Gentlemen, the webcomic Girls with Slingshots has been giving lessons in proper dating protocol. You might want to follow along. Start here and work your way forward. Here’s the latest:
It’s rather clearly written for the obtuse nebbishes who whine about how they can’t know what a woman wants unless they proposition her.
Why not little twerp. Please tell me how a patriarchal structure where a womans consent doesn’t really matter differs from a patriarchal structure where a womans consent doesn’t really matter.
Oh, I see. One is the ebil mooslems, while the other is us. We can’t be the bad guys. Really.
So, little twerp. Are you racist or just clueless? Or both?
@Ing 435
I guess I’m more critiquing the local culture as being useless and possibly counterproductive.
I you know of a feminist blog, where the commentors engage in rational discussion, rather than jump on new people like hungry trolls, I’ll gladly move to a more productive place.
I’ve realized, since I was here, that I’ve just blindly accepted a whole lot of sexist nonsense over the course of my life, and I am trying to sort it out, so I can get rid of it.
The fact that I did not even think of split-paying dates is pretty profound to me. I still have miles to go, and I am trying to go miles, but obnoxious trolls seem keen on keeping me back.
I’ve got to thank Alteredstory for giving me something to think about, and Skeptifem for helping stand up against trolls.
I’ll see you tomorrow various blog commenting people.
Zerple, meh…
That is it, just meh…
How is it that when I posted my comment (way up @37) that I knew that the thread would turn into this?
For those who are complaining about the Schrodinger’s rapist thing: you’re unhappy about being thought a potential rapist? GOOD. I’m glad to hear it – because it means you CARE. Some men – way too many – DON’T CARE because they are rapists.
Anyone is capable of being a rapist. Absolutely true. Most – not all, but most – rapes are perpetrated by men against women. This is not a slam against men – it is a statement of fact. Anyone is capable of raping – me, you, my best friend, my worst enemy, my parents, my siblings, the asshole who double-parked me in yesterday, the checkout lady at the grocery store, the Pope, PZ. ANYONE. Being aware of this fact does not mean that you’re living in fear, or hate men, or are in denial. It’s part of being alive.
Here’s the other thing. Let’s go back to Rebecca Watson in the elevator, since Merkle won’t shut up about it. Hypothetically speaking, what would have happened if she’d accepted his offer for coffee? Well, there are three options:
(1) They have coffee. Nothing else happens.
(2) He propositions her, she accepts.
(3) He attempts, possibly successfully, to rape her.
Well, here’s the problem. If (1) happens, no harm, no foul. If (2) happens, then she’s a slut for sleeping with Random Dude. IIRC, she was married at the time. So she’s a slut who’s running around on her husband. If (3) happens, well, what was she thinking, going to the hotel room of a strange man in the middle of the night?! Did she actually THINK that “coffee” was what he was offering?
She said no. She also complained about Elevator Guy’s inappropriate conduct. Hence (apparently) she’s a bitch.
This is the crux of the issue. If she says yes, she’s a slut. If she says no, she’s a bitch.
Oh, and a few more things to keep in mind: most rapists know their victims. Most know them well. Statistically speaking, a woman is in more danger from the man she’s known her entire life than from the guy she just met.
Many rape victims discover that their friend/family member/loved one/spouse is a rapist when they get raped. The only way a person can KNOW, 100%, if another person is not going to rape them is when the first of them goes to their grave without the rape happening.
_________
As an aside: when people ask me why I don’t consider myself an atheist and stubbornly stick to my religious beliefs I point to shit like this.
Quite frankly, if believing that there’s a *handwave* out there somewhere is the price I pay for acceptance in a genuinely progressive organization that takes the equality of women as an article of faith and spends a lot of time pushing to make equality a reality in society and law, I’ll take it a thousand years before I consider joining with preening douchecanoes who tell me that women are lesser, and they know that rationally.
“Dating protocol” in which women are assumed to mean yes when they say no = rape culture
Forced marriages in which a woman’s ability to say yes or no is irrelevant = rape culture
Same problem, Markle.
If you think otherwise, then present your case. Simply saying “Nuh uh!” is not going to cut it.
#504 Esteleth:
I bet you that something like 95% of those rapists would positively freak out at the idea that they were potential rapists. “Me? A potential rapist? As if someone who loves women as much as I do could ever hurt them like that!” They don’t think of themselves as rapists, because rapists are people who hide in dark alleyways with knives, while by contrast they are skilled communicators who understand the subtleties of feminine body language and that when women say “no,” they really mean “maybe” or “yes.”
I’m creeping myself out.
@ Zerple
It’s great that you’re working on being less sexist. My advice? Be less defensive about it when someone tells you you’re acting sexist. Last time I tried to do that, you got all upset. Now you’re accusing Janine of being a troll, just because she won’t stroke you properly while informing you that you’re wrong.
The word “troll” has a meaning. I invite you to look it up, cite it, and then point to specific things Janine has done that are trollish. Otherwise, admit you were wrong about it and shut up.
@506 eigenperson
That’s very true. Have you read “Meet the Predators?” It’s over on Yes Means Yes. They found that if they ask men if they’ve done [textbook definition of rape], x% answer in the affirmative. If they ask if they’ve ever raped, then the number who answer yes is much, much lower.
This is part of rape culture. Rape is something that the ZOMG OTHER does. And because that’s so, then I (average guy) don’t have any role in upholding it and not condemning rape and rapists.
Male privilege in that cultue is the problem. Any thinker can see that.
eigenperson,
I often see that put out via the attempt to other rapists. As the idea goes: Rapists are monsters/inhuman, since I am not a monster/inhuman I can’t rape. Anyone who thinks they can’t take advantage of other people is operating under an assumption that makes them a greater risk than they would otherwise be. Regardless of how well they think they can communicate.
rape = sex without consent
dating protocol = going on dates, having fun, getting coffee, seeing a movie, etc.
So clearly, they are not the same problem.
Markle,
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
So, Markle, are you saying that you don’t have sex with people you’re dating? That you don’t want to have sex with people you’re dating? That you see no connection between sex and dating?
Are you SERIOUSLY saying that?
This comment will probably be lost in the kerfuffle, but I think it’s important to say that these kinds of discussions have opened my eyes to some seriously fucked-up shit. And the most fucked-up part of it is that I was so steeped in it, just so saturated with fucked-uppedness, that I did not even realize it was fucked up to begin with.
Since I took up lurking on Pharyngula, I have had cause to re-evaluate several incidents in my past, as well as some stuff that is going on right now in my life. From the Pharyngulites (is this the correct term?) I am learning how to notice when people are behaving in a way that treats me (and women in general) as objects or things or less-than-human, and I am learning how to speak up about it, so that people can be aware of what they are doing.
I am really shy, understand, so it is hard for me sometimes to speak up. But I’m learning, and gaining confidence, and that is largely due to the people here on this blog. So if anybody else wants to step up in here and say this kind of thing isn’t important, I’m telling you that for some of us it is important, vitally so. And it’s condescending to come in here and dismiss this topic as if your opinion is the only one that should be considered, as if the world revolves around your needs and desires. It seriously doesn’t.
Pharyngula has been my red pill. It’s scary as fuck, because the rabbit hole goes deeper than I ever imagined, but I’m glad I took it. Thank you for reading– sorry so lengthy. Back to lurking.
Markle,
I seem to have gotten lost somewhere with all the talk about how rape and sex don’t have anything to do with dating. Are you saying we should not be talking about rape? Or that we should? What, in your opinion, should we be talking about right now? Because I want to be sure that we only address what you deem important enough for discussion.
Evilisgood: It was a goodwill read. There’s no reason to say you’re sorry.
And over to those who should: Markle do you know where, outside of marriages, where most rapes happen? Have you ever heard the word “daterape”. Do you think it’s all an evil Muslim-feminist-socialist conspiracy?
Why would no mean ‘no permanently’?
It could mean ‘I don’t know you well enough’ ‘I’m not ready for dating at this time’ ‘I’m busy at that point.’ ‘I’m busy at this point’ ‘I’m not okay with being asked at this moment’ etc.
And it’s hard to know which of these are unless you ask again later.
Oh, clearly. Thanks for providing such a detailed and well-thought-out explanation.
Rape = when a man ignores a woman’s no in regard to sex
Sexual harassment = when a man ignores a woman’s no in regard to being asked to go on dates/have sex
So clearly, they are the same problem.
My logic is just as ironclad as Markle’s!
[Meta]@Erulóra Maikalambe, I just wanted to say that you do indeed have a sharp tongue. Your ‘nym is apt. :D
[/Meta]
@ Evilisgood:
Not lost. Welcome to the rabbit hole – there’s always room for more. :)
Clean cup, clean plate, move down, move down!
PS, stop trolling newbies, Sally. I know you like to be higher in the pecking order – and you’re usually right – but that’s no reason to take pot-shots at people.
crissakentavr,
Having asked, you have expressed an interest. Having been turned down doesn’t mean that your interest is gone, yes? So if the situation changes, let the one who turned you down make the next move, or not as the case may be.
right on, evilisgood. It is good to know that the posts help people and don’t just help trolls.
Damn autocorrect! Good read, no willies in my previous of course.
PPS, how did we switch from ‘asking people out on a date’ and ‘non means no during intimacy’?
Those may be related, but they’re totally different contexts. I don’t know why you’d even want to conflate them.
yo, crissakentavr, I edited this for you:
Honestly, all the details about getting to know each other, becoming friends, treating women as people and such aren’t going to find fertile soil in your head until you can recognize that waiting for them to respond to you is just as valid a strategy for you as for the other person. (Or to make it clearer, just as valid a strategy for a man as a woman.)
ooh ooh, I can play too!
assault and battery: physical fighting without consent
boxing: getting in the ring, having fun, exercising, etc.
See, if I discuss them without discussing the common theme (punching) then it means they are unrelated, right?
Maybe you could try addressing the concerns that people brought up about their similarity? Also, I don’t know how trying harder when told “no” = “having fun” for anyone but the pornsick dude who is doing it to her. Your categories seriously suck.
#504, “Let’s go back to Rebecca Watson in the elevator”
I’ve got a better idea: let’s not.
#517 crissakentavr:
If “no” does not mean “no, not ever,” you could always leave it up to the other person to make the next move.
Audrey, honey, I am sorry. Unless being here helps take your mind off things, you really should go find some pictures of kittens and butterflies and little baby squid and leave the pounding of the clueless to the rest of us. You’ve had our back a thousand times, it’s your turn. *internet hugs*
tushcloots, I am truly sorry for your loss. I agree with skeptifem that you should go and do your grieving. When you are in pain, why try to discuss such a contentious issue? I’m not denying your right to do as you wish, but honestly, we are clearly going to be at this for YEARS, so you can come back later and explain why we are all so wrong. I’ll welcome you, even if I think you are full of crap. I really will. Right now, though, please take care of yourself.
crissakentavr,
Because ignoring a no in either situation is putting one’s own needs ahead of someone else’s personal boundaries. We need to have an unambiguous term that always means no. No is a good word for that.
Dhorvath: But that would require them to A) know hot to reconnect, B) remember the interest is there C) take the initiative to reconnect D) know there’s anything there to reconnect with.
There’s no reason to believe that the person several rows in front of you is ever going to look back and remember you. If you don’t reach out to talk to people – people aren’t going to reach out to talk to you.
Waiting until someone else remembers that you’ve talked to them in the past and may still want to talk to them is an invitation to isolation. I don’t think that’s really a good place to go.
I will admit we’re usually talking about a society in which women are bombarded and men are not – not that the situation can be reversed for individuals – but that still leaves the majority of people not getting any propositions.
Esteleth:
Seems like a non-sequitur.
#525: Because they are special cases of a general fact, which is that no means no, no matter who says it.
It happens to be a fact that people enjoy ignoring when it suits them, and it makes those people jerks or worse every single time. It doesn’t matter whether the context is sex, dating, hazing, or whatever.
Who said ignoring? You’re reading into something that isn’t there. And you’re assuming that no means no permanently.
If you say no when offered food, does this mean to never offer you food again?
Your formula does not work in day to day life.
@ crissakentavr #517
The problem is not “asking again later”, it’s asking again immediately, or ignoring it in the moment, or any number of other things.
How about this – if she says no, you be nice about it, say ok, and move on. If it’s someone you interact with on a fairly regular basis (which is likely if you’re in a position to “ask later”), chances are if it was a “I’m busy” or “bad time to ask” but she’s really interested, she’ll either say so when things are better, or she’ll spend time being nice to you, at which point you can, I suppose, say something along the lines of “hey, I’m still interested, has your answer changed?”
If it’s still no, then it’s still no.
To be clear – most of my rejections haven’t been monosyllabic. If all you get is the word “no” then you probably need to either work on your communication skills, or not ask strangers. It is always possible that she’s a horrible person and just wanted to reject you harshly, but since you can’t do anything about it if that’s the case – work on what might be wrong at YOUR end first.
The only person I’ve asked repeatedly has been one of my closest friends, and it’s not been so much “repeated” asking, as periodically, when I feel too attracted to her to ignore it, saying “by the way, I’m still interested, has anything changed at your end. That’s over the course of several years, mind you.
Maybe I’m just strange, or maybe I’m only attracted to nice, considerate women (woe is me), but I’ve never encountered a rejection that came without some indication as to WHY I was being rejected, and I’ve never gotten all defensive about it (outside of my head).
Social cues and nuances DO matter, but if someone says “no” to you, it’s best to assume that’s a “no, I don’t want to date you” unless you’re told otherwise, and don’t keep asking again and again over the next few days.
That’s the closest I can come to useful advice.
Boxing and physical assault are completely different. Boxing is a sport, and physical assault is not a sport.
Why would you even want to equate them together? Boxing leads to physical assault?
Unless you really want to think asking for dates means rape later.
Jose: you’ll be helping out bashing the mras until they’ll get the point then. Or…?
#532 crissakentavr:
If the person does not even remember who the fuck you are, what on earth makes you think they are the tiniest bit interested in dating you?
@ Johny T Johny
Where? All the good ones are already taken. I only meet confused or manipulative women.
Please don’t answer me “go to a Church”.
evilisgood,
Not lost at all. Welcome.
Esteleth
[meta]
Aiya!
You just made my day! XD
Thank you.
Ah shoot. Let me try that again.
Fuck off, you pompous net nanny. You’re doing the same thing Zerple’s doing. Be more creative and accurate in your insults. What I’m doing to Zerple is not trolling.
Look, assuming someone is going to ask you back is blue-sky stupidity. That might be the optimal society, but it isn’t realistic. Your definition ‘no means no’ taking it from an intimate setting to any setting makes ‘no’ an impossible standard to ever meet.
If someone said no last week, then the next time, you ask the context of the no, make a lower offer. This is a social interaction, a barter, not a mass-production shop with one price and one answer. Everyone isn’t a perfect robot with perfect recall and errorless wide-side-band communications.
crissakentavr I guess I should emphasize one point within my ramblings – If “no” is the only answer you get, then STOP ASKING STRANGERS.
#537 Markle:
Because, you imbecile, if you engage in boxing with someone who does not wish to engage in boxing, that is called “physical assault.”
Strange, but true!
That’s because “the good ones” tend to avoid men who think of them as possessions to be “taken.”
Probably because you are yourself confused and/or manipulative. Like here, you’re trying to manipulate the commenters here into being your own private dating agency. Which is a confused thing to do, because anyone with brains can see that nobody would be remotely interested in pointing an unsuspecting woman in your direction.
Evilisgood, I’m with you there. It’s rough to be see injustice and it’s rough to go against the cultural norm, especially as a shy person. Good luck to you!
And since a large part of the various tone trolls’ arguments seem to be “Well, I won’t listen if you swear and insult people, therefor you shouldn’t swear and insult people” let me counteract by saying I love the salty tone of Pharyngula. It’s rough and tumble, and I like that.
On topic: Now I have a new webcomic, procrastastic! The first time I had a guy try some bs like that, I was vocally offended that he thought I was that manipulative. The “well, some women are” argument just made it clearer that he wasn’t interested in *me*, he was just playing the odds. Flattering, no?
Sally, stop trolling. I asked you please on prior occasions, I see no reason to be nice to you now – you’re never nice to people lower on the pecking order. If you need to cuss at me, go ahead. I don’t fucking care. I already called you out. I’ll do it again if I see it again.
you don’t understand what I was trying to get at, at all. I don’t think they are the same, but they do share some elements (like punches). I posted what I did because it illustrated how hard you were trying to avoid the central issue when making a comparison between the two things. It is easy to state something is “completely different” if you don’t have any intellectual integrity, if you avoid discussing the issue that has been pointed out to you repeatedly in favor of arguing a cardboard stand in for an actual point. You said nothing about the bottom part of that post, either. You called dating protocol “having fun”, and decided that a dude who won’t take no for an answer is a question of dating protocol. How the fuck is that “having fun” for anyone but the dude?
If you never ask strangers, then you will never have friends. What was a friend before? A stranger. Maybe you’re lucky and you became friends with a co-worker or something – but it stands to reason, they were a stranger to you at some point.
How ignorant can you possibly be?
Oh I get it! Dating someone who doesn’t want to be dated is rape!
Strange but – oh wait.
Actually, a lot of rapists use dating as a smokescreen for their activities. That’s why date rape is far more common than stranger rape. Why do rapists do this? Because they know that date rape doesn’t conform to the accepted narrative of rape. It’s not “rape-rape” in Whoopi’s infamous words. Therefore, date rapes are less likely to be perceived as rapes, sometimes even by the victims, and less likely to be reported, and if reported it is less likely that the victim will be believed, and even if she is believed, it is less likely that a jury will convict.
“Yes means yes” “Meet the predators” – google these phrases if you want to get the facts. I suspect you’re not interested in facts, though.
tushcloots:
For that, you merit a loud Fuck Off. Benjamin has been pulling the same shit here for years. Every single one of the regulars went through a time when one thread after another was dominated by Benjamin’s problems and the attempt to help him. He was very much treated “like a fucking person” in those threads. Repeatedly. The fact that you haven’t been around for years and seeing what has happened isn’t the fault of anyone here and it sure as shit does not give you leave to play the self-righteous martyr, you flaming asspimple.
No one here does that. There’s a damn good example of a miscommunication in the Social Media thread, which was resolved through good discussion. Don’t you dare attempt to mischaracterize the regulars here when you have not dealt with the amount of sexist crap that we have. When you stay up for 3 days straight and deal with over 4,000 posts, the bulk of them vile crap from MRAs, then you can talk. Until then, shut the fuck up.
Here’s a thought, Cupcake. Yeah, Cupcake. Go start your own blog so you can froth at the mouth. Better yet, go join the gang at the slimepit. You’ll fit right in.
Most women have the experience of not being taken seriously. Every single day. I have to deal with it way too often in my work. It’s not fun. It’s a grind and it wears you down.
Isn’t it lovely you have the privilege to feel so? What a pity you’re blind to your own privilege which you’re shoving into everyone’s face.
I take responsibility for my anger, if by responsibility you mean admit I’m angry. I don’t owe you anything, Cupcake. Neither does anyone else. I’m absolutely fine with you being angry, as long as you have a valid reason for that anger and manage to back it up, like we do. We have a fucktonne of studies to back up the reasons we’re angry. Seems all you have is whinging.
Oh, so we’re responsible for your anger, Cupcake? You mean you just can’t cope, like any adult would? Would this be inciting anger, like the sight of skin supposedly incites men to rape? Interesting. So it seems you’re the one who can’t take responsibility for your anger.
I suggest you pull yours out of your ass.
I doubt anyone is interested in your respect. You want ours? Stop being a flaming asspimple. If you had been around for every single fucking sexism and feminism thread, here and at sciblogs, you’d have seen plenty of what you’re claiming you never, ever see.
All you’re doing now is mainsplaining. Yes, that’s a link. Try clicking, reading and educating yourself.
Yep. That’s how life is for women.
A lot of men are that way, Sugarbrain. It goes well past “hitting on” you fucking idiot.
The Male Privilege Checklist
Meet the Predators
Predator Redux
Which is all the result of entrenched sexism. Christ, you’re dense. Sexism affects everyone.
Why yes, some women play games, there will always be people who play games. However, it is as simple as no means no. If a man hears no, whether or not someone is playing games, take it as a no. What in the fuck is so difficult? If the person was playing a game, say something like “sorry, I don’t do that sort of thing. Living in a rape culture, this is a serious issue and I take no means no seriously. If you don’t like that, take a walk.” Voila!
What you do is take responsibility for your own actions. Duh.
Gee, Cupcake, that’s all you’re doing. Better get that head outta your ass and take your own advice, eh?
#545 crissakentavr:
If they are interested and ask you, then great (assuming you are still interested). If they don’t ask back, you can ask one of the literally dozens of other potential dating partners that exist in the world. It’s not exactly a disaster.
Besides, wtf do you mean by “make a lower offer”? Am I supposed to ask again next week and this time throw in a box of chocolates or a briefcase full of Benjamins?
Heliantus @540
Hmm. Could it be that you are requiring a certain level of beauty and cup size before you find a woman interesting? Could it be that there are many, many women who would be perfect for you, but who maybe are not gorgeous, and whose breasts are in the B cup range? Because there are a lot of women out there. Not all of them are visually stunning, so maybe if you get to know a few of the less visually stunning you’ll find a few treasures.
you are acting like it isn’t possible to find out if she wants to be asked again later, when you could say something like “maybe some other time?”, or “if you change your mind please let me know”.
Here we go with this again…please try and pay attention. You may eventually understand this idea.
When a man sees a woman and just walks up and asks her out on a date or to go somewhere with him, she knows he’s not interested in her as a person. He is motivated by visual appeal and his own desires, and any interest in the woman’s desires and interests is a distant second to what the man wants.
If you cannot comprehend how to have a conversation with someone you find attractive without immediately jumping to DATE/SEX/MUST BE NOW OR FOREVER LOST, then you need to work on your social skills.
This is vastly different from asking people out right off without making any attempt at getting to know them first.
So…women can just suck it up and take it because otherwise men won’t get any, amirite?
You do realise there are more women out there than men, right? Which means a majority of people ARE getting propositioned, right? Because an overwhelming majority of women tend to get bombarded with propositions regularly and from multiple people…
You see the problem yet?
Try striking up a conversation and treating women like people who have their own interests. Anyone interested in rational thought should be able to appreciate the logic in treating all human beings as people.
What a pretentious little fussbudget you are. There’s no pecking order. There are people who are worthy of respect, because they make interesting, fact-based contributions to the discussions. You are not part of that group. You’re not calling me out, you’re whining pointlessly. Get over yourself.
Hey look! No swear words. Yet I still managed to convey my contempt for you. How about that. Like I said, your insults fail to impress, not because they aren’t salty, but because they are inaccurate.
“cuss”?
“cuss”?
Who’s been cussing? Did I miss something during naptime?
#553 Markle: Harassment, you idiot. I’m aware you don’t have much of an intellect but I did think you realized the issue being discussed in this thread was harassment.
I guess I overestimated you.
crissakentavr,
You keep using the word “trolling”. It does not mean what you seem to think it means. Of course that is because you are ignorant, something which others have pointed out to you. However you seemed unable rectify that failing, which is a problem.
Don’t forget your porcupine on your way out.
Oh I get it! Dating someone who doesn’t want to be dated is rape!
seeing your posts is like watching a river of stupid run through it.
I’m going to give you the benefit of doubt and pretend this is said in good faith;
Sally isn’t trolling. You’re looking awfully close though, so unless you’re trolling and want to be treated as such you’d better shut up until you learn how humans socialise.
crissakentavr, since you and others seem to have trouble with the definition, I’ll try to summarize ’cause I’m just that nice.
A troll is not a rude person.
A troll is not a mean person.
A troll is a person who is deliberately rude/mean/ANY OTHER BEHAVIOR for the sake of making other people angry.
Repeatedly asking boneheaded questions/making boneheaded statements is usually a sign of a troll.
Repeatedly calling everybody a troll is sometimes a sign of a troll.
A misogynist on a feminist blog is almost always a troll.
Sally is not being a troll. She is not trying to get a rise out of newbies. That goes for the other well-known verbally abusive commenters here. They are mean, sometimes, and rude, sometimes, when they think mean or rude are called for.
They are not, however deliberately trying to get a rise out of you by being mean or rude.
This has been explained to you three times now, but please feel free to actually read the words and try to understand them:
the problem is men ignoring women’s words. rape is one possible outcome of that, out of many.
what part of this do you not understand? Are you purposely trying to misunderstand or avoid confronting the argument?
crissakentavr says:
Small question first.
You asked how talking about dating and talking about no means no related. Meanwhile you have suggested that no can mean not right now. We need a term that means no, as in don’t do that again. I think no is a good word for that, it’s short and people recognize it easily.
