There is something so inherently pious and religious in morbidly dwelling on the perceived moral shortcomings of others.
It is a rather unfortunate habit being picked up more and more by those I describe as the New, New Atheists – the unwashed masses that have ridden into town on the coattails of the New Atheist vanguard and have the newfound bravado of the herd, and consequent shamelessness in declaring their existence to the world. The unfortunate downside, as with any kind of populism, is that the bad usually equals or exceeds the good.
There is no shortage of petty drama and moral panic being whipped up by these newcomers – they are proving they can more than go toe-to-toe with their theist counterparts as far as shrieking, indignant outrage goes. It is almost a daily occurrence – somewhere, some kind of new hysteria is brewing. From TamTamPamela making jokes about Pat Robertson that flew over everyone’s heads, to cretins that still can’t wrap their minds around what Google actually does, the fear-n-loathing never sleeps.
Happiness is a warm scapegoat. Nothing makes a person feel purer than decrying impurity in others. I can’t think of a better root cause for the religious impulse than this dumbness, but it is also a testament to how deeply ingrained into our species’ psyche it is that the godless cling to this same kind of addiction to villifying those that transgress the tribal taboos – the new secular heretics – with the same mindless tenacity. The more things change, the more they stay the same as the saying goes.
The latest moral panic / fart-in-a-bathtub comes, rather depressingly, via Skepchick’s Rebecca Watson, who you could be excused for expecting to be above such trite gamespersonship1. In this case exploiting a perceived atrocity against that most terrifying of socio-theo-politico-morasses: the sacred temple of the divine yoni and all of its sensitivity and delicateness. A blasphemy against the purity of the holy of holies, the supreme goddess-hood, the sublime and perfect eternal feminine, the über-she who’s poop smells like cinnamon buns…
Yeah, perhaps that is stretching the point. But there is no other way to try and get a handle on the way conventional reality simply vaporises and all commonsense ceases to play any role when the deadly combination of pussy, circumstance, insecurity and a readily available male patsy to blame everything on combine in surreal Grand Guignol – especially when the masses rally behind it and give it a good head of indignant steam. This is all grist for the misandrist blog industry, but it is particularly disheartening seeing it become such a staple amongst the godless and allegedly “freethinking” rationalist communities.
The nutshell synopsis, in Watson’s own words, can be viewed in a video she posted to her own site. The pontification commences ~3 minutes in and pads out the bulk of the rest. What’s interesting in itself is that it includes a denunciation of the patriarchal collaborator, gender traitor and heretic Paula Kirby – so any claims that all of this was just an after-the-fact anecdote, and not a contrived spectacle to piggyback on the vulgar “atheist misogyny” meme that’s been rammed down our throats for years now, are moot. It’s the kind of unnecessary detail you add only if are seeking to turn a story into a sermon.
So Watson got propositioned by a drunk… Wow. The sky is falling. Actually, even the “propositioned” part is debatable. A guy sent out a tentative feeler to gauge a response seems to be closer to actuality – and the feeler was demurred, at which point he backed out and offered no further nuisance. Creepy how adults do stuff like this isn’t it? And most adults, being adults, would have left the matter at that and forgotten about it – perhaps at worst, making a mental bookmark about that person for future reference to make sure that there is no subsequent ambiguity about the lack of interest.
But we’re not talking about ordinary adults. We’re talking about folks who’s bread and butter is blog hits, public reaction and speaking engagements. The cynical, upon musing, may start to have some really blasphemous thoughts – such as at the end of the day, who is actually exploiting who here?
Watson did what, in hindsight, is actually predictable, even pragmatic – turned the whole episode into a web circus. A Jerry Springer episode for the sensitive, highbrow end of town. All it needed was the magic secret ingredient – the all purpose “female objectification” shtick – and voila! It’s no longer a drunk in an elevator. It’s the patriarchal conspiracy. It’s no longer just a dumb incident. It’s further evidence of a movement in deep ideological crisis. This is manufacturing dissent. Witchdoctors inventing demons in the shadows to scare children into submission. This is wanton catastrophism as desperate response to a state of existential nihilism. Somebody should tell the drunk – the guy is always the last one to know… After all, he (whoever “he” is) is now forever enshrined in the atheist misogyny hall of fame – and the rest of us with the dangly bits are tarred with the same brush whether we like it or not.
