Anyone ever heard of Rebecca Watson?

Not anywhere near as extreme as labeling prominent women prostitutes, which is something that passes almost unnoticed nowadays. And is it not accurate? On what basis would we conclude that a man had no potential whatsoever to commit the crime of rape?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I'm not sure that they are. I suppose they might occasionally get the same quality of message, but not in the same quantity. I have no idea who that is, and google doesn't seem to be helping much:Sierra Bates - Google SearchFrom Message 46:Its more extreme to post the names written in public than it is to just talk shit. I see a difference in saying that this particular person is a potential rapist than it is to say that a general man is not incapable of rape.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

It's my understanding based on what I've seen in RW's original elevatorgate video. RW states that elevatorguy sexualized her by propositioning her in the elevator after she had already spoken in the panel discussion about the "blatant misogyny" she suffers in as a woman skeptic. I simply put two and two together. June 1, 2012: Don't patronize me. Eventually, odds are that I would meet up with an asshat at some point in my life. So yeah, the fact that I've only met up with one over a 20 year period IS something worth pointing out. I guess I don't see the need to demonize the entire male species because of one jackwad. I'm not sure where you got the notion that I am okay with having been prank called daily by this person. Of course it was wrong and of course he did it to scare me. And of course I was scared. Particularly since I was far away from home staying alone in a strange little house in a strange little town. He knew exactly what he was doing, but I was young and naive then and really did not handle it appropriately.You are mistaken if you think I have a problem when women get creeped out by a man. I've already stated on this board [somewhere] that women all have their own comfort levels and you can never know where each of us sits. What I don't agree with, again, is blaming all men because of one jerk. I don't think that's fair and I don't think that qualifies as systemic.And while my overall experience working with men has been good, that's not to say that it can't be better. If 'Zero Harm' is possible, then by all means we should strive towards it. I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding these questions.I've never had anyone try to pick my up by scaring the shit out of me. And I can't assume the prankcaller was harassing me because he *wanted* me, per se. He never asked me out and when we spoke, he treated me with the utmost respect. He was a nutjob, obviously. He just wanted to scare me for whatever fucked up reason he had.Your average guy knows scaring someone is not the way to go. But I can't go around accusing every single guy who does something innocently stupid (e.g., like looking at me a bit too long, or accidentally brushing my thigh, or accidentally touching my foot with his foot under the table, or calling me 'darlin', or telling tasteless jokes, etc. ad nauseum) of being a misogynistic creep. I require a pattern of creepy behavior before I accuse someone like that. Or I trust my gut.My argument is that guys are not as bad as some people make them out to be. One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch, in my eyes. Does this make me naive? Maybe so. Maybe I should be a lot more afraid than I am.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Yes, forum posts. It is possible that you are in fact a raging misogynist and homophobe who only pretends to support equality through your words in these forum posts...but in the end, we can only ever know the views of others through their words and actions. Since my interactions with you, and with extreme feminists, are restricted to internet forums, I choose to take you and them at their word when they speak of their own beliefs. I think it's more likely that you are not a raging misogynist, because your words tell me that you value equality.I think that's rather fair, don't you? No, you asked someone else about t-shirts. I responded to that post making claims about the existence of such extreme feminists, but I never made any claims pertaining to t-shirts. Besides...do you really think that t-shirts are more convincing than forum posts? I have a t-shirt that says "Megatron for President: Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?" Does that mean that I actually support the election of fictional 40-ft tall robot villains to the Presidency? I am not characterizing an entire group. I did not say "all feminists are this way." I simply said that some feminists are in fact so extreme as to consider all penis-in-vagina sex to be rape, and therefore all heterosexual males who are not virgins to be rapists. If necessary, I can borrow some Venn diagrams from RAZD. That pursuit may be interesting, as I have seen quite a lot, but would take us both off topic for this thread and also likely involve content inappropriate for this board. Let's just not go there. Your point is well taken...but again, we can only ever know the views of others through their own words. Adding a charge of deception without any evidence supporting such an assertion is dismissed as easily as it is made. Possibilities do not equate to actuality, and unless you apply your view of deception equally to all forum posts, including yours and mine, you are applying it inconsistently by saying that extreme feminist posts are actually just misogynist men pretending to call men rapists so that they can later use the same tu quoque fallacy you're about to use. To varying degrees, but yes, I agree. Because the correct response to bad behavior is not more bad behavior. Because the correct response to the KKK is not to join a homicidal black supremacist organization. Because "you do it too, so it's okay" is just a tu quoque fallacy...and then the original group of bigots gets to use the same argument, and you've just provided their justification. Because you cannot establish equality by advocating inequality of the reverse type.Now, as promised, here is a blog that contains some of what I mentioned previously: "RadFem" blog