Better that than interpreting it didn’t mean ‘no permanently’ when it did.
How many people get assaulted by feeding? Truth be told, I find the notion of comparing assualt to sharing food pretty offensive.
Oh for crying out loud. If you are asking someone out who doesn’t know how to do any of those things with you already, you have jumped the gun.
There is no reason to think that person is lacking you in their life, and if the only way you can reach out to find other lonely people is to approach random strangers, you are part of the problem.
Because you don’t know any people and have to accost strangers for their phone number? I am having trouble reading this reply to mean other than that.
Yes, the whole damn system sucks, but playing it by it’s current rules makes it easier for people to rape. No meaning no, regardless of what is going on is a means to changing that system.
physical assault is not a sport
wait, you mean you never saw Clockwork Orange?
Antiochus Epiphanes @533,
How so? Atheism has a sexism problem. I doubt I’m the only woman who’s been repulsed by it and has made the same choice (anti-sexist theism over sexist atheism). Saying so seems relevant.
[meta] @Erulóra Maikalambe
Ná, haryal lambe ta maika! Immo, haryanyë lambe maiklalóra. :D :D :D
Asking for a date, then asking again some other time like raping a woman. After all, answering a question when you don’t want to answer a question is like having sex when you don’t want to have sex.
@540 Heliantus
BS. There are loads of nice women out there.
Friends of friends. 90% of people I know in happy relationships were once friends of friends, friends of friends of friends, etc.
Ask you’re friends if they know any nice girls, get em to have a party or get together, and see if something happens.
Gnumann, crissakentavr is a well known Tone Troll around here, who is holding so many grudges that they rarely have anything pertinent or on topic to say.
hey, Zerp and Criss…
you want to see someone trolling (the original use is as a verb, you know)?
Markle is trolling.
big stinky cheese bait trolling.
his hook’s really dull though.
might even be made of wood.
It doesn’t matter if rape is a “possible” outcome out of asking a woman for a date. There are lots of possible outcomes, but the most likely is an answer to you question. Maybe after a long series of events, after months and months of further interaction, there would be rape. But only after lots more interaction that don’t have anything to do with asking people for dates!
It is kind of amusing how people manage their whole lives fairly well, getting along with people, interacting, using verbal and non-verbal communication alike but suddenly claim that when it comes to potentially romantic situations, they’re like dumped on another planet without any means to communicate?
No means no.
Could be that some women out there play silly games. Why would that anyhow mean that you’re entitled to act towards me as if I played that game?
This never happens in any other situation. Some people like ketchup on their fries? Many people like ketchup on their fries? Sure, but only idiots would be so fucking stupid to put ketchup on somebody’s fries just in case.
So, she said no but you’d like another try? How about interacting like people in the meantime?. The guy I married got a plain no the first time he tried anything.
Hell, why should I say “yes”, I only met him that night and I was also stupidly drunk so I was in no position to make a sensible decision anyway.
Oh, look, he then tried to get to know me, talk to me, let’s see if we share interests, get along with each other, have fun spending time together and so on. And a mere 11 months later we were a couple. Because that first night, I had every reason to say “no”. 11 months later I had a lot of reasons to say “yes”.
No can mean “yes-yes-yes”. But it’s really easy to tell when it’s like that.
If somebody told you, with their arms folded, that you’re such a good friend, would you assume they’re paying you a compliment?
Markle
You know, some people might be “obsessed” with rape because they experienced it.
Think about whom you might be talking to.
1 in 6 to 1 in 4 women are rape or attempted rape victims. You can’t see it in their faces, you can’t see it in their nyms.
But maybe they’re trying to tell you something, they’re probably telling you that that their rapist started exactly like that:
Ignoring their verbal and non-verbal clues, always assuming that they were playing hard to get, always acting like they totally didn’t mean what they were telling them and totally not a rapist because, well, how was he supposed to know?
#570 Esteleth: I hate to derail the thread in this way, but it does seem to me that theism has a sexism problem as well.
Merkle, I’ve got a question.
How many times does a woman have to say “no” for you to accept that she means it?
You had it almost right.
Not really.
When I say, “no,” and a guy ignores it, the implications are pretty clear. He may ignore my “no” in the future, therefore it’s best not to give him the chance.
About as clever and pertinent as Daffy Duck.
Evidently, all you have is pointless blather. And you blather/quack quite well, and I laugh at you for doing so. Typical MRA trash talk.
It does indeed. But given very few people here are theists, we are not in a position to do much about the problems of sexism in theism. We are in a position, even if it just speaking out, to do something about the problem of sexism in the atheist movement.
no one said that but you. it is a crappy strawan argument.
but hey, since we were talking about physical assault before- is slapping someone the same as wailing on them with a 2×4? The intensity is very different, and the damage done is vastly different, but both are still assault. That doesn’t mean harassment is rape, but harassment and rape are both really shitty examples of male sexual entitlement. Were you sick the day that your algebra class talked about subsets?
It is funny how women are always told that they are emotional or unreasonable, but every time a dude gets confronted with his privilege he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes “LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU I’LL JUST SHOUT STRAWMANS INSTEAD”. I hope you’re really young or upset instead of actually being this stupid.
@577 eigenperson,
Not disagreeing. Theism has a big honkin’ sexism problem. It’s rather pervasive.
There are pockets of anti-sexist theists. I found one. *shrug*
JMB said, a long, long time ago:
This, I believe, is in response to my “Could you explain what is your amazing criterion of Success?”. In this case, actually, no, you didn’t. You first presented them as a means to achieve success:
“Success in the world (the real one not the pretend one we create on internet forums) requires both cooperation and persuasion.”
Then, you presented the balance between them as part of what makes someone successful:
“Part of being a socially/sexually/economically successful person is striking a productive balance between the two.”
Now, you seem to have dumped whatever other things constituted success for you, in favor of this ethereal balance. However, one must cooperate and persuade to achieve something. What is it?
Well, if it’s such a vague thing, I really don’t know why on earth do you think this comic would stand on anybody’s path to Success!. But, as you follow this with:
I can see that you finally produced a criterion for Success! that represents something concrete: “lead the way to a happy life with good relationships and the accomplishment of personal goals.” Even then, it makes no sense to suppose that this comic would prevent anybody from achieving this, unless, of course, you’re supposing there’s more to what constitutes a legitimate personal goal.
Interestingly enough, the last person who complained about my tone was a libertarian who was expecting a more virulent response. Anyway, I’m deeply sorry if your whine about how this comic would be damaging to the “socially and sexually retarded” and your conflation of social and sexual success with economic success, which usually means whoever makes more wins, failed to win my respect.
You know, some comments here make me think that there are a substantial number of guys who, while they may or may not be trolls, do use trawling as a method for dating.
Here’s a hint, guys. If you want a successful relationship, usually you want to be able to hang out with the woman in question (or man). That is not something you’ll find out by asking random attractive women to date you. If you see a random attractive woman in, for example, a bar, try just having a conversation. Just be friends. Find out if you actually like who she is, not just what you look like.
Completely aside from the basic respect that will show her, you might even find that if you DO like her, and you thought she was attractive to begin with, knowing and liking her as a person will make her that much more attractive, and make it that much sweeter when she shows an interest in you, and I guarantee that if you’re not a horrible person (in which case you have some work to do), taking that approach will give you a better chance at a date, and a better chance at a MUCH better relationship, which include better sex with someone who is that much more attractive to you because you like the PERSON you’re having fun with and not just their physical features.
(turning off rant mode now)
Esteleth
I agree. But that doesn’t mean that god exists.
False dichotomy. Atheism by itself implies nothing about the role of women. It’s douchebags in the atheist community who do that. Atheism* can be non-sexist, or at least can strive for that. Maybe you have found a crowd of theists who are enlightened in that regard. Fine. But there is still no god.
*As, like, a communal thing.
Really? Rape culture? Raising the estimation of the probability of the chance of rape?
Talk about tenuous links.
*headdesk* NO that is not what was said. It is a possible outcome of a man ignoring a woman saying NO to him. That is the problem independent of the context. NOW do you understand?
Ask them what? How about concentrating on people you meet and interact with enough to have some idea whether you might be friends. If friends is what you want. Is friends what you want? Because hitting on strangers suggests to the stranger that you couldn’t care less about who they are, only about your chances of getting in their pants.
Antiochus Epiphanes @586,
Not disagreeing with you there. I don’t believe in any deity qua deity.
Not something that Esteleth would dispute either. However, sectarian divisions make it easier to know how you are getting in with.
[meta]
crissakentavr: Sally, stop trolling.
You address Sally Strange, OM.
(Not she, the troll)
@skeptifem
I see guys like Markle all over. Can’t seem to grasp that a woman sees a man who pesters her for her time/attention and won’t accept no as a man who might carry that attitude to other areas that are even less good for her.
Problematic.
Related topic: sexual violence before age 16 in Germany. (Unfortunately, it’s in German.)
http://www.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/pressekonferenz18102011.pdf
In short, there’s significant progress compared with their 1992 study. Also, some speculations about reasons.
(I had more text here, but managed to lose it, and it’s late and I need my sleep. Sorry.)
Ha. Refresh is my friend.
As Eulora noted, your intellect is truly dizzying.
Date rape. Yes. There is a link between ignoring “no” when it comes to “do you want to hang out with me” and ignoring “no” when it comes to “do you want to have sex with me.”
Markle, it seems your only tactic is to go, “nuh uh!” I’m sorry that your intellect is so limited that you’re unable to marshal any type of argument and are instead forced to rely on denial and contradiction. Perhaps you need to visit the argument clinic.
Esteleth: I see. Sorry for the distraction. While I don’t like to derail threads*, this one is kind of railed–it’s easy to see where the thread going. What you wrote earlier piqued my interest.
*Or dammit. I shouldn’t like to.
No. Men assuming that when a woman says ‘no’ she is actually saying ‘yes’ is the discussion. Think on that one for a moment. The man is assuming different things: first, he may be assuming that she is playing a game and that no matter what she says, she is interested. Second, he may be assuming that, lacking a penis, she is not an actual human being and is therefore unable to actually make a decision so it is his job to make the decision for her. Either way, it is unnacceptable. Whether the man is asking for a sexual relationship, a date, or a friendship.
======
On another note, why the fuck is it so hard for some people to grok that women are human beings?
One more time, for the seriously hard of thinking:
Why yes, some women play games, there will always be people who play games. However, it is as simple as no means no. If a man hears no, whether or not someone is playing games, take it as a no. What in the fuck is so difficult? If the person was playing a game, say something like “sorry, I don’t do that sort of thing. Living in a rape culture, this is a serious issue and I take no means no seriously. If you don’t like that, take a walk.” Voila!
What you do is take responsibility for your own actions. Duh.
Antiochus Epiphanes @597,
You’re allowed to say, “…buh?” to me. I get it a fair amount. Mostly from my mother. ;) Yes, I’m someone who doesn’t believe in “god” who doesn’t consider herself an atheist and cheerfully goes to weekly services.
FWIW, I fit in pretty well where I attend.
Dvorath @595,
*hands over beer* Here ya go.
Esteleth.
Wait. Some atheists are misogynists, therefore God? Really?
Your work here dealing with sexism is good work, but the above is just… I’m sorry, it’s silly.
Because we resemble blow-up dolls so much? Wait… maybe I have the causal connection backwards there…
I fucked up and helped derail the thread. I’m sorry.
My own two cents. Long rambling, actually. I’m afraid I have bits of MRA stuck in me (the “nice guy” type), but I’m trying to unlearn it, so don’t hit too hard please.
I agree that “no” should mean “no”. I generally follow this rule (yes, generally – remember, “nice guy”), although then I lapsed, it was for trying again a few days later, not 2 minutes after.
Don’t read the following wrong. I’m perfectly aware that, if I was more confident, serious, mature, and going out more, I would have and attract a better social life. I blame myself above all, even if I share the blame on others.
Learning a better approach surely helped me (start simply, with talk around a drink in the nearby coffee shop? Eh, you should have told me before. Neutral ground on first time? What a novel idea!)
I can also blame romantic comedies, for sure. Part of me is stuck with the belief that women should be passive. And if I understand these movies/books correctly, persistency (OK, stalking) is a needed quality.
For the record, even at my worst, I would never have been an Elevator Guy ™. I think.
However, I strongly disagree with a few of the arguments above:
Um, no. You just showed her that you are not serious about her. So, unless you are really fantastic (which most of us are not), or you try again later (later like in a few days, not just next heartbeat), she is just going to forget you. For the same reason you put next: 7 billion people around. Plenty of better, more confident boys.
“she may just approach you later” is bullshit.
I had plenty of “no”. Never had any woman approaching me afterward (again, I blame myself, for I am very clumsy).
No, that’s partly false. Women I didn’t ask out did approach me. A bimbo in an airport, and 2 or 3 dominating women looking for a new pet for a short affair (I ran away).
Well, I’m also very clueless. Maybe women did approach me, and I didn’t realized their interest. My loss.
You would be more helpful with correct arguments.
7 billion people, yes, but half of them the wrong gender. Three quarters of the others (or more) the wrong age. 99% of the remaining ones too far away (newflash, American people, not everybody on this planet relocate across their country 5 or 6 times in their life).
The numbers are much smaller than 7 billions. Much, much smaller.
I don’t ask for a cookie. I’m just a very confused guy in the middle of other equally confused men and women trying to find friendship and love.
It would help if you could come with more specific advice than “you are not trying hard enough”.
In fairness, a few of you did. Thanks to them.
For all your vocal posts, you haven’t presented one link to show that the “rape culture” and male privilege doesn’t exist in our culture. All you can do is pretend it doesn’t exist, or isn’t a problem. Typical MRA loser postings.
Otrame @601
That is a very silly statement, which is why I didn’t say that.
Sally Strange @602,
I once had an “admirer” tell me that he’d figured out how to get a RealDoll that looked like me. Creeptastic beyond belief.
khms
That’s an interesting report.
I think I’ll translate some of the crusial points for the non-German speakers here because it gives some valuable input for discussion
BWAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAHA
Sally, you are awesome. :)
Esteleth is a good example of why it’s paramount to nurture humanist values, including feminist values, in the atheist community. Until we clean up our own backyard, we really have no business telling her that she’s wrong for eschewing atheism because of the sexism. I mean, I disagree with her conclusions also, but I think it’s quite counterproductive to harangue her about the flaws in her personal philosophy whilst idiots like Markle are flitting about. Take it up in TET if you must.
By accepting that her no means “no” rather than “not now”, you are showing that you view her as a human being rather than a fucktoy.
Asking in the first place is indication enough that you are serious.
That line right there, that if you ask a woman on a date and she says no and you take her “no” at face value, that shows that you’re “not serious about her” is straight out of a stupid sexist rom-com. It’s one of those MRA bits you say is floating around in your head. Hope that helps.
I’m sure Crissa will be proud of me for not “trolling” this newbie and instead offering some helpful insights (I hope).
That’s ridiculous. Sex is serious business. Rape is serious. Upon hearing “no,” every man is going to stop. Right then. You’d be out of your mind to expect otherwise.
It’s stupid to conflate that with asking a woman for a date twice.
I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it, then. Do you know what I meant?
Funny, I went and had a smoke and thought about my attitude and caught myself doing exactly what is part of the problem, namely, that I needed others to see my side of it, I guess.
Sure, there are mixed up signals and blah, blah, blah, but I realized that I have no idea what it is like to always, incessantly, relentlessly, in every interaction with someone I don’t know, be worried about violence just for being.
I have no idea.
This shit poisons us all. As I understand it, some/many/most/all women can never feel completely free and at ease, ever. Is this right?
That means that some/many/whatever men don’t feel completely unguarded with women in early situations because we wonder how we’re coming across. It affects everyone, men and women.
But it’s more inconvenience(relatively, I take it very seriously how women are impacted by my actions) for me, not potential hell or death which is what I imagine could be at the back of some women’s minds.
It is easy for me to brush this shit off because I don’t comprehend the depths of what women are feeling.
Is this right? In a way? I just want to understand. I’m asking everyone here.
Yes, duly noted. I wasn’t complaining now, was I? Merely pointing out that we all have shitty days and that that is no excuse for acting obnoxious.
Please find someone to read my posts for you, I am not the person you should condescend to or order around. Of course, if you are trying to provoke anger, it works! Hey! If not, then I am just informing you that I find your manner perfunctory and dismissive, that’s what it seems like to me? Do you understand why?
You assumed that I need support and told me I shouldn’t be here.
Uh… Don’t do that.
But if you are really concerned about me, I can tell you that it hurts like a son of a bitch, but I have excellent support and friendship, and counselors, here. Thanks for your interest. Although I can’t quite shake that ol’ ad hominum feeling. Oh, well…..
But I’m not the one using it as an excuse to be a dick, am I?
As opposed to what, taking responsibility for my actions and words?
My fucking point was that I didn’t fucking completely fucking write someone off and bully and spit on him. My fucking point was that I fucking don’t fucking think that is that fucking way you treat everyone just because you have a so called excuse, and that if you fucking well want to fucking stop someone who is obviously hurting from fucking going out and fucking raping one of your fucking sisters, or fucking slitting someone’s throat for a mispercieved put down, that is the fucking wrong fucking way to fucking go about it, no?
You see, I happen to know a whole shitload about relating and helping people in crisis situations, and just plain showing them the tiniest bit of acknowledgement as human beings even though I don’t fucking have to.
It is pretty fucking cowardly to taunt and insult people just because everyone else is doing the same.
My point was that ……….. oh, fuck it.
Oh, boo hoo. You spent the week in a fucking desert fucking refugee camp and watch your children fucking starve to death in your arms and be passed over for a bag of rice you walked 50 kilometers for after being terrorized by janjaweed spearing your infants on a fucking lance to drive you out and then burn your hut down.
I don’t fucking recall where it is written that only fucking martyrs get to bitch and completely treat people like shit because until they crawl inside your sorry little dungeon of a psyche they will never understand how fucking brutal your pain is and should shut the fuck up while someone who earned the right to complain, by assuming a dysfunctional and inadequate coping mechanism in order to feel devastating self pity and thereby the right to be noticed for her heroic sacrifice and self flaggelation… wait, where was I?
Please, don’t insult the women like my mom that left an abusive controlling husband to put herself through university while raising four kids while dad refuses to pay his pittance of child support because she finally got a breath above water by earning a scholarship so didn’t deserve any more money to buy us food and the odd BD present.
Who started when she was 32 and finally achieved her doctorate in Ed Psych, ran the Rape Crisis center for years, ran for, and beat the incumbent in her riding in order to fight for women’s rights to health care and daycare in provincial politics.
Who was and is the shyest and most insecure nerd who was afraid to answer the door for ten years of her life.
I fucking have some hint what you are going through, why do you want to build walls?
I know that, too. Not like you do, but I have compassion and appreciation.
I cannot pretend to know what it’s like to be oppressed, or to deal with what you do in your life.
But some of us guys are not vultures and predators. Not all guys are capable of rape. Not all guys are incapable of grieving with you and just being friends, whatever I’m trying to say here.
And I know you didn’t mean ‘all guys are…’
You better believe I’ll feel embarrassed. Who can’t use a little growing up?
Sally,
I did have a longer post at first, mentioning that she had probably just flung some stuff out and didn’t really realize how it sounded. I agree 100% that allies are important even if you we have to disagree on the God thing.
So, Esteleth, I apologize for being unnecessarily snarky at you, when you have been tearing new assholes on all the right people. Thanks for your efforts.
Markle @611
…can I have whatever it is you’re smoking? It must be special, you believe that every man stops when he hears the word “no.”
Wow.
<blockquoteUpon hearing “no,” every man is going to stop. Right then.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah, count me in with Esteleth. Whatever drugs you’re on, they must be pretty powerful.
Heliantus:
A lot of people are confused and looking. It can be difficult to navigate relationship waters, no question. It sounds to me like you’re doing okay, though. I think one of the best things you can do is to continue talking and continue learning. The more you learn, the better human being you are, and that always helps!
It is easier to address specific difficulties in our lounge, TET, rather than a sexism thread where people are simply trying to hammer the basics home.
Tag fail. But you get the idea.
Are you stupid?
No rapes ever happen when a woman says no?
Not sure what Louis CK’s is supposed to be other than a deflection.
Markle, you are still quacking and babbling pointlessly. You haven’t had a valid point all day. All you can do is make noise. You aren’t even funny, just pitifully pathetic. Typical of MRA trolls. They can’t do anything right….
You seem to be saying that if the woman tells you no, you never have any other interactions with her again, ever. This is the problem. Yes, people will forget you if you talk to them once and then never again. Do you never approach a woman with the thought of becoming her friend? If a woman turns you down for a romantic relationship, do you then drop her like a rock and never bother to speak to her again because after all she won’t put out so there’s no point? She might change her mind IF you develop a relationship and IF she then learns more about you and IF she likes what she sees (but doesn’t owe you a chance just because you’ve been her friend either, because then you’re this guy).
And if you’re in her social sphere after that and she doesn’t think to ask you out? Then guess what, she doesn’t like you, so even if you ask her again she’ll still say no.
#611 Markle:
This statement is factually wrong. You should educate yourself as to the prevalence of rape.
At least now I understand why you don’t believe rape and harassment are “real problems” — because you actually aren’t aware of how common they are.
NO.
“Baby, don’t you love me? If you loved me then you’d do it.”
NO.
“Just the tip?”
NO.
“Oh okay… here, have another drink.” *slips roofies into drink*
NO.
“Oh okay… let’s go to sleep then.” *woman wakes up later to find man penetrating her*
NO.
“Fuck you, bitch, I bought you dinner AND flowers! You owe me!”
NO.
“What’s wrong with you, are you frigid? I’m going to tell everyone that you’re a frigid bitch.”
NO.
“Ohmigosh, I feel so rejected! I’m going to kill myself unless you have sex with me!”
NO.
“Fucking slut whore. You know you want it.”
I could go on, and I’m sure the others could provide more examples…
Markle lives in a fantasy world.
Awesome! Then why did my ex not stop when I said no?
In fact, why did he break into my bedroom when I was asleep? Oh right…because I wasn’t awake to say no! Surely he’d have listened! But I started yelling “no” and “get off of me” and “stop” when I woke up, so he started choking me so I couldn’t make any noise, and then he didn’t have to worry about me saying “no”. Wasn’t that thoughtful of him!
It’s stupid to let it slide when people ignore boundaries because those people have a disturbing tendency to wind up hurting others in some fashion.
Interesting. Over at The Friendly Atheist there seems to be some overlap between atheists who see nothing wrong with what happened to Rebecca Watson and those who think atheism needs something to replace churches.
Some kind of patriarchal mindset do you think ?
Heliantus,
I am can but offer what works for me. Meeting people is easy, you see people everywhere you go, some but once and I am firm in leaving them be. There is no context for me to justify opening conversation with complete strangers within, save perhaps “You dropped something.” Or “You left your lights on in your car.” Some you bump into at the bank, or some other business you are in frequently, you may eventually know these people’s names, but again, better to just leave it at that. Some you meet in classes, or organized hobby/sport settings. These people you have something significant in common with. That doesn’t mean they all want to talk to you about that topic but it is a natural ice breaker. So talk to people, sometimes the conversations will last, but not always, or even often will they do so. The people who you have natural conversation with about things of mutual interest are those you have met in a fashion where you might mention them to other friends you have already. This casual meeting of people is something I enjoy immensely and find rewarding in and of itself.
So, now you meet people on a regular basis, you have something in common with them, and you engage in conversation with them for the pleasure of meeting them and talking about things you enjoy. This is good. Some of those people will spark more conversation than others, you may consider seeing them in other social settings and that is when you start thinking about asking for contact information or asking them out for coffee.
Note, this works equally well for making romantic and not connections. At least for me.
It’s possible. It would give them a structure where they could gain some sort of privilege, and I happen to think that privilege is part of the problem.
Matt:
This would be good to bring up in the Atheist Church thread.
Otrame, if you want to continue this conversation, I’m willing. We can head over to TET.
____
Also, what Dvorath said. Generally speaking, see if you can be friends (actually friends, not “friends”) with someone before you pursue them sexually.
There’s a reason many successful couples describe themselves as friends.
So, aside from Markle’s trolling, we’re all still arguing over the definition of a two-letter word?
No.
My anecdote: One of my ex-gf’s actually subscribed to the “no means try harder” school of thought, and got frustrated whenever I took her rejections about things (restaurant options, day-to-day stuff) at face value. “Women want to be -pursued-“, she’d tell me. We broke up for unrelated reasons, but kept in touch.
