"Why don't you just fuck off, you snivelling lying piece of shit."
Yes, I am clearly a terrible person for opposing rape. If only I could be a cool rape apologist like you.
noone: "Try harder."
Try what harder?
someone at August 2, 2011 11:25 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 3, 2011 10:55 AM
Still a subhuman rapist, huh?
someone at August 3, 2011 7:38 PM
"Try what harder?"
You know exactly what.
noone at August 3, 2011 9:55 PM
"You know exactly what."
How am I supposed to know what's going through that retarded brain of yours?
someone at August 4, 2011 1:49 AM
"Yes, I am clearly a terrible person for opposing rape. If only I could be a cool rape apologist like you."
------------------------------------
Exactly how fucking stupid are you? Correctly labeling you as a worthless troll does not make one a "rape apologist"
You are a liar. You've never made any sort of argument. You just started out by calling posters "rape apologists" and that's all you've done. You are a worthless troll idiot.
perro at August 4, 2011 8:29 AM
"Exactly how fucking stupid are you?"
Not nearly as stupid as you, that's for sure.
"Correctly labeling you as a worthless troll does not make one a "rape apologist""
Of course it does, since the whole reason I'm being attacked here is because I am against rape.
"You are a liar. You've never made any sort of argument."
Yes I did. Why do you lie?
"You are a worthless troll idiot."
You don't know what that means. As expected of a subhuman.
someone at August 4, 2011 10:41 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 4, 2011 3:58 PM
Still a subhuman rapist, huh?
someone at August 4, 2011 8:59 PM
"How am I supposed to know what's going through that retarded brain of yours?"
Projection.
noone at August 4, 2011 11:59 PM
"Projection."
Nope.
someone at August 5, 2011 3:43 AM
My prediction on July 13, 2011 8:55 AM
“I suppose what disturbs me most of all about this person is that if they really believe that they are morally superior to everyone else, they can and will use that belief to justify all sort of unethical behavior under the misguided assumption that the ends justify the means, that the targets of their unethical behavior somehow “deserve” to be treated that way. A person like that can ultimately believe that they are morally and ethically justified to mistreat and abuse others after they have effectively dehumanized them.”
Someone says on July 30, 2011 3:29 AM:
“Laughably idiotic subhuman logic. Your existence is a good argument for eugenics.”
It looks like I am capable of seeing the future. For my next prediction I will predict that “someone” will soon say something illogical, insulting and trollish.
Reality at August 5, 2011 9:40 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 5, 2011 11:31 AM
Still a subhuman rapist, huh?
someone at August 5, 2011 8:23 PM
"Nope."
Wow. So articulate. We're all floored by your mental acuteness.
noone at August 6, 2011 6:00 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 6, 2011 8:56 PM
Still a subhuman rapist, huh?
someone at August 6, 2011 10:58 PM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 7, 2011 2:56 PM
Still a subhuman rapist, huh?
someone at August 8, 2011 12:30 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 8, 2011 4:38 PM
Still a subhuman rapist, huh?
someone at August 9, 2011 1:23 AM
Still a rape apoligist, huh?
lujlp at August 9, 2011 6:42 PM
Two days and no comments - told you I'd run him down
lujlp at August 11, 2011 5:14 PM
This is for "someone at July 13, 2011 6:20 AM" and sorry it's so late.
"It is especially an issue on MRA sites."
This regarding rape, and no it's not on MRA sites. The definition is the issue. A definition which has, as you should know, expanded from "forcible" to "I regret" or "I was drunk". On the latter, if both were drunk, then shouldn't the woman be charged also? Or is it the assumption that only men want sex? Is the woman always the infantilized victim (really, I thought women were empowered by expressing their sexuality at anytime)?
"See, this is yet another example of trying to change the subject. The definition of rape has nothing at all to do with this."
I remember this rather well. You changed the subject to fit your purposes, and would not brook any disagreement with you, switching to the epithet of abuse "rape apologist" rather than face the argument (a "rape apologist" is shunned by men, because they're talking about the girlfriend, wife, sister, or mother we adore, you must live in another universe than the rest of us). The definition is all important, lest dishonest misandrists or misogynists change it to suit their sick agenda.
Ariel at August 13, 2011 8:04 PM
If the guy was already in the elevator and you worry about that sort of thing, then don't get in. If he comes in after you, get out. Why stay in the elevator and then whine about him asking you back to his room? But I think most people are missing the real point. That initial whine was her right. It's when she started lambasting people like Stef McGraw and Dawkins because they didn't agree it was a big deal, that's when she went completely off the rails. She came across as a raving loon.
Dan at September 2, 2011 7:05 AM
"Two days and no comments - told you I'd run him down"
Unlike you, I sometimes have things to do, and therefore can't spend all my time explaining why you're such a waste of oxygen.
Ariel: "A definition which has, as you should know, expanded from "forcible" to "I regret" or "I was drunk"."
Entirely irrelevant.
"You changed the subject to fit your purposes."
Nope.
"switching to the epithet of abuse "rape apologist" rather than face the argument"
It's hardly my fault that there are so many rape apologists here.
"a "rape apologist" is shunned by men"
I see no evidence of that.
someone at September 6, 2011 2:13 AM
This twerp sounds just like a troll that used to haunt Japan boards. Cathy Lynn, is that you?
crella at September 11, 2011 1:18 AM
Yes, I definitely have to be the same person, because it's not like the English-speaking Internet has hundreds of millions of users or anything.
someone at September 16, 2011 4:50 AM
Ah, so you also lack a sense of humor, not surprising....however, you trolls may as well all be the same person, you all pull the same crap.
crella at September 18, 2011 7:00 AM
Except I'm not a troll and you don't even know what the word means.
someone at September 25, 2011 9:42 AM
COME ON ARSENAL!!!
Mckenzie Oms at November 6, 2011 10:02 PM
come come arsenaal
Johnny at May 4, 2012 8:30 AM
1. One simply does not invite an unfamiliar person of the opposite sex to one's room at 4 in the morning. Personal safety requires that acquaintances begin in public spaces. My better half warmly agrees with me here.
2. Many atheist men seem to believe that were it not for Abrahamic religion, we would all be sexual free spirits, at least before marriage. That is simply false. One can be an atheist and also be very cautious about sexual encounters.
3. Most people who get a serious college education are exposed to prim and radical feminism while in college. For some of us, this collegiate feminist indoctrination lasts a lifetime. Likewise, some who discovered Marxism on campuses in the 1930s and 40s proved unable to give it up.
4. Large parts of the sceptic-atheist community have forgotten that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.
concerned cynic at October 7, 2012 1:40 AM
thanks for sharing, i like great article at your site. good luckTutorial hijab Terbaru
Tutorial Hijab Terbaru at July 1, 2013 8:15 PM
Anti-aging products are Restore Age Regrow hair-care collection has been earning strong result.
http://hairrecovery.wix.com/hairclub
03028383103
Hair club at June 28, 2015 11:47 PM
Leave a comment