quote:

---

PIV and PIV-centric sexuality support male power. Intercourse and its attendant female-specific reproductive harm is the source of terrible suffering for women all around the world. While some women may experience pleasure from intercourse, many do not; regardless, intercourse always occurs against a backdrop of institutional and interpersonal misogyny and includes extreme physical and emotional risks to women, who are both more vulnerable to disease transmission than are men via PIV, and where women and only women experience pregnancy, including unwanted and ambivalent pregnancy. Intercourse is a harmful cultural practice which harms women and benefits men, as women are frequently removed from the public sphere, whilst they spend time, energy and resources dealing with intercourse-related complications, leaving opportunities and resources for men to share amongst themselves.

---

quote:

---

All of this female suffering, every bit of it, is due to the reproductive consequences to women of mandatory PIV and rape. And where almost all instances of rape include PIV, normalizing PIV also serves to normalize rape: we are expected to accept that penises belong in vaginas regardless of context, and where the reproductive harms of PIV as well as the political and coercive context of all PIV under conditions of patriarchy are routinely ignored.

---

quote:

---

To call intercourse sex or conflate it with women’s or even men’s sexual pleasure is not merely misguided, but rather, a deliberate and effective means of normalizing female submission and suffering and increasing men’s individual and collective power.

---

quote:

---

In real life, and as mirrored in media images, boys and men are obsessed with death. Mary Daly referred to this obvious male preoccupation with death as necrophilia, meaning the love of death. Men’s necrophilic tendencies are not limited to literally sticking their dicks into corpses, although it includes that; necrophilia refers to men’s obsession with death and all things related to death and antithetical to life, including neglect and abuse, causing reproductive harm, rape, murder, torture, war, inflicting physical and emotional pain generally, and placing themselves and others in harm’s way in every way. Where women are interested in and indeed heavily invested in preserving and nurturing life, often because they have to, or face legal or social consequences if they fail, men are working very hard to undermine women’s efforts to nurture life at every turn.

​

Why? Because

​

Necrophilia supports male power.

---

It's a long blog post...feel free to read the whole thing. I'm quite sure the author would be highly amused at your accusal that she is actually a misogynist man posing as a radical feminist.As I have now backed up my assertion with evidence, I would call upon you to do the same with refard to your assertion that such "radical feminists" who equate heterosexual intercourse with rape must in fact be misogynous males themselves using deception to create a target for their misogyny.I'll note that, typically, all a misogynist needs for a "target" is a person who appears to be female, and that requiring them to be "feminazis" or something is almost never required to harass and intimidate women, or even simply to make them feel slightly uncomfortable or give them a lower wage than a man. Those things happen all on their own, with no need for a "feminazi" for rationalization.ABE: I want to add for clarification that in no way do I believe Rebecca Watson to be a "RadFem." I don't think there are very many "RadFem" women, and I think that they embody a tiny minority of feminists. I consider myself to be a feminist, as I strongly support the equality of men and women and every other subdivision of humankind. My entrance to this topic was simply a response to crashfrog's incredulity that such extreme forms of feminism exist, as they in fact do, just as not all men are misogynist and not all misogynists are so extreme as to be rapists or to consider rape of women to be morally acceptable. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Yes.(Although, I do admit that i was making the assumption that the women I saw wearing the T shirts and waving the banners, were actually 'extreme feminists'. It seemed a reasonable assumption at the time.