Then she got a stalker and changed her mind on the whole ‘pursued’ thing. Thankfully nothing bad happened. But yes, sadly lots of people go with the Hollywood idea of romance in 3 acts: first you get rejected, then you work really hard/improve yourself/she breaks up with her guy/etc, and then she finally falls for you.
Even when it was happening to me, though, I never assumed it was right, or that it’s how other people would or should behave.
But I thought no meant keep trying?
Brazilian Rascal, a lot of women buy into sexism as perfectly normal because it is the status quo. We all have a lot of learning to do.
Are you physically incapable of conceiving of a public message that is not addressed to and tailored for you personally?
Carlie said:
I thought no meant yes, and yes meant anal.
It is all so confusing.
Why are we still conflating asking someone out vs intimate contact?
That is trollish behavior. What is appropriate in bed isn’t appropriate in any other venue.
I’m sorry but many women “like” guys to be persistent. Like is in quotations because for some fucked up reason “persistence” has been made to look “romantic” and “loving”. Do a google search for reviews of the movie “The notebook”, one of the shittiest and most disgusting and unrealistic romantic movies ever made or even better look at its facebook page.
The movie is apparently very popular with many women (check it out on facebook) and it features a guy who stalks his desire woman while she is on a date with someone else, asks her out, she says no but he still keeps on bugging her, she says no a bunch of times again, he still goes on, she moves away with her date and rides a ferris wheel but he runs and squeezes himself between her and her date and asks her out again, she says no, then he suspends himself from a pole and threatens to kill himself unless she says yes. And somehow that piece of shit is considered very romantic.
crissakentavr,
We aren’t, we are conflating not respecting someone’s boundaries with not respecting someone’s boundaries.
@ Heliantus – One of the problems people in this thread seem to have with No is that it can have variables. No I am not looking to date anyone, no not right now, no I am not attracted to you, etc. So what do you do? Work to eliminate some variables. On, say, a dating website people are there to date. If they aren’t it usually specifies that they’re just there for friendship or penpals or whatever. There are also events specifically for that purpose (Note: I won’t necessarily endorse these, because I’ve heard some can be pretty disrespectful to women if not outright dangerous). This eliminates many possible variations of No and mostly leaves you with I’m not attracted to you as the default option. That can hurt your pride, but it also gives you certainty. Neither one may be your thing, but I just want to point out that you can limit what No means by applying parameters on when, where, and how you ask.
You keep using this word, “troll…” I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, making straw man arguments (conflating =/= noting the real, existing commonalities) really is trollish behavior.
Oh look, it’s debaser, back with useless whinging. I’m 53, married 30+ years and not in need of dating advice. However, the problems in dating affect a wide range of people, including those 40 and over, you fucking idiot.
Entrenched sexism affects dating. Duh. It’s an opportunity to address specifics and generalities when it comes to dating and the wider affects of entrenched sexism.
This blog is not specifically for you. You only ever show up to whine and add nothing to discussions. Go start your own blog dedicated to your whiny navel gazing.
No. We don’t. Which has been made clear repeatedly in this thread. We’re conditioned to expect men to be persistent, and that’s a completely different issue.
When someone doesn’t respect my first “no” when it comes to my personal boundaries, I know better than to EVER be alone with that person.
That piece of shit is about as loving and romantic as Twilight. THIS is part of the problem – these movies are about manipulation and outright disregard for the feelings and needs of other people, and this is what society is telling us we’re supposed to want and need in our lives.
WE DON’T WANT THIS EITHER.
But we can’t make it change unless we actually try and make it change. Shocking how that works, right?
From Ys:
While that may be true sometimes, it’s the stupidest argument to build a society on.
And it’s completely an irrelevant example, completely and utterly devoid of context – either from the comic in the original post, or anywhere else in this. It’s a straw-man.
‘Get to know’? How do you suppose to ‘get to know’ someone if you don’t walk up and ask them if they’d interact with you? And if they say no, how are you to get to know them first?
Talk about raising the bar, if you only get one chance, ever, to ask to interact with someone, and even doing it once means you’re an automatic scumbag.
That’s a ridiculous position. Yet you took it. Why?
Possibly a bit late in the game, and I haven’t finished reading the thread, but Brownian @85 described something that is so rarely acknowleged that I need to go SQUEEE and take a ticket in the line for The Ghey Secks.
I hate, hate, hate how women are assumed to be 100% clueful – and therefore malicious gameplayers. Especially young women. Yeah, girls are born knowing this stuff and are never confused. That 14 year old who was hot & cold towards you in high school wasn’t at all uncertain herself, she was just manipulating you for the lulz. Right. *barf*
Also, Anri @169 wins a sniny new internet!
(*Postage and packing not included.)
And finally,
No shit, Sherlock. What do YOU think is the obvious response to people being treated like objects? Is being treated as a second-class citizen, or a subhuman, somehow supposed to make us happy?
Sally, https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/10/18/your-name-is-tucker/comment-page-1/#comment-106399
A whole entire post of yours filled with arguments no one in six hundred replies made. Filled with straw.
You are trolling. You’re here, arguing a points no one denies, and attacking people for positions they didn’t take. That is trolling.
I cannot help but think anyone who looks to Hollywood for how to handle their romantic attachments is someone who is going to get it horribly wrong.
Hollywood should not be a guide to doing anything.
I think part of the reason women are drawn to “romantic” stories of persistence is because our culture has a deeply ingrained idea that we should find The Right One For You, or at least The Right Kind Of Guy. Implicit in this idea is the idea that there are ways to tell who The Right Kind Of Guy is.
Women know that bad things happen to women in relationships with men all the time. It’s no secret. Obviously, we don’t want these bad things to happen to us. If we’re with The Wrong Kind Of Guy, they probably *will* happen to us. But if we’re with The Right Guy For Us, they won’t, because The Right Guy For Us would never hurt us. Make the right decision, ladies! Your life may depend on it! And you only get one chance at The Right Guy, because if you pass him up, that’s it. No more chances for you!
Stories culturally positioned as romantic offer instruction in how to find The Right Guy For Us. They show us what to look for — don’t we all know the narrative cues that show us The Right Guy from The Wrong Guy as clearly as if they wore white vs. black hats? And obviously the instructions must work because the characters are people Just Like Us, and look! there they are! happily ever after! So we better follow these instructions and more to the point we better consume them, to be sure we’re ready to identify The Right Guy and not lose our chances and put ourselves in danger from Wrong Guys.
Anyone equipped to do a tiny bit of deconstruction on these comcepts knows that they’re complete bullshit, of course. But a lot of women aren’t equipped to do deconstruction. It doesn’t help any that the world is full of people going “Pffft, why are you so upset about that, it’s just a romcom/comic strip/soap/commercial” whenever we do try to deconstruct bullshit.
[meta]
@Esteleth
You made me really work that time. Your Quenya is strong, salquecápo. I am bested. Also, I appreciate the compliment, but I think your lambe is every bit as maika as mine. ;-)
Thank you again for bringing some huge smiles to my day. :-D
[/meta]
The Ys: No. We don’t. Which has been made clear repeatedly in this thread
Since when you speak for all the women? Did you check out the FB page of the movie? Care to explain why so many women find it romantic? Care to explain this website called “datingadvicefromagirl”? For maybe this one?
crissakettavr @ 642,
You’re assuming that the only way to approach someone is to hit on them. Not so.
Do you see every single interaction with a stranger through the lens of whether or not you’d like to one day date them?
Limping monopods you are making this tough.
How many of your current friends did you walk up to and say “Hey, wanne be my friend?” If you only get one chance, ever, to meet someone, leave them be. Their life is not so impoverished as you would like to believe.
Dvo:
No you aren’t.
Offering someone a peanut butter sandwich is mortal danger to some and a delicious treat on par with a hug to another. These are different situations.
The boundary of my yard is different than the boundary of my bedroom. Anyone can walk into one – and in fact, I’d be the one at fault if I assaulted a stranger entering one and they’d be at fault entering another.
You’re conflating these so you can twist the topic. Rape and sex were never, ever the topic. Go back a hundred cartoons. Whatever.
My 646 got slightly teal deer but what I meant to emphasize is, this business of selling instructions to women, so that we might identify the Right Guys who Will Be Good To Us, wouldn’t have a toehold without the other side of the coin which is the widespread acknowledgement that women are in danger from The Wrong Relationships. IOW, once again, ta-da! the patriarchy!
Crissa, that post was a direct response to Markle.
Pop quiz: did Markle baldly state that all men stop when you say no, during/before sex?
Is?
Oh. My bad.
You’re assuming I said that. I didn’t. Did you also assume that what it ‘to hit on’ and ‘to be hit upon’ might not be the same? Or that I mentioned that people are fallible and are imperfect communicators?
I did. But hey, if you want to snipe, go ahead. You’ll probably be wrong when you do, so maybe you shouldn’t do it.
Crissa’s “chill girl” routine would fit right in at ERV.
@ crissakentavr – You seem to be arguing that the only way to make friends is to walk up to strangers and start a conversation. I seriously cannot think of one friend I met that way. I have friends that I went to summer camp with as a very small child, I have friends that I played football with in high school, I have friends that I worked with, I have friends that were related to other friends, and I have friends that were students in the gym that I train at. Not a one that I just walked up to and started to chat. Even Girlfriend I met through a social/dating site that gave us common ground to chat about.
Sally, you specifically have chosen to interpret Markel’s words as descriptive of past rather than prescriptive of action.
The mere fact that not every date – and in fact, the vast majority of dates – do not end in rape pretty much means he is right and you are wrong. Which means you’re posting here to be a troll, not to be informative.
@ crissakentavr
Yeah, no more benefit of the doubt for you.
Her post was a direct response to a comment by Markle. If you can’t be bothered to find a context, don’t complain about a lack of context.
Seriously, why the fuck do you care so much? Did I run over your dog or something? Did I hurt your widdle feewings that much?
Newsflash: I’m not a particularly nice person and I don’t really care whether or not that bothers some asshole on the internet.
Oh and ps: Yeah, yeah you are using the death of your friend to justify being an ass, otherwise you wouldn’t have fucking led with it in your first fucking comment. But you just keep on keeping on, sunshine.
Great. Wonderful.
Here’s the back story since you insist on bringing it up: Ben has been pulling that same exact passive-aggressive, misogynistic bullshit for years at this point. Literally years. He uses his mental illness as a cover for his fucked up way of thinking about women and relationships and fuck if anyone knows what the hell he really wants– my guess is pity so he feels justified in wallowing in his misery, but he reacts negatively to advice and criticism every goddamned time he goes on a whining rampage.
Oh yeah, he also uses threats of suicide in an attempt to manipulate us (which he has also been doing for years). When he was told that his behavior wasn’t cool (‘cos it was triggering to some of the posters on TET), he continued with his bullshit.
I’m sick of it, purely and simply. If you care to waste hours of your life, feel free to search the archives over at Sb and you can see for yourself how long the Ben G pity-party/women hatin’ fiesta has lasted. Next time, maybe you shouldn’t assume that none of us have any history with anyone else here. I’ve been around a while and I have a pretty good handle on how most of the regulars roll.
But obviously you’re a way better person than I am ‘cos you stuck up for a creepy misogynist. Good for you!
If you don’t bother to shut the fuck up and listen (and stop belittling the experiences that many of us face every goddamned day), you’ll never know what the hell I or anyone else goes through.
I bet things are really fucking nice in privilege land, aren’t they? You can just ignore everyone else’s problems, because hey, they’re just not that fucking important, amiright?
Where the hell did I insult your mom? I have a ton of respect for a woman that can pick herself up from that type of situation and move on positively. That shows an amazing amount of strength.
Are you implying that it’s insulting to your mom because I haven’t been through the same shit that she has, so I shouldn’t be complaining? ‘Cos it doesn’t work like that at all– we all have varying degrees of struggle, but we all fucking struggle.
No shit, Sherlock. We should give you the Captain Obvious Award!
I don’t even know what the hell you’re trying to say here, in context with my post.
Err, what? Yes, I did. And he is wrong. The fact is that there are many men who don’t stop when a woman says no during sex.
You obviously aren’t even comprehending what’s even going on here. Markle isn’t even arguing anything. He’s denying that there’s a link between ignoring a person’s boundaries about activity X and ignoring a person’s boundaries about activity Y. The commonality is ignoring people’s boundaries. He’s wrong; you’re wrong. Neither of you can make a coherent argument as to why you’re right. Markle just goes, “Nuh uh, there is no connection because I say there’s no connection,” and you just go, “OMG you are trolling and SO MEAN!”
Lame.
crissakentavr @655
Uh, care to explain how this
works as a response to this
other than as a statement that all approaches by strangers to each other are about hitting on each other?
I mean, if I’m in a bar and a guy hits on me, I’ll give him the time of day right away (I’m a lesbian, he’s barking up the wrong tree). If the same guy comes up to me and makes conversation that doesn’t seem to be immediately leading to a proposition, I’ll chat for a bit. I’m generally careful to work in a reference to my GF, just in case.
Shockingly, I’ve yet to go home and bang a guy I met in a bar. I have, however, made friends with guys I met in bars.
Yes! And if that person says no, and you force it on them anyway, to one person it will be annoying, and to another one it will be fatal. So it’s a good idea to RESPECT THEIR NO ANSWER, ISN’T IT?
#658 crissakentavr:
You have chosen to defend a post by Markle that even he apparently realizes was too incorrect to defend.
This is a bad idea.
Insipid:
Guess what? You totally did walk up to each of those people and were talked to or did the talking. Just because you do not remember doing so does not mean it did not happen.
I was approached or did approach every person I count as a friend. I am aware of these actions. Be aware of yours. ‘playing football’ or ‘worked with’ are just contexts in which you met a stranger, and talked to them. But they were strangers at some point and you did talk to them.
Right now you’re talking to strangers who consent to read your words since you consented to put them in public. Totally cold. Walked right up to me and posted that in public.
Which kinda proves my point that people talk to each other without being introduced as friends, eh?
PS, my current spouse (of thirteen years) came up and talked to me. Online, of course. She didn’t know me, I didn’t know her. We were strangers, but I took her offer to talk, and we did.
You didn’t define a time on that, either. If you don’t know the person is allergic to peanuts, then next week (or later, when the last one is to be eaten), when you have a spare peanut, and offer, you’re still harassing them, right?
People are not perfect communicators. No means no, certainly. But it doesn’t mean no permanently – that’s just a stupid straw argument. Just as conflating no during intimate context vs ‘hey, can I buy your a drink’ or whatever approach at the club is wrong.
Context matters.
Since when do men get to speak for women?
Oh yeah, pretty much all of recorded HIStory.
Thanks for ignoring it when I said:
“That piece of shit is about as loving and romantic as Twilight. THIS is part of the problem – these movies are about manipulation and outright disregard for the feelings and needs of other people, and this is what society is telling us we’re supposed to want and need in our lives.
“WE DON’T WANT THIS EITHER.
“But we can’t make it change unless we actually try and make it change. Shocking how that works, right?”
@ crissakentavr – If that’s what you’re getting at you could have clarified a bit. In my mind there’s quite a large difference between chatting with a random stranger with little connection and potential bonding in a social situation where communication is expected and, in some cases, required. People have pointed out that if you regularly encounter the object of your affection in a social situation and interact comfortably with them asking them out repeatedly or, more accurately, pointing out your continued interest is a lot more acceptable.
Zerple blathers
You are a fucking idiot.
I lurk quite a bit, and I have seem numerous excellent posts from Inane Janine OM.
You on the other hand, mostly whine about being a poor misunderstood poster when you are rightfully bashed for your stupid posts.
Now back to reading the thread.
BTW Markle…You are both ignorant and perpetuating sexism.
Lotharloo, a lot of women also followed the advise of Oprah and bought The Secret. It does not mean that all women are followers of woo.
crissakentavr,
So you acknowledge that social context can generate connection, so what need is there for cold approaches to people you will never see again?
600+ comments and people are STILL wandering in here and whining that some women like to play “hard to get”? Some women like to be slapped with mackerels. They don’t get to dictate what’s acceptable social behavior, and you won’t die a virgin if you don’t get into the bed of one of those specimens. SHEESH.
…Which kinda supports my point, doesn’t it? You totally talked to people, accepted whatever lead line they gave you.
That’s my entire point – that what’s a ‘to hit on’ and ‘to be hit upon’ is totally subjective. It’s like the long argument about what is and isn’t ‘quality’ in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It’s a circular argument which includes body language, emotions and situational context that both or either party may or will be unaware of.
So yes, people totally start conversations with strangers. Sometimes it is ‘to hit on’ and sometimes not – and sometimes it feels like ‘being hit on’ and sometimes not. And these two things do not always correlate.
But my dear Reynard, I have this lovely mackerel here and I do so wish I had someone to slap with it! Therefore, I believe I shall adopt the policy of asking people every week whether they would like to be slapped with a mackerel.
Actually, better make it every hour, as the mackerel is beginning to go off.
Dhorvath:
None of those are more or less cold than the example in the comic. They’re public interactions. People meet on busses, at bus stops, at clubs and on the street. Sure, of these situations some are more or less cold – you know, for instance, if you’re in the same football club or dance club you have something in common – than others. But these people were still strangers until someone decided to approach and talk.
I think some folks need to learn the difference between fantasy and reality.
Yes, some women like romantic comedies. Yes, some women fantasize about being forced. Heck, some MEN fantasize about being forced.
Some people fantasize about tentacles.
That doesn’t mean that they WANT that, and it doesn’t mean that if they say no, you are allowed to ignore it.
It also doesn’t mean that if you act like the hero in a rom com you aren’t being a creep – learn the difference between fiction and reality.
So you’ve never seen this then:
http://splitsider.com/2011/08/one-night-at-asssscat-or-what-to-do-with-a-date-rape-monologue/#more
http://stephaniestreisand.tumblr.com/post/8977155911/bingo-incase-you-missed-the-borderline-rape
Second link is the video.
crissakentavr @673,
Your reading comprehension is poor.
Reread what I said @662. If guys approach me with a come-on, I shut them down. That is, I tell them I’m off-limits. Sometimes (rarely) a guy manages to recover from that, but usually this is followed shortly by me telling them to fuck off.
If, however, a guy approaches me in a manner that is NOT a come-on and doesn’t react poorly to my references to being a dyke, it has ON OCCASION resulted in a friendship developing.
And sheesh – I’m autistic and can tell the difference between a guy who wants to get in my pants and a guy who genuinely wants to talk about the button on my bag that’s written in Tengwar. I can also tell the difference between guys who, in response to me saying that I’m a dyke leer at me and suggest a threesome and the ones who just shrug and keep chatting.
I’ve made friends with the latter, never with the former. Is this really that complicated?
Zerple:
Zerple, you have already amply demonstrated that thinking isn’t your strong suit. You are strongly invited to shut your fucking mouth about Janine. First, Janine is a woman. Second, she has been here for years, tirelessly fighting douchecakes of all descriptions, including MRAs and anti-abortion asswipes. Third, many, many people over the years have delurked to thank Janine for her tireless work. Fourth, Janine is an OM. So is SallyStrange, so is John Morales, so am I. So are others who are attempting to knock some sense into all the idiots, including yourself. Don’t know what that is? Learn: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/mollies/
Don’t start playing the “lurkers _____” game. With your denseness, you don’t have a shot at winning or making sense.
Yes, and so, until I have some rapport with someone I don’t ask them their name, their number, or out to coffee. Find some common ground and build, ergo no one who I would ask out would be someone incapable of finding me were their idea to change from no to curious.
How could we have gone 500 posts from
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/10/18/your-name-is-tucker/comment-page-1/#comment-105246
to where apparently no one ever should talk to someone who is a stranger? If you didn’t talk to someone in class, they wouldn’t become less strange. You don’t get anywhere without being open to interaction with other people.
My biggest advice to people looking for relationships is to invest in being happy themselves – because then they aren’t thinking about talking to people cold, and are instead just talking and not caring if it’s cold or not because you’re busy having fun for yourself – if it’s dancing to music you like, hiking up mountains you like or painting sunsets at the beach.
I think that’s the one thing I like best about Burning Man: It’s not forbidden to just talk to anyone. They can (and may) actually say they can’t talk to you now, but that’s okay. And if you don’t want someone to talk to you for the week, it’s also okay to say that.
For some reason back in the default world it’s somehow better to have worse and less open communications.
Crissakentavr
Where did anyone say that no one should ever talk to anyone who is a stranger?
crissakentavr, moral absolutism is fucking idiotic. Stop it.
“Don’t come on to strangers” does not translate to “don’t talk to strangers”. It means DON”T COME ON TO STRANGERS.
It also doesn’t mean “don’t talk to people in a common function/event/class”
It doesn’t mean ANYTHING aside from “don’t come on to strangers”.
Happen to have a link?
Handmade. Sorry.
PS, Markle’s last post was 587, Sally. You’ve replied many times between. So yes, you are not participating in a conversation.
His actions don’t have to be defensible to point out your actions are only meant to score you points with the peanut gallery.
You seem to be unable to differentiate to between folks talking at events, or even in line at the grocery store, and actually asking a stranger on a date. I’ll make small talk in line a grocery store, but asking a woman out who I just met in line at a grocery store would never, ever occur to me. Getting to know someone first is required. You fail to see the difference between getting to know someone, and essentially asking them to fuck you as a stranger.
No, it means ‘garble garble’. Because what is seen as a come on is different than what is intended as a come on. You’re just grading one person’s come on as better than another’s, in that case.
‘Don’t be creepy’ is a good rule, but it’s still vague. And it’s not going to help all the time; like I said, full situational context won’t be, can’t be, known.
Heck, I don’t even know if when I walk up to my spouse if she’s at a point in her work when I can interrupt her without being a little creepy – reading her screen – so even though we’ve been together for a dozen years, she often has to tell me she can’t talk to me right now. Context matters more than ‘no means no’ when talking to people.
It’s not like you’d accept ‘no’ as an answer when someone has a concussion and wants to drive off, would you?
More crissakentavr nonsense
Are you truly this hard of thinking? Why would you defend sexism , in any context?
Wait a goddamned minute…
tushcloots, you’ve been complaining about how I treated Ben (I’m a bully, apparently), when you said this?
So, basically, you didn’t bully him ‘cos you didn’t use any swears (but still called him out on his stalkery behavior), but I am a bully ‘cos I did? Or something?
Not exactly something that you can get justifiably and righteously angry about, is it?
@Inane Janine:
Lotharloo, a lot of women also followed the advise of Oprah and bought The Secret. It does not mean that all women are followers of woo.
Yes I completely agree but that is not what I said. My point is that I have a problem when people claim “women do not want X” when I can easily find many examples of women who claim they want X. I agree that society is sick and that many creepy characters are made “romantic” and likable by the media. The guy who wrote “Every breath you take” is a psycho but the nice melody makes it sound less creepy. The persistent character in the movie “The notebook” is made to look like the “dream” guy even though in real life such a man will be a total asshole and a complete loser. But none of these points change the fact that many women actually say that they like their dream guy to be persistent. So this is not a battle to educate just men. It is not that somehow men got this idea to be persistent. The media and the society sell it and many men and women are buying it.
I have no idea what you’re actually trying to say here. Are you saying it’s stupid to build a society based on treating women as human beings?
What straw man argument? You mean the one you created?
It’s amazing how dense and binary you can be. You think it’s impossible to meet someone and…idk, actually strike up a conversation without immediately asking that person out on a date? I know, it’s a totally novel concept. No one does that, right?
Actually, I lowered the bar, but you’re too much of a fuckwit to recognise it. Don’t you think it’s actually easier to strike up a conversation and get to know someone rather than immediately establish some sort of romantic connection?
Well that’s easy to answer – I didn’t take that position. You imposed it on what I said…and you’re flat-out fucking wrong. Good on you, mate!
You seem really obsessed with preventing people from scoring points with the peanut gallery.
Sally Stupid
You have a fucked up understanding of history: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html
Lynching wasn’t because of white people. It was because of violent, racist, white supremacists. Violent, racist, white supremacists is not white people. It’s like you cannot comprehend nuance. You’re one of those people who thinks Muslims = terrorists too, right?
Since you mentioned it fuckwit, you must be the one, not Sally. What a loser you are….
@ crissakentavr
Look, when I talk to strangers, I have a reason to.
If it’s at the dog park, I talk about their dog, or about their weather, and if they want to talk to me, they do, and if they don’t I don’t push it.
There’s a difference between that and going up to a pretty woman at the dog park and asking her for a drink.
Lynching was a problem with white people. Some white people were violent white supremacists, others were simply white supremacists, and others were indifferent because the problem of lynching didn’t affect them. It wasn’t until this latter group of people started paying attention to the problem and protesting it that lynching started to be taken seriously as a problem.
