Thread: What Would You Do....

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do both Savy and Juroara want to portray the issue as being, 'women shouldn't be forced to have sex with men'?

Seriously that's quite the fucking strawman, insinuating that men think rape should be legalised.

How about you try an honest argument?

Wow! I never said that!

I said it didn't matter who was asking her or how innocent she can be as anti-social as she wants. The truth is, lots of girls are offended when a random guy asks them out. You should ask yourself why. I saw this happen a lot when I was in school. Then the guys were all offended because they didn't understand why the girls were offended and its a big circle of confusion. So maybe we should all talk about it?

Here is my take and understanding of it.

Certain girls of a certain personality type expects a guy to like her for who they are. If a random guy should see this girl and randomly ask her out, even if its just for coffee in public, she's going to be insulted. Because the only thing that's running in her mind is "why did he ask me out when he doesn't even know me?". She'll come up with only so many conclusions, maybe the guy is shallow and is interested in her because of her looks, maybe the guy is desperate for a girlfriend (warning: that's a real turn off), or in the worse case scenarios maybe he's horny and is looking for a one night stand.

I'm not making this up, this is how many girls genuinely feel, and its a classic introvert personality type. If the guy ran into this girl on three separate occasions, and only after the third occasion did he say "we've been running into each other, maybe we should hang out" then her answer might be "yes".

I realize that other personality types actively seek to hang out with total strangers because they just have an interest in people. This is a social out-going personality, that's more commonly known as extrovert.

Now when you have an extrovertive guy meet an introvertive female, well that's just a situation for social confusion.

This woman really does sound like a prude to me, but nothing she said seemed particularly out of line.

We could take a lesson from the way this woman felt. A good majority of women don't like it when men are too direct with sex and nobody likes feeling cornered by somebody they don't know. Her response is typical. Going up to a woman you don't know or just met, asking her to come to your private hotel room for "coffee"... Excuse me, but that's a fucking cliche. One that is bound to have undesired results due to its obvious implications if not for its painful lack of creativity.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do both Savy and Juroara want to portray the issue as being, 'women shouldn't be forced to have sex with men'?

Seriously that's quite the fucking strawman, insinuating that men think rape should be legalised.

How about you try an honest argument?

How about not putting words in my mouth?
No need to be catty.

I just really don't see anything wrong with what she said.
Okay, maybe it's a bit of a leap to immediately assume he was being sexual or maybe it's a bit silly to be offended that a man would have a sexual interest in a woman when obviously that's completely natural.

BUT, do you honestly think that warrants the kind of response she's getting? She's not a silly bitch, she's a very intelligent woman and she has the right to talk about whatever the hell she wants on her channel. I didn't get the feel that she was "making a big deal of it" at all. She was just telling a little story about a situation that made her uncomfortable. And really, I think most women would feel uncomfortable in a situation like that. Is that wrong? No, I don't think so. I think people are allowed to feel whatever they like.

I just find this entire situation ridiculous. She hasn't done anything deserving such a reaction.

Posted by: Richard Dawkins Author Profile Page | July 2, 2011 11:35 AM

No I wasn't making that argument. Here's the argument I was making. The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.

If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics' privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn't physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.

Muslim women suffer physically from misogyny, their lives are substantially damaged by religiously inspired misogyny. Not just words, real deeds, painful, physical deeds, physical privations, legally sanctioned demeanings. The equivalent would be if PZ had nailed not a cracker but a Catholic. Then they'd have had good reason to complain.

Richard

Why this ______ is getting Richard Dawkin's attention is beyond belief. He's not alone though, apparently the entire atheist community is having a field day over her video. Anyway, I thought his comment was a nice, toned down "Who the fuck cares? You're overreacting" post.

Oh, and for what it's worth.. stupid feminists are labeling Richard Dawkins a misogynist for the above post. Yep, for the post above. And they're staging boycotts of his materials.

Ayurp.

