I am continually amazed by people and their ability to be rational in one aspect of their life and the ability to completely ignore rationality in other aspects of their life. The example that I often see is people who are in evidence based professions, especially the ones that require the application of scientific rigor, that ignore the same critical thinking skills when it comes to their theism. However I now have a new shining example of this and it saddens me because he used to be a person I had a lot of respect for.
What Happened!?!?
The person I am talking about is Thundefoot of course. For the people who don’t know him, he is a scientist who has gained popularity on Youtube mostly by debating theists. Although debate may be a poor choice of term to describe what usually when on when he talked with these people. Evisceration perhaps? But I digress, this post isn’t really about that. It’s about what happened since he joined Free Thought Blogs. Thunderfoot decided to throw his hat into the ring in a controversy in the greater atheist community.
This controversy started when Rebecca Watson gave a talk at a skeptic conference about sexism and added personal antidotes about how being sexualized at these conferences creeps her out. Later that night (at 4am) she was at the bar and decided to call it a night. Unfortunately another attendee decided to tailgate her into the elevator and ask her to his room for “coffee” in an overt pickup artist move of cornering. When Rebecca Watson got home, she posted a video of experiences and talked about the cornering and said Guys, Don’t Do That. Apparently this act of defiance of male privilege was taking things too far and she was sent a shitstorm of death and rape threats by the skeptical community at large.
The saga continued up until this year’s convention where recently the organizer of the event had the gall to blame her for the extreme reduction of female attendees. And this is where Thunderfoot enters the equation. He entered with a blatant sexist joke with a picture of Darth Vader, jabbed with a “This isn’t a big problem” (correction , it read “*THIS REALLY ISN’T A BIG PROBLEM*”), a left cross of Talking About Sexism Is The Problem, Not Sexism, and delivered the knockout blow (paraphrased) So STFU About All This Stuff. It was a truly epic saga of bullshit.
After he got called out on this by P.Z. Myers he got all butthurt. And since then he’s been removed from Free Thought Blogs. And the butthurt continues. Once wonders where it will end. For more on this simply google elevatorgate.
TL;DR
Thunderfoot goes all sexist and then gets all butthurt when there is a blow-back from the womenz. Sad days for Bleatmop as someone he used to respect makes a mockery of himself.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
68 comments
March 23, 2014 at 11:09 am
Voidward
As you’ve mentioned this multiple times, I beg you, how does asking someone out for a coffee fail to meet the “barest level of decency.” Please. It seems like a basic way of expressing someone the intent to communicate and connect with them. What you implied above is that suggesting coffee is, in fact, possibly misogynistic and mere communication on an elevator is implicative of a threat on a woman’s life.
You’re then suggesting that this one woman’s personal, completely unjustified fears of rape over coffee means ALL men need to essentially stop communicating women in confined spaces because it fails to meet the “barest level of decency” and apparently disqualifies him from being a “decent human being”. I’m sorry am I missing something here? Did he say “drink my coffee or I’ll rape you?” Was he playing with a switchblade or rubbing his genitalia while suggesting coffee? In what universe does suggesting coffee violate basic human decency? Seriously, the fuck is wrong with asking someone out for coffee? I don’t even see how it would even be disrespectful unless there was some kind of harassment from his end for her refusing his request.
It’s not about believing or not believing the claims. I have never suggested she was lying about anything. It’s discerning whether the claims have a bearing on reality. Has anyone actually been raped at one of these conventions? Has it come close to happening? Because it sounds 100%, like these women are getting trolled and are, sorry, dumb enough to fall for it and feed the trolls. Everyone public gets trolled, most people are capable of dealing with it and moving on. The purpose of these people is to get under your skin, and assuming that everyone who says threatening things online is a legitimate rapist or murderer is beyond asinine.
How does this play out if the roles are reversed? If a woman asks a guy out for coffee in an elevator does that transgress basic human decency? What exactly is the appropriate way of people meeting each other according to you? I assume beer is out of the question, that’s just the guy trying to liqueur her up up date rape her I’m sure. Invite her to sit quietly in a room with no beverages? Ask for her email so he can send her a mail when they’re not forced into awful face to face human interaction?
“Nice to be male, isn’t it.” Wait so threats of murder are irrelevant to you? What? How on earth do you disregard constant death threats to the most prominent public atheist figure? I don’t even know how to respond to this. Are you under the impression that being an elderly male makes you impervious to sharpened steel and supersonic lead slugs? Are you seriously saying “fuck males, their concerns aren’t as significant as women’s”? Or are threats more serious when they’re against women than men? If so, I’d love statistics on this.