Oh dear. My misogyny is leaking. Fancy that? Let’s leave these considerations here for the moment. This line of inquiry will only end in more pointless, and very righteous, indignation if pursued – the infallible and sin free never like being told they are naked.
But what I would really like to ask Watson is this – can she honestly claim to never in her life, herself, perhaps drunkenly, made a pass at another person that was neither called for nor appreciated? Ever? We can safely assume that Watson will probably claim “no”. We can also all pretend to believe her. But can she confidently assert the same for the army of urgers standing behind her? That really would stretch credulity to breaking point.
Face it – we’ve all (at least the honest amongst us), regardless of gender or sexual orientation, either done it ourselves, had it done to us, or most likely, both. I’ve even been vomited on by an unwelcomely amorous female2. So what? Has anybody died? No. Has society collapsed as a result? No. Does anybody even remotely care? For non-maniacs, again the answer is no. Then what is the point of turning a mosquito bite into a festering wound? And what is the point of throwing stones in glass houses? Ah, but this is different… no it’s fucking not. Just because it involves a celebrity skeptic does not in and of itself build a case for exceptionalism. There are gigabytes of blogorrhea out there claiming different, but it is no fucking different. Get over it.
One of the first of the big name blogs to have waded into this miasma of socio-neurotic angst was Pharyngula (1282 comments and closed) – and if smarmy chic is more your thing, MeFi (1100+ comments and still growing at 20-30 an hour). It all makes for excruciating reading. But it is Pharyngula3 that really poured the petrol on the fire when Richard Dawkins offered his own comment.
What Dawkins said largely echoes my own thoughts when I read about this kind of ritual gender self-mortification. It was barbed, succinct and very, very pertinent. It also flew way over the heads of all who’s first, and only, concern was whipping themselves up into as righteously indignant a lather as possible. It was what I would imagine Voltaire or Diderot would have injected into the argument were they unfortunate enough to be around to witness it. Here it is in its poetic entirety, addressing a hypothetical, probably northern African correspondent –
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard
New cerebral heights - the response to Dawkins
Hammer.Nail.Head.
Dawkins is a dinosaur, a point robotically parroted in response. That may be so – he is an old school Freethinker, a subscriber to the principles and philosophies espoused by the Enlightenment forebears who had zero tolerance for nonsense, sophistry and deformed ideological manipulations. Unlike the modern “freethinkers” who are essentially free from thought itself, having been raised by education systems that drill it home that all opinions are equal, and feel neither inhibition nor shame at spouting whatever gibberish makes them feel good and raining hellfire on those that dare to critique from an endless dictionary of -ists and -isms. This is a point not even considered in the dog-pile that has greeted Dawkins’ intrusion without even the slightest skerrick of either respect or reason. Dawkins’ response was as appropriate as it was clever – and this burns, oh yes it burns, because really, there is no come back to it.
Shia islam and fem-bot victim fetishists: not entirely dissimilar
I sympathise with Dawkins in the deepest way possible. I can feel his sense of futility and frustration. As one of the Four Horsemen that have brought atheism out of the shadows, it must be so depressing to survey the landscape now and behold a sea of sensitivity awareness madrassa graduates not only dominating the stage, but shouting down and demonising all that cross their path. He would have been quite aware of the futility of speaking up in the face of this kind of fundamentalism, but similarly, he knows full well that silence in the face of idiocy is admission of defeat. For better or worse, he succumbed to temptation. And I applaud him for that. I suspect he now regrets opening his mouth, and I can’t really blame him for that either. If only some of this would rub off on PZ – who simply takes all such sorry tales as unquestionable gospel and promotes them out of rather naive good nature, his patented iron-skepticism shelved for such exceptionalist causes.