This message is a reply to: Message 180 by crashfrogThis is really a more appropriate thread I think. Well I think there's a small, but noteworthy difference between 'Dawkins does not believe the situation is a problem.', and 'there can't be any such thing as a sexism problem in atheism so long as a single woman, somewhere is subject to worse sexism'.I'm not telling you that you were wrong, not entirely on every point. But you seem to write as if you held the misconception that Dawkins believed that lesser evils should be ignored where greater evils exist, when his position is that no evil took place to ignore or deal with at all. Yes, I'm aware. I don't think he suggests that the solution is to ignore it, even implicitly. He just doesn't believe there is a problem to begin with, or at least he didn't at the time of writing. In his defence, I'd probably use quick but flawed filters if I was receiving the sheer volume of words from people over the internet, especially in times of controversy. He does show willing to listen to reasonable arguments, 'Somebody made the worthwhile point (reiterated here by PZ) that it is no defence of something slightly bad to point to something worse'.

I'd say the guy was wrong.
Rebecca obviously took offense to the statement; therefore, he was wrong. Maybe it was a mistake, an accident... maybe he was trying to get a rise... it doesn't matter, it's wrong simply because it wasn't appreciated by Rebecca.
This is not to say that no guy should ever say this to any woman while in an elevator.
This is simply to say that elevator-guy shouldn't have said this to Rebecca Watson while in an elevator. Because, obviously, she didn't like it. I'd say Rebecca was wrong.
I would guess that the guy didn't appreciate being "raked over the coals;" therefore, she was wrong. Maybe there was no way for her to "be right", maybe she accidentally blew it out of proportion, maybe she had alternative motives... it doesn't matter, it's wrong simply because it wasn't appreciated by elevator dude (if it was, in fact, unappreciated).
This is not to say that no one should ever talk about how men can (or seem to) cause a fearful impact on women through their pick-up lines.
This is simply to say that Rebecca shouldn't have reacted this way to elevator-guy after this situation occured. Because, (if it is in fact true) elevator-guy doesn't appreciate being "raked over the coals."
I think it may very well be impossible for Rebecca to reject elevator-guy's proposal in a way that is "right"... in a way that doesn't hurt elevator-guy.
This isn't to say that Rebecca's a bad person in any way (to me, a good person attempts to be as good as possible, but mistakes happen).
I'm just saying that morality isn't easy or simple and sometimes there are situations where it isn't possible to "be nice" to everyone (or even "anyone") involved. We should always attempt to be as nice as possible, but if something went wrong it's only honest to acknowledge it as such. We should equally acknowledge that sometimes we can end up in situations where it's not possible to "be nice." That still doesn't mean we should stop trying.As for all those writing hate-speech to Rebecca, I think it's pretty obvious why that's wrong (it's easy to guess that Rebecca doesn't appreciate such comments).As for those writing hate-speech to elevator-guy, it's also pretty obvious why that's wrong (it's easy to guess that elevator-guy doesn't appreciate such comments).To me, the situation's right/wrong judgments make perfect sense given a few minor tips:1. It's okay to be wrong as long as you take in the new information and try to do better in the future. This, however, doesn't stop you from being wrong in that instance, it just shows that you weren't trying to be wrong on purpose.2. Morality is not absolute. There is not going to be a single one-liner that can be taken away from this situation. It will never be valid to say "all men should be able to proposition any woman like this!" or "all people should always respect women when they rake men over the coals like this!" Each situation is different and the only way to know if the unique actions was good/bad is to communicate with those who were affected. Everything else is only an attempt at being good.3. Morality isn't easy. There isn't always a way to get out of every situation and keep everyone happy. Sometimes you can't even keep anyone happy. Being good is about trying to be as good as possible, acknowledging when mistakes/errors have occured, and then continuing to try to be as good as possible with the new information you've learned. Constantly trying, constantly learning new ways to try harder. It's not easy, and it's not simple.So, who was more right or more wrong?I don't know how to answer this without just saying it's personal opinion. So take it for what it's worth.First off, I say it's easy to see that the anonymous emails to Rebecca (and to elevator-guy?) including rape and/or death-threats are clearly the far-and-away most-wrong in the situation. The situation in the elevator itself doesn't seem like too big of a deal. I think it's some level of "deal," but not very big. Certainly not warranting any amount of rape/death threats to either individual involved. That's just a sofa king facepalm.Out of Rebecca and elevator guy?
I would say that elevator-guy was more-wrong.

quote:

---

"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee."