“Because you know the experience of women and how society treats them” NO. It’s because I know, 100% that no atheist is getting more death threats than Richard Dawkins. How are each of your responses so self-absorbed? Again you’re saying “fuck that guy, women have it worse.”
Seriously, every one of your responses comes off as “fuck men, woman have bigger problems, and how dare you question our demands.”
Lastly, how is ensuring that males never suggest sharing caffeinated beverages together address the “systemic features of sexist oppression and working to correct them” as you’ve suggested? Somewhere out there, a woman’s getting hit clitoris cut off or married off to a man she’s never met before even hitting puberty. Yet men asking them out for coffee is what western feminists are preoccupied with.
Please, I am so profoundly confused by how someone asking out a woman out for coffee is wrong. If nothing else, please answer me that. Please explain if there’s some proper courting ritual for feminists or if all social interaction may only be initiated by women for the safety of their feelings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 25, 2014 at 12:11 am
Reneta Scian
You don’t know because you don’t understand what it feels like, and if you realize something makes women uncomfortable doing it on purpose makes you one of the “problem children” we women have to worry about on a daily basis. Women don’t like being hit on in confined spaces, or just because we’re present. And the fact that you don’t and can’t understand that is because of the fact that you have the privilege to not have to worry about it. Try taking the time to understand before you ramble on about a subject which you have yet taken adequate time to evaluate. And let me ask you a question, as a woman who’s been accosted by men when I was a captive audience, why do you think I’d feel uncomfortable being asked out by someone who knows it would make me uncomfortable? Why would I protest someone else invading my space without asking me (essentially making heteronormative assertions about who I am, completely dismissing that I may have an identity or sexuality that differed from his assumptions)?
It’s a pretty KISS answer, really. Feminism is the purpose of women wanting to be treated like people, rather than as sexual objects for male consumption. Because in asking a woman out in a situation where she doesn’t want you to is just an indication of how big the problem is. And it wasn’t just Thunderfoot’s response to her that was problematic, but the male privilege laden nonsense that somehow he’s entitled to act like a privileged douché because “Hey, what’s the harm, right?” Because hitting on a strange woman is laden with patriarchal assertions. The Same Assertions your male privilege allows you to be oblivious too.
Every single assertion you made about this article is dripping with falsehoods. And I’ll tell you why. Yes, Atheists like Richard Dawkins get death threats, but women get every bit of that times 10 for being women, and if Atheism conversations are really about inclusion how women are treated is totally relevant, and not “Fuck that guy, women have it worse”. And hey, when was the last time someone threatened to rape you to death because you’re an Atheist? Get a clue.
LikeLike
March 25, 2014 at 12:38 am
bleatmop
Reneta – This guy doesn’t get it, or rather pretends that he doesn’t get it, because he doesn’t want to. Everything he says is a deliberate misinterpretation of what actually happened. He misrepresents that the issue is somehow men asking women out for coffee and then proceeds to beat that straw man to death.
Unfortunately for him that is not actually what happened. What happened was a guy hung around in a bar, watching a women all evening, having ample opportunity to introduce himself in a social setting and ask her out for coffee then. Does he do that? No. He waits until she leaves, alone, and then gets in an elevator with her and proceeds to ask her out for coffee in the wee hours of the morning. That’s what the issue is.
Ms. Watson handled it beautifully by not outing him but trying to educate the skeptical movement at large by simply saying “Don’t do that”. And what has been her response? Ridicule, threats and dude-bros like this douche that won’t ever let the issue drop, even years after it happened (as this post was originally done in 2012). Why? All because she challenged these dude-bros to not be creepy assholes. That it all. Every time we get a troll like this it makes me a little sadder but also emboldens me to fight against the systemic misogyny that fuels these dude-bros behavior. It’s also a little sad for me that to this day this post gets more views than any of my other posts on any given day. I pity those who harbor a hate for Mr. Watson so strong that they continue to look up posts about the incident and comment years later simply because she asked them to “not do that”. Sad. Sad. Sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 27, 2014 at 4:29 am
Origami84
Is this *your* pov on this story? Because i followed it since the very start, and i remember it quite differently. While RW original elevatorguy post was considered silly by some, it was mostly ignored in the beginning. It was only after that RW, while speaking at a convention, used a FEMALE blogger critique to her opinion on the “seriousness” of what you call an overt pickup artist move of cornering (please – i do remember the original proposal almost by memory. It was mostly this “Please dont take this the wrong way but i find you an interesting person and i would like to talk with you more. Would you like some coffe in my room”. Oh the horror of such vulgar forwardness!); anyway, it was only after RW slanted another female blogger opinion on this using it as an example of the hidden misoginy inside the movement that the shitstorm started. People noticed the story, made fun of it, she and her friends answered saying that those were more example of misoginy and yes, trolls appeared and made death and rape threats…. like trolls do since the dawn of internet towards everyone, male included (well, death and beating mostly, less rape threats towards male).
