Atheism and Misogyny

[Myveria]

This is so bizarre. We used to be talking about religion and now we're talking about sex and elevators. What happened?

[The Parkus Empire]

This is so bizarre. We used to be talking about religion and now we're talking about sex and elevators. What happened?

Misogyny within the New Atheism movement.

[Breadknife]

I'm never invited to the Atheist picnic.

It's nothing special. We have bread and wine that's just bread and wine.

[Verbal Pararhea]

Must we reify group labels and identity-based thinking in everything we do?

[Freelanderness]

ewww dawkins, et al. short post but literally explains the entirety of my thoughts on the matter

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Well I'm not sure about a lot of problems...but yes it does show that there are some atheists who are utter fucking arseholes. However I suspect that these "people" are a vocal minority. If it turns out that a majority of male atheists are misogynistic shit heads then I really do fear the end is neigh and we may as well just pack up and return to the oceans.

I very much doubt that a majority of them are.

Seems to me that many on the this thread seem to think otherwise.

[Tahar Joblis]

Elevator gate:
Atheist asks woman for sex.

She says no.
Instead of raping her, Atheist goes to his room and masturbates while thinking about her.

Is that it???

No, the scandal is entirely based on the reaction that male atheists had to the woman blogging about it.

I'm afraid not. Rebecca Watson had already been involved in some very vicious disputes on the subject of whether or not women were being harassed at atheist conferences and whether or not the atheist community was misogynist, with other female atheists. And it is other female atheists who registered the initial responses of objection to Watson's elevator-coffee episode. Watson then responded, and you had a spiral outward from there which didn't really go anywhere until Dawkins poked his head in, because Dawkins, unlike Watson at the time, is known outside of the atheist community, so Watson flipping her shit at Dawkins was not.

Summary version: Woman gives talk about women's issues in the "skeptic community", basically about the occasional hostility and sexism faced, and the kind of behavior that makes women feel unwelcome, including treating women more as sex objects than as full members of the community. It's late, she's tired, she says she's going to go to bed. This guy, realizing that what he's doing is exactly the sort of thing that she said is annoying, says "Don't take this wrong way," but would you like to come to my room for coffee. She turns him down. Later, she notes this on her blog with the simple comment that this is kind of sketchy behavior.

More accurate summary version: She makes a big deal out of it and complains that asking her up for coffee and conversation is sexualizing her, which makes her very uncomfortable, and pronounces this a general rule for male behavior.

Other people respond to say she's really blowing this out of proportion and that there was nothing wrong with someone asking her up for coffee and conversation, e.g., Stef McGraw:

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would, in my view, have to react in the same manner were the situation reversed; if a woman were to engage a man in the same way, she would probably be creeping him out and making him uncomfortable and unfairly sexualizing him, right? But of course no one ever makes that claim, which is why I see Watson’s comment as so hypocritical.

If you really want social equality for women, which is what feminism is, why not apply the same standards to men and women, and stop demonizing men for being sexual beings?

To which Watson then responds by accusing her (female) critics of misogyny:

I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another.

And then proceeds to attack her (female) critics viciously:

Then, a day later at the conference, Watson delivered a keynote speech on the religious right’s war against women. Before she got to her main content, though, she decided to address sexism in the secular movement, which she views as a rampant problem. I shared her disgust as she showed screenshots of people online calling her demeaning names, making comments about her appearance, and, worst of all, making rape comments.

Then, switching gears, Watson made a remark to the extent that there are people in our own community who would not stand up for her in these sorts of situations; my name, organization, and a few sentences from my blog post then flashed on the screen before my eyes. She went on to explain how I didn’t understand what objectification meant and was espousing anti-woman sentiment.