---

The two sentences don't seem to line up for me. The first sentence seems to indicate that he wants to be sensitive to Rebecca's possible reaction to being propositioned by a man in the first place. But then the second sentence invites her to his hotel room? Are you kidding me? It just doesn't make sense. If you're trying to be sensitive, it makes sense to invite her to the lobby, or a coffee shop, or to forget coffee altogether and just ask her to chat somewhere public for a moment. As Judge Judy says "If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true."Edited by Stile, : A message isn't a true message without an edit.

Sure, it'd be fair to judge me on my forum posts.Would it be fair to judge me by Hooah's, though? That's the standard being used, here - Rebecca Watson is being judged by the forum posts of anonymous "feminists" she's not even associated with. T-shirts were what was claimed. If T-shirts are suddenly not terribly convincing, well, I'm not the one who suggested that one could identify an "extreme feminist" by their choice of garment. I disagree, and further I reject the notion that it's "bad behavior" to put forth a viewpoint that you, personally, don't agree with. I'm not sure I agree. You can't fight unfair privilege except by taking it away, and it's always going to be inherently unfair to take away privileges that others don't have, in the same way that a law against sleeping under a bridge isn't an equal burden for the wealthy man compared to the homeless man. Well, except that it's not. You've not quoted any feminist saying that "all PIV sex is rape." You've simply discovered examples of feminists arguing that heterosexual sexual activity is more burdensome for women than it is for men. A statement that is completely uncontroversial and trivially true. That's your "radical feminism"? I never made such an assertion, so of course I'm going to defend no such thing. Stop being ridiculous.

Not when Dawkins believes the situation is not a problem because there are other women in the world with bigger issues. Remember, his message wasn't written as though it was directed at Watson, it was written as though it was directed at "Muslima". We can't simply disregard that context - Dawkins' reply was meant to dismiss Watson's complaint by saying it wasn't as bad as undergoing ritual clitorectomy.It's actually pretty gross to use the issue of FGM as a whipping stick like that, especially in the service of disregarding a woman's concerns about how she's treated by the movement atheists organized in part by Dawkins' efforts. What an incredibly stupid thing to have done; I'm still amazed by it. Like I say, I'm puzzled by how you continually tell me I'm wrong and then restate my position. There's no daylight between these views. When you say that something that is a problem actually isn't a problem, you're ignoring the problem. Obviously if you're ignoring a problem, you do so by saying there's no problem there. It's like when you're not thinking of elephants. The way you do that is, your mind contains no thoughts about elephants; you don't actively try to not think of elephants (since that's a thought about elephants.) That's the gag behind "quick, don't think of an elephant."