Here, this is a nice, long and accurate recap of what happened during it, Dawkins included: http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/elevatorgate/
As for thunderf00t and his being kicked out of FTB…. i dont know exactly what happened there. But, wasnt involved in it a lot of false accusations towards him and a certain “Laci” that were proven completely baseless, and for which he even received excuses, in the beginning?
LikeLike
March 28, 2014 at 12:53 pm
corhencorhen
Rebecca Watson jumped on the crazy train herself a while ago. When you start getting upset that people don’t identify with you, and burst into tears at the first socially awkward situation, maybe you deserve some level of scorn. Was the man in the wrong for the situation he put Watson in? absolutely. Did she handle it well? no, infact she compounded the problem, and then jumped immediately on the rape train…..
There are a lot of points that i disagree with Thunderf00t on, and i think he takes a lot of his points on criticism of feminism way too far… but i do feel that he also makes some good points. There are a lot of areas where the more hardcore feminists do real damage to their cause by hamming it up.
LikeLike
March 28, 2014 at 7:35 pm
Reneta Scian
The point here is context. In a space where she’d just discussed the issue with unwanted sexual advances of that type, a man chose to approach her when she was in a confined space anyway. To say, “I’m a man, and I’ll do what the fuck I want to”, which is also rape apologetics 101 mind you. Secondly, she never said the man was a rapist, just address that it was kind of creepy. Third, Thunderfoot got banned because his response to this critique was uncalled for and dripped with male privilege, and misogyny. How dare a woman tell a man that she doesn’t want him, was reiterated over, and over, and over throughout all the pedantic mansplaining that was going on?
It smacked of “Waaaah, but why can’t I do this? How is a man ever to get a date in a way in which he feels in charge (AKA manly)”, but here’s the straw-woman. She never said you couldn’t approach her, no heterosexual woman does (though generally all women are assumed to be heterosexual even if they aren’t, like myself. Moreover, I don’t know her sexual orientation.) She said essentially, have some tact about it. Show respect for me as a person, and for my space, identity and rights. That if you approach me under the right circumstances, in places where the power dynamic isn’t shifted against me in a way I feel unsafe, then it’s fine. Don’t approach me where I don’t feel safe. Respect my body language, and don’t assume because I merely exist in or near your space that I’m a valid target for your advances, or that proximity equals consent to that exchange in any way.
BOO FUCKIN’ HOO, to all you men who think that’s your God-given or inalienable right to hit on women wherever/whenever you like, because it’s not. Get off your privileged asses and stop complaining about what women don’t like about what you do, and start understanding why they feel that way. Go read some feminism 101 about the male gaze, the perceptions of femininity, and the objectification/commodification of the female body.
Even I ,as a lesbian, could respect any man who approached me in a respectable way and I’d respectably turn him down. But the mere act of rejection of male sexual advances is often enough on it’s own to elicit scorn. Because men feel entitled to women, as if we were a thing they were owed. That dynamic causes most men to be oblivious of how problematic their approach style is with regards to women, and they’re unaware of the their “objectification view of women”. Men don’t have to be aware of this, because their men (male privilege). But, women aren’t blind to this. We know because we live it every day we exist in the proximity of men.
This said, is Rebecca Watson perfect? No. She’s made mistakes recently with regards to her defending her right to use an ableist slur to define anyone she disagrees with on Skepchick.com, and disregarded any critiques of her behavior (also shutting down comments thread over it). Rebecca is very antagonistic, that’s just part of her behavior I’ve realized from watching her for years, but this doesn’t make her point invalid. Just because it’s inflammatory doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. But no man in the same situation would get the same degree of disapprobation she did, which is simply because of gender. And there is a common mantra in our culture that just because women (like myself) speak up and align with feminism, that some how we jumped on the man-hating, crazy train. But it’s utter bullshite, and it’s misogyny, raw and unabashed.