So let's make things perfectly clear:

• Watson started off by objecting to behavior that isn't really objectionable; and aggressively classifying as "sexualizing" fairly innocuous behavior; and stating, quite directly, that sexualizing people is bad. This is wrong for several reasons:
  
  • She's either referring to sexual objectification and just not being explicit about it, in which case she is making a really bad call in terms of taking a request for coffee and conversation as objectification; or
  • She is referring to all signs of male sexual interest as evil, regardless of whether they are directed at her-as-a-person or her-as-an-object.
  • The behavior she's referring to is fairly polite and innocuous behavior, as even a direct sexual proposition would not be necessarily an immoral thing for someone to make.
• Other people object, because she's wrong.
• Watson viciously attacks these other people for objecting to her. Cue fight.
• Eventually, much later, Dawkins enters the fray and sides with the people saying Watson is wrong.

You're claiming that Watson posted, got shit on by a knee-jerk reaction from all teh menz of teh intarwub, and this created a flurry of reaction. No. Watson posted, other people objected thoughtfully and with reason, Watson responded to her critics with attacks. Watson bears the lion's share of responsibility here; because when faced with ordinary reasoned disagreement, she resorted to name-calling, and fairly public name-calling, at that.

[Tahar Joblis]

No, I'm saying that our culture is patriarchal, that our culturally religious traditions are patriarchal, and that our atheists are also part of that same cultural tradition.

The reason I think atheists might be less likely to be so deeply ingrained with the cultural misogyny is that they've rejected part of the cultural tradition (the deliberate dogmatic parts).

Ah. I think that makes a good deal of sense, and offhand I'd say feminists are probably more atheistic demographically than non-feminists or anti-feminists are.

I would suspect that you will not find such a difference.

Generally, a large minority of women identify as feminist. The minority identifying with no religion (a superset of those identifying as atheist, generally) is substantially smaller. And there is a decidedly religious-feminist hybrid bent running around some places. The general feminist position about only men being priests is not that there should be no priests, but that there should be women priestesses with every bit as much religious authority as the men priests.

Anti-feminists come in very different flavors, too, even more varied than feminists (naturally). I expect to see no pattern of any significance; possibly no pattern at all once you control for race and socioeconomic status (both of which factors significantly affect both identification as feminist and identification as atheist).

[Tahar Joblis]

This is so bizarre. We used to be talking about religion and now we're talking about sex and elevators. What happened?

What happened is that on the first post, The Parkus Empire accused Dawkins of being misogynist.

When pressed for evidence of this, the response has been to refer to the now-famous elevator incident, in which Rebecca Watson made a great deal out of a man asking her up for coffee, and the subsequent drama she stirred up in the atheist community drew comment from Dawkins, who thought she was full of shit.

Dawkins promptly got called misogynist for saying Rebecca Watson was full of shit; which really can't be justified. So as TPE has been challenged repeatedly to provide evidence that the people he's accusing of being misogynist leaders of the "atheist movement" are, in fact, both leaders of the movement and misogynist. TPE has only been able to provide the fact that some feminists called Dawkins a misogynist for saying that Rebecca Watson was not oppressed by being asked up for coffee by a man.

Which doesn't come close to convincing anyone who wasn't willing to take the assertion that Dawkins was a misogynist on blind faith in the first place. So it remains a continuing subject of conversation.

[Trotskylvania]

You're claiming that Watson posted, got shit on by a knee-jerk reaction from all teh menz of teh intarwub, and this created a flurry of reaction.

No, I did not. You take every opportunity to mischarecterize my and other's position at every opporunity in the most trollish manner possible. Stop it.

And there was a knee-jerk reaction, by both yourself and others, at the gall of some woman daring to feel uncomfortable about sexual advances. Those criticisms she faced for her discomfort were direct attacks on her right to set her own boundaries, something you have repeatedly joined in. You've again and again made it clear that you believe that a woman has no right to not like being the target of sexual advances. Hence, your continued mischaracterization of other's arguments in the most hyperbolic manner possible through the use of internetisms.

No. Watson posted, other people objected thoughtfully and with reason, Watson responded to her critics with attacks. Watson bears the lion's share of responsibility here; because when faced with ordinary reasoned disagreement, she resorted to name-calling, and fairly public name-calling, at that.