Violent white supremacist minority : indifferent white majority :: rapists : indifferent male majority
Wouldn’t occur to me, either. But that wouldn’t stop them from thinking it was a come-on. Or for it be wrong for you to invite them to an event or continued conversation elsewhere or elsewhen?
You’re making a bright line where one doesn’t exist.
…Which just goes to show your come-ons are better. They’re situational. Gosh! Tucker’s were, too.
Funny how you think you’re not Tucker.
Anteprepro
I’d go with neither. I actually like that explanation a lot, though, and I completely agree. :)
I’m not saying we should pretend the problems women face = the problems men face. In most instances, the opposite is the case.
As for affirmative action, I do think it is racist (or racialist, if you prefer), but that has to be weighed against its benefits and the historical context. Those outweigh the racist aspect of it. However, I’m not sure why we can’t focus on fighting sexual harassment without playing the blame-a-group-of-people-who-just-happen-to-be-born-with-exterior-genitalia game.
Also, Sally, I’m still waiting on you to tell me where I “clearly stated that the discomfort of men asked to raise their hands to demonstrate that they are not harassers is of MORE concern to you than the discomfort of women subjected to sexual harassment.”
Actually I believe he’s said he always saw it as a very creepy song and was surprised when people started telling him how romantic it was.
“…Which just goes to show your come-ons are better. They’re situational. Gosh! Tucker’s were, too.
Funny how you think you’re not Tucker.”
I’m not coming on to them. I talk to men too, and unfortunately I’m not bi.
I’m talking to PEOPLE because I enjoy talking to PEOPLE and because maybe I will make a FRIEND.
Some of those people I might, at some point in time, decide I want to ask out, after I get to know them a little, or more likely ask them to a neutral social event or something.
But that’s not why I’m talking to them.
Therefor it’s not a come-on.
It’s not like when I talk to a woman at the park, her boyfriend gets all protective – it’s FRIENDly conversation.
Which is why Strom Thurmon ran as a Dixiecrat in 1948, opposing a federal anti-lynching law. He won South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Yeah, it was just a minority that lynched and partied in the aftermath.
Oh, well, that’s easy. Unlike understanding whatever crissakentavr’s convoluted ramblings.
See? I know you later said that if you had to choose, you’d pick making guys raise their hands rather than make women just submit to being harassed. But at first blush, it seemed that your concern for the men who aren’t harassers eclipsed your concern for the women who were actually being harassed. Also, your reasoning about why you thought this was wrong–that it would lead to the normalization of sexual harassment–was wrong.
“Lynching was a problem with white people. Some white people were violent white supremacists, others were simply white supremacists, and others were indifferent because the problem of lynching didn’t affect them. It wasn’t until this latter group of people started paying attention to the problem and protesting it that lynching started to be taken seriously as a problem.”
We’re not talking about rape. We’re talking about sexual harassment. Not the same thing. One is about control and is often aggressive and violent. The other will get you reprimanded or fired from your job, depending on the severity, and is committed by both women and men all the time. Lynching and sexual harassment are not comparable.
His actions don’t have to be defensible to point out your actions are only meant to score you points with the peanut gallery.
Criss, you ARE the very definition of the peanut gallery here.
WILL YOU STOP FUCKING WHINGING.
sweet plastic jesus on my dashboard, you twits are tedious.
You acknowledge racist discrimination, but no discrimination based upon body parts. What a loser…
One is[Both are] about control[,] and [one] is [more] often aggressive and violent.you really just make this shit up as you go along, dontchya fizzle?
Actually yes, both are inappropriate attention, the failure of the patriarchy to understand the concept of “NO!”. Which means you don’t understand it either. What a loser…
Gee, I’ve never had a problem seeing the clear difference between interacting with someone because you happen to be in the same space at the same time, vs interacting with someone for the sole purpose of getting laid.
How do you think this relates to the issue of womens clearly stated desires being dismissed as inconsequential?
Please show your work, for the delight of the peanut gallery.
Only a fuckwitted MRA would say that loser…
Pardon me for assuming you could follow along. Along with the indifferent white people, there were the non-violent white supremacists. You know, the one who wouldn’t lynch anyone themselves, but who would bring their kids along with a picnic basket to a lynching.
Sexual harassers are analogous to those non-violent white supremacists in this analogy.
So, just to recap:
Violent white supremacists : non-violent white supremacists : indifferent white majority :: rapists : sexual harassers : indifferent male majority
It’s worth pointing out that in both cases, the fundamental assumptions of white supremacy and male supremacy are embedded in our language and culture and repeated and recreated in small, ordinary, everyday actions by ordinary people who would probably never think of themselves as sexists or racists.
“Which is why Strom Thurmon ran as a Dixiecrat in 1948, opposing a federal anti-lynching law. He won South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Yeah, it was just a minority that lynched and partied in the aftermath.”
And I’m assuming that anti-lynching law was put in place by black legislators, right?
“But at first blush, it seemed that your concern for the men who aren’t harassers eclipsed your concern for the women who were actually being harassed.”
I thought it was obvious that I was saying it shouldn’t be only men who have to hold their hands above their heads. The idea that women’s right not to be groped outweighs men’s right not to put their hands above their heads is absurd.
“Also, your reasoning about why you thought this was wrong–that it would lead to the normalization of sexual harassment–was wrong.”
I wasn’t saying it would lead to the normalization of sexual harassment. I was saying it leads to expectations about gender roles. People’s expectations about men are affected by that. It isn’t the overriding concern, but it is an important one.
@538: I’m sick of every thread about feminism coming down to elevatorgate on multiple websites. It’s as if every discussion about movies ended up being about the Matrix with this couple people asking where do they get the wool to make their sweaters in Zion. Oh Jesus Christ. Every thread.
About saying “no”, I think this pretty much settles the issue.
My opinion is that in a society where saying a direct no to something can get you a huge amount of trouble and even some social stigma, women have all reason in the world to try to avoid conflict. There’s also the study mouthyb linked in #340, which showed women who do speak their mind and stand up are much more likely to be sexually harassed. Being the martyr of a cause is cool to the rest of us, but it really sucks for the martyr. People just want to live in peace and be happy. A scenario where a boy is rejected or dumped and the girl who did it is automatically considered by all the classmates as the biggest bitch in school is too familiar.
Given all this, I think maybe instead of asking women to get in trouble so we don’t have to bother paying a little attention, maybe we should work to create a set of circumstances in which saying a direct “no” or speaking your mind clearly and without hesitation in general (that doesn’t mean you have to be rude; you can say “no” and be nice about it) is actually promoted and welcomed rather than punished. It’s easy, we just have to stop stigmatizing and stop harassing the ones who do it. Spread the word.
It sure as fuck was not sponsored by a white southern politician.
Why would you say that fuckwit?
Spoken like a true MRA fuckwitted idjit. What a loser. Women never deserve to be groped, and men should always not do so without express permission from the woman in question. What a loser…
It wasn’t obvious at all. Why didn’t you just simply state that you thought everyone should put their hands on their heads?
Furthermore, why should everyone put their hands on their heads? Not because women are groping men. Because you, personally, are offended that someone might think that groping on subways is a gendered problem.
Shitty reasoning. Groping on subways IS a gendered problem. If you can’t bring yourself to admit the true nature of the problem, your chances of actually solving the problem are slim to zero.
Exactly. It was a problem with white people, which required white people changing their behavior to solve.
I’m pretty sure most people who commit “innocuous” forms of sexual harassment (like asking a person out over and over again, which is extremely annoying) wouldn’t go on a picnic with their kids to see someone get raped. In fact, I’m sure almost all of them think rape is an awful crime. The equivalent of those non-violent white supremacists would be rape apologists. My understanding is that sexual harassment isn’t as gendered as rape is, and women do it all the time. As it becomes more aggressive, the percentage of men who do it in relation to women increases. The percentage of both the male and female population who do it also drops.
Nerd, please slow down. You’re getting a bit garbled.
[meta]
crissakentavr:
Fuck, but you’re thick.
This is Sally Strange, OM, to whom you refer.
YES!!!
This is a claim that contradicts the majority of the scholarship on the issue, as far as I know (Jadehawk can perhaps help out here). As such, this is a pretty extraordinary claim, so I’m expecting to see plenty of citations backing it up.
This is unclear. I guess that you’re trying to say that there is “aggressive” and “non-aggressive” sexual harassment, and that women do “non-aggressive” sexual harassment just as much as men. Also, a smaller percentage of men engage in “aggressive” sexual harassment than engage in “non-aggressive” sexual harassment, and it’s only the “aggressive” sexual harassment that is a truly gendered problem.
I’m curious as to what “non-aggressive” sexual harassment consists of. And why “non-aggressive” sexual harassment is as important as “aggressive” sexual harassment.
Frankly, it sounds like you’re making this up. But I am ready to be proved wrong.
Yes, I’m slower than this thread.
Not disagreeing with you. But maybe it would help if some of the MEN, and not just women who don’t get listened to as much, complained to the studios and production companies and advertisers and reviewers about this sort of thing. J’sayin.
Yes, there are women who think harassment is “romantic”. Often they don’t think rape can happen to them because only bad girls get raped and only bad men are rapists. (There were a ton of them in the source comments to Ben Cochran’s rant about sluts getting birth control at the student health center, remember? link) Some of them learn otherwise when they get stalked or raped; while some continue to blame themselves. Some get into abusive relationships and don’t realize it until years or decades later, if ever. And some find decent partners who learn better than to be pushy without anyone getting hurt over it. But not all of them.
Conflating harassment with romance is dangerous. Women get stalked, harassed, raped and sometimes killed while everyone around them, including their women friends, refuse to believe that anything’s wrong. And so do some men, but let’s not forget that the cultural lie says only men are romantic when they won’t give up. Women who are too persistent get called crazy.
So if y’all decide you’re going to “persist” at someone, especially if you’re a man approaching a woman, you’re running a very real risk of pushing yourself on someone who doesn’t know how to say “no” to you if you go too far. Personally, the thought disgusts me. If I were in that situation, I’d make it very clear to my potential partner that however interested I am, I’m going to ask for permission for anything beyond casual interaction and my partner is always, always welcome to say “no” to me. I would rather wait for the other person to realize she has that right than run the risk of hurting someone I care about.
(Which is, in fact, pretty much how it happened with me. I honor my current partner for patiently telling me, over a year, that I could say “no” and it would be okay.)
Sorry, doing laundry and vacuuming, posting during rests.
Or what jose said in #714. QFFT.
So whose fault was it? White people? Southerners? Democrats? The answer is none of the above. It was the fault of individuals, the ideology of the Democratic Party, and of a deeply racist society.
Let’s use same-sex marriage as an analogy. Is this statement fair: “Homosexuals are not treated equally because of Christians.” It’s not, no matter how much you may hate Christians. It’s because of individuals, who may or may not be Christian, and certain portions of our society where homophobia isn’t condemned.
Well, first of all, it’s fucking obvious. Secondly, I did say that.
Notice, RIGHT BEFORE that:
How is it NOT obvious that I’m saying everyone should be pressured to put their hands above their heads?
“Shitty reasoning. Groping on subways IS a gendered problem. If you can’t bring yourself to admit the true nature of the problem, your chances of actually solving the problem are slim to zero.”
It’s a gendered problem, but the solution does not have to be gendered. Two wrongs do not make a right, even if the second wrong is a much lesser wrong. Again, your sexism is showing. What you’re saying is that because the vast majority of people who grope other people on trains are men, all men should have to put their hands above their heads or risk being accused to groping someone. That. Is. Wrong. Treating people differently based on factors they have no control over is inherently wrong–that’s what you all fail to understand. Sometimes it’s justifiable (like with the Elavatorgate thing), but it should be avoided whenever possible.
“Exactly. It was a problem with white people, which required white people changing their behavior to solve.”
No, it was a problem with some people who were white who lived in a certain area of the country with a certain culture. It was not a problem with white people in general. The difference is I blame culture and individuals, but you blame whole groups of people based on skin color or sex–things they were born with and have no control over.
Right, because if Louis CK stops when he hears “no,” then so does every man. I am totally convinced, and so relieved that there is actually no such thing as rape. Because every man is going to stop when told “no,” right?
Really, though, am I reading this correctly? Is this your argument? Were you being sarcastic, and I missed it? Did you forget an important word, like “not”?
Oh! And thanks to the nice people who responded to me. You’ve been very welcoming, and I appreciate it.
@kristinc, ~delicate snowflake~
Thanks for the tip. I did some googling and you are right.
According to this:
In a 1983 interview with the New Musical Express, Sting explained: “I think it’s a nasty little song, really rather evil. It’s about jealousy and surveillance and ownership.” Regarding the common misinterpretation of the song, he added: “I think the ambiguity is intrinsic in the song however you treat it because the words are so sadistic. On one level, it’s a nice long song with the classic relative minor chords, and underneath there’s this distasteful character talking about watching every move. I enjoy that ambiguity. I watched Andy Gibb singing it with some girl on TV a couple of weeks ago, very loving, and totally misinterpreting it. (Laughter) I could still hear the words, which aren’t about love at all. I pissed myself laughing.”
Markle… or should that be spelt MRAkle? wrote up at comment #472: (note my strike through)
Treating women like objects/chattel = the real underlying problem common to both scenarios.
@726, “What you’re saying is that because the vast majority of people who grope other people on trains are men, all men should have to put their hands above their heads or risk being accused to groping someone. That. Is. Wrong. Treating people differently based on factors they have no control over is inherently wrong–that’s what you all fail to understand.”
Yeah, it’s unfair for the ones who don’t grope. However, I think it’s even more unfair that women are groped, so if this measure definitely makes the groping levels go down, I think the tiny sacrifice I am doing by putting my hands up is totally worth it. I would be taking one for the team, so to speak, and gladly.
We all do little sacrifices when we live among people. For example, we have to go through airport security even though we’re not dangerous, because the rest of the people don’t know that; or we have to press 1 for English because a lot of other people don’t speak it, even if we’re native speakers (I’m not). In my opinion, this measure belongs with these two examples.
I’m in favor of a long term solution, which would involve changing the culture so the gropers don’t feel the desire to grope, or if they do feel it, at least they’ll be able to get a grip on themselves and think about the other person for a second. This kind of thing is always done by talking a lot, raising awareness, advertising, campaigns, maybe even (why not?) little pins for jacket lapels. Whatever it takes to change the culture for the better, so it becomes more welcoming.
That long term solution would be the goal but meanwhile, simply putting your hands up helps getting the groping problem better. It’s not even uncomfortable, trains have those sort of handlers you can grab.
My argument is that rape is bad. People who rape are viewed as bad people.
Asking someone for a date twice is not bad. You’re wrong to view it as an equal bad as rape.
Heh. Speaking of men who think they just need to keep trying until the woman says yes…
To be fair, the topic of unsuccessful communication between two people is hardly a male-female, black-white issue. While the generalizations are correct (mostly women are subtle, mostly men are literal), there are plenty of people who have trouble expressing themselves directly, and there are plenty of people who have trouble reading body language – not all are predictably female or male, respectively.
In fact, while I was working on this strip, my brother called me to talk about “girl problems.” He said that he’d been frustrated with a girl (romantic interest), and had been silent in the car all the way home with her. He couldn’t understand why she didn’t immediately catch on that he was mad – he wasn’t talking AT ALL, how could she not notice! Then, before I could even begin my diatribe about the very script I was writing, he said, “I was being a woman, wasn’t I.”
And I told him that yes, he was exhibiting traits that are stereotypically female, but it has less to do with your gender and everything to do with your communication style.* In this case, I believe nature and nurture – our genes and the way we were brought up – are to blame for our shared poor communication skills with loved ones (yes, I suck at at it too).
(*I wasn’t actually that eloquent on the phone.)
It irritates me that I couldn’t think of any of my male characters to represent the gender neutrality of this topic in the comic; what it comes down to is that almost ALL of my characters (male and female) are shown at their most awkward, because, frankly, it’s kind of boring to watch people approach a problem with confidence and dignity. And my (greatly under-researched) theory is that people who have a hard time communicating directly are often the people who care more than average about a) how other people feel and b) how other people perceive them.
While not entirely productive, a quiet “maybe” is a much less abrasive/hurtful answer than a blatant “fuck off.” And to be honest, I’d much rather read a story about people who care deeply for others than a story about shallow, one-dimensional characters. (In fact, I’d rather BE a person who cares deeply for others, despite the fact that it makes me a lousy communicator sometimes.)
As for resolution, the only three things I can suggest are: be accepting, be patient, be kind. (“Love is patient, love is kind;” I can’t believe it, I’m quoting the Bible on an Atheist website. Someone tell my mom.) If we go through life believing that everyone thinks and feels the same way (or in a way that can be categorized), we’ll be a lot more lonely that we need to be.
Sorry for the long-winded comment; I usually only have 4 panels a day to express my opinions, and even then they’re expressed through the filter of a fictional character with a unique perspective that is not supposed to be my own. So, this is a rare treat for me. :)
Fizzy:
Exactly. And what is a society composed of? Individuals. As I am saying, it takes a large number of individuals to decide that they, personally, are going to change their behavior in order for the society to change. White people bear the most responsibility for changing their behavior because they benefit the most from racist societal structures.
This is incoherent. Christianity, and Christian beliefs, bear a great deal of the responsibility for the persistence of homophobia in our country. Christians who are not personally homophobic but who aren’t actively agitating to change their church leadership and repudiate homophobes are partially responsible for this. If they changed their behavior, chances are homophobia would not be as prevalent.
How is it not obvious? Because “obvious” would be saying, “Women should put their hands on their heads too.” What YOU did sounded more like ineffectual whining about the fact that people have the gall to suggest that men, and not women, should change their behavior.
Actually, it probably does. Just like white people bear more responsibility than blacks for solving the problem of racism, and heterosexuals bear more responsibility than homosexuals for solving the problem of homophobia, men bear more responsibility than women for solving the problem of sexism. Why? Because they have more power, and hence more ability to effect change, and because that power is a direct result of their identity.
The fact that you are in a moral outrage over the idea of men raising their hands to demonstrate that they are not sexual harassers is telling. As Jose noted, it’s really not an imposition at all. Your protracted resistance to this simple, but, again as Jose noted, short-term solution to the problem of groping on subways is telling.
What. Are. You. Talking. About. Accusation? I mean, yeah, honestly, if you refuse to do something so simple, that costs you nothing, as raising your hands on a subway ride, because OMG IT’S REVERSE SEXISM WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ then I am going to be a bit suspicious that you might be a dedicated groper. What other valid reason is there to resist such a harmless idea?
Interesting that subway groping does not meet your standard of “justifiable.” In any case, the fact of the matter is that men accrue privilege and advantages from sexism. As sexism is slowly dismantled and replaced with more egalitarian social structures, men are going to experience a loss of privilege. I think this subway thing falls into that category. Men formerly had the privilege of groping women and getting away with it. Men who did not grope still did not speak up to stop other men who did grope. Frankly, if more men took responsibility for fighting sexism and shamed and stigmatized gropers, rather than looking the other way when groping happened, they would not be in the situation of being asked to demonstrate that they are not gropers. Boo fucking hoo.
I have no control over the white privilege that accrues to me because of my skin color. But I take responsibility for changing the system that delivers these unfair advantages to me. You seem to be in the camp of “Hey my ancestors may have owned slaves but I never did, so stop fucking whining to me about my legacy admission to Harvard. Affirmative action is wrong because you can’t judge people based on their skin color!” In other words, you think you’re not part of the problem. Well, you are. It’s up to you whether you want to change that and be part of the solution instead.
Also, if I may: Who the fuck are these mystery women who actually mean “yes” when they say “no?” Are we certain English is their first language?
To the men who believe that “no” sometimes means “yes”: please, please, for the love of Atheism, find these confused women and date them. Take these women and yourselves off the market so that the rest of us can flirt feely without getting a headache.
Yes, please.
Fizzy,
It was not obvious. If every person who responds to you misconstrues what you wrote, it’s probably not a massive, collective reading comprehension issue on their part. If you mean something else, then apologize and rephrase. This crowd is actually pretty responsive to that.
If your point really is that everyone should raise their hands (which you clearly consider to be a bad thing, or you wouldn’t complain that men had to do it), then aren’t you *further* punishing the women, who already have to deal with being groped on their commute?
Or is your point that a gendered problem can’t have a gendered solution or OMG, reverse sexism? That’s just silly, for reasons that Sally has explained nicely.
@Fizzy:
You’re completely missing the point of the whole ‘hands raised in the air on Japanese subways’ and twisting the phenomenon to fit your warped views. The men are not forced by any rule to raise their hands. They are voluntarily keeping their hands visible so that they are not mistaken for gropers when the groping occurs – which is a constant, almost endemic problem in Asian subways.
There are actually organized groups of gropers, such as the “Chikan Tomo-No-Kai” (The Groper’s Brotherhood) who practice various (bleh!) ‘groping techniques’ and award each other fucking belts (in the style of martial artists – double bleh!) to represent their individual skill at groping. There are even special ‘clubs’ with mock subway cars that employ prostitutes paid to pretend to be unsuspecting subway goers and pretend to ‘enjoy’ being assaulted in this manner. There’s even an incredibly horrible video game (serious trigger warning!) that simulates assaulting and raping women on a subway – that begins with groping women in a crowd on the subway car where she can’t defend herself.
This is such a serious problem that most Asian rail lines have set up women-only cars so that they can travel in peace.
Your presentation of the issue as ‘oh no the poor menz look at them being persecutedz they have to hold their hanz up booo hoo’ shows a remarkable obtuseness (obtusity?) about the difference between a man and a woman in this sort of situation. Having to hold one’s hands above your head in such a situation is entirely different for a man than it is for a woman. For a man, it’s a position of non-aggression – it’s simply non-threatening. For a woman, it is a pose of extreme vulnerability – it’s likely to be taken as an expression of welcome and invitation to some creepy groper, since the sub-culture harbors the incredibly creepy meme that the women secretly like it and want it (sound familiar?). And no, that’s not made up, check out some of the ‘artwork’ in the links below.
I am WELL aware of the huge amount of privilege I enjoy in society just by being a man. I would be perfectly willing to ‘sacrifice’ (and what a fucking tiny sacrifice it is) having to hold my hands above my head for the duration of a train ride to give a little of that privilege away to women sharing a train car with me to make them more comfortable in an extremely vulnerable situation. I realize that forcing women to do the same would have the exact opposite effect – no one would feel more comfortable and the women would be both much less comfortable and much more vulnerable to exactly the sort of assault the practice is meant to prevent.
The problem is gendered – men are groping women. The solution to the problem is also gendered, because the solution would not work if forced on both genders.
http://nonozeroblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/chikan.html
You have no argument. Just a series of childishly simplistic, easily falsifiable assertions.
1. Rape is bad, but not all people–especially misogynists–agree on what actually constitutes “rape.” Even the FBI, until recently, had an archaic definition of rape that hinged on the presence of a penis and the use of force. See Whoopi Goldberg’s defense of Roman Polanski, who raped a 13-year-old girl. Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and ignored her repeated requests to be taken home and sexually assaulted her. But apparently because he didn’t have to beat her up (she stopped resisting at a certain point because she was alone and helpless and frightened), it didn’t qualify as “rape-rape.”
2. Rapists are often viewed as fine upstanding members of the community. See, again, Roman Polanski. Also consider the case of a small town in Cleveland TX, where a group of teenage boys videotaped themselves gang-raping an 11-year-old girl. The community has rallied to their defense. Even the NYTimes article about the subject emphasized that the girl often wore make-up and revealing clothes, as if this made the crime committed against her more forgivable. Date rapists often use the “it was just a misunderstanding” excuse, and society seems perfectly happy to turn around and blame their victims for getting drunk, for leading him on, or simply accuse her of lying about the whole thing.
3. Nobody is saying that ignoring a woman’s “no” in response to “will you go on a date with me” is EXACTLY AS BAD as ignoring a woman’s “no” in response to “will you have sex with me.” What we are saying is that both actions have one thing in common: ignoring a woman’s stated wishes. They are on a continuum of misogyny.
Feel free to fuck off any time, MRAkle. You’re adding nothing at all to the conversation here. Except perhaps giving crissakentavr more chance to feel self-righteous, and I suspect even you don’t want to contribute to hir pompous nannying.
Author, author! Well, the comic strip would be far less entertaining if Tucker did do the right thing, which is why it’s fun to concentrate on him doing the wrong thing. Thanks for posting here; I gather lots of the commenters here enjoy your work.
Asking someone for a date twice is not bad. You’re wrong to view it as an equal bad as rape.
I don’t think that anyone has said that “asking someone for a date twice” is bad in and of itself. They’ve said that it’s bad in certain contexts, which they’ve gone on to describe.