And lastly, “Women are not here for you. We live in a gender polarized world, yes. But, we are individuals with purposes, minds and desires of our own design. We’re here for ourselves. So, men, stop treating us as if our existence here or our identities as women is for your benefit. It’s not a novel idea that we are entities with agency, which is what objectification undermines by making us into mere objects for male adoration. Possessions and targets for the male pick-up artist. The fundamental basis of the patriarchy relies on that assertion, that women only exist with regards to their relationships to men, while men are allowed to be stand-alone possessors of agency. In fact, “to be a man” in our society’s norms it is nearly defined by the very act of exercising agency, whereas being a woman is nearly defined by a relationship of “surrendering that agency”, usually to men but also to societal constructs created and/or ran by men.
To not act with agency (to surrender it to another, especially a woman) as a man is to be unmanly (A “Yes” Man, Pussy Whipped, Gay, etc), and to act with agency as a woman is to be unwomanly (alternatively called: a Bitch, a Slut or a Whore, etc). In fact, even within groups of men, there is a hierarchy obtained through the forced/coerced feminization and subjugation of “less fit, unmanly men”. And I’m here to tell you this, “Woman” isn’t defined by its relationship to man. We are also agents fully capable of moving through the world, independently, without others governing our actions. The fact that we have to keep saying this is the exact reason why we still need feminism, regardless of the sharp critiques of feminist perspectives, or of the sweeping generalizations made from ignorance/privilege. We need it because in interactions with men we (women) are still expected to surrender agency to men, and are belittled, threatened with rape and violence, and defamed simply for speaking or acting counter to male agency.” – Anonymous
LikeLike
May 3, 2014 at 4:42 am
Voidward
Well I’m sorry for whatever happened to you. I really can’t comprehend what could be so terrible what you cannot help but label any man a rapist and enemy uncontrollably.
I do not comprehend how “I’d love to talk to you” implies unwanted sexual advances, which is how you labelled it. I do not comprehend how “please don’t take this the wrong way” is a domineering display of male privilege. I can only imagine that you’re conflating elevatorgate with some personal experiences where men were indeed huge assholes to you. This individual however, appeared to have went out of his way to try and not be an asshole, and didn’t follow it up in any way that your typical sexist alpha male would to being shot down by a girl he liked. He essentially was even asking permission to further communicate with her past that one statement. This is somehow so he feels manly and in charge? Seriously, alpha males would want to see as many people as possible that he asked her out and she said yes, your assessment here is just plain inaccurate.
The only thing that he supposedly did wrong as I’ve been told is timing and location. I can relate to how she would feel uncomfortable given the circumstances. I can’t relate at all to how you view the man’s intentions. Is there really no scenario to you where he either wasn’t aware this was inappropriate or felt like he had no other choice?
I’d just like to propose some empathy for what you unquestionably see as an enemy unworthy of consideration. What if the kid in the elevator was extremely socially awkward? What if he doesn’t normally talk to people and was extremely afraid of being laughed at in public if he talked to her at the bar? What if he was abused when he was young (I know, it only happens to women) and has extreme trouble trusting people?
Let’s take it a step further. What if he on the autism spectrum. What if he didn’t even comprehend that asking someone for coffee at 4 am in an elevator was inappropriate, and on top of that, he actually needed to step extremely out of his comfort zone to even talk to a girl. If someone who is autistic were to picture themselves in that situation, they might very well have have a pretty negative opinion of someone who then publicly broadcasts what they might interpret as “don’t you dare take the risk to communicate with other people, you’ll get ridiculed online for even attempting it.” Sure, that’s would be pretty silly. Perhaps equally as silly as implying some type of misogyny from someone wanting to chat with another person in an elevator.
You’re seriously just slathering this person you don’t know as every negative male attribute you seem to have in your pocket. Why? How can you so precisely pin his actions and motivations on male privilege and disrespect for women?
The core problem I have with most extreme feminists such as yourself, is that they demand people see things from their perspective when they lack perspective themselves. Sure, huge assholes exist, in both gender, why label all males that way? You’re actually stereotyping males by default as the enemy. How exactly is that any better than labelling all women as weak, incompetent and undeserving of the same respect as males? Is this some type of revenge strategy? Is the hypocrisy just not something that registers? Or is it justified because women have been oppressed so for so long?