We have allowed a culture of social nihilism that believes its own bullshit, and a slave morality, too crippled to raise itself up – instead seeking to drag all around it down, to envelop us and now it is dictating its terms of occupation to us. Dissent of any kind from the newly established dogmas is prohibited and will be mercilessly persecuted – not for the sake of any reasoned sense of justice or 
common good, but for the law of the mob and public shaming, humiliation and good old fashioned shunning. This is a cultural perversion born of society that has grown so fat, complacent and aimless in its own comfort and sloth, it no longer knows what it is supposed to feel guilty about – so it fabricates sins to punish out of shadows. And the cherry on top is that here we also have sex involved – now there is atheist reactionary neopuritanism to deal with as well. It’s all so like a Victorian melodrama from the 30’s, I can almost see the “I do declare!” followed by a swoon over an outrageous indecency…
No wonder the islamists find it so easy to stir up hatred and resentment of the West.
The worst aspect of all of this derangement by far though is that there isn’t even a shred of credibility or consistency about this moral hairshirt that Watson and her cheer squad want to force on society. The larger reality, when you step back and catch your breath, is a schizoid roulette wheel of inconsistent gibberish. Consider the following item from Jezebel –
Why Shameless Objectification Can Be A Good Thing
– which is quite a devious exercise in sophistry explaining why one kind of poop smells less nasty than another, and is therefore acceptable.
I have no problem with this article and all power to Jezebel for indulging themselves. But what I do have a problem with is that both Skepchick and Watson are Jezebel fans. So the decent thing for Watson to do is to clear the air with her characteristic honesty and candor. Either –
- condemn Jezebel with the same righteous flatus she reserves for the penis enhanced, or
- admit to not objecting to objectification per se, just objectification she doesn’t like (ie. of chicks), and thereby risk accusations of hypocrisy (which is OK, that can be blamed on hormones or the rag or some other chick thing), or
- simply retract all of the crap blurted out this far, admit she doesn’t care about anybodies objectification and that this was all just an attention whoring exercise.
If we’re going to be playing the moral high ground game, slandering 50% of the population and laying the guilt trip squarely at their feet, then setting the record straight is not all that much to ask once someone calls shenanigans.
And then when she’s through fessing up, perhaps she could have a crack at why female journalists insist on filling our media with Where Have All The Real Men Gone? stories with such monotonous regularity. I mean, if we’re going to stay to true histrionic form, isn’t stuff like this tantamount to incitement for rape?
And speaking of “rape”, there’s also one in the “too hard” basket – it’s been there like, forever… What are we guys supposed to do when our she-critters pester us for rough sex, or, gasp, start hinting at surprise, forced sex scenarios that they are too polite to call rape fantasy? This kind of shit really does make me uncomfortable to say the least, but I can’t really say its rare. And the truly bizarre thing here is it tends to be more common amongst the fem-bot activist end of town. I can’t say I’ve ever heard these types of ideas come from any of the harder, independent, self-reliant women that like to make a point of not identifying as feminists (which is a sad aversion reaction to having endured too much of the kind of nonsense Watson is peddling – they are loathe to have anything to do with it).
What are guys supposed to do with such a plethora of seemingly arbitrary, inconsistent mixed messages? It just seems lose/lose/lose all round. But maybe that is the whole point? Create an environment in which no matter what the circumstance, no matter the what or how or where, the goalposts can be moved on the spur of the moment to make the male 100% wrong about absolutely everything 100% of the time. Is this the actual final aim of the kind of games that Watson et al. are indulging in? It makes as much sense as any other theory.
Unfortunately, the real longer term result is going to be much different and far simpler. Males are simply going to stop caring. There are only so many times the little girl can cry wolf before people stop believing her. Sure, there will always be a pool of genuine morons to use and abuse on a whim, but there’s only so much the majority will endure. Even worse, larger and larger numbers of women are expressing similar disgust at these staged theatrics and retrograde neo-puritan stupidities. Seriously Watson, just what in the fuck is it that you want? It’s not genuine equality – that is plain as day. If there was equality, and you felt worthy of it, I could call you a stupid cunt and you would react as an individual and not a collective, and be too self-respecting to play the gender card about it. That will never happen, so neither will the equality – its the last thing you want. A collectivised matriarchal hive seems more on the agenda – not an individual autonomy friendly space by any stretch of the imagination at all.