Also, I don’t think anyone has said that “asking someone for a data twice in certain contexts” is as bad as rape. People have said that they’re bad — to different degrees — for the same reason. By way of analogy: spitting saliva onto the floor isn’t as bad as spitting chewing tobacco into the punchbowl, but they’re both unsanitary so you shouldn’t do either one.
(Anticipating your objection: No, this does not mean that spitting chewing tobacco into the punchbowl is as bad as rape. Please try to keep up.)
(Anticipating your next objection: Yes, there may be times when spitting saliva onto the floor is necessary or appropriate, but as a general rule you shouldn’t do it. Really, please try to keep up.)
Actually I’m starting to think that this message thread might be a bit advanced for you. I wonder if there’s a “Manners for MRAs” site somewhere where you could get some of the background you need to carry on an intelligent discussion.
For the people commenting about women playing “hard to get”: If they’re playing games at this stage, why would you want to continue pursuing them anyway? You think they’re suddenly going to stop once they’ve granted you a date? No, I think it’s better to take them at their word, and let them wonder why no one ever calls their bluff. I can’t think of a better way to change this dubious tradition.
The faster the idea that “good girls don’t want sex, and all men want sex constantly” dies the better off we’ll all be. I still remember that I was rather shocked when I read a woman wrote about “thinking with the wrong head – the little one down below, instead of the big one up top” when describing some aspect of her life. I know this should’ve been obvious, but it wasn’t to me, at the time, and it left some cracks in my obviously false perception of the world.
Oh, barf.
Reminds me of the dickflashing phenomenon here in the states. It’s very similar, only these guys get their jollies by exposing their penises to unsuspecting women. They have a website, http://www.dickflash.com, where they similarly share techniques and brag about their adventures. They advise each other to avoid doing it to older women, because younger women are more likely to get freaked out and traumatized by it, and that’s what really gets them off. Disgusting.
But, you know. We shouldn’t be doing things like asking men to, I don’t know, change their behavior slightly to make it more difficult for assholes like these to get away with it. Because that would be sexist.
Sally @745
Barf, barf, barf! I actually clicked on that link. EW EW EW
There’s a forum post where a guy bragged about exposing himself to a 5 YEAR OLD.
EW EW EW
Stevarious:
Which helps you to be a better human being. We should all be aware of our privilege in life. It’s astonishing just how many people become immediately defensive and go into asshole mode over privilege. It’s easy to learn about and to keep in mind.
For those who still don’t get it, give
The Male Privilege Checklist a read. It will help.
Markle, you are arguing with phantoms in your brain. Either that or you are trolling.
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
I expect both. He has MRA troll writ large over his posts.
Yes, it is.
No, they aren’t. They’re the poor guys who are just victims of some bitch changing her mind the next morning.
And then there’s stuff like this. And this too. Because all rape victims are taken seriously, right?
And if that wasn’t bad enough, just imagine how fantastic it is to know that your rape kit was never sent to the lab for testing and thus the police won’t do jack shit to catch and convict the guy who raped you.
I should have added trigger warnings to those links. My apologies to all – I won’t do that again.
Yo, the Ys: Links ain’t working, bud. Though I’d bet one of them was this, right?
https://proxy.freethought.online/almostdiamonds/2011/10/11/when-a-camera-isnt-enough/
Well, The Ys, it’s not too late, because it looks like those links are borked.
I failed well then. :)
Rather than mess up the tags a second time:
Police ignore rape allegations if victim has been drinking
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/25/rape-police-payne-victims
Scandal of justice revolution that betrayed rape victims
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/01/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation
And the absolute worst of all: “A March 2009 report by Human Rights Watch found that in the Los Angeles area alone, there were more than 12,500 sets of untested rape kits.”
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-06-24/opinion/17208169_1_kits-dna-evidence-los-angeles-police-department
Still waiting for Fizzy’s citations about “non-aggressive” vs. “aggressive” sexual harassment.
@ Pteryxx:
I will admit to a fierce desire to fly to Nigeria and take matters into my own hands after reading about what the police said regarding that case.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-6171.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-5129.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-5148.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-5165.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-3722.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-6314.html
No, I guess there is no reason to discuss Feminism in Atheist spheres at all.
I’ll admit up front to having skimmed the last few hours of this thread, so apologies if someone has said what I’m about to say. Also, I’m borrowing from points made elsewhere, so most of this is not my original idea.
Those of you out there who are genuinely nice guys, who would never consider coercing or forcing a woman into sex, and think it’s unfair that the women you meet are making a mental assessment of the risk of you raping them: I agree, it’s not fair to you.
It’s a sucky situation, but take a step back and think about it. What is the problem?
It’s not that women are paranoid, it’s that (unfortunately for you) the bad guys are really good at impersonating you good guys, and we women can’t tell the difference when we meet you for the first time.
Fortunately for you, you genuinely nice guys are in a unique position to help solve the problem. This is the chance to use your position of privilege for good. Is an acquaintance telling a sexist or rape joke? Call him out on it. Is a male coworker acting inappropriately towards a female coworker? Tell HR about it. Let it be known that you will not accept treating women as sex objects or otherwise lesser than men. As a man, your condemnation will carry weight, because of your privilege.
Drain the swamps. Beat the bushes. Flush out the misogynists and make it clear to them that they have nowhere to hide. Make the world a place where men who get sex by coercion or force are ostracized. That is the beginning of a world where women feel safe around men because they know that they will not face harm, and where genuinely nice men do not have to bear the burden of the transgressions that the imposters have committed.
Nigeria? Fuck that noise. I’m going to Japan to protest men having to hold their hands up on trains. OUTRAGE!
The Ys:
Good news on one front: http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-02/bay-area/27095529_1_kits-backlog-dna-evidence
I’m glad to see that, once exposed, this problem was corrected in the L.A. system at least. I thought for sure this would be one of those things that lost momentum over the years and went back to the status quo.
Here’s hoping the grants are renewable, so the backlog doesn’t build up again.
Yawn. Proud of yourself for repeatedly calling someone names? How many months have you kept up? I have the right to do whatever I want, I sure as fuck am not going to listen to a serial bully tell me what I should know and do.
Settle the fuck down. I’ve been coming here for years.
I’m just now realizing a BRAND NEW FALLACY!
It’s the “you haven’t read the whole history of this blog to make sure you are up on every subtle nuance and the latest ‘in crowd’s’ opinion, so shut the fuck up or I’ll have a hissy fit” gambit.
You really, seriously, I fucking well mean it desperately, need to get some balance in your life before you blow a valve.
I mean it, here is the world at large fracturing into smaller and more self righteous isolationist states, and then WHAM, here it is happening on Pharyngula: Blog Turf Wars. Don’t come ill prepared, motherfucker, or we’ll blow your pimple ass scumfuck opinion into next time, dogshit. This is gang territory, bitch, watch your manners.
Sure is easy to push your buttons, but wow, you are noisy! You kiss your mother with that mouth?
And I’m what, supposed to feel chastised now?
Way to take it to the streets, sista.;
What the fuck is an MRA, anyways? Misogynist Rat Asshole, or something? The last person that I saw ask got ignored and ridiculed/spanked for something else. I ccouldn’t see if he was wearing a white hat or a Black one with a Fu Manchu mustache and a sneer that would curdle paint, so I didn’t know what side he was on.
That’s okay, he’s not hip to the lingo so he must be an outie.
For the fucking record, I recall some others showing concern and restraint/’patience towards Ben. I really do need to own up to unfairly lumping everyone together. It wasn’t even close.
Ah, I see most were just fine.
Yeah, I stand mostly corrected. Sorry Watson, Rey, Sally, Dr, Caine, others.
Okay :0
@ Merridol: that is very good news. I hope they find a way to continue receiving that funding.
Those stories make me wonder just how bad the backlog is in a city the size of NYC. *shudder*
Stevarious,
I’m well aware of the problems posed by chikan in Japanese subways, and know that there are women-only carriages during the evenings. Also certain aspects of Japanese culture are indeed extremely sexist. I once came across an etiquette guide for Japanese businessmen, and for Europe, it warned that European women would not appreciate being slapped on the buttocks.
I’ve googled 痴漢友の会, and most that comes up are blog discussions about pornos (and those establishments you mentioned). I came across this press report here, which is disgusting in its contents. But the very website this report is hosted on is a nationalist website claiming that the articles documented are anti-Japanese lies. I’d be inclined to believe the newspaper report over the protestations of a nationalist website.
I guess the scarcity of reports or studies on this matter just reflects the Japanese attitude of “we don’t talk about these matters in public”. But one interesting data-point: Japanese Wikipedia has two articles,
“Groping”
“Being falsely accused of groping”
Now guess which article is much much longer than the other?
Men’s Rights Advocate. See here for examples.
I still haven’t figured out why people here still call them by their own chosen name. Most don’t give a shit about men’s rights. Few can claim to be anything other than anti-feminists. I once made the mistake of taking them at their word when they complained about women being given default custody of children in most cases, and tried to suggest that feminist organizations probably have a problem with this, too, because it reinforces gender roles. I was brusquely informed that I was stupid for thinking that because feminists wouldn’t help in a fight like this because their only goal is to hurt men. I mean, I’ll admit I was naive, but I wasn’t anywhere near naive enough to believe that.
Jessa, Jessa, Jessa. What are you thinking? You’re supposed to ridicule, spank or ignore tushcloots’ question! His herds of teal deer feed on faux outrage and a sense of martyrdom. Do you want them to starve or what?
ckitching:
I don’t. I use MRA, but have adopted Brownian’s definition: Morally Repugnant Assholes.
tushcloots:
Okay, I’m not normally one to say this, but calm the fuck down. Really. You’re going to give yourself a stroke.
Obnoxious ignorance about what exactly? You’re obviously extremely angry at me, but for the life of me I can’t figure out exactly why you’re so pissed.
The original post that set you off on this tirade wasn’t even aimed at you, nor did I accuse all men of being creepy or rapists or whatever little strawman you’ve built up in your head.
Care to clarify?
Which is incredibly easy to verify, and which I included at least one link to during that discussion. *shrugs* Not really my problem that you doubt me beyond that.
Nope, just don’t expect the rest of us to be as ignorant as you are.
Because we have, many times. Too many of us have been sucked into the “let’s help Ben and his problems” mentality and it has been shot down every single time by Ben.
There’s no point in trying to help someone who refuses to accept it. I got annoyed when I saw the same shit happen again and I responded as such.
Oh lovely, the “Dear Muslima” argument again. I don’t have it that bad, so I’ve no right to stand up against what I think is wrong? That’s total and complete bullshit.
As I said before, your mom is someone that you should be extremely proud of. However, her story does not invalidate my feelings or the shit I’ve gone through. The fact that you’re attempting to use her story to silence someone you disagree with is just wrong.
I don’t deny that I’ve a fair bit of privilege– it would be dishonest if I did– but that doesn’t negate the fact that I don’t have the same amount as, say, a straight, white, middle-class guy. Being a woman in the US sucks and I get angry when topics like this come up. You’ve made me to be this great and horrible fire-breathing, privilege denying asshole out of whole cloth. In all honesty, besides the fact that I’ve reacted angrily to the idiots that just don’t get it, I have no idea where you’ve pulled that assumption out of.
Okay, I have no idea where the fuck you’re getting this. I don’t feel sorry for myself, nor did I ever claim to feel like a martyr. I’m angry, would you deny me that?
As I’ve said already: the first post of mine that you responded to wasn’t even directed at you. If you’ve read the shit that Fizzy has been spewing, I can’t possibly fathom why you don’t get it. I didn’t “attack” you until you went crazy town at me out of the blue.
(Which you have every right to, if you feel wronged. Like I’ve been saying I don’t get what the fuck your beef is, so it might help out a smidge if you would clarify your positions.)
Jesus fucking Christ. There it is again: the Muslima Argument. Yes, I get it, I’ve got it great (even when I don’t), so I should just sit down and shut up when there’s an injustice ‘cos there’s someone dying in Somalia. I get it.
I also get the fact that you want to play the “I have it worse than you!” game. Have fun doing that by yourself– hopefully there’s a Solitaire or masturbation version.
Where the fuck have I ever said that I don’t understand that other people have it harder than I do? Did you even read the fucking post that I was responding to? Here it is again, since you are obviously way too fucking into your righteousness to actually read it:
Fizzy:
That’s what I was responding to when you went all half-cocked at me. That has absolutely fuck all to do with anyone else’s struggle– that is just Fizzy trolling to get a rise out of people. That is Fizzy presenting us with an absurd premise and expecting people to agree.
Why you felt the need to defend Fizzy (which I assume you’ve been doing, although you’re getting less coherent over time) is a mystery.
Where the fuck have I said anything even approaching this? I told Fizzy to fuck right off because women get ground down by that type of bullshit– how does that exclude anyone that has it worse than I do?
It’s all part of the same shitty societal pressures. Some have it worse than others, but the root cause is still the fucking same.
Okay, it looks like you’re taking something I said to someone else entirely too personally. I wrote Fizzy off ‘cos Fizzy’s a dumb jackass. I didn’t write you off until you started tilting at windmills.
Once again, please clarify. What feeling are you talking about?
“My apparent ignorance”? Try cleaning up your writing a little.
If you understand, then why the fuck are you so angry at me?
Bzzzt! Try that one again. Here’s what (I assume) you were responding to:
A bit different from “All men wanted to do was hit on [me]“, no?
Okay, I won’t deny my obnoxiousness– that would be pretty fucking pointless after all of this.
and when I say “MRA’s”, in my head I mean “Male Rape Apologists”. So far, it’s proven pretty accurate.
“Morally Repugnant Asshole” is too general. I prefer “Misogynist Reactionary Asshole.”
I don’t usually call them that; I have my own acronym. It was just a rare bit of charitable feeling on my part for referring to them as they wish to be called. Guess I’m still on a bit of Rhinebeck high.
I have no problem thinking Men’s Rights Activist. It’s such an absurd thing to rally around. We men don’t face a great disparity in job opportunity compared to women. Men make up the majority of most high end paying jobs, most government seats and are the majority of law enforcement as well.
It’s like Christians banding together to fight the persecution they face here in the Americas at the hands of secularists. It’s laughable.
I know Zerple hasn’t been here since post #502, which was well before I first started trying to catch up with this thread — and I finally managed to get in at #730. Portcullis soon when PZ wakes up?
Anyway, for the purpose of posterity and possibly furthering your education, Zerple, I will try to explain something to you very slowly using fairly simple words. I feel compelled to warn you though, it might involve some rather violent verbal imagery. (Everyone else, feel free to skip over to the next post now. Or grab some popcorn.)
<starfart>To begin with I would like to record that YOUR FUCKING IDIOTIC OBTUSE OBSTINACY considerably raised my anger levels when reading this thread, and so I thought you might benefit from knowing why you are getting such a negative and angry reaction here.
You said some stupid and inane things. When people pointed this out you got butthurt. Some people like Anteprepro tried to to explain to you why your argument was stupid and inane, while others rightly called you a stupid idiot. You then self-importantly tone trolled and cried for the waaambulance because of your treatment by the people who’d called you a stupid idiot.
Here’s the thing. If you wander into somewhere unfamiliar and break the rules, it will be explained quick smart what the rules are and how you broke them: don’t do it again. (There is the three-post rule here.)
But you’ve now been here fucking long enough to fucking work out what the rules are and that no one here is obliged to explain the absolutely fucking obvious to ignorant and/or lazy douchebags like you. You say something stupid, you’re going to be called stupid: is that too fucking hard to understand, shithead?
Perhaps you think people haven’t heard your fucking stupid point before? Then do some fucking research before you open your trap next time, and fucking learn something from being shouted down, rather than whinging about your poor aggrieved feelings. It’s really not that hard to go looking for how previous topics were discussed, and whether your little point has been covered before. Oh, and you should be grateful that you did get an answer because it was much, much more than your stupid trolling fucking deserved. (And I could say the same for all of the fucking inane comments by Moooore, Fizzy, Markle et al.)
Clear? </starfart>
woah! someone who remembered the starfart.
haven’t seen that in a while.
+1
I’ll say this.
Women are individuals, and they’re all different. Show me a woman who always knows what she wants in relationships and I’ll show you a different woman who doesn’t always know.
For that reason, you can’t make detailed rules about how men should deal with women (nor indeed vice versa) all you can do is consider some broad, general guidelines.
As far as I am concerned it is recognised that women are better at understanding non-verbal communication – wasn’t there an experiment where people were shown large numbers of photographs of children, men recognised 4 different emotions from the facial expressions and women recognised 20? – so any suggestion that men should be able to read women as well as women can read men is rather dubious.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t men out there who can be a right pain when they think they are in with a chance.
Asking someone for a date twice is not bad. You’re wrong to view it as an equal bad as rape.
you’re wrong to keep on slaughtering all those strawmen.
think of the poor little straw children!
There’s a study that disproves this:
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/
“It seems clear then that young men, in these focus groups at least, are capable of displaying not only that they are competent at the offering of refusals, but also of hearing forms of female conduct (e.g. ‘body language’, l. 263, 268; the ‘shortness’, l. 270 or ‘abruptness’ of conversation, l. 272) as ways in which women may clearly communicate their disinterest in sex. It is also clear that the men can hear both ‘little hints’ (l. 278) and ‘softened’ refusals as refusals—thus statements like ‘it’s getting late’ (l. 273) or ‘I’m working early in the morning’ (l. 276) are not taken at face value as comments by women on the time or their employment schedule—but rather as indicators that, in the moderator’s words, ‘sex is not on the cards’. Of note here is that in none of the examples given do the men indicate that the explicit use of the word ‘no’ is necessary for a woman’s refusal of a sexual invitation to be understood as such.”
Actually, the Mythcommunication post is about indirect verbal refusal vs. direct verbal refusal, not nonverbal communication per se. /pedant
Still, the point stands… a perfectly good refusal is more likely to be (willfully) misunderstood if it comes from a woman in a sexual context. Not to mention, as (someone I can’t recall) phrased much better above, the claim that women are better at indirect communication usually mutates into “therefore it’s all their fault”.
Sorry! I meant the above post of mine at Julian… My quote tags were just applied like a dumbass.
After my first and only girlfriend dumped me in college, every so often I worked up the courage to ask another woman out. I was shot down every time. So, I made a fearless personal inventory and decided on the best course of action: I don’t ask women out anymore. Being a fat, ugly, impoverished loser who lives with his father at 36 completely ensures rejection, so why bother asking when the answer is always going to be “no?”
Sorry to hear that I’m not alone in this. After determining that I was the one constant in all of my failed relationships I decided that if I wanted to avoid the heartbreak I would just avoid the entire ordeal. I haven’t dated since 1992 and while I occasionally miss the good parts of dating I REALLY don’t miss the bad. Never was too good at interpersonal relationships anyway.
#68, PZ writes:
“When they say “no”, it’s because they really do have no interest in you, for any of a potential multitude of reasons. The appropriate response when they say “no”, or I say “no”, is to STOP. Not try harder… This isn’t feminist stuff. It’s basic human interactions.”
Yes, it’s called basic human interaction, and it’s a universal concept except in the case of Rebecca Watson because she is special. It’s not good enough that you stop when Rebecca says no. It’s not good enough that you refrain from trying harder when Rebecca says no. You see, you commit the original sin of asking her for a cup of coffee in the first place, so you deserve to be publicly shamed for merely verbalizing your feelings. That would make for a great cartoon next. Then PZ can put his stamp of approval on it, and update the world to the notion that what these cartoons depict as “basic human interaction” – while perfectly adequate up to this point – has recently been skewed to accomodate the special needs of one self-entitled person.
Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says:
The fact is, women deal with this bullshit all the fucking time. Men don’t take us seriously (“no” means “try harder”) and it grinds us the fuck down. And it’s threatening and rape-y as shit when dudes won’t take “no” for a fucking answer.
It was a figure of speech that I took literally.
Thanks for keeping going.
I’m sorry about your loss, I’m thinking of you and what you deal with, and wondering who used the waaa-mbulance line first, but I like it.
From waaaay up thread but I didn’t see any comments on this. I haven’t made it all the way through this thread yet but I really just can’t let this go so…
Markle:
My jaw seriously dropped on this one. WTF? Do you not know that rape can and does happen in the fist dates as well? It happens at parties & through friends of friends, during relationships there are almost rapes, one rape or sometimes many rapes. I don’t know what dumbass definition of rape you’re using, but drop it. Its honestly offensive.
Not to mention the fact that how someone goes about asking for a date shows a lot about a person & all these things are connected together through…wait what was it called again? Oh, right. RAPE CULTURE. This fact people have been trying to drill through your head from the get-go, you asshole.
Also, as a women who has been raped, shared my story here and doesn’t fall into your damn favorite category, fuck you. Hell, I’d tell you fuck off, even if I did because dismissing a person based on that bullshit is wrong.
@Eric, Akira: I made this comment some months back.
—
—
He was also living in a trailer park at the time. Yeah, I’m strange, but I’m not the only person who can like someone real regardless of how good their stats are. J’sayin. If y’all’d rather not try, that’s up to you, but I wouldn’t consider you hopeless.
@Philip Legge
“I know Zerple hasn’t been here since post #502, which was well before I first started trying to catch up with this thread — and I finally managed to get in at #730. Portcullis soon when PZ wakes up?”
It’s good to know that the community here is so awesome that people were still ranting about how stupid I am, 300 – 400 posts after this:
“@Alteredstory
I understand now (and also agree with you). Thanks!”
The commentors on this blog, by and large, aren’t helpful. They just pile on new people, then rage when someone says “Hey, maybe you shouldn’t pile on new people”, especially if it is a new person.
I’m new to feminism. I’m sorry that I say stupid things and construct stupid, inherently sexist scenarios. Is it really necessary to poop all over me because I can’t shed 20 years of indoctrination in three days? At least I’m moving. I’ve had the red pill moment and I’m trying to have useful discourse. I SUCK AT IT. I get that, but I’m trying.
I’m going to move here: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
It seems more my speed. This particular part caught my eye:
“The first reason FF101 exists is to help ensure that discussions between feminists don’t get continually derailed by challenges from newbies and/or antagonists to explain and justify our terminology and conclusions to them, right now! Substantive challenges can be valuable, but constantly having to explain basic theory over and over, when an interesting discussion was underway, gets really frustrating. There’s a time and a place for discussing the basics, and disrupting a discussion on other feminist topics is not that time and place.”
I’m just going to lurk there for a while.
tl:dr; I’m leaving, there is nothing to be gained here for a new person. This is my last post.
Boring. Read through 782 posts and the finale to the thread is fucking mercurial popping up with the same old boring schtick of ignoring context. Elevatordouche violated what would constitute basic standards for human interaction when he decided that Rebecca’s earlier assertion that she dislikes being hit on didn’t apply to him. She said no, he persisted to ask for coffee. This really isn’t all that nuanced, if you are looking at it honestly.
Ah, the Mucus Muse slimes in a drips his nonsense about Rebecca Watson. Strangely enough, it bares no relation to what actually happened. Not that something being not truth was enough to stop the Mucus Muse.
MM, say hello to Markle, Zerple, Moooore and Fizzy. They are all your kind of menz.
Avicenna, men in nursing came up in another thread recently. I’m happy to say that there’s a major increase in men entering nursing here in ND and they aren’t subject to much of the harassment and bullying going on elsewhere. Here, it’s considered to be one of the best fields for men to go into and they’re doing a great job. I know that firsthand from my recent stay in the hospital, where my nurses were an almost 50/50 split, men and women. All of them terrific at their job.
Zerple, shut the fuck up. You got close to acting human in the last sexism thread but have now gone full court asshole.
Liar.
There is plenty here for a new person. In fact, several new people have popped up and started posting on TET in the past few days, including a guy named Tomasz who started out making some pretty sexist comments himself. The difference between him and Zerple is mainly that Zerple is dishonest, thin-skinned, and way too full of himself, whereas Tomasz was honest and willing to take responsibility for his own mistakes rather than whine about how mean people were when his mistakes were pointed out. It’s your loss, Zerple.
Oh, how could I forget debaser71, a liberal democrat who knows that feminist theory is bullshit and is saddened that PZ allowed the radfems to take over.
You two could be best buds.
Oh my precious petal, yes it’s so hard to lurk instead of inanely blathering on. Gotcha. (Feel free to come back when you’ve absorbed some feminism though.)
mercurial, good job, I see you failed the “how to be a decent human being” test again. And so succinctly as well.
I think the problem is that people are even skipping step two.
Well, not the Hollywood idea of it, but like behaving in a decent way, getting to know her as friends, forming a relationship of some kind to give her any reason to change her mind about you.
You know, this nasty little people and women are human beings business many people seem to believe to be optional.