If your goal is for men to respect women, the worst thing you could possibly do is to uniformly disrespect all men, which is exactly the approach you appear to be choosing. Maybe you feel this isn’t the case, but really, that’s the message I’ve been seeing you hammer in over and over. Either we all respect each other, or equality is just bullshit that means nothing.
Your flippant statements of what is essentially “fuck him, he’s a man” have kind of sealed the deal. I realize now that I can’t have rational discourse with someone who unconditionally sees me as incapable of rational thought or empathy due to how I was born.
Thanks for the talk, hope you manage to get over whatever happened to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 3, 2014 at 9:43 am
The Arbourist
@Voidward
How do you tell if a man is a rapist? One cannot. They do not wear signs, not do rapists advertise the fact that they, indeed, do rape women.
So then what is a logical course of action to take when meeting with men? \The precautionary principle comes to mind and thus it would be wise to assume that until otherwise confirmed, that dude “x” could be a rapist and act accordingly.
This is not some sort of inscrutable ploy, just the sad reality that women face in their dealings with men in society.
What if he had a taster and zipties in his pocket? The hypothetical games is fun, shall we continue?
Let’s not. Attempting to justify shitty behaviour because of mental illness “X” is a disservice to people with mental illness. It isn’t a free pass.
Because until it is determined that *you* are not an asshole is the most logical and safest way for *us* to interact with you.
So, this isn’t about you, this is about how women have to act with regards to men as a class.
So, women trying to be act in a way that preserves their safety is hypocrisy? Fascinating.
No. The goal is to safely exist in society. Assumptions are made to ensure our safety within a culture that does not strongly condemn the rape and victimization of women.
LikeLike
May 3, 2014 at 8:17 pm
VR Kaine
“Correct. The current phase of feminism is rife with discord as much of the liberal feminist perspective has been co-opted and has lost focus”
Curious – when you say “co-opted”, by whom?
“Addressing the systemic features of sexist oppression and working to correct them.”
While we’ve often discussed/debated “approach” here, I do agree. The positions of Mr. Voidward, however, represent one of the gaps (I believe) that need to be bridged and to me it raises the question: does one side need to up their perspective and understanding on the issue, or do both sides in order to make (faster, better) progress on addressing the issue?
Again, just curious. The topic has come up in some recent discussions with women which drew me back to this comment/post.
LikeLike
May 3, 2014 at 10:13 pm
Voidward
@The Arbourist Then the hypocrisy is lost on you.
If you feel you’re justified in assuming every man’s a rapist or misogynist by default with no valid reason then men are equally justified in assuming that women are incompetent idiots who don’t deserve respect. You’re doing the exact thing you’re claiming you want to abolish. Your behaviour is abhorrent and you’re not ever going to come close to acknowledging what you’re doing.
The only point of view you see as valid is your own. You’re the Yang to the asshole misogynists’s Yin. You’re only against it in the same sense that you’re the mirror image, with the same attitude about the opposite viewpoint.
Your only answer to misogyny is misandry. You think you’re completely justified in just countering bile with venom.
Thank you for so perfectly explaining what Thunderf00t means when he says “Feminists poison everything.”
I wish to distance myself equally as far from you as I would from a misogynist. This conversation has nowhere to go from this point. There is no reason to common ground to be found here.
LikeLike
May 6, 2014 at 11:38 am
The Arbourist
@Vern
Used by men to further their own ends. The sexual revolution was mostly about dudes getting more access to woman’s bodies while keeping the same system that maintained inequality among the sexes.
The other ideas that have become ingrained in much of liberal feminist thought spawn from the boilerplate of our capitalistic culture. Individual freedom (to buy whatever you’d like) and equality (if you happen to be in the right socioeconomic class).
The goal of what now we term radical feminism is to free women from the societal structures of oppression. Thus, it is a ideological position that has a firm historical basis for examining (and refuting) the class based sexist oppression that is systemic in our society.
The problem with being all grrl-power and rallying for ‘equality’ in society is that social change does not work that way. Empowered individuals may do well for themselves but mostly are ineffectual with regards to lessening the oppression of women as a class. As for equality – what does equality look like in a society that maintains the same patriarchal/sexist structures and notions. It just doesn’t work. To affect societal change, one needs to deal with changing the structures of society (liberating women so to speak) that oppress certain classes.