But failing that, I think Watson is happy in her current little niche cocoon, with a steady audience of the already converted and a good selection dupes like PZ to keep the publicity engine turning over (unfortunately, Dawkins has now bowed out), and the conference circuit with its unspoken policy of demonstrable “inclusivity” to stem at least some of the whining. No I think it’s a pretty good place to be in – and the last thing Watson would ever want is actual change. It would derail the gravy train.
So gents, and actual ladies, I wouldn’t be holding our breaths for this nonsense to be ending any time soon. Get some morphine.
1 – Though apparently not. A female acquaintance accompanied a male presenter to a recent TAM and had the “honour” of sharing the same socialising space with Watson and co. for much of the time. Whilst they were excruciatingly polite, to the point of being fawning, to her partner, as a non-contributor, they “spent the entire time frowning down their noses like I was shit on the sidewalk”. This chick is definitely no dummy that would warrant such attitude, and it really goes to show that those that are most vociferous in demanding respect for themselves tend to be highly selective in how they reciprocate it. No gain, no point is there? Should look up “narcissism” in the cesspit of lies some time. Here is just one snippet of the kind of dismissive contempt shown to other women that dare to speak out of turn and question –
I was pretty frustrated, seeing a young woman who I’m sure is intelligent be so incredibly dismissive of my experience and that of other women in this community, and so uneducated about the fundamentals of feminist thought.
Quite amazing – feminist misogyny for the sake of combating misogyny. Cognitive dissonance shoves its head up its own ass and implodes.
2 – OK, I am guilty of repeating the vomit story, but only for amusement, never with names and never for the sake of bogus moral posturing.
3 – As much as I love PZ Myers, his consistency leaves a lot to be desired. Whilst he may have the spine of a Triceratops when facing down the Catholic Church, it is disturbing to see how easily it turns into credulous jello as soon as gender politics come into the picture.
grey lining 
July 10, 2011 at 1:36 am
Any gender can make a pass at any other gender awkwardly. I generally don’t penalize someone for asking…once. I won’t know their question and they won’t know my answer until they ask. Think of people who never had the guts to ask someone out and years later find out that person also liked them. That isn’t the case most of the time but when people are discouraged from asking, it will happen all the more. At worst the guy didn’t have social skills or didn’t pick up on nonverbal cues, which are all good things to learn, but I don’t see it as an example of misogyny.
July 10, 2011 at 2:02 am
The question really begs – what happens if everyone stops making passes at everyone? What then? Arranged coupling by 3rd parties? What other option is there? When you strip away the nonsense and pseudo-intellectual babble, there is only one real solution to this whining – and that is to suppress all human instinct, nullify spontaneity and subordinate yourself to a regime of predefined, pre-rehearsed ritual. Kinda like church. This is the point at which it becomes nihilism – life that can only exist in a passive, submissive state. Complete negation of humanity itself. And this stupidity has essentially become a cult that if you disagree with, it is only due to your own innate, unsaved evil.
July 11, 2011 at 3:53 pm
When a woman publicly declares that it makes her uncomfortable to be propositioned, and then IS propositioned, she can call it “awkward, and annoying, and uncomfortable.” And she is well within her rights to mention that this is not a good way to attempt to approach women. Which is all that Rebecca ever did. She never called the man attempting to pick her up a misogynist.
Now Dawkins’ response? That was misogyny in action. Also the above post, which was flat out lying about all the facts, just to make a point about those “evil feminists” who are out to keep the good men down. Bleah.
September 2, 2011 at 11:21 pm
She is well within her rights to mention it. Dawkins is right to point out it is actually a minor thing in the grander scheme. Watson then reacted badly. And she certainly makes feminism look childish and stupid with her various rants about Dawkins and perceived misogyny.
July 10, 2011 at 3:29 pm
You win the internet tonight, good sir 🙂
July 10, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Thank you m’lady. It is nice to occasionally not be called an asshole in these matters. You are in danger of exposing my soft inner weenie. Oh no, I said “weenie”. That’s probably going to hurt feelings somewhere…
March 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Oh, at least give a trigger warning first!