Of course, if everything one does only has the aim to finally fuck her, she’ll notice.
I’d say that if she rejects you on basis of very little knowledge she has of you, spending time as friends might give her more information so she can maybe make a more informed decision next time. Maybe in the meantime you find out that she’s not your type anyway if you get to know her better, maybe you find out that you’re really BFFs, maybe you find the love of your life.
But some people act as if the trick was to ask the same question under the same circumstances over and over again until the right answer comes up.
Geez, that’s like my kid asking for chocolate 500 times in a row hoping that next time the answer will be “yes”
I’m leaving, there is nothing to be gained here for a new person. This is my last post.
beautiful flounce, just gorgeous.
*sniff*
Zerple
Good plan. Learning about something before you start lecturing others on how to do it “properly”.
We aren’t mean, just intolerant of stupidity.
I love that there is at least one place in the world where saying stupid things gets a swift negative response.
Pharynguli, Pharyungula, knowledge everywhere!
Uh, for clarification, my post was in regards to #575.
I just read the whole thread and can’t believe I just read Murkle say that men stop at No,twice. DAFAQ? I’m quite honestly shocked and don’t even know where to begin with that.
I was glad to see Zerple return for a moment. Only because I was going to take him up on his offer from far upthread and suggest to him some other feminist blogs that have a tone that won’t get in the way of his comprehension of legitimate and needed criticism. As glad as I am to see him bounce on his own, I would be happier if he did actually return after a month of actual self-reflection. So, if you haven’t flounced yet zippy-the-ignorant-yet-arrogant, read some posts and comment threads at many of the wonderful links at the right side of your page. I like reading Blag Hag, Butterflies and Wheels, and Greta Christina’s Blog, personally. If you can quit being so quick to throw in your 2 cents where you are are uninformed (like you admitted to doing in 324) and spend more time listening, you will not be treated like the tone-trolling(502), stupid(371), insensitive (358), dingleberry that appear to be.
Don’t just say your trying to learn. Stop being so defensive, listen to what people are saying, assume that if you are getting pounced on it may be because you are in the wrong, and actually DO some learning.
“…She said no, he persisted to ask for coffee.”
Nice distortion of the facts. There’s no evidence that EG overheard Watson tell her friends at the bar that she was tired and wanted to go to sleep. The first and only direct interaction between the two occured on the elevator. He asked her for coffee back in his room, and she said no. He went away without incident. If you isolate the moment of verbal contact – the only time they ever spoke – this is exactly what the cartoon depicts as decent behaviour. PZ calls it “basic human interaction”. And I agree.
That should work at ERV.
at this point, I’m thinking of making a special take on the old Chris Crocker “Leave Britney Alone!!” video, just for our special cupcake, mercurial.
can you guess who it will feature?
I’m sure you can.
do you really enjoy painting yourself as a blithering idiot?
it’s quite remarkable.
there’s a guy with the nym “Selache” on the old sciblogs version of Pharyngula who “argues” just like you do.
Is it senility plus OCD?
meh. I frankly no longer care.
Just BANHAMMER THIS IDIOT, PLEASE.
#799 was yet an other act of distortion theater as presented by the distinguished Mucus Muse.
And ladies, don’t forget to write your congressmen and tell them that you demand the right to register for the draft. Can’t let the men get away with their entitlements. You too should enjoy the benefit of possibily being killed against your will, at the behest of neocon warmongers. I know this would go a long way toward realizing your dreams of true equality.
http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm
Yes, usually when you remove an event from the context it occured in it loses some meaning.
To me it honestly doesn’t matter if EG was aware of Ms. Watson’s many publicly expressed wishes not to be approached for sex, touched or fondled at atheist gatherings. He followed a strange woman out of a bar very late into the night, followed her into an enclosed and isolated space and asked her back to his place for ‘cofee.’ That may be a common occurence but it’s definitely not a situation where I’m going to penalize a woman for being a little creeped out or uncomfortable. Nor am I going to berate her for being ‘anti-sex’ and ‘demonizing men’ over it.
It’s a harmless rebuke and an entirely fair one.
And here is the Mucus Muse going after people with a non issue in US politics. It has been ten years of war and there still is no draft.
But brave, brave Mucus Muse has to take a jab at a hypocrisy, even if the hypocrisy is to be found within his own dripping skull.
For some people unclear on the concept, the Mucus Muse is a textbook troll.
Fuck off, dishonest shit-for-brains troll. Here, I shall quote Rebecca Watson herself,
Oh, what’s that? It takes only a quick look to see that there is evidence that elevatordouche heard her express her desire to go to bed? Well look at that, MM must be lying again. Yep, like I said, Mercurial is a bore.
*sigh* I know it’s just MM repeating for the 499th time, but still:
Most of the actual discussion in this thread has been about getting to know women and forming a relationship with them BEFORE trying to get personal about it. Asking a stranger to your room AS THE FIRST AND ONLY INTERACTION is bad, bad form.
You_monster, you know that girls lie. You know that Rebecca Watson only added that little detail that the guy was in attendance at the pub just to make him look extra creepy and rapey. The Mucus Muse would never distort a thing. That is why his screeds are so informative. He is not a girl and therefore, a better witness than Rebecca Watson could ever be.
(Am I laying it on just a little too thick?)
clearer mucusy:
blah-blah nonsequitor blah blah, inanity, blah blah blah.
why is it still here?
why?
How do we know Watson didn’t take the stairs?
huh?
Any evidence for elevator use in the first place other than the assertion of a woman?
I rest my case.
Totally off topic:
Did y’all break FreethoughtBlogs’ commenting system? I was up to, oh, #590-something, I think, and hit refresh, and suddenly it says there are 810 comments, but only ten show up…
“…I was invited back to the hotel room of a man I had never spoken to before and who was present to hear me say that I was exhausted and wanted to go to bed.”
{…present to hear me say}
That means the guy was in the bar and Watson assumes the guy overheard her. You can tell it’s bullshit. Either the guy heard her for sure — in which case Watson would have made damn sure to say “THE GUY HEARD ME SAY…” — or he likely did not hear her, which is why she used the deceptive phrase; “He was present to hear me say…”
Who the hell posits certainty like that?
Nobody.
@Omegamom: Yah, at post 800 it starts page 2 of comments. There’s an “Older Comments” link just above “Leave a Reply”.
OmegaMom, it’s pagination, it kicks in at 800 comments. See the ‘Older Comments’ above “Leave a Reply”? Click that to go back to the first page of comments.
OmegaMom, at this new sire, when a thread reaches eight hundred comments, a new page starts for eight hundred and one. If you want to get to the first page, just hit “Older Comments”. You can find it near the bottom of the page just above “Leave a Reply”.
Aren’t we all helpful.
Chas:
Now I have this in my head:
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away…
When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door… (slam!)
Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away
Janine:
It’s more interestin’ than paying attention to mm the asspimple.
Ahah! Thanks, Pteryxx, Caine, Janine. Didn’t even see that.
Now to decide whether I really want to continue reading. I have no idea why “no means no” is such a hard concept to grasp.
See, the Mucus Muse knows better than some lying ass girl what is truthful and what is possible.
Can’t trust those bitches.
Person leaves hotel bar at 4 AM.
There’s no way anybody could possibly know the person was tired and heading for sleep unless the person was clearly overheard saying so.
You all are so hard on poor EG. He probably didn’t hear! OK?
mercurial:
Yet here you are pontificating about this purported non-incident, months after the fact.
(You have no idea of what the word means, do you?)
Inane Janine, OM, oh right, how silly of me. Obviously she was lying. I’ll just take MM’s word for it. Another example of the womenz falsely accusing perfectly good dudes of rape. That is exactly what happened.
(and no, the thickness is good, I like my sarcasm extra chunky)
Chas:
So…is “hard of hearing” gonna be the next hot theory?
It’s a freedom of speech issue. It’s humorous that the same group of people who evangelise freedom to offend the religious are also against freedom of speech if it might make neurotic women feel like they’re going to be raped.
It doesn’t matter what women *feel* about what you say and how that relates to their personal experience of sexism or societal judgements about gender roles, it’s about what you should and shouldn’t be allowed to say.
In a progressive society, one should be able to ask anything up to and including ‘nice shoes, wanna fuck?’.
Random yoofs on the street can make me feel threatened for my life by saying ‘got any change?’. That doesn’t mean the correct response is to try to ban people from asking for change.
“…He followed a strange woman out of a bar very late into the night, followed her into an enclosed and isolated space”
Stalking is a separate issue. If Watson wanted to berate the guy for stalking her, I might have gone along with it. She could have made her case and stop, victoriously, at that point. “The guy stalked me from the bar and onto the elevator, alone, at 4:00 AM”. Okay, that’s creepy. I agree.
But then she fixates on the common event: “The guy asked me for coffee, I said no, and he backed off politely”. Okay. So what. Guys do that sometimes. And most guys who do it aren’t rapist/stalkers. We need to separate the creepy from the non-creepy.
MM
What possible reason could you have for posting such a blindingly ignorant lie?
trolling, trolling, trolling
keep the lies a rolling….
And in that same progressive society, the said woman is free to tell that skeeve to shove a porcupine up his ass and warn other women about the skeeve.
Assclam.
Also, fuckface, some of these women that you dismiss as “neurotic” have been raped before.
“And in that same progressive society, the said woman is free to tell that skeeve to shove a porcupine up his ass and warn other women about the skeeve.”
Yeah, I’m totally for that too. Freedom all round.
“Assclam.
Also, fuckface, some of these women that you dismiss as “neurotic” have been raped before.”
So? Doesn’t mean they’re right about anything.
LOki
Freedom of speech???!! Oh puleeze! Being/acting like a stalker is not in any way related to freedom of speech.
I honestly do not understand why if EG was (or is) socially inept, giving him a for the most part polite ‘Don’t do that’ is so terrible. If he didn’t know, now he does and he can use this experience to better approach the next woman he’s interested in. Maybe a series of these and he’ll learn maybe going for sex on the first minute of the intro conversation isn’t necesarily the most respectful way to approach someone.
I would think a group of people who’ve committed themselves to expanding their horizons and learning more would appreciate such a thing.
Loki, still the idiot, I see. Ah, some things never change.
Nope. It’s about treating women like full human beings and paying attention to how they feel and what they think, along with being aware of sexism and societal judgments. Seems that’s waaaay to big of a burden for many, like yourself.
Anyone is free to say “nice shoes, wanna fuck?”. An intelligent person is one who would know when that’s appropriate. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised by the various responses they garner.
And, as it been pointed out repeatedly (Not that it means shit to the Mucus Muse.) there are boundery issues. As well as the woman not being able to read his mind and therefore, cannot tell what his intentions are.
So, assclown, hw many fucking times have people pointed that out to you.
You are the fucking Ken Ham of the MRA crowd.
oh boy, more wisdom from MM,
You’re right MM. Being present to hear someone say something does not necessarily equate to actually listening and understanding what they are saying. Take you for example; you have heard the explanation for why elevatordouche’s behavior was unacceptable many times, but nothing has filtered through your thick skull.
Only if elevatordouche is as shitty at listening and comprehending as you (unlikely considering how stupid you are), would it be possible that he was present but could still claim to think Rebecca Watson wanted his attention.
Oh Janine, you know that doesn’t matter. Who cares about bitches being all hysterical about their experience being raped or assaulted? Ain’t nothin’ on the terrible burden of being a manz.
What a load of bullshit loki. You have the right to be a fucking douchebag, we have the right to call you one. Another fail for the “I am decent human being” test.
Dismissive little creep.
Ah, but normal well-adjusted wimminz LIKE being hit on by every random dood that comes along! If they have inconvenient opinions of their own, obviously they’re NEUROTIC. (And they damn well better LIKE it or else!)
“Freedom of speech???!! Oh puleeze! Being/acting like a stalker is not in any way related to freedom of speech.”
In what way is being free to say things to people not freedom of speech?
“Nope. It’s about treating women like full human beings and paying attention to how they feel and what they think, along with being aware of sexism and societal judgments. Seems that’s waaaay to big of a burden for many, like yourself.”
No one pays attention to how everyone feels and thinks. People get overlooked or ignored all the time, by everyone. Why do women deserve a higher standard? Also, I’d be very impressed if you could show a single way in which I’ve been sexist.
“Anyone is free to say “nice shoes, wanna fuck?”. An intelligent person is one who would know when that’s appropriate. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised by the various responses they garner.”
That’s really the point, intelligent people will mostly not do it, stupid people often will. Both should be allowed as freedom of speech, and while people should by all means be allowed to say that they don’t like this situation, they should respect peoples right to say what they want.
Congratulations you win the douchebag of the year award.
Dude, seriously, are that dense? You don’t feel the experiences and opinions of people who have actually been on the receiving end of sexual violence and the disparity between the genders matter? Are you that big of an asshole?
I refuse to believe that. You must either be intentionally trolling or so hung up on being right you’ll dismiss anything your ‘enemy’ says. So which is it, loki?
And if people can’t figure out the short sentence “don’t do this because it’s rude”, it’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they’re assholes.
@Caine
“Oh Janine, you know that doesn’t matter. Who cares about bitches being all hysterical about their experience being raped or assaulted? Ain’t nothin’ on the terrible burden of being a manz.”
Did I say that? I said it’s irrelevant to the strength of their arguments.
@Philip
“What a load of bullshit loki. You have the right to be a fucking douchebag, we have the right to call you one. Another fail for the “I am decent human being” test.”
I’m frequently a douchbebag, I’m ok with it. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong though.
@Pteryxx
“Ah, but normal well-adjusted wimminz LIKE being hit on by every random dood that comes along! If they have inconvenient opinions of their own, obviously they’re NEUROTIC. (And they damn well better LIKE it or else!)”
Are you saying you think elevator rape in hotels is common enough to seriously worry about? I’d guess it’s more like the odds of getting hit by a meteor.
Julian:
Yep. Been an asshole for quite a long time now.
The dismissal of the fears of rape survivors. Your unwillingness to aknowledge a woman’s feelings should matter (especially when it comes to trying to pressure them into sex).
{anecdata}
I have three adult sons. I have discussed the EG incident with each of them (seperately) just to get their perspective as males.
Son 1- What a jerk.
Son 2- Wow really? How are guys that stupid?
Son 3- What a creep! He’s lucky she didn’t mace him.
Niece- I would have kicked him in the balls. What a creeper.
So, the younger generation gives me hope.
And so it is quite alright if a loki style manz does not pay attention of what the bitch thinks and feels because all he wants to do is fuck the body. The person is irrelevant.
Also, fuckface. None of us is actually asking for a higher standard. Just that men actually give credence to a woman’s opinion.
You are sexist to your very core.
Loki the limp-brained,
@Julian
Many of the radfems are attempting to discern general rules from situations like elevatorgate. Personal experience is obviously relevant to the individual and how they act, but it’s completely irrelevant to creating general rules of behaviour. Generally asking people for coffee is fine. If the person you ask happens to have been raped, assaulted, or just generally have a bad childhood experience with coffee which causes them to feel uncomfortable, that’s *their* problem.
@Pteryxx
“And if people can’t figure out the short sentence “don’t do this because it’s rude”, it’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they’re assholes.”
No, people just disagree that it’s objectively rude, and all the radfems seem to think it’s self-evident enough to avoid the need for justification. I don’t think it’s rude to ask for coffee. Can you prove to me that it is?
An other waste of meat that I would cross the street to avoid if we knew each other in meatspace. I’m ok with it.
And the misogynist Gish gallop begins.
I’m curious why Rebecca didn’t feel more threatened by the fact EG stalked her to the elevator, than she did about EG asking her for coffee on the elevator. It seems that she was fixated on the guy’s akward come-on. Her public complaint to the athiest community wasn’t even about the stalking, it was about his speaking. I’m not sure she understands where the true threat lies. If her true concern was elevator rape (which I think a lot of her defenders wrongly assume), then why is is she so fixated on the polite verbal exchange which makes her feel “objectified”? If she was truly in fear of being raped, I think any implied objectification would have taken a back seat to any real thought of rape.
@Julian
“The dismissal of the fears of rape survivors. Your unwillingness to aknowledge a woman’s feelings should matter (especially when it comes to trying to pressure them into sex).”
Fears of rape survivors and women’s feelings in general are pertinent in *specific* situations, they’re not pertinent in *general* situations, because individual experiences and fears are individual. The same logic is true for any situation involving men or women, so it definitionally isn’t sexist.
@Inane
You are asking for a higher standard, because men are asked things that annoy them all the time. Why should women not be too?
And saying I’m sexist to the core isn’t an example, it’s an admission that you don’t have any.
There’s no need to state the obvious, fuckwit.
@Pteryxx
“And the misogynist Gish gallop begins.”
You guys really like calling people names, but really don’t like responding intelligently to arguments. Try it sometime.
Idiot mercurial, you’ve completely reversed what Rebecca said. She said she was made uncomfortable by Elevator Douche objectifying her.
@Caine
“There’s no need to state the obvious, fuckwit.”
I’m a fuckwit too, I’m sure. Got any more?
Loki,
Shit-stain on the underpants of humanity?
@you_monster
Whatever makes you happy buddy. If you guys run out of insults do you think you might accidentally start intelligently discussing the arguments?
Fuckfaced loki; Pteryxx, Caine, julien, you_monster, Philip Legge and I have pulled out and commented your sexist statements. But you dismiss all of that as radfem whining.
Fucking waste of meat.
Expired douchenozzles from the forgotten corners of the pharmacy’s half-price shelf?
(Damn, I’ve got a ways to go to compare with my hero FossilFishy.)
Had he asked for “coffee” in the bar, it would have been rude.
Following her onto the elevator to ask for “coffee” puts his behavior at creepy + rude.
Nobody has a right to be rude or creepy.
You_Monster:
I prefer festering, putrid, pus-filled, odoriferous pimple on humanity’s arse. Asspimple for short.
@Inane
Did I dismiss them as radfem whining or did I critique each point and explain why I thought it was wrong? I’m reasonably sure a cursory look up the page would answer that question.
@Caine
Strong stuff. It wouldn’t get you a philosophy degree, but maybe a gender studies one.
No you don’t mean coffee. You mean sex. Everyone here means sex. Everyone has always been discussing sex. And we all know damn well ‘Wanna come back to my place for a drink’ does not mean ‘You want coffee?’
It is our problem. We are approaching them for something. We are trying to elevate your interaction with someone to a level you have no way of knowing if they’d be ok with. We are taking away any oppurtunity they may have to let us know this may not be a good idea. That we might open real wounds. That we might be piling on where others had already started.
We are taking away their comfort and placing them on the defensive. And why? Because we want sex from them? Why is that more important than their wishes? Why is our want (not need) for sex from them more important than their life or their experienes or, fuck, their right to go through the day without being pestered and harassed by strangers?
It is our problem, loki. We don’t get to put our selfishness before others, especially when that selfishness can cause them real pain.
perpetual-brainfart-Loki,
No one is trying to establish “it’s rude to ask for coffee” per se as a general rule. There, I have substantively addressed your argument. I’ve informed you it is a strawman and therefore not an argument at all. Now can I get back to the insults?
Loki:
(Fuck, but you’re a predictable troll)
1. Accuse your opponents of what you do.
2. Immediately do what you accuse your opponents of doing (and poorly, at that).
“…mercurial, you’ve completely reversed what Rebecca said. She said she was made uncomfortable by Elevator Douche objectifying her.”
That’s what I’m saying. She explcitly said that her beef was with the way EG objectified her. Her argument was soundly defeated by the realists, including Dawkins. And then the feminist community tried to defend her by spinning her case; “Oh, but wait, she could have been raped in that elavator”. Yes, that’s true. But that wasn’t her complaint! Her complaint was that some guy talked to her and objectified her when she really wanted to go to sleep.
Loki,
When you have 1/4 to 1/3 of women in the US having been raped….
when rape is an act of terrorism in conflicts the globe over…
when you have rape charges dismissed by clueless judges based on the victims’ attire…
and on and on…
then fear of rape is NOT an individual experience. Rape is terrorism directed at 50% of the human race. And all they know is that the terrorists are among the other 50%. Sounds like a problem to me.
The context is irrelevant. Elevator, 4am, being followed and isolated: none of this matters.
What matters is only that she was offered coffee.
And an offer of coffee can never, ever be wrong, in any way, ever.
Expecting men to treat others with respect is not a radical concept. It’s basic manners.
Mercurial fuckwit: Rape begins with objectification. Relationships begin when a man stops objectifying the woman. Those relationships can be friendships or they can be significant otherness or they can be marriages. You don’t make friends with objects or with objectifiers.
@Julian
“No you don’t mean coffee. You mean sex. Everyone here means sex. Everyone has always been discussing sex. And we all know damn well ‘Wanna come back to my place for a drink’ does not mean ‘You want coffee?’”
Ok, but the point I was making is that even asking for “coffee meaning sex” is not a threatening act in itself for most women *in general*. If you happen to find it threatening because of personal experience that’s not the asker’s fault. The transformation from ‘clumsy/creepy proposition’ to ‘likely rape attempt’ is solely made in the woman’s mind, and therefore the guy can’t be culpable for it. That’s why personal rape experience isn’t relevant.
“It is our problem. We are approaching them for something. We are trying to elevate your interaction with someone to a level you have no way of knowing if they’d be ok with. We are taking away any oppurtunity they may have to let us know this may not be a good idea. That we might open real wounds. That we might be piling on where others had already started.”
But to extend that ad absurdum, if someone had some serious wounds to do with clowns and you get into the elevator going to a party dressed as a clown, the additional damage to that person compared to a non-clown-phobic person isn’t your fault.
It’s about what you consider a reasonable expectation for a woman you don’t know. I’m arguing that seeing everyone as a potential rape victim is silly because they’re a minority.
And you say it’s our problem, but there are of course girls who enjoy a level of sexual forwardness higher than is being suggested by many of the radfems around here, and by making everything super super deferential, you’re potentially impacting in a negative way on men who want sex, men who just want to chat/flirt, girls who want sex and girls who just want to chat/flirt. All for the relatively small subgroup of women who really really don’t like it.
Thanks for responding intelligently, btw.
Straw-burning rampaging wind-up denialmobiles! (Gah, I suck at insults…)
It’s all been answered, and meta-answered.
https://proxy.freethought.online/lousycanuck/2011/10/04/the-problem-with-privilege-or-evidential-skepticism/
No
Men who approach women for sex in creeepy ways deserve ball-kicking and macing. Not respect.
Yep, soundly defeated. Just assume that she lied about ED being present when she expressed her desire to go to bed, then there is no evidence of her will being disregarded. Poof, presto, pop! No objectification here.
Ah, good timing for that post, Pteryxx. It can’t be that a woman was objectified! Womenz always be lying.
@you_monster
“No one is trying to establish “it’s rude to ask for coffee” per se as a general rule. There, I have substantively addressed your argument. I’ve informed you it is a strawman and therefore not an argument at all. Now can I get back to the insults?”
I was unclear, that’s my fault. I was talking about “coffee meaning sex”. I’m saying that’s not a bad thing to ask either. if you think it is, then why do you think that?
@a_ray_in_dilbert_space
“When you have 1/4 to 1/3 of women in the US having been raped….
when rape is an act of terrorism in conflicts the globe over…
when you have rape charges dismissed by clueless judges based on the victims’ attire…
and on and on…
then fear of rape is NOT an individual experience. Rape is terrorism directed at 50% of the human race. And all they know is that the terrorists are among the other 50%. Sounds like a problem to me.”
Of course it’s a problem, I never said it wasn’t, I’m just trying to suggest that there’s a more nuanced debate to have which would be more helpful.
Yes, the numbers are high, and some aspects of male interaction that are seen as normal are clearly unacceptable. Yes, judges and rape trials are often shit and need improving. I’m totally pro slutwalk btw.
However these facts don’t mean that *all women* live in fear of rape and shape their lives accordingly. They definitely all don’t. I know many girls who have said that. So when you’re suggesting ‘rape fear’ should change the way people act in serious ways, what evidence do you have that it’s 1) felt by a majority of women and 2) felt ‘strongly’ by those women. (Strongly in this sense perhaps meaning giving them a significant amount more fear than a man similarly capable of defending them self if put in the same situation).
@Pteryxx
The majority of responses I’ve seen from intelligent people who disagreed with Rebecca weren’t suspicious at all of her account. I’m reasonably sure she was telling the truth.
The question most people have posed is “was the guy’s behaviour inherently sexist or unreasonable?”. To which the answer isn’t crystal clear. He was polite, he didn’t act aggressively and he backed off when told ‘no’.
The key points about what makes it potentially ‘rapey’ seem to be that he followed her to the lift and decided to proposition her in a confined space. And while that is definitely not ideal, it does seem to me to fall under the category of ‘dumb’ rather than ‘sinister’.