Women have been *very* accommodating of men’s point of view since well, forever. The notion that women need to somehow accommodate the status quo, the very apparatus of their oppression, seems a bit counter intuitive no?
LikeLike
May 6, 2014 at 12:07 pm
The Arbourist
@Voidward – (repost from my initial comment to you)
” V: I really cannot grasp how a man asking out a woman for coffee in an elevator is some form of misogyny.”
Arb: Well that’s awesome.
1. Is everyone’s experience in society the same as yours? (yes/no)
2. Does the experience of others matter? (yes/no)
3. If someone else has a differing experience in society is it equally a valid point of view as yours? (yes/no).
The answers to the above questions should be no, yes, yes. If they are not, you won’t find an answer that will satisfy you here. ”
And here we land, likely with conclusion mentioned above.
But since I have some time, here we go just for the shitz and gigglez.
1. How do you tell a rapist from a non-rapist?
2. What is the criteria a woman should use?
3. With regards to personal safety is the precautionary principle ill advised when dealing with possible life threatening situations?
Answer to number one – you can’t tell a rapist from a non rapist.
Answer to number two – the criteria used by women must be biased toward her personal safety because false positives are inherently less dangerous to her than false negatives.
Answer to number three – No, the precautionary principle and by extension Schrodinger’s Rapist though experiment is a valid way for women to deal with social situations.
So, Mr.skeptic there is your foundation based in the logic and reality of what women are presented with in our society. Thus, a logical and valid reason exists for using a thought schema like Schrodinger’s Rapist.
Men not respecting women in society or treating them fairly is not a particularly new or recent phenomena.
Advocating for the safety of women and the dismantling of the sexist status quo? Hey, dude, guilty as charged.
The use of binary examples is kinda poetic, but not particularly relevant to what we are discussing. You need to explain why its not okay for women to take precautions that will increase their personal safety (safely ignoring the larger more important issue that men should be taught not to rape in the first place). That is what we’re talking about here.
Getting TF’s knickers in a knot because he is a defender of the shitty status quo is a feather in my cap. If it offends you that I want to dismantle the system that favours *you* and oppresses *me* it might just behoove you to find out why and how said system works instead of blithely trotting out the same reactionary defense that all quasi intellectual, hyperskeptical dudes do at this point.
Did I not explicitly point this out? Could have saved us both some time if you’d honestly answered the first three questions I posed to you (see the original comment and the requote in this reply).
LikeLike
May 6, 2014 at 1:11 pm
bleatmop
@Arb – I’m not sure if you chopping block (that is you are reliable and willing to take a ton of abuse) or if you just like that challenge, but I am continually impressed at your willingness to interact with those that come to this post looking not for debate but instead to get a response so they can completely ignore everything said or asked by you and instead simply mansplain to us simple folk about how right they are and wrong we are. However I do believe you missed one important point out of VW’s last response to you. That being:
“Your only answer to misogyny is misandry.”
It kinda seems to me that VW conceded that point there that what we are talking about is indeed misogyny indeed. He’s just mistaken that women taking steps to protect themselves from potential rape situations is not misandry. However, I’m not all that surprised as those in favor of the status quo always have tons of double standards. Slut if you have sex with me, prude if you don’t et al. now have a new companion in the misogynist book of double standards. Stupid idiot that didn’t protect herself from rape (and probably provoked it with all her having breasts and sexual organs and whatnot) if she gets raped, misandrist if she does.
Life must be great living in their world eh?
LikeLike
May 6, 2014 at 3:16 pm
VR Kaine
@Arb,
“Women have been *very* accommodating of men’s point of view since well, forever. The notion that women need to somehow accommodate the status quo, the very apparatus of their oppression, seems a bit counter intuitive no?”
I don’t think it’s about accomodating at all, but rather, understanding and there’s a big difference. For one, better understanding can actually mean that one has to in fact accomodate less and can turn a situation more to one’s advantage than the compromise normally associated with “accomodating”.
Plus, telling the other side that theirs has done enough and it’s their turn now never works, no matter how right the one side may be. It’s a foolish tactic among many that seem to be employed. My work deals in change and change psychology, and what I see in the Atheist movement surrounding understanding and inclusion that’s leading to change is what I see NOT happening in the new(?) “radical” feminist movement. That’s partly why I find the TF discussion so interesting. Why achieve so much on the Atheist side in dismantling Christianity’s stranglehold on culture in the past 10 years yet achieve so little as far as moving the feminist cause forward? One can argue beliefs, structure, rules, norms, etc. but many in the strategy world would consider those all excuses for failure.