July 11, 2011 at 12:10 pm
I followed a link to here from Pharyngula. Let me just see that it is so goddamn exquisitely refreshing to read an intelligent response to this insipid self-pitying bullshit from a fellow atheist who does not throw rational thought and skepticism straight out the window and shove his head up his faux guiltridden ass every fucking time matters of “political correctness” are piously invoked.
You sir, have simultaneously won the Internet and a new subscriber to this very clever blog!
July 11, 2011 at 12:34 pm
As part of my employment I have repeatedly rode in elevators with large adult and old enough to be charged as adult children who have both threatened and successfully used violence against me. Despite the students being bigger, more physically fit, and not handicapped like me, I am never felt particularly threatened. Certainly not enough to vomit forth a pity party like Ms. Watson.
Then again, I am learning disabled, so what do I know?
July 11, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Yet another visitor via Pharyngula here. Well said, sir!
“What are guys supposed to do with such a plethora of seemingly arbitrary, inconsistent mixed messages? […] Males are simply going to stop caring.”
Apparently, this has already started happening. Google “MGTOW” or “men going their own way”. They’re not PZ’s favorite chewtoys the MRAs, but rather are about what you’d expect to see from guys who view women as Schrodinger’s Rape Accuser and just swear off women in general.
July 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“and this burns, oh yes it burns, because really, there is no come back to it.”
Wow, hundreds of comments and you still manage to write this. You sir, lose the internet. Try reading more.
July 11, 2011 at 3:11 pm
The most disappointing thing about this whole infinitely stupid shitstorm is the number of guys I formerly respected, such as PZ Myers or Phil Plait, who are not only being shriekingly hysterical but grossly dishonest.
July 30, 2011 at 4:47 am
“POTENTIAL SEXUAL ASSAULT!” -Phil Plait-
Surely a low point in the history of skeptical blogging. I read that and had a more profound face palm than even Captain Picard could manage.
July 11, 2011 at 3:56 pm
For most of your statements about every other person in this mess: CITATION NEEDED.
Stick to the facts, don’t imagine what happened. I haven’t heard anything of sacred yonis, and you haven’t either, except in your imagination.
July 11, 2011 at 4:38 pm
That was a very enjoyable read. My thanks for putting some badly needed perspective on this matter.
July 11, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“Shrieking hysteria”? Seriously? What Ms. Watson said was, and I quote, “Just a word to the wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. Um, you know, uh, I don’t know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, but at four AM in a hotel elevator with you … just you, and… don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner. So, yeah.”
Holy shit! Woman went bitchass crazy! Fucking hysterical! Like, her womb* totally exploded out her ass and lit the room on fire with her woman bits!
Seriously, dude. I occasionally roll my eyes at my fellow men and wonder how it is that they don’t get it. I understand that, sometimes, a man doesn’t really understand how different the world is for women, that they walk around surrounded by the potent threat that is every single man around her. I understand that not every man realizes that being half a foot taller and twenty pounds heavier, by default, makes every man, by default, a serious threat to every woman he encounters.
Some of my fellow men just aren’t introspective.
I’m gonna go ahead and call you a complete fucktard. I expect better of my fellow atheists. You’re supposed to be better educated. You should know better.
You should know that “Guys, don’t do that.” isn’t hysterical. You should know that “it creeps me out” isn’t hysterical. You should know that “It makes me uncomfortable” isn’t hysterical.
I expect better of a person who calls himself an atheist to know better than to call a woman “womb-crazy” for asking men not to corner her and ask her for sex.
Dude, you make it tough for me to get laid. Because every time I walk up to a woman she puts up walls. Because guys like you make it easier for them to get raped. You’re probably not a rapist, but every apologist out there who calls a woman “hysterical” makes it easier for a rapist to do his thing.
And that sucks for me. Personally. Because I like women and want to have sex with them. I don’t want to rape them, but you spend your days calling women crazy bitches, which makes it harder for me to not rape them. Because they *have* to spend time making sure I don’t.
I know you don’t like rape, but this, here, your supposedly “rational” contribution to society… it’s all about making rape easier. Because you don’t actually think about what you do.