Would she have reacted the same if it was a woman in the lift, do you think?
Loki you are full of BS
All women are taught from a very young age that they must always be wary of putting themselves into a situation where they may possibly be raped.
ALL OF THEM
no
following her onto an elevator to ask for sex is NOT polite.
“…The majority of responses I’ve seen from intelligent people who disagreed with Rebecca weren’t suspicious at all of her account.”
Which one? She had two accounts that I’ve examined. And the first one never said the guy heard her say she was tired and going to sleep. That was subtly slipped into her second account. Besides, we don’t hang the accused without first hearing their defense. Elevator gate doesn’t even rise to the level of “he-said/she-said”. It’s only “she-said”. Any competent judge in the U.S. would throw the whole case out of court.
@Tethys
Apart from the fact I’ve got lots of female friends who have said they just *aren’t* afraid of being raped (except in dark alleys and things where normal people are scared of muggings or whatever), have you just never been out in a city on a Friday night? The number of girls wandering around by themselves getting wasted in the midst of huge groups of potentially predatory guys suggests that getting raped really isn’t the first thing on their minds.
@Tethys
Obviously I was talking about the nature of his verbal request, which I think was pretty obvious, but consider it clarified.
Also, what’s the quote tag?
Tethys,
“Had he asked for “coffee” in the bar, it would have been rude.”
If he did it there when she was in even a loose group with others, it would have been. You’re supposed to do those sorts of things privately and one-on-one, not in a group.
mercurial, arch-bullshitter, first have a read about objectification and inform your ignorant ass, then get back to us about people like Dawkins et al., who like you could only “refute” Watson by gratuitously ignoring most of what she had said.
Oops, ignore 84. I read it wrong (“wouldn’t” instead of “would”).
But I would ask when asking for coffee WOULDN’T be rude …
Yes, you are unclear. If you are asking whether I think it is ok to use the euphemism “go out for coffee” when asking someone if they would like to knock boots, then I say of course it is. Obviously this is context-dependant though. So long as you respect other people’s autonomy, ask if they are interested in you any way you like. In some contexts (many contexts), asking someone for a date/sex/if they are interested in you/out for coffee is inappropriate and disrespectful. Use some common sense, wait for some evidence that your advances are wanted, then act. If the attraction seems to be mutual, just be direct. Its just be generally compassionate about other people and treating the person you are interested in as an equal. Not too hard. Just remember, context + giving a shit about other people = no longer part of the problem.
Here is where you need to work on your giving a shit about other people skills. Rape fear is real for many people. Even without the fear of rape, many people feel uncomfortable being hit on when they are not interested. Since it is not that hard to talk to people in order to form an educated opinion about whether someone would welcome further contact with you, you have no excuse not to.
Being aware of something does not mean living in fear of something.
Wandering around by yourself within a group is a bit of an oxymoron.
@Verbose
“But I would ask when asking for coffee WOULDN’T be rude …”
That’s the point. If people are after the eradication of casual sex, then who are they to speak for the people of both genders who like casual sex?
They don’t have to be rape victims or even sexual assault victims. The number of women who face sexual harassment regularly (in the form of cat calls, groping and, yes, overally forward men asking for sex or making lewd innuendos about how awesome them fucking would be) is high enough for you to have to factor that in when approaching a complete stranger.
And I’m not seeing every woman or man as a rape victim. I’m seeing them as someone who a I don’t necesarily know all that muh about so I shouldn’t presume how far they’re willing to go with me in any given context. Should I play punch every man I know on the shoulder because I know that’s gesture some men don’t mind? Should I forego the handshake and just grab new aqauintances in a passionate hug as a way of saying hello?
This isn’t new stuff. This is, as you’ve agreed, basic human interaction. There are borders and limits you’re going to have to consider when meeting new people.
#79
“…All women are taught from a very young age that they must always be wary of putting themselves into a situation where they may possibly be raped.”
Feminsists would call this a form of rape apology. It is only the rapist who is accountable for his actions. The victim is never to blame. That is why we have slut walks. Congratulations, Tethys, you are a rape apologist. How does it feel?
who the fuck is anti-casual sex here? This is a pro-sex blog (not that I speak for it, but I know it well enough). More strawmen…
The issue is when one person (almost always male) persists in seeking casual sex with someone who has expressly said “no.
You and Mercurial are both getting pretty old.
@you_monster
“Use some common sense, wait for some evidence that your advances are wanted, then act. If the attraction seems to be mutual, just be direct. Its just be generally compassionate about other people and treating the person you are interested in as an equal. Not too hard.”
That’s one way of doing it. Another is asking politely and then accepting no gracefully. Some women would prefer the former, some would prefer the latter (because it wastes less of their time, if nothing else). Why should men act as if all women prefer the former?
“Here is where you need to work on your giving a shit about other people skills. Rape fear is real for many people. Even without the fear of rape, many people feel uncomfortable being hit on when they are not interested. Since it is not that hard to talk to people in order to form an educated opinion about whether someone would welcome further contact with you, you have no excuse not to.”
Well yeah, that’s how most people act already. Bearing mind most people are part of a bell curve, the elevator guy could just be an outlier. Also people do dumb stuff when they’re drunk, and it was late. No one’s saying that flirting first and gauging reactions are a bad plan, it’s what most people do *right now*.
Pteryxx@74,
I am skeptical about anything Rebecca Watson says regarding the internal mental state of EG, which includes his knowledge and intentions. And rightly so, since she actually doesn’t have direct access to it and we do know that we can read things into memory. So I interpret, for example, the line of “He heard that I wanted to go to bed” as “He HAD to have heard that I wanted to go to bed given my interpretation of how things went there”, and then immediately wonder if he really did hear that or if she thought that his near presence for part of the night meant that he had to have been there and paying attention when she said that.
Obviously, “sexualized” is even more open to reasonable skepticism.
I disagree – “no” doesn’t always mean “no” when it comes to dating. The matter of fact is, both sexes engage in all sorts of odd behaviors (call them games, tactics, or whetever) that range from subtle to blatant as a means testing, seducing, and evaluating potential sexual partners. A cursory examination of online dating advice for women and men is testament to this.
I’ve known women who play the “hard to get” game because it supposedly allows them to sort the males who are really interested from the males that aren’t. I’ve known some women who think men are biologically programmed to chase, and if they don’t chase, then aren’t really interested. Heck, I’ve even seen women deliberately flirt with other guys as a tactic to make their boyfriends jealous. If the boyfriend did get jealous, the woman saw it as an affirmation of his desire for her.
Men play games as well. One of the favored tactics in the male so-called “pickup artist” community is to casually flirt with the woman, then stop and walk away. This is supposed to demonstrate that you aren’t clingy, but strong, confident, and independent (this is probably the equivalent to a woman playing “hard to get”). This, in turn, is supposed to arouse desire in the woman. The whole Nice Guy ruse is another tactic to seduce.
This behavior is by no means even limited to the person of affection. Often, men and women alike will engage in some incredibly nasty behavior and aggression toward those they see as competitors (even if the “competitor” isn’t really competing). I’ve been on the receiving end of that myself.
Anyway, my point isn’t to discuss these games, nor am I saying these games are played uniformly by all men and women. My point is that the game of love and sex has a lot at stake for those who play it – egos, attitudes, and emotions are put on the line and often harshly tested. The outcome of playing is often highly uncertain. So, it’s no surprise to see both sexes engage in weird and often befuddling behavior. It’s also worth pointing out, in the extremes, the games and behavior can even get dangerous.
@you_monster
“The issue is when one person (almost always male) persists in seeking casual sex with someone who has expressly said “no.”
So not elevator guy then?
Verbose Stoic
It’s rude because Rebecca was quite clear that she did not want to be propositioned at all.
If you want sex, first you must establish a basic level of trust. Following someone who has clearly stated she does not want to be propositioned onto an elevator to proposition her shows that you have no respect and are not to be trusted.
loki@89,
“That’s the point. If people are after the eradication of casual sex, then who are they to speak for the people of both genders who like casual sex?”
Well, it’s worse than that, because it isn’t clear that asking for coffee means asking for sex (back to your room is a little more likely, but not certain). I know myself that if I asked someone out for coffee, I wouldn’t be expecting to get sex, and if it was offered after or during the coffee date I likely a) would reject it and b) would think less of the person I asked out for coffee, to the extent that that would likely mean that I’d consider her a bad choice for me for a relationship, which would be MY main purpose to asking her out for coffee.
Maybe I’m just too conservative, old-fashioned, or prudish, though …
Oh, so now you can read the intent of Elevator Douche as ‘dumb’ rather than ‘sinister’ from the report of someone who actually met him, and said moreover that ‘there was nothing — not a single thing — that led me to believe that the man in the elevator was “awkward.” He was bold, direct, and confident.’ That must be a particularly magical ability of yours.
Methinks you are protesting too much.
Mercurial
Does it hurt to be so stupid?
@Julian
Yeah, it’s really just about where the borders and limits lie, and who’s obliged to uphold them. I’m just more on the libertarian side of things in that I think people should be free to express themselves even if it makes other people uncomfortable and that the actual transgressions only occur when people become threatening. I feel like the radfems are trying to shift the paradigm into men having to be super careful of how they say and act *just in case* they might offend.
e.g. catcalls in public near other people -> acceptable, catcalls out of a car in a dark street -> not acceptable.
They’re both sexist, but the former is just stupid, whereas the latter is threatening.
Tethys,
You are presuming, however, that he was propositioning her for sex as opposed to actually wanting to get to know her better, perhaps in the interest of maybe getting a relationship. Is that itself what she was expressly disagreeing with? What does “hitting on” or “propositioning” mean, especially in a sexist context? We can agree, perhaps, that “Hey, baby, wanna f***?” is that sort of thing, but is a polite request for coffee one of those?
I don’t know what her speech was and none of us know what EG heard of it and what message he took from it. Speech is ambiguous, which is one reason why philosophy spends so much time wrangling over precisely what each word means and in choosing the right words.
Note, BTW, that I do agree with this “At 3 am in an elevator with a mostly stranger, don’t invite her back to your room. It’s a bit creepy” advice. It’s the “that’s sexualizing/objectification” part that I’m skeptical of.
#900
I know you are but what am I? huh huh.
@Verbose
TBF, I’m pretty sure he meant sex. My contention is just that it shouldn’t matter because he wasn’t being threatening (IMO) the things that Rebecca found threatening were part of her perception of events, not indisputable truths.
@Philip
It could be either, but the real point is that it wasn’t obvious. Why would I assume that Rebecca is a better judge of character in the brief time she saw the guy? Interpretation of intangible things is just as much about the person interpreting than the person giving the signals.
“Methinks you are protesting too much.”
And yeah, I rape people, obviously.
Meh, I grow weary of arguing with you Loki. You are not interested in learning anything. Do you really believe that there are women out there that would actually prefer men to proposition them out of the blue before they get to know them at all first? My “way of doing it” involves talking to someone first, you know, seeing if you like them and if they like you. Your way involves asking before you know anything about them. Even if there is a substantial number of women this appeals to, do you think your desire to bed them outweighs the desires of of women not like this to not be made uncomfortable? Again, like iI said. It requires little effort to chat with someone for a little bit. It takes only a little “work” (hint, this shouldn’t be considered work), to ensure that you are respecting the vast number of women who do not appreciate this.
Do you care about this person you are talking to? Clearly not if you know nothing about them.
Why don’t you care about women? Why do you see them as objects?
Christ on a stick you are stupid, Loki, I already fucking addressed this.
Rebecca Watson herself,
You get the same goodbye as MM: Fuck off, dishonest shit-for-brains troll.
Caine’s “asspimple” imagery is not disgusting enough to represent my feelings for you.
Verbose Stoic
If he just wanted to talk, he would have approached her at the bar. He choose to ask in a creepy way, so I’m not going to buy that he had honorable intentions.
Verbose Stoic:
After someone has spent some time getting to know a person.
Oh FFS, not this never ending crap again. It’s quite obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that waiting until a woman is tired, on her way to bed to sleep, in a closed elevator at 4 am that what was on EG’s mind wasn’t “getting to know her better”.
As I pointed out to many fucking times during 3D4K, if he actually wanted to get to know her better, then he could have caught her attention before she left the bar and said something like “I really enjoyed your talk. Will you be meeting up with people tomorrow? I’d like to have coffee with you and discuss things more.” He could have even managed to open his mouth in the hallway, long before the elevator.
He had no interest in doing that. This is quite simple, it’s been very fucking clear from the outset.
And in case you hadn’t noticed, this thread isn’t about Egate. It’s just a matter of trolls attempting to derail. If you’re just dying to re-hash Egate, go do some reading:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/the_decent_human_beings_guide.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/gynofascists_are_invading_the.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/go_read_jennifer_ouellette_rig.php
Verbose Stoic,
Because “Don’t take this the wrong way… would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” couldn’t possibly be an indirect euphemism for wanting sex. Not at 4 am in the fucking morning. Oh no, never.
You_Monster:
Loki isn’t worth talking with, xe’s just another troll looking for attention and derailment. Besides, there’s fresh asspimple in the thread. (Good cue for me to head for bed.) For those who need it and have Firefox, you can get a killfile here.
Have you bothered to read the other comments ? Only this has been addressed more than once. I note you have not bothered to address any of the criticisms that were made of this argument the previous times they were made.
“Meh, I grow weary of arguing with you Loki. You are not interested in learning anything.”
Hoisted by your own petard, methinks. How do you know you aren’t you the one who needs to learn things?
“Do you really believe that there are women out there that would actually prefer men to proposition them out of the blue before they get to know them at all first?”
Seen ’em, sexed ’em. Do you think girls don’t just get horny too? Lolz.
” do you think your desire to bed them outweighs the desires of of women not like this to not be made uncomfortable?”
What about the girls who just want sex. Again, you’re blaming me for not taking in girls opinions while not doing so yourself.
“Why don’t you care about women? Why do you see them as objects?”
I care about my female friends, they care about me, don’t you worry yourself about it.
Philip:
And it should go without saying that anytime someone prefaces with “don’t take this the wrong way” they are well aware they are about to say something they shouldn’t.
@Tethys
“If he just wanted to talk, he would have approached her at the bar. He choose to ask in a creepy way, so I’m not going to buy that he had honorable intentions.”
Using contextual clues for hints is fine, but most people would avoid skewering someone quite as definitively as the guy has been skewered by the radfem community, just based on clues.
Justicar, is that *you*? I haven’t seen that tactic in quite a while.
This is what our feminist society has been reduced to:
Men are expected to read women’s minds. They are supposed to be able to read a woman’s “signals” to tell if she is agreeable to conversation or sexual advances. Therefore, only a chosen few women should meet the criteria for such advances.
Women are NOT expected to read men’s minds. Women are not expected to read a man’s signals to tell if he is about to rape her on the elevator. Therefore, ALL men should be considered potential rapists until proven otherwise.
There you have it. Men, you’d better be good at reading women’s signals. But women, you are off the hook. You don’t have to learn how to read men’s signals. It’s easier to just assume that all men are rapists.
@Caine
“And it should go without saying that anytime someone prefaces with “don’t take this the wrong way” they are well aware they are about to say something they shouldn’t.”
It should go without saying that anyone saying “it should go without saying” knows they’re trying to gloss over a contentious point. Especially one so obvious as saying “don’t take this the wrong way” to indicate their situational awareness of the potential dubious nature of the situation and their eagerness to be a nice person and clarify that that’s not what they’re trying to do.
@Philip
Don’t respond to the silly part of the post, you were doing so well.
mercurial, the continual bullshitter, sets more strawmen ablaze:
Won’t someone please save the strawpeople!?!?
Yeah, because you joking about being a rapist is really funny – you insensitive twit, you’re talking to people in this thread who have been raped.
It’s also the same completely disrespectful bullshit that trolls before you have tried to indulge in some gratuitous self-inflicted insults to mock the reality of victim shaming.
*Sigh*
Rape is often funny. Just like murder. And natural disasters. I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed, but humour isn’t actually always PC.
But seeing as you’re just interested in deflecting and not discussing things intelligently, have you tried 4chan?
Or, on la main gauche, the phrase “don’t take this the wrong way” is a deliberate rhetorical manœuver to disarm the other person from objecting to a baldly unreasonable request, in exactly the same way as a phrase like “I’m not a racist, but…” or “Some of my best friends are black, but…” is used as a dodge before the uttering of a barely disguised racist comment. In both cases, it’s what particular strain of music that follows the overture which tells the listener how plausible the speaker’s good intentions are.
@Philip
All I said was that it was contentious. I didn’t express an opinion one way or the other.
Loki, there you go breaking any possible accord at reasonable discourse. Why don’t you go to 4chan if you wish to discuss this further: rape and rape apologetics isn’t treated as funny here.
*plonk* Comment by loki blocked. [unkill][show comment]
When they end up lying on a couch in a small room at 3am, in mute shock, waiting for me to examine them and take forensic samples for the police, it’s likely to be the only thing on their minds for a very long time.
A lot of women in their teens and early twenties dismiss rape as something that won’t happen to them.
That a significant number of them are wrong doesn’t make them stupid; that a large number of women know the risks either first or second hand doesn’t make them unworthy of paying attention to.
It’s like arguing that all the drunk young male drivers hooning on the roads round here aren’t afraid of crashing and ending up quadriplegic, and using that as an argument against those who try to speak out and warn that it’s actually potentially quite unsafe.
Wow, the denialism really has reached a new level.
So, if EG hadn’t heard RW say that she was tired he would have no reason to think that she might be*.
It was, after all only 4 am and Rebecca Watson had been at a busy conference all day and socializing all night, so yeah, that’s almost as impossible as assuming that somebody who just walked through a heavy rain with no raincloths or umbrella might be wet.
But anybody notice that loki’s definition of free speech is exactly like that of the conservatives?
They don’t mean “free speech”, they mean “my right to utter hateful shit without anybody ever calling me out on it or criticising me or actually openly opposing me” which is, in their shared worldview about the same as a Salem witch hunt.
*Apart, of course from the fact that either EG heard RW at the conference and knew her position on “being hit at” and was ignoring her request or he wasn’t in which case he was lying when he said he found her position interesting and wanted to talk more.
And, of course, totally ignoring the fact that multiple people have already established that there were no coffee making facilities in the hotel rooms
In my experience, my friends who are open to casual sex make it very clear, in bars, at parties, at clubs.
They don’t repeatedly say they are not interested in being propositioned, show no interest in someone and then change their minds when that someone follows them out of the venue unasked.
The casual sex defence simply doesn’t hold up – people who are up for sex with strangers are open about it and the signals are clear.
[COI – one friend an ex-glamour model, one a prostitute who worked the commuter trains on routes into London]
Tushcloots waaay back at 783:
You take care of yourself, too. I’m sorry all of that shitstorm happened because of one unclear statement.
Philip writes”
“…In both cases, it’s what particular strain of music that follows the overture which tells the listener how plausible the speaker’s good intentions are.”
Question: does this apply to PZ as well?
His first paragrapgh from a previous blog post:
“…There’s nothing wrong about being pretty, or sexy, or shopping, or being interested in traditionally girly things — but there is a big problem when that’s the only option you’re given.”
In other words, being a traditional girly girl is fine, but better you had other choices to see the error in your ways.
oops – just realised I’m not sure about the appropriate term here; my friend always referred to herself as a prostitute, not a sex worker, so that’s the descriptor that springs to mind when mentioning her.
Also the “some women like X” is the shittiest excuse ever. Just like there might be people out there who like being fucked in the ass with a broomstick. That’s not an excuse to do it to anybody who hasn’t enthusiastically declared that this is the very thing they’d like you to do.
If you want to have sex with anyone, approaching them in a creepy manner is going to come across as creepy.
No Sex For You!
If you can’t show a prospective partner basic courtesy, why would they wish to engage in any activity with you?
I would agree that you can occasionally make a satirical point this way. But humour?
I’m afraid that anyone who thinks rape, murder or natural disasters are topics for humour is like a kid laughing at his own fart jokes while the adults hope he’ll grow up soon.
That you cannot see what a sick puppy you are does not mean that you aren’t one.
mercurial, your unwillingness to stay on topic is noted. (Why don’t you ask PZ about his intentions in writing that sentence the way he did? The main message in it, that forcing only one narrow set of gender expectations on girls is bad, is a good message.)
@tielserrath
Sure, I’m not saying they’re bright. I’m just saying that asserting the universality of rape fear is a very dodgy point.
@Giliell
“But anybody notice that loki’s definition of free speech is exactly like that of the conservatives?
They don’t mean “free speech”, they mean “my right to utter hateful shit without anybody ever calling me out on it or criticising me or actually openly opposing me” which is, in their shared worldview about the same as a Salem witch hunt.”
I’d call it First Amendment free speech actually. Britain’s laws on free speech are repellent. Regardless, I’ve obviously not tried to stop anyone criticising me, so that’d be a little straw man of your very own, wouldn’t it?
@tielserrath
“They don’t repeatedly say they are not interested in being propositioned, show no interest in someone and then change their minds when that someone follows them out of the venue unasked.”
It was a response to the (ridiculous) point that girls never want to be hit on for sex, not a response to elevatorgate.
“…I’m not sure about the appropriate term here; my friend always referred to herself as a prostitute, not a sex worker, so that’s the descriptor that springs to mind when mentioning her.”
What about “slut”? You got the slut walks and everything, so it’s become more something to aspire to.
First point was RE: 124.
#69 a_ray_in_dilbert_space :
Eh, you are sort of making a significantly incorrect statement. It’s worse.
Not only do men rape women, but women rape men, women rape women, and men rape men too. While the other variants are less common, they still are a problem too.
My point is just that potential violence against oneself is scary, and you have to watch out not just for men, but women too. Even men can get roofies put into their drinks at bars, not just for getting mugged outside, but for getting raped instead. Behaving in non-creepy ways is good for anyone and everyone, even though the finder details of non-creepiness get muddled with travel and various cultures etc.
And would make fraud and tax evasion a matter of free speech. Coincidence? Methinks not.
No, I don’t believe that was the point.
The statement made was that women don’t want to be propositioned out of the blue.
And they don’t. Even those who want casual sex indicate their availability with eye contact, positive body language and often also verbally, either direct or indirect.
I didn’t mention an elevator – I was thinking of someone being followed from a club by someone they’d shown zero interest in or had minimal contact with, and being propositioned on the street outside.
Why are you so obsessed with elevators?
“The statement made was that women don’t want to be propositioned out of the blue.
And they don’t. Even those who want casual sex indicate their availability with eye contact, positive body language and often also verbally, either direct or indirect.”
Some do. And all of those things are subjective. you’re trying to find a concrete behavioural dividing line for right and wrong, but there just isn’t one. The situations overlap and sometimes you’re going to misinterpret things and make mistakes. The important thing is how you act once you realise you’re mistaken, not going to crazy lengths to avoid offending someone by accident.
Sorry guys – this was a bit of a drive-by.
It’s late downunder, and I’ve got an early shift tomorrow.
Keep on with the whack-a-troll.
Your knowledge of biology would seem to be woeful.
Couldn’t resist one last MRA soundbite:
Where your definition of crazy lengths is having the self control to not proposition someone who has given zero indication that they would welcome a proposition from you.
You’re not just creepy, you’re fucking scary.
So, I’m trying to do a bit of positive derailing. Back on the other page a link was posted to a German study about sexual abuse.
This was only the second study of that kind, the first being from 1992 with 3300 subjects, while this one had over 11.000.
The focus was sexual abuse before age 16, the subjects were between 16 and 40.
What they found was that younger people had lower numbers of sexual abuse than older participants, indicating that within the last 20 years, sexual abuse of minors was declining.
They gave several reasons for this:
–victims are more likely to report the crime
Of those victims who are now between 30 and 40, only 5-13% reported the crime, while those between 16 and 20 reported the crime in 28-41% of cases*
*the range is explained by different rates for different crimes.
–public awareness and sympathy for the victims
Campaigns that educated the public, parents, teachers, that encourage the victims to come forth seem to deter possible criminals.
–Outlawing corporal punishment
Sexually abusive parents are often also physically (other than sexual) abusive parents. Society and authorities pay attention to possibly abusive parents when they turned a blind eye before.