Regardless, you answered my question – thanks. :)
LikeLike
May 6, 2014 at 7:04 pm
Reneta Scian
Voidward, you don’t comprehend how “I’d like to talk to you, even though I am aware the situation I chose to do so in uncomfortable” because you don’t live in a world where the chances of rape are astronomically high. You don’t live in the world women live in, so you have the privilege to be “oblivious”.
Hypothetical situation: In a foreign country, you’ve been made aware there is a cult that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, and that all cult members are notorious for wearing blue bandanas and white t-shirts. However, blue bandanas are also popular in that country, with as many as 25% of the population wearing them. This country is a manufacturing country that produces as much as 5 – 15% of the world’s white t-shirts, making those a quite common market item as well. While preparing to go to this country you learn that the “Blue Bandanas Cult” is raping men, at nearly a rate that is 25 – 30% of the total population with unreported rape rates likely being even higher, but due to a cultural attitude about most people turn a blind eye to this. Your job, in some sense, depends on you being willing to do business negotiations in this nation. You’re also informed that stairwells are very dangerous for the above mentioned reasons by co-workers, who from your department of 20 who know 5 men who have been raped in this country on business trips like the one you’re on.
You are a businessman on a conference in this country because of the enormous capital to be had by producing goods in this nation. You also recently underwent a medical procedure which has left you physically weakened, and mildly anemic. It’s not enough to prevent you from doing your day to day, but it makes you notably weaker than your male counterparts.
After the major part of the conference, you take the elevator to your room. A man with a blue bandana and a white t-shirt with a print on it gets in the elevator and asks you if you want to go and have a drink with him. Aware of the situation, do you just assume he’s friendly? Or do you assume he’s a potential threat? In your physical state, you know you can’t resist him, and if he has friends nearby (as this is his home turf) you know you’re in danger. To you slough off this threat? I mean, honestly, how could you? Nearly a quarter of the men in your department alone had been raped while visiting this country. So tell me, given the information, is the man just being friendly, or is he a threat?
That is the reality (though dramatized and altered to make a point) that women live in, every… single… day. Accept we women don’t have blue bandanas or white shirts to point out who our attackers may be. Our attackers have no such affiliation, and they do have the apathy of our culture to permit them to perpetrate their crimes. We aren’t as strong, if we are caught of our guard even those of us who are will be defenseless to stop it. Rape happens faster than you believe, and easier than you know it. Rape isn’t about sex, or sexuality… It’s about power. Everywhere we go, the rape rates affect 1 of 4 women we meet. The threat is very, very real. And men are the perpetrators of those crimes, and without a clear way to know who’s a threat and who isn’t, everyone is a potential rapist. It’s safer to think that way, than to believe otherwise. This is our reality. Except, we can’t escape it, because there is no where we are safe. There is no place where we can’t or will never be raped.
And I’ll tell you this, straight up… The moment you invade my bubble because you feel you want to be “Friendly” when I’m sending you every sign that I don’t to be bothered, you move to the top of my threat list. Because misogyny is the nearly universal calling card of rapists. They believe we belong to them, that we are theirs for the taking… And just being a woman is enough to provoke them into raping us. That is the culture we live with, every day. And you know what? We still live in a culture that believes it’s our fault if we get raped, and it doesn’t matter where we are, or what we’re wearing (contrary to popular belief). I can be raped just as easily in blue jeans and a t-shirt, as I can in a dress and heels. We women have every right to see a man approaching us when we aren’t safe, when we can’t flee, as a potential threat. And the onus isn’t on women to avoid being raped, but on men to not rape us. Because, as I’ve said before, and will say again… No where is safe, if you’re a woman.
Voidward, when you ignore the facts about the world women live in, it’s easy to claim we’re fear mongering, or being misandrists. When you face the facts, you can’t claim that. And if you do, then you are a deluded fool.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 7, 2014 at 9:54 am
VR Kaine
In college there still needs to be safe-walks for women between campus and their dorms. When you work in a bar, all women are still required to have a male escort to their car end of shift- no exceptions. Until that changes, nobody can tell me that one side bitching is making things worse. What’s making it worse is that men (boys) are still raping.