Oh no, a woman called some people sexist on the internet. It's totally her fault she got rape threats.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're claiming that Watson posted, got shit on by a knee-jerk reaction from all teh menz of teh intarwub, and this created a flurry of reaction.

No, I did not. You take every opportunity to mischarecterize my and other's position at every opporunity in the most trollish manner possible. Stop it.

And there was a knee-jerk reaction, by both yourself and others, at the gall of some woman daring to feel uncomfortable about sexual advances. Those criticisms she faced for her discomfort were direct attacks on her right to set her own boundaries, something you have repeatedly joined in. You've again and again made it clear that you believe that a woman has no right to not like being the target of sexual advances. Hence, your continued mischaracterization of other's arguments in the most hyperbolic manner possible through the use of internetisms.

No. Watson posted, other people objected thoughtfully and with reason, Watson responded to her critics with attacks. Watson bears the lion's share of responsibility here; because when faced with ordinary reasoned disagreement, she resorted to name-calling, and fairly public name-calling, at that.

Oh no, a woman called some people sexist on the internet. It's totally her fault she got rape threats.

I'm wondering whether you consciously decided to ignore the rest of his post, it's invisible to you, or it just went in one ear eye out the other. Maybe you could help me out on figuring out which it is.

[Llamalandia]

You're claiming that Watson posted, got shit on by a knee-jerk reaction from all teh menz of teh intarwub, and this created a flurry of reaction.

No, I did not. You take every opportunity to mischarecterize my and other's position at every opporunity in the most trollish manner possible. Stop it.

And there was a knee-jerk reaction, by both yourself and others, at the gall of some woman daring to feel uncomfortable about sexual advances. Those criticisms she faced for her discomfort were direct attacks on her right to set her own boundaries, something you have repeatedly joined in. You've again and again made it clear that you believe that a woman has no right to not like being the target of sexual advances. Hence, your continued mischaracterization of other's arguments in the most hyperbolic manner possible through the use of internetisms.

No. Watson posted, other people objected thoughtfully and with reason, Watson responded to her critics with attacks. Watson bears the lion's share of responsibility here; because when faced with ordinary reasoned disagreement, she resorted to name-calling, and fairly public name-calling, at that.

Oh no, a woman called some people sexist on the internet. It's totally her fault she got rape threats.

no it is her fault because she lied about people being sexist on the internet. Look point is she was mistaken and in fairness probably didn't deserve the threats against, but she could have done more to defuse the situation.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I did not. You take every opportunity to mischarecterize my and other's position at every opporunity in the most trollish manner possible. Stop it.

And there was a knee-jerk reaction, by both yourself and others, at the gall of some woman daring to feel uncomfortable about sexual advances. Those criticisms she faced for her discomfort were direct attacks on her right to set her own boundaries, something you have repeatedly joined in. You've again and again made it clear that you believe that a woman has no right to not like being the target of sexual advances. Hence, your continued mischaracterization of other's arguments in the most hyperbolic manner possible through the use of internetisms.

Oh no, a woman called some people sexist on the internet. It's totally her fault she got rape threats.

no it is her fault because she lied about people being sexist on the internet. Look point is she was mistaken and in fairness probably didn't deserve the threats against, but she could have done more to defuse the situation.

"Probably"?

[Trotskylvania]

No, I did not. You take every opportunity to mischarecterize my and other's position at every opporunity in the most trollish manner possible. Stop it.

And there was a knee-jerk reaction, by both yourself and others, at the gall of some woman daring to feel uncomfortable about sexual advances. Those criticisms she faced for her discomfort were direct attacks on her right to set her own boundaries, something you have repeatedly joined in. You've again and again made it clear that you believe that a woman has no right to not like being the target of sexual advances. Hence, your continued mischaracterization of other's arguments in the most hyperbolic manner possible through the use of internetisms.

Oh no, a woman called some people sexist on the internet. It's totally her fault she got rape threats.