I think especially the second reason they gave plays a huge role in the discusion here. If we can manage that adult rape victims get the same public support as victims of child abuse get in Germany, we would have won a huge battle against rape-culture.
in this instance it might be your knowledge of rape that’s lacking Matt. *But* the only use a discussion of non-male-on-female rape has in this discussion is as a derailment tactic. So let’s not discuss it. Ok? (Frankly I don’t care if it’s ok or not. I’m not going to comment on it in this tread except that it’s a problem. but it’s not a problem we should discuss in this context. If anybody yearns to discuss the finer nuacances of this small, but serious problem I’ll promise to scan TET later tonight and pick up again the discussion there. Not here)
“Women are NOT expected to read men’s minds. Women are not expected to read a man’s signals to tell if he is about to rape her on the elevator. ”
Um… I am confused. I was under the impression women were trained to be more attuned to social cues, especially the social cues of men. The advice for how to “read” “men” in various contexts galore (though a fair bit exists for men to read “women” in sexual/argumental contexts too) – am I imagining all that? *pokes the tons of articles and pages on the intarwebs about it*
I have been fortunate enough to be fairly sheltered to some extent while not looking worthy of mugging or the like: When I was talking with a female friend about walking home alone in the dark I was being very fond of the memories and expressed desire to do so soon again, while she spoke in ways that revealed she was afraid of getting raped or mugged – she makes sure to keep attuned to the body language of various people around the areas she walks through, while I tend to not pay attention to them.
This is something I keep hearing about from females, so while not all suffer from that, clearly a significant amount do.
I would guess a fair bit of males also habitually “size up” other males in potentially confrontational situations, e.g. when walking in the dark and seeing potential muggers down the street. For many women, the difference is that they have to “size up” the strangers more often than men and be keenly aware of that any resulting confrontations can be far worse than “just” violence. Violence can kill or cripple you, but it will not be in an as intimate and psychologically disturbing manner.
Or am I mistaken?
loki
It ain’t, loki, it ain’t, ’cause you styled it as a threat to your free speech when people talk abouut how to approach women resectfully and without creeping them out.
You got your knickers in a twist that such social rules* would infringe on your free speech rights.
To quote you:
Which is, of course a strawman in itself since this was never a matter of legal rights.
Unless, of course it is, like in harrasment cases. Judges even in the USA don’t seem to accept the “freedom of speech” excuse when a boss tells his secretary that she’s really looking sexy today and would she like coffee back at his place after work.
*you know, like social rules that you don’t turn up in a weddingdress at a funeral, or tell the mourning widow that you couldn’t stand her husband because he always stole your paper-clips at the office, or to name one closer to home, that you don’t give strange kids candy unless it’s Halloween and they’re knocking at your door
# 142 Matt Penfold:
Even if we narrow the rape definition down to penetration of lower body orifice, rape is easy. You do not need to use a penis or a vagina to rape someone.
Vagina: There have been legal cases where males penetrating female anuses without permission was deemed rape – so it is clear you do not need a vagina.
Penis: There have been legal cases where women have been penetrated by an object used by a man without consent that was deemed rape – i.e. you do not need to use a penis.
People can use all sorts of things to shove into your lower body orifices in pseudo-sexual manners.
Gnumann,
Women do not have penises. Since rape is the insertion of a penis into a body orifice without consent, women by definition cannot commit rape.
They of course commit sexual assault, but that was not what was claimed.
Please, words have meaning. Do not change them at will.
Here is the definition of Rape in English law:
1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
That makes it very hard for a women to commit rape wouldn’t you say ?
Rrr
You are confused because you took the statement from one of the nastier misogynists as something with a relation to reality.
So, yes, women are in general much more cautious than men, trying to evaluate their behaviour much more carefully than men do (women are also more conditioned to constantly search for the cues other people might be giving the as to please them better).
On the other hand, no, we can’t read minds, just like men can’t. So what we try to err on the side of safety.
If a man sets off our alarm bells, we cannot afford to ignore them. Exactly because we can’t know.
I’ve been saying this in other places before:
It might help a good deal if men knew what women know about rape and rape culture.
That probably won’t help against the real rapists, but if the decent guys know what women have been taught to fear, they can avoid those behaviours in order to not make then unnecessarily uncomfortable.
BTW, it’s good that you’re listening to your female friends and accept their experiences. We sadly live in very different worlds when it comes to those things. And just because their experiences contradict yours doesn’t mean they’re not valid.
“*But* the only use a discussion of non-male-on-female rape has in this discussion is as a derailment tactic. ”
Sorry about that. I essentially just did drive-by commenting and so I did not quite get the proper context. I only read this comment page, and not the older page, before commenting. It’s just the stereotype minority kneejerk reaction: “Being not creepy is not just for straight guys talking to women. You totally can’t use that as special pleading, trolls in here.”
Sorry about that.
Matt: What part of not fucking here not fucking now did you not hear?
I haven’t got the time to do your homework right now, and this is not the place. Since I’m predisposed to like you I’ll probably be inclined to do it later, in another venue, but not fucking here. It’s an unnessesary derailment.
Gnumann,
Ok. I think you are wrong, and out of line but I will say no more since I too am predisposed to like you.
Matt Penfold
Yeah, but that’s definetly a stupid definition and should be changed.
Other objects then penises can be inserted and it is possible to drug-rape a man, too.
German definition is broader:
I translate and shorten:
This includes giving the victim a blowjob against his will and doesn’t make any reference to the sex of the rapist.
151 Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes:
I grew up directly observing that the variation between genders was smaller than the variation within genders. So yeah, I have never been ignorant enough to think the world consists only of me and me-clones. Always confuses me to hell when people not only initially reveal this sort of view, but also keep insisting being like the aforementioned person is the norm for everyone and that the few people who do not fit into their world view are clearly some bizarro mutant freaks that are irrelevant. (eh, as in being like the ignorant person, not the attitude. I don’t know how common it is, but it is a lot more common than I would like it to be)
Matt Penfold:
Different countries, different legal definitions. This is The Internet, it does not belong to a single country. Thus, your legal word definitions are not universal, not even for all English-speaking countries. I’m sorry about your inability to realize where you are. I hope you get better, cupcake <3
Matt Penfold: …I am sorry, that sarcasm was uncalled for. I’ll GTFO the internet and get some lunch and stuff. Sometimes I get bitter too quickly, and I don’t always manage to catch it. I’m sorry.
“…Um… I am confused. I was under the impression women were trained to be more attuned to social cues, especially the social cues of men.”
It may be that women are able to read social cues of men, but society does not hold women to these standards. Society does not expect women to discern suitor from rapist. For example, Rebecca Watson was defended by an army of feminists who claimed that she could not possibly tell if EG was about to rape her. On these grounds, EG was prejudged as dangerous, even though he gave no real indication of being a rapist. The fact that he was merely standing in that elevator was enough to condemn him. Turns out he was not a rapist, and nobody was held to account for their misjudgment of EG after the fact.
On the other hand, feminist society does hold men to account when it comes to discerning between women who wish to be pursued and those who don’t. Proof of which is the extent to which EG has been vilified all over the web as a creepy stalker/potential rapist. He could have saved himself a lot of humiliation if he were able to successfully read Watson’s social cues.
Rrr,
I clearly made a mistake when I thought you might be a reasonable person. Sorry about that. I will not make that mistake again.
Rrr,
Thank you. That was gracious. I too apologise for my intemperate remarks. The one at #159 was posted before I saw your apology so please ignore it.
Phillip,
“Because “Don’t take this the wrong way… would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” couldn’t possibly be an indirect euphemism for wanting sex. Not at 4 am in the fucking morning. Oh no, never.”
Speaking of strawpeople …
I never said it couldn’t possibly be such. I am skeptical that, in this case, it was. Why?
1) Indicating that you want sex is not, in and of itself, sexualizing. There is no indication that EG didn’t see her as a sexually attractive PERSON.
2) Just because it CAN be a euphemism for wanting sex doesn’t mean that it always is.
3) Sexualization is again a reference to an internal state of EG that we do not have sufficient evidence to infer. She can’t read his mind, and we certainly can’t now.
So, no, there just isn’t the evidence to say that no one should be skeptical about the conclusion that this involved sexualization; there are myriad other possibilities. And I, myself, have even more reason to be skeptical since I PERSONALLY would NEVER use that as a euphemism for casual sex. Since I therefore have evidence that I myself cannot doubt that the generalization does not always hold, I must remain open to the possibility that it didn’t hold in this case either.
Now, am I saying that I or anyone knows that there wasn’t sexualization going there? Not at all. I’m merely saying that we don’t know that there was sexualization going on there either. And if any argument turns on knowing that fact, then that argument is, well, undersupported, to say the least.
Question:
How does a feminist have sex without feeling sexualized?
Typical rationalization using skepticism. Yawn. The MRA’s are so funny when the try this tactic. Shows how they know they are in the wrong.
Mercurial, how goes the child support payments, you amoral loser?
Caine,
How much time do you have to spend getting to know someone before asking them for coffee?
And I was not the one who reintroduced and wanted to rehash Elevator Gate, as you yourself note. I was replying to what other people had said, which should be on topic for the comment thread. If you think it derailing, fair enough, but then you have to take on all the people who are leaping off the rail as well, and not just me.
I also do not think it as obvious as you do that it was about sex, but that may simply be a matter of different perspectives on the matter. I explained this in more detail in my reply to Phillip. And I have followed this story since the beginning and made an early post on it on my blog as well as made comments on it at other places, so I don’t need to be pointed to those links. But thanks all the same.
Nerd of Redhead,
It is quite interesting that you know that somehow I am an “MRA” from one comment that you didn’t even bother to keep the context of. Shouldn’t skeptics be more skeptical than to make such snap judgements?
Really? Coffee at 4:00 a.m. just coming from a bar that serves coffee to go into a hotel room to have crappy instant coffee seems more plausible to you than a euphemism for sex. Really?
Tethys,
“If he just wanted to talk, he would have approached her at the bar.”
I’d accept that except for what seems to me to be a strong cultural influence to not do such approaches too publicly or when she is with a group. It’s not only considered rude, it’s often quite difficult for people when they feel like they’re putting on a performance, which also gets into issues of the ego being more involved when everyone can see you fail putting more pressure on everyone involved. I imagine that most of the time she was in a group of people since she’s not unpopular which would make such an approach difficult, which is why I’m more willing to chalk up the creepy approach to cluenesses of the sort of simply not realizing that an offer that was probably intended to be made at about 11 has a completely different connotation at 4 am.
Khantron,
In this context, yes. Why? The bar wouldn’t be a one-on-one interaction. So I think he more screwed up than anything. But, yeah, I can see why you’d take that as a proposition to sex, and I concede that it may well have been one. I don’t know that it wasn’t, nor am I claiming that, nor am I really claiming anything about what is more plausible — I may have inadvertently hinted such, but if I did I apologize as that was not my intent — I am just saying that I can plausibly see a different interpretation of EG’s internal state that would not justify a charge of “sexualizing”.
So, to maybe mollify Caine and move this back on topic, if EG had said “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you really interesting and would like to get to know you better. Would you like to meet up in the hotel restaurant for coffee before tomorrow’s lecture starts?” would that have been in any way wrong? If yes, then why?
@Matt Penfold
I think you have misunderstood. I am saying the literal statement, “No ALWAYS means no”, is absolutely false when applied to dating for a subset of women, and I don’t think anyone will contest that. The broader point is dating lacks logic, and is largely an affectively driven process liable to a lot of errors, mistakes, and odd behaviors. That is all I am saying.
I should add there’s lots of compounding factors like social, cultural, religious, and institutionalized expectations as well. Note I am not using this justify any sort of dating behavior. For the record, a man who asks a woman unknown to him to return to his apartment at the early hours of the morning has clearly got no clue.
Months since “elevatorgate”, and it is still being discussed, to my amazement. No, I am not going to demand people stfu, I just think it’s fascinating how many angles people keep working it through, or using as vehicle for. Interesting symptoms of the complexity of life, and certainly different to my standard diet’s side-dish of serious alternative-angle fanfictions.
So, a man comes across as creepy to a woman, woman goes “This definitely comes across as creepy, don’t do it”, other women go “not definitely, here are different ways”, and others are going “argh shame on you for public shaming” and flamewars and other parts.
It feels like there should be a wiki or something for this, outlining the various different issues people have with it. Feels like it would be – while not “settled” or anything – a lot easier for people to point at the specific bits and work out the details in a more orderly and structured fashion.
So, is there a wiki or similar where I can check what other issues people have with that situation except for the specific ones I already mentioned? Reading many disorganized 1000+ lengthy comments on various webpages sounds like a terrifying amount of work. Though it would be awesome if a sociology student or such wrote a paper on the issue.
Verbose stoic:
“…How much time do you have to spend getting to know someone before asking them for coffee?”
Now that’s an excellent question. It reminds of this movie, I don’t remember the title. I think it was Dustin Hoffman who asked a stranger for a date. She said, “but you don’t know me”. He said, “I know, that’s why I want to date you. To get to know you.” She laughed and agreed to the date.
In the days before the internet, the way you got to know a stranger was to go out on a date. But with the advent of internet dating websites, the decision to even have a first date is predicated on successful profile matches, google searches, emailing, IM’ing, etc. It’s about as romantic as a dentist appointment.
@Mercurial Moron:
Did you just quote a fucking romantic comedy as if it had any appropriate basis in reality?
What an odd world you live in. It is a world where normal social mores do not seem to exist, and interactions with strangers is all about seeing if you can get to fuck them.
I don’t know. They say life imitates art. I’m going to use Hoffman’s line some day and see if it works.
“…and interactions with strangers is all about seeing if you can get to fuck them.”
No, get to KNOW them. Why do feminists always assume the worst?
Oh yeah, I forgot. All men are rapists.
@Mercurial Moron:
Good luck with that.
One does not need to go on a date to do that. A date implies romantic interest after all.
Why not just go for a meal, coffee, drink with someone and talk ?
“It’s about as romantic as a dentist appointment.”
Eh, different people have different ideas of what romantic is. Some people think not dating strangers is cheating, some people think having romantic dates with strangers is boring etc.
Some people consider flowers and chocolate to be romantic, others find it disgustingly lazy and boring and would much prefer for instance the Amulet of Yendor, or tickets to [something the recipient has coveted but failed to get], or origami flowers and chocolate covered organic packing peanuts.
I’ve been a skepitc for 25+ years. If the Foo shits, wear it. And I’ve seen the exact same apology form MRAs for months now. You haven’t done your homework.
So, to maybe mollify Caine and move this back on topic, if EG had said “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you really interesting and would like to get to know you better. Would you like to meet up in the hotel restaurant for coffee before tomorrow’s lecture starts?” would that have been in any way wrong? If yes, then why?This would be OK, but if you have to ask why, you don’t get why EG was wrong, and you are wrong.
Bah, blockquote error #181.
Why do MRAs always shove the worst right in feminists’ faces, all the while complaining about how they get mischaracterized?
–
RE: The use and meaning of MRA
Since my main exposure to the term has been post elevatorgate, I can’t help thinking of them as Male Rape Apologists, as someone else mentioned above. But at the same time, I also associate it (especially in here) with the U.S. military term MRE – Meal Ready to Eat. Seems appropriate somehow.
I slouch corrected.
If you agree both actions are sexist why don’t you agree both are wrong and behavior we should condemn? How is sexism acceptable?
Deferential?
First of all, I don’t care about negatively impacting men and women who want sex. Those who want sex from strangers can go get it from a prostitute (some reservations on that) or any hook up site online for all I care. This is not a group who is being hurt in anyway by any of the very mild requests being made here. They are still free to pursue (a word I absolutely detest when it comes to relationships) any partner they want. They just have to mindful of his/her boundaries. (I’ve heard some stories from men who were harassed by women at the workplace. It isn’t as common but it can cause just as much pain.)
Secondly, no one is stopping anyone from enjoying flirting. Where did you see that? Flirt, enjoy yourself! Go out, do some body shots and let loose. But be mindful of who you’re interacting with. If they don’t appreciate your advances, stop. If all they’re comfortable with is laughing over a drink, that’s all you get. Don’t assume because they flashed a camera they don’t mind you ripping off their shirt or copping a feel. Or that because they’re laughing while such activities are going on they want you to yank down their top. Stop pushing for something they aren’t comfortable with or don’t want to engage in. I don’t understand why that’s such a huge point of contention.
And back to deferential, when you’re trying to form a relationship with someone you always defer to their limits. (That goes both ways.) In fact, that’s the cornerstone of any relationships. Yes you check to see if those boundaries have moved a little, but you never completely ignore them. Doing so is best case scenario rude.
loki, I have no idea what it is this incredibly small portion of women don’t mind. Is ‘it’ strange men propositioning them out of the blue? Is ‘it’ not being fondled on the subway or at work? Is ‘it’ having to endure cat calls every where they go? Is ‘it’ men assuming when they say no they really men try harder? Is ‘it’ all of the above?
Obviously you can’t mean flirting because many of the very women you’ve been calling radfems on this board enjoy flirting and do engage in it. You can’t mean casual sex as that’s never been something anyone here has objected to. (At least protected casual sex with many partners.)
Do you agree
stupid submit button. Yeah it’s not very good but what I meant to say is there for the most part
@ Pteryxx:
I love pedants. I play one on a regular basis! :)
The blog post itself is primarily about spoken language, but the excerpt from the study does mention body language as part of the communication process.
I’ve been trying to find a copy of the study on a site that doesn’t require a user fee, but no luck so far.
“I’ve been a skepitc for 25+ years. If the Foo shits, wear it. And I’ve seen the exact same apology form MRAs for months now. You haven’t done your homework.”
I’m not sure what homework on MRAs I’d need to do to make up my own mind on a subject. You are the one who hasn’t done your homework since you haven’t bothered to figure out what my position actually is.
“This would be OK, but if you have to ask why, you don’t get why EG was wrong, and you are wrong.”
Of course, my question was “Would the updated account be in any way wrong?” with the additional question — fully expanded for your convenience — that if you think it wrong you need to say why my proposed scenario would be wrong. You think it would be okay, if I’m reading you right, therefore I would not ask you to tell me why it is okay, which would imply that I at least have a shot at knowing why it is okay, which would imply that I at least have a shot at getting what you think I should be getting, which means that my being “wrong” seems unlikely to have anything to do with that, if I am wrong at all.
Well, you could start your homework by reading some of the other related threads on this blog. Ever since the elevator incident, every post PZ makes with regards to feminism gets invaded by angry menz, all positive that they know what’s what, and they make the same goddam stupid arguments. Every. Fucking. Thread.
So start your homework there. Don’t worry – by the time you’ve done that, the menz will have found a new thread to get all het up over and you can jump right in.
Mercurial the MRA said:
The problem here is not that Rebecca Watson was oblivious to signals and assuming that EG and all men are rapists until proven otherwise. The problem was that he was sending off very strong signals that he might be a rapist!
Let’s look at all the things that EG had to be oblivious of (or ignore) to think it was okay to hit on her that night:
1: She had just given a public speech about how getting constantly hit on at atheist get-togethers was the main reason why there were so few women at atheist get-togethers.
2: She had just announced (within his earshot) that she was very tired and heading to bed.
3: He’s never spoken a word to her ever, and she has no idea who he is. She’s in a foreign city where she knows almost nobody.
Despite all these very clear signals that she probably doesn’t want him to hit on her, he decides that his desire to put his penis inside of her is more important. This makes him a douchebag. (And, just so I’m clear, arguing that any of these things are NOT clear makes YOU a douchebag. He may well have been ignorant of any and all of these things. That’s what makes him a douchebag – he didn’t either didn’t think about any of these things, or he didn’t care.)
Now, he follows her after she leaves the bar to hit on her. He waits until she gets on the elevator and follows her onboard. There, he propositions her. Waiting until she was on the elevator (and can’t dodge his advances, should they be unwelcome) makes him a creepy douchbag. He didn’t need psychic powers to see all this. He just needed basic fucking awareness of human interaction.
Lets look at it from her perspective, shall we? A complete stranger has just propositioned her – despite all of the above factors. This makes him a douchebag, no matter how politely he phrases the proposition. He’s also waited until she’s on an elevator to do it. That makes him a creepy douchebag, whose only outward concern for her is his desire to use her as a penis sheathe. She says no, and he relents.
Here’s the thing. Right up to the point where he relented at her ‘no’? He has shown very clear indications that he little concern for her outside of her ability to provide him with an orgasm – including disregarding her very clearly announced wish to not be treated in this way. Until he relents at her ‘no’, his actions are indistinguishable from those of a man about to rape her. And (for some mysterious reason) this made her very uncomfortable.
Did he know that he was making her uncomfortable and acting like a rapist? Probably not. And THAT’S why she said something about it on her vlog. She assumed that he (and others like him) were not aware that they were acting like rapists. So by educating men on actions that are exactly like the actions of rapists, so that they don’t do it, she helps everybody. She helps non-rapist men not be mistaken for rapists. She helps women be in fewer uncomfortable situations where they don’t know if they are about to be raped. And she helps women identify actual rapists (since there is, hopefully, less instances where non-rapists act like rapists). At no point did RW even suggest that the guy was actually a rapist, or that he actually tried to rape her. Probably on purpose – look how many people assumed she WAS accusing him of these very things, despite the fact that she didn’t even mention the word ‘rape’. She was simply trying to raise consciousness about inappropriate behavior, and how an oblivious person can make another person extremely uncomfortable just by being oblivious.
The only people who aren’t helped by this consciousness raising are rapists. And MRA assholes who think that their desire to get their penises wet should trump all considerations for female safety – who are only one step removed from the rapists they are protecting with this behavior.
So how many have to feel fear before you take it seriously? It seems like you are saying that a majority have to feel it. 49% wouldn’t cut it, I guess? The point is you are seriously underestimating this. We already know that a large number of women have already experienced rape, and that they don’t exclusively make up the number of women who have experienced attempted rape or being flashed or being groped etc. Just going by the numbers of rape alone you have a 1 in 4 chance of addressing a rape victim. That is a pretty substantial chunk of women, and they deserve consideration. The way that you treat the most vulnerable members of society is a pretty good indicator of your worth as a human being.
As far as the idea that there is a “more nuanced discussion” to be had- you have this detachment about the subject that is fucking annoying. You are talking to women who deal with sexist bullshit every day and expect them to discuss it on your terms rather than theirs. Why the fuck should we? Because you insist you are “right” over and over? That isn’t good enough for me. These problems are pragmatic in nature and if the people who actually experience the problem have something to say about it they should be listened to rather than dismissed as neurotic or a minority.
On the topic of MRE’s
Why the fuck can’t I ever find one with skittles?! And who the hell keeps ordering boxes with Veggie Omelet? No one fucking eats that!
How does “Hey, instead of immediately trying to jump into someone’s pants/skirt, maybe you should take a few minutes and talk to them a bit first!” mean that you need to read minds?
Fuckwit.
This is Verbose Stoic. The ‘nym alone should give you a hit as the kind of freethinker you are dealing with.
Pharyngulites need to come up with a name for this phenomenon. I cannot count the number of times a tv show or some other form of entertainment product has been brought up to demonstrate some dumb shit from MRAs. They seem unaware of the impact of marketing and PR on mainstream entertainment, as if the point of them is to reflect reality instead of sell shit. I don’t know if these dudes just don’t know actual women or think that television is at all representative of female reality or what, but its a weird recurring theme in these discussions. Someone linked to a louis ck bit in the last page of comments, like it proves something about any group of people. Are you dumbasses unaware of sociology? They track and measure social trends of all sorts with actual study and data.
You are discussing rules, we are discussing principles.
Rules are strict, inflexible, and specific. Something like “do not pull on the cat’s tail.” It turns children into little lawyers. They may conclude that it is okay to pull on the cat’s ears if all you do is give them strict rules to live by, under the threat of punishment.
If you give a child a principle like “be nice to the cat”, and a reason like “being mean to the cat hurts it”, they will figure out the rest on their own. Not pulling on its ears or tail or poking it or throwing it are outlawed because it is a natural extension of the principle.
I learned about the distinction from Sandra Dodd, and I think its a damn good one. Of course it was discussed in the context of parenting children, not managing adult MRA scum, but you all are so childish that the examples fit. Pharyngula is saying “don’t make women sexually uncomfortable”, and you all are throwing a fit because no one will hold your hand and tell you exactly what is ok and what isn’t. No one can do that for you because all women are different. It is a natural extension of the first principle, because it is hard to strive to make women comfortable without respecting them as individuals. You would not need a list of rules if you simply took a few minutes to actually exercise empathy and examine what it would be like to be a woman. If you are truly incapable of that level of empathy, there are plenty of women here who have gone to great lengths to describe it to you. All you have to do at that point is listen.
Argument ad Hollywood?
‘Reaganing’?
Your words and logic have been used repeatedly here by MRA and MRA apologists. I have a good memory, and I have read all 5000+ posts to date, so the background is there. You aren’t saying anything new, which you would understand if you did your homework. You are just trying to pretend to be skeptical, and are showing attitude. Still waiting for you to say something new…