Here’s the irony. You think you’re anti-rape and you think your words are anti-rape, but you make it harder for me, a guy who’s not gonna rape, to get laid without raping someone! Because you make the world more anti-woman. Because, dude, you just said “don’t be creepy” is “hysterical”. And you said so. And other mantards agreed with you.
You just made the world worse for everyone.
I’m torn whether or not to follow your blog. On the one hand, I can’t stand you. On the other, I think someone needs to be here to say how wrong you are. I’m torn between my desire to not associate with people like you and a desire to honestly inform the world.
We’ll see.
* What? Her womb? Yeah, that’s me being educated at you. “Hysteria” is one of those ancient, foreign words, and it means “That thing up inside a woman what men don’t have. Totally freaky. Like, bitches go crazy and shit because of this pouch they have. We don’t have that. We’re awesome. Right? Right?”
September 2, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Had she just said it to that specific guy? Because it certainly looks like she’s either claiming she knew she’d told that guy her dislike or jumped to the conclusion he knew.
Doesn’t change the fact that her response to Dawkins and Stef McGraw was ridiculous. It’s that which has made her look like a raving lunatic, not her dislike of men acknowledging her sexually or her mentioning it.
July 11, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Amen, brother. That is spot on. You know that the religious are laughing their asses off? Their attitude is: “For a moment there you had us worried – but if _this_ is what it rakes to reduce the atheists to tantrums, what do we need to worry about?”
And they’re right. They really, really are. If Watson is so pathetic that she’s reduced to this, what will she and her sycophants be reduced to in the face of a real threat? Well, we know the answer already.
July 11, 2011 at 6:51 pm
It should be pointed out that for almost a week now, not-significant portions of the online media including the Atlantic have been discussing the fact that Rebecca Watson has been recently hit on and that she gets hit on a lot. That’s tens of thousands of readers at PZ Myers blog alone who now know who Rebecca Watson is, where her blog is located, and that she is very attractive.
This has to be the most successful humble brag in history.
July 11, 2011 at 7:00 pm
“Very attractive” huh? Takes all sorts I guess…
July 13, 2011 at 1:46 pm
“Attractive?”
Dude, do they grow Ganja that strong?
July 13, 2011 at 1:56 pm
To you and Hyperion: That how the situation has been portrayed: she’s very attractive and gets hit on at all hours of the night.
My original wording is unclear and let me repeat- I am learning disabled.
July 11, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Even tho most of the debate has centered around EG, to me, her bigger offense was using her position as a key note speaker, to veer off topic, and call out a student blogger who disagreed with her…then of course had to remind the student that she had over 10,000 readers…what the hell has that got to do with anything? just an egotistical dig..mean, very mean…erv explains this aspect of the story very well…cuz if people agree with what she did with EG was OK, what she did to the student, wasn’t..
From there it turned into a popularity contest…
Substitute E Guy to E Girl…hmm..wonder if we would be having this discussion?
July 11, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Hey, shithead, what gives you the right to say what people shouldn’t and shouldn’t put up with? There are plenty of people who try and excuse the most violent and disgusting racism the same way.
All your well turned phrases can’t hide your lack of even basic good manners, let alone empathy.
Do you feel that threatened?
September 2, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Funny thing is that in this Rebecca Watson is being the equivalent of a racist.
July 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Dude – you are an idiot. Quit being that way.
July 12, 2011 at 1:25 am
[…] summarised previously, it’s as though they look at this whole cosmopolite world view with absolute distaste, […]
July 12, 2011 at 3:07 am
You might have improved your chances of writing something thoughtful and/or worth reading if you’d actually just fucking *listened* to what Rebecca Watson said–a guy put her in a situation where she felt uncomfortable–asking indirectly for sex, when she was alone! in an elevator! at 4 fucking AM! in a foreign country!, and she asked the rest of us guys to try to be more conscious of the comfort of women. That’s IT. If that seems “zomgfembotzwanttocastrateusall” to you, spend some time looking up some statistics on sexual abuse of women. They’re pretty horrifying, even in the most civilised countries on the planet, and I know a few people who never reported their own cases. And I’d never really thought about it before this whole imbroglio, but it’s easy for me to understand why that sort of situation would make a lot of women uncomfortable, even if they’ve never themselves been abused. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s incumbent on the Nice Guys of The World(tm) to take some pains to refrain from putting them into situations like that? It’s hardly an onerous requirement, to insist on asking for sex only when the other person has a safe exit if they’re not interested.