That's the thing. Skeptics are supposed to have some sort of rational way of thinking. That's the definition, basically.
To be a feminist and a skeptic is just kind of ridiculous. And to tell guys to not express their innate, genetic desires is telling
them to deny their only real purpose in life. To fuck. She obviously is not a very good skeptic, if she didn't realise the similarities to
catholicism in what she's saying.

Originally Posted by juroara

Wow! I never said that!

Originally Posted by juroara

I say, she has a right to say "no" to who ever she wants to say "no" to, stranger or not.

Originally Posted by Savy

How about not putting words in my mouth?

Originally Posted by Savy

People are calling her man-hating and a prude just because she wouldn't go into some stranger's
hotel room at 4 in the morning.

Okay. :/

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

apparently the entire internet

There's your problem folks. These opinions came from the internet. Why so serious?

Spoiler for .:

Originally Posted by Savy

I just really don't see anything wrong with what she said.
Okay, maybe it's a bit of a leap to immediately assume he was being sexual or maybe it's a bit silly to be offended that a man would have a sexual interest in a woman when obviously that's completely natural.

BUT, do you honestly think that warrants the kind of response she's getting? She's not a silly bitch, she's a very intelligent woman and she has the right to talk about whatever the hell she wants on her channel. I didn't get the feel that she was "making a big deal of it" at all. She was just telling a little story about a situation that made her uncomfortable. And really, I think most women would feel uncomfortable in a situation like that. Is that wrong? No, I don't think so. I think people are allowed to feel whatever they like.

I just find this entire situation ridiculous. She hasn't done anything deserving such a reaction.

I agree! People, we have entered the blogging age. My mom has a facebook! My MOM has a facebook.

So maybe she said something like "OMG don't be like that guys its weird and creepy! OMG!", it doesn't mean she's going to DC to inhibit the rights of men. She's just......blogging. That's it, there's really nothing else to it.

Originally Posted by Invader

There's your problem folks. These opinions came from the internet. Why so serious?

Spoiler for .:

And not just that....
The entire internet.
woah....

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Lets change the situation. Lets say a woman asks a man to join her for coffee at 4 in the morning... oh wait Xei already brought this up. Funny how the controversy dissolves when the roles are reversed. I am an introvert and you do not speak for me. I would be positively delighted if a random stranger showed interest me based on my physical appearance.

That's because you're a man. It's an entirely different world for men and women in regards to gender politics (the way it is for now). A man can go out about town, dressed pretty much any way he wants, and not get raped, fear rape or get blamed for the rare chance of it. Men don't fear that the women hitting on them might rape them. Women are usually smaller, weaker and not as aggressive. Usually. That's just biology. So of course you would have no problem with it. Put yourself in a woman's shoes and the circumstances are a little bit different (or at least commonly presumed as much).

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Why this ______ is getting Richard Dawkin's attention is beyond belief. He's not alone though, apparently the entire atheist community is having a field day over her video. Anyway, I thought his comment was a nice, toned down "Who the fuck cares? You're overreacting" post.

Oh, and for what it's worth.. stupid feminists are labeling Richard Dawkins a misogynist for the above post. Yep, for the post above. And they're staging boycotts of his materials.

Ayurp.

The feminists are having a problem with him because they feel that he's USING a random hypothetical Muslim woman merely for the purpose of shutting a western woman up and putting her in her "place", not because he actually cares about any women's problems. I don't think it's particularly valid... I think he brought up a good point, that she's being particularly prudish over a light incident when we should be focusing our humanist energies on REAL problems.

By the way, his initial response was a parody letter to a Muslim woman, and not as civil. I can't find that written out anywhere for some stupid reason, so here's a spoof of it someone wrote that I found amusing:

Dear Muslima;

There's a woman here in the Western world who seems to have gotten some people upset over an incident with a young man in an elevator. Afterwards, she made a vlog post that basically said, "um, guys--I find this particular behavior a little creepy and unsettling, given the specific circumstances. Try not to do this sort of thing, could you?"