I'm wondering whether you consciously decided to ignore the rest of his post, it's invisible to you, or it just went in one ear eye out the other. Maybe you could help me out on figuring out which it is.

Stef McGraw's entire case rests on an entirely unsupported charge of hypocrisy, that no one would see it "creepy" if the genders were reversed.

And no matter how innocuous it started, TJ is entirely baseless in his view that this somehow excuses the frank misogyny displayed, or the ridiculous assertions being thrown left and right that women, and people in general, have no right to be uncomfortable about sexual advances, particularly downright creepy ones, and to give voice to this.

TJ's outright flamebaiting behavior and mischarecterization of my post is what I chose to take issue with.

[Llamalandia]

I haven't read everything on this topic and don't know absolutely everything she herself said therefor i wanted to hedge, but yeah its more like almost certainly. Im not a fan of absolutes, at least most of the time.
no it is her fault because she lied about people being sexist on the internet. Look point is she was mistaken and in fairness probably didn't deserve the threats against, but she could have done more to defuse the situation.

"Probably"?

Not a fan of absolutes, i like to hedge but yeah almost certainly might be more appropriate, but to fair I haven't read or watched everything she's had to say on the subject so I'll reserve judgement.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm wondering whether you consciously decided to ignore the rest of his post, it's invisible to you, or it just went in one ear eye out the other. Maybe you could help me out on figuring out which it is.

Stef McGraw's entire case rests on an entirely unsupported charge of hypocrisy, that no one would see it "creepy" if the genders were reversed.

And no matter how innocuous it started, TJ is entirely baseless in his view that this somehow excuses the frank misogyny displayed, or the ridiculous assertions being thrown left and right that women, and people in general, have no right to be uncomfortable about sexual advances, particularly downright creepy ones, and to give voice to this.

TJ's outright flamebaiting behavior and mischarecterization of my post is what I chose to take issue with.

The problem with you people is you hear a hundred voices threatening to rape you, and a dozen voices saying "You know, you are full of shit and here is why-."
and then you say the Dozen are just as sexist as the hundred for daring to question you and that you must be in the right because you got threatened. Didn't they see the threats? Why are they disagreeing with you! You got threatened! It means you are absolutely in the right and you shouldn't be held to account for saying shit that is untrue, unsubstantiated, offensive, or sexist.
It's the feminists favorite fallacy. Argumentum ad Rape-Threat, or something.

Noone would find it creepy if the gender was reversed.
It isn't misogynistic to ask someone for coffee in an elevator, nor would it be misogynistic to ask them for a fuck.
You have a right to feel however you like, but if you voice that opinion and phrase it in such a sloppy way as an attack on males you're going to get called out on it. Racists have a right to be racist. They don't have a right not to get called out on their shit.

[Llamalandia]

I'm wondering whether you consciously decided to ignore the rest of his post, it's invisible to you, or it just went in one ear eye out the other. Maybe you could help me out on figuring out which it is.

Stef McGraw's entire case rests on an entirely unsupported charge of hypocrisy, that no one would see it "creepy" if the genders were reversed.

And no matter how innocuous it started, TJ is entirely baseless in his view that this somehow excuses the frank misogyny displayed, or the ridiculous assertions being thrown left and right that women, and people in general, have no right to be uncomfortable about sexual advances, particularly downright creepy ones, and to give voice to this.

TJ's outright flamebaiting behavior and mischarecterization of my post is what I chose to take issue with.

Yes but was it a creepy advance or was it an innocuous invitation to chat, you know bc maybe the guy actually saw this woman as more than a mere object and wanted to hear more of what she had to say. I mean I know hey crazy notion right, like a guy would ever actually respect a woman for her opinions and not just be trying to seduce her. I would have far less of a problem if this guy had been a bit closer to Filner on the creepy spectrum, heck even scoring Anthony Wiener level creepy would justify her discomfort, i just don't see this case rising to anywhere near that standard.

[Tahar Joblis]

Those criticisms she faced for her discomfort were direct attacks on her right to set her own boundaries

Those criticisms she faced for making a mountain out of a molehill were direct attacks on her entitlement to publicly claim victimhood.