I doubt that the statistics, as shocking as they are, would change your stance, though. *Everything* in this post makes it clear that you’re not a nice guy, you’re a complete and utter jackass. Site anti-bookmarked.
July 13, 2011 at 12:26 am
Take a closer look at the relevant statistics. EW’s take on the situation is hysterical nonsense. The vast(and I do mean vast) majority of rape is committed by acquaintances, not strangers. If the statistics mean anything at all, they mean she should be more concerned about her 10,000 subscribers than about a stranger in an elevator. OP’s take on this situation is on point, and it’s telling that you frame your disagreement with character insults.
But more importantly, this is blatant sexism. If a muslim man were on that elevator, asking if EW wanted to talk about Allah, would she be justified in recoiling in terror JUST IN CASE he’s an Islamic Fundamentalist? That is actually MORE likely to be true than that the stranger in the elevator is an actual rapist, so why is that racism, but EW’s comments not sexism?
July 13, 2011 at 12:33 am
Rather, bigotry, not racism, for the last paragraph. I spend enough time trying to sort out that distinction that I should have been wise to the trap. Please read it as bigotry (Islam is an ideology, not a race).
July 13, 2011 at 1:44 am
Lee,
That’s because Muslims and the ethnic and racial groups that happen to make up most Islam’s adherents are POC or, like Arabs, can be transformed into people of color when convenient to demonize the United States or the West.
Lee, the real question is “Would be Watson be justified in recoiling in terror just in case the Muslim male in your hypothetical JUST IN CASE he’s a jihadi?”
September 2, 2011 at 11:41 pm
It would be interesting to see real statistics on the abuse of men. Unfortunately men are quite unlikely to report being abused by a spouse, partner or female family member.
That’s before we even look at false accusations of rape directed at men by women, extortion during divorce and myriad other things.
But this isn’t about Watson feeling uncomfortable, justified or not. It’s her vicious attacks on Dawkins et al that followed when they didn’t agree with her.
July 12, 2011 at 6:39 am
As a 64 year old male, all I can see here is a poor little boy, so insecure about his masculinity that he feels threatened by the slightest criticism of boorish men. Grow up, sonny.
July 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I realize I’m late to the party, but can I point out that everyone here is leaving out/not contextualizing a fundamental part of the story? This thing didn’t start because Watson complained about being asked out on the elevator (I’d be shocked if Richard Dawkins had time to watch random vlogs). This started because another woman had the temerity to disagree, after which Watson used her as an example of someone espousing anti-woman sentiment, and did so WHILE SHE WAS A SPEAKER AT A CONFERENCE. That is the difference between me whining to my friends/professors about how the air conditioning is too high in the labs (somewhat reasonable) and bringing it up as a serious issue as a graduation speaker (loony). Dawkins’ mistake was trying to inject a little perspective.
Also, as for you feminists (I can happily say I am not one, precisely because my introduction to it at age 12 was bullshit like this) isn’t it fairly demonstrative of your own privilege that you’ve spent so much time wangsting about this even as you acknowledge there are far bigger problems that fall under your scope? Did all of you who wrote letters to Dawkins write a proportional amount of letters this week asking Washington to put pressure on Egypt to work on their women’s rights? No, of course not. Because it’s easier and more fun to do ideological purges of your allies than to enact real change for people who are actually being oppressed.
Beyond that, I have had conversations on elevators with men in middle of the night before, and I have also been propositioned by drunkards in downtown Los Angeles, at 1 am, while I was alone. My reaction to the first was to converse politely like a normal human being, and my reaction to the second was to ignore them while keeping a cautious eye out (with my pepper spray). Notice I did not to run to the internet and cry that I was a victim of society, because I am not a delicate fucking flower that wilts when a man breathes in my direction (hence not a feminist, apparently). Nor am I so supremely privileged that I think the world should rearrange itself every time I am mildly perturbed.