I've decided to use the life experiences you've had as a Third-World Muslim woman as a weapon with which to deride and belittle this uppity Western woman. I think of the things you endure, Muslima--things like your head-to-toe body covering, your lack of freedom, the denial of your education, the rapes and the honor killings of your sisters and daughters, your forced marriage and your capricious, male-only divorce laws, the fact that your children are the sole property of your husband--as weapons I can use in an effort to silence another woman, whose complaint I find petty and unacceptable.

It should be obvious that because other women in the world have a more difficult time with equal rights and equal treatment, this spoiled Western woman should just shut up and deal. I'm sure you won't mind your pain and your own struggle for equality being used in this ironic manner. Not, of course, that I plan to ask you.


All the best,
Dick

Originally Posted by tommo

That's the thing. Skeptics are supposed to have some sort of rational way of thinking. That's the definition, basically.
To be a feminist and a skeptic is just kind of ridiculous. And to tell guys to not express their innate, genetic desires is telling
them to deny their only real purpose in life. To fuck. She obviously is not a very good skeptic, if she didn't realise the similarities to
catholicism in what she's saying.

What? Feminism= the belief that women are of equal value to men, not inferior or subordinate, and should be treated as such. How does that clash with rational thinking? There are also feminists who have very liberal ideas about sex (even feminist prostitutes, or "sex workers"), but not her obviously.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

By the way, his initial response was a parody letter to a Muslim woman, and not as civil. I can't find that written out anywhere for some stupid reason, so here's a spoof of it someone wrote that I found amusing:

Dear Muslima;

There's a woman here in the Western world who seems to have gotten some people upset over an incident with a young man in an elevator. Afterwards, she made a vlog post that basically said, "um, guys--I find this particular behavior a little creepy and unsettling, given the specific circumstances. Try not to do this sort of thing, could you?"

I've decided to use the life experiences you've had as a Third-World Muslim woman as a weapon with which to deride and belittle this uppity Western woman. I think of the things you endure, Muslima--things like your head-to-toe body covering, your lack of freedom, the denial of your education, the rapes and the honor killings of your sisters and daughters, your forced marriage and your capricious, male-only divorce laws, the fact that your children are the sole property of your husband--as weapons I can use in an effort to silence another woman, whose complaint I find petty and unacceptable.

It should be obvious that because other women in the world have a more difficult time with equal rights and equal treatment, this spoiled Western woman should just shut up and deal. I'm sure you won't mind your pain and your own struggle for equality being used in this ironic manner. Not, of course, that I plan to ask you.


All the best,
Dick

Posted by: Richard Dawkins Author Profile Page | July 2, 2011 11:11 AM

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

I still don't see anything wrong with Richard's original post. It wasn't so much about him parodying a muslim woman, (which he didn't do) as much as it was about him putting into perspective what women in bondaged places have to deal with compared to the gripes of a western woman for being invited to coffee at 4 am.. in an elevator. Better question. What the hell was she doing in an elevator at 4 am anyway? Some people are just night owls. I think the gentleman may have assumed that she was a night owl as well.

What really concerns me though, is why there are women sitting around a table cackling at a man's chopped off penis JUST because he filed for divorce from his wife.



I was really appalled when I saw a clip of this on the amazing atheist because you have an audience of women cackling at a mans chopped off penis JUST BECAUSE HE FILED FOR DIVORCE FROM HIS WIFE.

Whereas if it was jay leno and it was about a man who sliced off his wifes breasts and clitoris and threw that in the garbage disposal.. you wouldn't hear a single man laughing in the audience.

What the fuck is wrong here?

Back on topic. I don't think Richard was out of line. He used an extreme to bring the subject into perspective.

Originally Posted by tommo

To be a feminist and a skeptic is just kind of ridiculous.

I hope you either didn't mean it like it reads, or that we disagree on the definition of the word "feminism". Because otherwise I find that statement ridiculous.

Originally Posted by khh

I hope you either didn't mean it like it reads, or that we disagree on the definition of the word "feminism". Because otherwise I find that statement ridiculous.

Feminists are almost entirely anti-male. There are real feminists who fight for equal rights.
I'm all for them and they're clearly not contradicting skeptical values.