Where, precisely, is this happening on EvC? What evidence would you find convincing as support for the claim that radical feminists exist? If neither words nor garments nor banners nor protests will convince you, it would appear that you are simply ignoring reality.Personally...if a person tells me that "men are obsessed with death and therefore necrophilia supports male power, and PIV intercourse is akin to rape," I'll think that person has rather extreme anti-male views. I think it's "bad behavior" to react to anti-woman ideology with anti-man ideology. This isn't physics, particles and antiparticles cancelling each other out (though the explosive reaction to the meeting of matter and antimatter can certainly hold an analogy).I think that it's "bad behavior" to react to bigotry by becoming a bigot of a different type.If bigotry is wrong, then bigotry is wrong, regardless of the target.Men are not less than women, women are not less than men. Neither men nor women are more good or evil than the other. Asserting otherwise is defamation of one or the other gender, and is wrong. But that's not even remotely my argument. Obviously excessive privilege must be taken away - that's the point of affirmative action, and that is not at all a form of fighting bigotry with more bigotry.My argument is that the proper response to the KKK is not to form a homicidal black supremacist movement. My argument is that the proper response to woman-hating is not man-hating.My argument is that the proper response to bigotry is to oppose that bigotry, regardless of the target. That means working to eliminate misogyny and racism and homophobia, but does not mean working to eliminate men or whites or Christians, as stereotypical examples.The form of bigotry found in the radical feminist movement is no less evil than misogyny, it's simply less pervasive and so has less real effect on society. When someone says that PIV intercourse is "a harmful cultural practice which harms women and benefits men," that person is going beyond simply stating that sexual activity is more burdensome for women. The key words would be "harmful cultural practice." This author is taking a more harsh stance than you are representing, by far...see the necrophilia quote, or for that matter read the rest of the blog. I'd quote more, but I'm at work now and cannot go to that site until I'm home again. You did, in fact, make that very assertion: You claimed that the radical feminist movement is "the invention of its detractors," and compared it to false reports of people urinating on veterans. You expanded on this assertion by saying that the radical feminist movement is likely the invention of "people claiming to be them...on the internet:" Have I grossly misunderstood your words, crash? Because it would appear to me that you specifically claimed, repeatedly, that there is no such thing as a real radical feminist, that such views are straw men created by their detractors. You've offered nothing whatsoever to support these claims, which are in actuality arguments from incredulity, while others have posted independent forms of evidence supporting the existence of radical feminism.Note that none of this has anything to do with Rebecca Watson, as neither I nor anyone else in this thread that I've noticed has suggested that she is a radical feminist, or that the views of radical feminists have any bearing on whether Ms. Watson should be "dismissed."Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Wait...What? Since when is the fact that the receiving party is offended by something the sending party said any indication of whether or not the sending party is wrong. Are you wrong when Christians get offended if you tell them you do not believe in god? Really?Women can stand up for themselves, can't they? They're strong and independant, aren't they? They have the ability to utter the words: "Sorry, no, not interested, please leave me alone", don't they?At least, the women I'm around do.

Sure they do.But it's understandable that a woman, alone in an enclosed space with a much larger man, might feel intimidated and uncomfortable.He doesn't even need to say anything necessarily. Hell, I'm 6'6" and I know that some people, particularly women, display uncomfortable body language just from my presence when alone with me in an elevator.And when I think of how I'd feel with an 8' tall man in an elevator with me, I don't entirely blame them for a little discomfort.Nobody is suggesting that Ms. Watson could not just decline the invitation. Her point as I understand it was that men are not always conscious of how threatening they can be unintentionally, and that this can lead them to make matters even more uncomfortable when they, say, invite the lone woman to another enclosed space with the man who already makes her feel mildly uncomfortable.I don't see any of that as unreasonable.

But that's the very view that Dawkins says he was not espousing. His message was meant to say that 'Muslima' faces actual misogyny, being asked to a hotel room for coffee is not actual misogyny. I think there's a difference betweena) between being aware of something, and choosing to act as if one is not.
b) being unaware of something.To be of the position that the 'solution' to the 'problem' is to 'ignore it' - one must be aware of the problem, and then consciously opt to act as if it wasn't there.Whereas I think Dawkins is suffering the common failings from his own position of privilege and background culture. He is truly oblivious to the problem. Or at least he was. He clearly gets some of the issues that women or families have to deal with: he did promise RDF funding for childcare at conferences for example. Yes, but if you are ignorant of a problem - you'd do likewise.

Yes, but htis isn't the man's fault, now is t. Not that you're saying it is. No, but the man, shouldn't be blamed for that uncomfortability either. The elevator guy probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why paint him as some evil dick. Decline his offer, tell him he made you feel uncomfortable, and then you'll know if he's a dick or not. Either he'll appologize and show that he really didn't mean any harm, or to make you feel unconfortable, or he'll be a dick a bout it. I don't see what all the fuss is about here.Then again, I do think people in general are far too emotional, and maybe that's my problem.

Just like I don't see it as unreasonable for a white person to clutch their belongings when in the presence of a black man or to cross the street when they see a black person approaching them. After all, black people statistically commit more crimes so they should be fine with the assumption that they are most likely a criminal.