Thank you to grey lining for being the fourth sane blog I’ve read in this whole nontroversy, and also for not telling me how I should feel (as a woomyn) in an elevator. Because remember, only female perspectives that agree with RW are real female perspectives and the rest are tools of the patriarchy.
July 13, 2011 at 1:31 am
“I realize I’m late to the party, but can I point out that everyone here is leaving out/not contextualizing a fundamental part of the story? This thing didn’t start because Watson complained about being asked out on the elevator (I’d be shocked if Richard Dawkins had time to watch random vlogs). This started because another woman had the temerity to disagree, after which Watson used her as an example of someone espousing anti-woman sentiment, and did so WHILE SHE WAS A SPEAKER AT A CONFERENCE. That is the difference between me whining to my friends/professors about how the air conditioning is too high in the labs (somewhat reasonable) and bringing it up as a serious issue as a graduation speaker (loony).”
Yes indeed. This is a crucial point that cannot be repeated enough, as it has been omitted (intentionally or otherwise) from almost all of the reports on this issue (in both the mainstream media and blogs).
July 13, 2011 at 3:36 am
Thank you for much needed clarity. It is very sad the folks like PZ are peddling the “woo” of misandry. Unlike Dawkins, he has lost much of his freethinking credibility about other issues.
July 13, 2011 at 7:50 am
Skepticism and feminism seem to be incompatible (and for that matter equality and feminism too).
July 16, 2011 at 3:28 am
Sorry for coming late to the discussion, but I must take my hat off to you, this is the most erudite and masterful critique of the dogmatism and identity politics that have infiltrated what you aptly termed the “new” new atheism.
I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, seeing as though all the internet riff-raff had hitched the immensely popular godless bandwagon, and now that the great clashes over creationism and secularism seem to have taken second stage to race and “gender”, the more opportunistic of the lot had absolutely no trouble readjusting.
You make a great point – those of us who value the Enlightenment, intellectual freedom and scientific rationalism should avoid at all costs letting this movement transform into a mouthpiece for the diversity industry/PC police, especially for its most deranged wing – the fembot witchhunting brigade. It’s been going on for a few years now, starting with the infamous Greta Christina/Sikivu Hutchinson exchange, when they also try to hijack the atheist movement to serve postmodernist relativism.
On a side note, I’m quite surprised to see how popular and strong feminism and gender politics have become nowadays, despite their intellectual foundations having been blown to pieces decades ago (starting with the horrible case of David Reimer, and culminating with the research of Milton Diamond, EO Wilson and Steven Pinker). It’s as if this never even happened, and the herd of fembots can happily go about as before – denying human nature, pathologizing normal behavior and normalizing pathological behavior.
I’ll be sure to read the follow-ups to this great post.
July 22, 2011 at 5:37 pm
[…] on Pharyngula taking exception to my article amongst others […]
August 1, 2011 at 10:38 pm
[…] neo-puritan overtones, and various fundamentalist ideologies. Specifically, it’s self-hating flagellant mindset, paranoid persecution and martyr fantasy (a la islamism) and delight in scapegoating and […]
August 11, 2011 at 12:56 am
[…] are now not so odd in light of the behaviour of all involved in the Watsonista side of the recent Elevatorgate morality crusade. If anything, they now come across as measured and […]
June 12, 2012 at 4:28 am
Re-reading this classic, I am lol’ing at the above that I hadnt grasped earlier
Louis CK – Rape
Franc, although you see ‘slave morality’ as the essence/core of this problem, I think there is an overlier-layer of societal-level femininity-pedestalization (toxic-femininity is a better term) that needs to be addressed first.
MISOGYNY –Toxic Femininity
http://www.genderratic.com/?p=1431
July 25, 2012 at 6:32 am
[…] https://greylining.com/2011/07/09/atheist-flagellants-and-puritans/ […]
March 24, 2014 at 5:02 pm
I just finished reading this. I am disappointed to hear that the feminist circus that fucked up atheism won’t end any time soon though.