Then there are the ones who get all uppity about being asked out and therefore "objectified".
And the ones who say men should ignore their most basic desire.

Originally Posted by tommo

Feminists are almost entirely anti-male. There are real feminists who fight for equal rights.

Almost entirely, eh? You do realize there are male feminists, right?

Originally Posted by Savy

People are calling her man-hating and a prude just because she wouldn't go into some stranger's
hotel room at 4 in the morning.

does not equal

Originally Posted by Xei

'women shouldn't be forced to have sex with men'

I think the real issue is people are getting pissed at her for expressing an opinion.
An opinion which, honestly, isn't even that controversial.
And that's dumb.

Originally Posted by Tommo

Feminists are almost entirely anti-male.

Wow. Where are you getting your facts from?
This isn't even close to true.
I think you should google feminism.

Sure, not every feminist agrees on what constitutes sexism, or what exactly "equality" would be,
but the end goal is not only to achieve equality for women, but also to eliminate sexism completely,
something which is positive for the male community as well.

You can't be anti-feminism anymore than you can be pro-racism. It doesn't make any sense, honestly.
Well, I mean, you can be. But then you just look like an ass.

Originally Posted by Tommo

Then there are the ones who get all uppity about being asked out and therefore "objectified".
And the ones who say men should ignore their most basic desire.

1. Do you really think these are the only types of feminists there are? That's ignorant.

2. Some women do feel objectified if strangers asked them out, and it's their right to feel however they like.
If a man doesn't know you at all, you can assume he's only interested in you for your looks, which honestly can be offensive to some.

3. No one says that. But many women don't feel comfortable with aggressive sexuality. It's not that women expect you to "ignore your most basic desire"
so much as women expect you to show some common decency. You don't ask random woman every night for one night stands, do you? Hopefully not.
Besides, I've never met a woman who doesn't like sex.

Which is why you shouldn't generalize. It makes you look ignorant.

Originally Posted by Savy

"People are calling her man-hating and a prude just because she wouldn't go into some stranger's
hotel room at 4 in the morning."

does not equal

"women shouldn't be forced to have sex with men"

Okay then, these 'people' complaining that she's "man-hating and a prude" on the sole basis of "she wouldn't go into some stranger's hotel room at 4 in the morning"; it follows immediately that these people think she should have gone into some stranger's hotel room at 4 in the morning. Right? That's the meaning of what you said.

aaand... that's bullshit. 'People' aren't taking issue on this abhorrent basis, and it's a sexist strawman to say that this is their point. What's your argument? It's right there in black and white that you said this. -_-

I'm saying she has a right to feel however she likes, and that people getting mad at her just because she finds a situation like that awkward and doesn't want to go up to his room, even if they're not necessarily going to have sex, is absurd.

I'm not saying the issue is that people think that she's obligated to go, rather that the issue is that people really don't have a say in how she reacts to any kind of situation, casual, sexual, friendly, etc.

Of course people have a right to freedom of speech, but the fact that they're over-reacting to a woman expressing her own freedom of speech is just... silly. Especially when what she said isn't even controversial, and she's not even a celebrity or popular youtuber either.

I dont think the controversy stems from her refusing the mans invitation or even from her expressing her free speech but instead she is telling men how they should behave around women. As a feminist she has no problem telling men they should act a certain way around women but she would no doubt be offended if someone told her how she should act around men, for example "women shouldn't talk when men are talking". She basically shot herself in the foot in front of millions of people.

I have no problem with feminism (I read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex in high school so I am somewhat acquainted with feminist literature) but in instances like this feminism can be self-refuting.

What do you think she's going to do? Make a petition for men asking women out at 4am?
I just don't see how that one statement constitutes this reaction...
it's just her personal opinion, and it's not like she represents all feminists everywhere, either.
Plenty of people on YouTube make much more controversial statements with far less reaction.

I don't know. After reading a couple pages of the comments on her video, I just can't help
but sympathize with her. She's really getting bashed over practically nothing.