Nobody is claiming she didn't have a right to set her own boundaries. Nobody is saying she had to say "yes." Or that she had to be happy about being asked up for coffee. Her pronouncing standards for male behavior including not asking women up for coffee and conversation, however, and her classification of that act as "creepy" and as sexual objectification, however, can and has been justly criticized.

You've again and again made it clear that you believe that a woman has no right to not like being the target of sexual advances

This is a bullshit strawman. I have not in fact said anything of the sort.

Oh no, a woman called some people sexist on the internet. It's totally her fault she got rape threats.

I'm going to call bullshit on that and say, as I said before, that I am fairly sure that Watson's critics received more rape threats, death threats, and threats in general than she did.

As we saw in this thread talking about purported rape threats, things which are not in fact rape threats are sometimes labeled as rape threats; some rape threats internet feminists receive are not from the people they claim them to be from; and, in general, that shit gets blown out of proportion. As I pointed out, men, or people believed to be men, are "threatened" with rape here on NSG, in terms no less specific or credible than anything Watson's allies are likely terming a "rape threat."

Watson and her buddies were far more vicious than her critics were. This was true from the start, when a calm and reasonable response from a fellow woman atheist led to her being called a "misogynist" by Watson online, and attacked and belittled during a keynote address by Watson. It's true now; when you persist in flinging insults my way and strawmen my way.

Now, let's look at what you claimed was a strawman:

You're claiming that Watson posted, got shit on by a knee-jerk reaction from all teh menz of teh intarwub, and this created a flurry of reaction.

You had written:

No, the scandal is entirely based on the reaction that male atheists had to the woman blogging about it.

And then you went on, in this current reply, to say:

And there was a knee-jerk reaction, by both yourself and others, at the gall of some woman daring to feel uncomfortable about sexual advances.

In other words, you said it was entirely the reaction of male atheists that caused the drama. You have described, subsequently and previously, that reaction as a knee-jerk reaction.

The only degree to which what I said could be considered a strawman is because I said all teh menz of teh intarwub instead of male atheists. And that's provided that you think all teh menz of teh intarwub is a phrase that anybody can take literally and seriously.

On the flip side, you are ascribing opinions to me that I have expressed the direct opposite of, as part of your actual strawman attacks. Knock that shit off, Trots.

[Grave_n_idle]

Stef McGraw's entire case rests on an entirely unsupported charge of hypocrisy, that no one would see it "creepy" if the genders were reversed.

And no matter how innocuous it started, TJ is entirely baseless in his view that this somehow excuses the frank misogyny displayed, or the ridiculous assertions being thrown left and right that women, and people in general, have no right to be uncomfortable about sexual advances, particularly downright creepy ones, and to give voice to this.

TJ's outright flamebaiting behavior and mischarecterization of my post is what I chose to take issue with.

Yes but was it a creepy advance or was it an innocuous invitation to chat, you know bc maybe the guy actually saw this woman as more than a mere object and wanted to hear more of what she had to say.

Sounds like a creepy advance. And I base that judgement on the simple fact that just hearing what someone else has to say does not necessarily require them to come back to your room for 'coffee', even if the 'coffee' is just coffee.

[Llamalandia]

Yes but was it a creepy advance or was it an innocuous invitation to chat, you know bc maybe the guy actually saw this woman as more than a mere object and wanted to hear more of what she had to say.

Sounds like a creepy advance. And I base that judgement on the simple fact that just hearing what someone else has to say does not necessarily require them to come back to your room for 'coffee', even if the 'coffee' is just coffee.

Uh, it was like 4 in the morning if I understand correctly, the point of the coffee (presumably regular and not decaf) was to help to stay awake. Had he said something like come back to my room so I can lick your face, now thats creepy. Also is creepy in and of itself or is it creepy because it was a guy asking her? I mean had it been another woman would she have felt "creeped out"? Would you ?