Yes, I get that on the other side there are men and women who want to over-identify as victims. (I don’t mean the actual victims of rape, I mean males or females from a distance who want to over-identify with the issue). These men and women have achievement issues, identity issues, connection issues, mommy & daddy issues, whatever – I get it. So what? We can dwell on these individuals’ issues and how overblown they are from our respective positions, or or we can deal with the actual problem which is rape and how to put it out of the realm of possibility.
I’m a guy where the thought of such violence hasn’t, and will never cross my mind as a possibility in any situation. Does it suck to hear about false rape allegations, or about how just by me getting into an elevator I may be assumed to be “that potential guy”? Sure does! But when I read headlines like this one: “Attacker gets 45 days for rape” (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/05/justice/texas-rape-sentence/) I can’t think, even for a second, “poor me” or such selfish thoughts of how I might be “perceived” as a result of this article just because i”m a man. I also have to catch myself proclaiming, “Well I’D never do it!” because that’s just allmost as selfIsh. It isn’t about me – it’s about a poor victim, and what a male friend, brother, or father could have done to stop or prevent such a horrific act somewhere along the line. The issue isn’t that I’d never do it – the issue is that someone did.
Let’s keep that the problem and the victims the people who it’s actually happened to, not the men and women trying to hitch a free ego ride on it.
LikeLike
May 7, 2014 at 3:43 pm
syrbal-labrys
My, I barely know where to begin…I started intending to comment on the monumental issues of the post. But then the comment above distracted me, because it sort of says to me, “If it didn’t happen to YOU, shut up already”? Perhaps that was not the commenter’s intent at all — it seems a bit unclear to me. But the line about what “male friend, brother or father” could do to prevent rape? Why only males? Are all us women to await our white knights?
Me? Myself, a onetime victim of rape, a many-tiimes verbally assaulted sort used to fighting back verbally AND physically at need? I’m a lot more than a bit tired of being told to shut up by men.
I think people need to talk a LOT about this topic, even if they are going to get accused of taking an ego ride. Because the more conversation, the more deconstruction of “things as they are” happens to dismantle some male-exceptionalism that makes “female concerns” into HUMAN concerns in a world where only half the world is seen as sacred enough to merit…well, MERIT.
LikeLike
May 8, 2014 at 12:15 pm
VR Kaine
Hi Syrbal,
Sorry if you took my comment that way. Without the context of the MRA-guy’s comments i can see how it may have been interpreted differently than I intended. Granted we may still disgaree, but here’s further clarification on my position:
“It isn’t about me – it’s about a poor victim, and what a male friend, brother, or father could have done to stop or prevent such a horrific act somewhere along the line. The issue isn’t that I’d never do it – the issue is that someone did.”
You replied:
“But the line about what “male friend, brother or father” could do to prevent rape? Why only males? Are all us women to await our white knights?”
Not at all. Report, fight, discuss – whatever can and needs to be done. My point was that many of us men are too concerned first with how things that happen to women make “us” look bad as males, and we start to defend our manhood or “white knightism” which effectively skews the discussion and takes our eyes off the real problem which is that a girl got raped.
On the white knightism specifically, though, let me add this: I do believe us men – whether as male friends, brothers, fathers, or partners need to step up more. The other day my 11-year old nephew made a comment about how “hot” Miley Cyrus was. He didn’t say “beautiful” or “attractive”, he said “hot” and when I asked him what he meant by that word exactly, even though he didn’t have the words for it he didn’t mean “pretty” he meant hot as in sex appeal. I know of many fathers (my own included) who would have dismissed that as “normal” behavior and I probably would have too way back, but I don’t anymore. To me, much of the future “rape prevention” starts with fathers more properly raising their boys in those sideline chats moms are rarely privy to.
In reference to the other comment: “Let’s keep that the problem and the victims the people who it’s actually happened to, not the men and women trying to hitch a free ego ride on it.” For some men and women, jumping on the Patriarchy issue on either side serves as a vehicle for them to meet their emotional identity need, and connection need. It’s not uncommon to find men who hate women because “they’re all feminists” when the truth is that they simply have been rejected too many times for their liking and can’t figure out why. Likewise, there are women who hate men because “they’re all chauvinists” when the same is also true. I think a lot of the MRA beefs are really Displacement in disguise but I think to a lesser degree, some women are guilty of this, too. Either way, peoples’ displacement takes the eye dangerously off the ball arguing righteousness and sore egos instead of discussing solutions.
LikeLike