Originally Posted by Savy

What do you think she's going to do? Make a petition for men asking women out at 4am?
I just don't see how that one statement constitutes this reaction...
it's just her personal opinion, and it's not like she represents all feminists everywhere, either.
Plenty of people on YouTube make much more controversial statements with far less reaction.

I don't know. After reading a couple pages of the comments on her video, I just can't help
but sympathize with her. She's really getting bashed over practically nothing.

Yes it is her personal opinion and she has the right to express it and yes its youtube, of course the reaction was exaggerated, no one here is arguing against that but please answer me this question: Do you see the inconstancy in her telling men how to behave when she claims to be a feminist?

Originally Posted by Savy

Wow. Where are you getting your facts from?
This isn't even close to true.
I think you should google feminism.

I think you should google "controversial".
You used it in the wrong way about 5 times in a few posts.

Originally Posted by Savy

Sure, not every feminist agrees on what constitutes sexism, or what exactly "equality" would be,
but the end goal is not only to achieve equality for women, but also to eliminate sexism completely,
something which is positive for the male community as well.

No, it's not. It should be. But an overwhelming majority are man hating morons who pretty much ruin it for everyone who isn't.

Originally Posted by Savy

1. Do you really think these are the only types of feminists there are? That's ignorant.

Oh fuck off. Where did I say that? Nowhere.
I said MOST. Not all. And I clearly stated that, in case there was confusion.

Originally Posted by Savy

2. Some women do feel objectified if strangers asked them out, and it's their right to feel however they like.

Yes, of course they do. They also have the right to then go tell people about the horror of such an act. They also have a right to tell men how to act, as long as they also allow everyone else the right to criticise the fuck out of their views.

Originally Posted by Savy

If a man doesn't know you at all, you can assume he's only interested in you for your looks, which honestly can be offensive to some.

Nothing is more deserving of....

Originally Posted by Savy

3. No one says that. But many women don't feel comfortable with aggressive sexuality. It's not that women expect you to "ignore your most basic desire"
so much as women expect you to show some common decency. You don't ask random woman every night for one night stands, do you? Hopefully not.
Besides, I've never met a woman who doesn't like sex.

Our most basic desire is to fuck every mildly attractive woman we see.
We show enough restraint by going through the whole asking out ordeal.
She tells us "We shouldn't do that".

So yeah, she is telling us to suppress our emotions even more.
Some women would love that if they found him attractive, and they'd be like
"Fuck yes, show me your room, you spunk".
And technically, the more women someone asks for sex, the higher their chances of sex are.

So, to tell men to not do this is just fucking retarded, basically.

Originally Posted by Savy

Which is why you shouldn't generalize. It makes you look ignorant.

Which is why I didn't do it. But I agree, so all you generalisers out there.... you look ignorant. K?

A lot of things are coming out in this thread. Maybe men should be more open about how they feel.

Originally Posted by Savy

If a man doesn't know you at all, you can assume he's only interested in you for your looks, which honestly can be offensive to some.

You serious? Reproduction happens because of attraction. Physical attraction is natural. Only a moron would find this offensive.

I remember hearing someone once say that looks draw you but the personality ensnares you.

I think one of the points is that we feel what we feel- even if it's illogical or moronic- and we're free to tell others how something makes us feel.
BUT, a problem arises when we try to make our feelings the feelings of others. Just because something may be one way for us doesn't mean others experience the same (or even similar) emotions, beliefs or thoughts.

One of the mistakes the youtuber made was to tell ALL men how to behave around ALL women. She then left the area of personal feelings to create a sort of dogma. THough I'm sure she was just generally rambling about her experience, she has a huge audience (bigger than most social circles pre-internet) which caused problems and gave her blog more attention than was warranted.

Personally, I think I would have been extremely uncomfortable in her position. Being alone in an elevator with a stranger is often uncomfortable enough during normal business hours. Being in an elevator with a stranger at 4AM and being asked to his room for coffee would likely encourage me to bolt out the door the second it opened. ESPECIALLY if I had just given a speech about sexism and such. I'd feel like he was... not quite attacking me and not quite insulting me, but pushing issues to get under my skin and to be an ass.