[Tahar Joblis]

Stef McGraw's entire case rests on an entirely unsupported charge of hypocrisy, that no one would see it "creepy" if the genders were reversed.

In fact, nobody would see it as "creepy" if they were actually interested in the other person, either. Finding it "creepy" to be asked up for coffee is a pretty rare affair.

And no matter how innocuous it started, TJ is entirely baseless in his view that this somehow excuses the frank misogyny displayed,

Dawkins did not display misogyny. Which is the point at hand.

I am not saying that there was no misogyny involved anywhere at all at any point; however, such misogyny as we've seen involves fringe figures, or figures that TPE isn't accusing of misogyny. Random YouTube commenters are not important characters and say horrible things to and about men, too. PZ Myers' paternalism, maybe, but he's not under trial.

or the ridiculous assertions being thrown left and right that women, and people in general, have no right to be uncomfortable about sexual advances,

The only one throwing that shit around is you.

particularly downright creepy ones, and to give voice to this.

TJ's outright flamebaiting behavior and mischarecterization of my post is what I chose to take issue with.

Trots, you have mischaracterized my position much more severely than I have distorted yours. I have put horrible language on top of your position and expressed it in a voice that is deliberately distinct from what I say sincerely, in order to make the point that it's a position I disagree with. You, on the other hand, have claimed that I think women don't have a right to have feelings.

When, instead, I have said that it's not reasonable to accommodate unreasonable discomfort; that people have a right to have even unreasonable discomfort, but no right to expect others to accommodate that unreasonable discomfort.

As I pointed out with the example of the racist uncomfortable around black people.

[Grave_n_idle]

Sounds like a creepy advance. And I base that judgement on the simple fact that just hearing what someone else has to say does not necessarily require them to come back to your room for 'coffee', even if the 'coffee' is just coffee.

Uh, it was like 4 in the morning if I understand correctly, the point of the coffee (presumably regular and not decaf) was to help to stay awake. Had he said something like come back to my room so I can lick your face, now thats creepy. Also is creepy in and of itself or is it creepy because it was a guy asking her? I mean had it been another woman would she have felt "creeped out"? Would you ?

As an Englishman in the American South, I don't have to do more than open my mouth to start being propositioned (and I know I'm not that pretty).

If someone really wants to talk to me, we really, actually talk. Sometimes that has turned into us going somewhere and doing something, or arranging to meet up later - but the genuine occasions don't start with 'hey, want to come up for coffee'.

So - and maybe this is something about me - if someone asks me if I want to 'come up for coffee' (or something similar) - then I think that's objectifying me. I don't think that person actually has any interest in what I'm actually saying.

[Llamalandia]

Uh, it was like 4 in the morning if I understand correctly, the point of the coffee (presumably regular and not decaf) was to help to stay awake. Had he said something like come back to my room so I can lick your face, now thats creepy. Also is creepy in and of itself or is it creepy because it was a guy asking her? I mean had it been another woman would she have felt "creeped out"? Would you ?

As an Englishman in the American South, I don't have to do more than open my mouth to start being propositioned (and I know I'm not that pretty).

If someone really wants to talk to me, we really, actually talk. Sometimes that has turned into us going somewhere and doing something, or arranging to meet up later - but the genuine occasions don't start with 'hey, want to come up for coffee'.

So - and maybe this is something about me - if someone asks me if I want to 'come up for coffee' (or something similar) - then I think that's objectifying me. I don't think that person actually has any interest in what I'm actually saying.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it just you. and that said thats fine, if i ever encounter you url i won't invite you to have coffee with me (you brits are more tea fans anyway right?). This I have no problem with. The problem with what this woman did was that she presumed based on one encounter and her personal perception to go online and inform everyone how they should behave. It was just that she was expressing an opinion as you have done, it was that she offered dictates to go along with that opinion and that where I have a problem.
And presumably the guy invited her up so they talk in quiet environment rather than a bar which is where she was coming from (again if I understand the situation correctly).
Also would you have a problem if it were a woman asking instead of a man?

[Grave_n_idle]

As an Englishman in the American South, I don't have to do more than open my mouth to start being propositioned (and I know I'm not that pretty).

If someone really wants to talk to me, we really, actually talk. Sometimes that has turned into us going somewhere and doing something, or arranging to meet up later - but the genuine occasions don't start with 'hey, want to come up for coffee'.

So - and maybe this is something about me - if someone asks me if I want to 'come up for coffee' (or something similar) - then I think that's objectifying me. I don't think that person actually has any interest in what I'm actually saying.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it just you. and that said thats fine, if i ever encounter you url i won't invite you to have coffee with me (you brits are more tea fans anyway right?). This I have no problem with. The problem with what this woman did was that she presumed based on one encounter and her personal perception to go online and inform everyone how they should behave. It was just that she was expressing an opinion as you have done, it was that she offered dictates to go along with that opinion and that where I have a problem.
And presumably the guy invited her up so they talk in quiet environment rather than a bar which is where she was coming from (again if I understand the situation correctly).
Also would you have a problem if it were a woman asking instead of a man?

I don't see why you're 'presuming' that the guy wanted to talk in a quiet environment. were they that deep in conversation he couldn't bear to separate himself from it? That's not what I've seen, at all. Please, show me where I'm wrong.

As for whether this person 'offered dictates'... I don't see how that's especially problematic. People do that all the time. People very rarely offer an opinion without accompanying it with 'and you should/shouldn't do that'.

So, what's the real problem with her response - and do feel differently about that depending on whether or not she really was being creepily propositioned?

(As for your other question - since people can flirt with people of their own gender, I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. I'm not trying to avoid the question - I just don't see why a woman asking a woman 'up for coffee' would be all that different).

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it just you. and that said thats fine, if i ever encounter you url i won't invite you to have coffee with me (you brits are more tea fans anyway right?). This I have no problem with. The problem with what this woman did was that she presumed based on one encounter and her personal perception to go online and inform everyone how they should behave. It was just that she was expressing an opinion as you have done, it was that she offered dictates to go along with that opinion and that where I have a problem.
And presumably the guy invited her up so they talk in quiet environment rather than a bar which is where she was coming from (again if I understand the situation correctly).
Also would you have a problem if it were a woman asking instead of a man?

I don't see why you're 'presuming' that the guy wanted to talk in a quiet environment. were they that deep in conversation he couldn't bear to separate himself from it? That's not what I've seen, at all. Please, show me where I'm wrong.

As for whether this person 'offered dictates'... I don't see how that's especially problematic. People do that all the time. People very rarely offer an opinion without accompanying it with 'and you should/shouldn't do that'.

So, what's the real problem with her response - and do feel differently about that depending on whether or not she really was being creepily propositioned?

(As for your other question - since people can flirt with people of their own gender, I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. I'm not trying to avoid the question - I just don't see why a woman asking a woman 'up for coffee' would be all that different).

Im making that presumption because I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. I mean innocent until proven guilty after all. Not a bad principal.

Yeah, I'm aware that people do sometimes offer advice on how to behave when offering opinions, its just in this case the opinion was so personal as to be hard to generalize. Im sure some other women would have a problem being offered coffee in an elevator but Im guessing just as many wouldn't give it a second thought. Thus to say everyone should behave in a certain way to avoid making some feel uncomfortable is going too far in my opinion.

And yeah, my point was gender seems to matter in these situations which is an ironic point of view for a group that claims equality and essentially "sameness" between genders. Basically if you can't say you'd be creeped out regardless of gender then your feeling of creepiness is sexist.

Maybe if watson had exploded this into a generally big deal about misogyny within atheist circles it would be ok. But she generalized one small (maybe) sexist incident that made her feel vaguely uncomfortable into an indictment of a whole movement. Had she kept it personal and just said yeah some guy asked me in an elevator and i felt slightly uncomfortable and left it at that then fine, but no she said i felt uncomfortable therefore behave this way or you're a misogynist.