# RO: Rebecca Watson of Skepchick, You are a \[very bad word\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 4, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468 "2013-12-04T12:55:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lost4life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@lost4life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lost4life)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/81 "2013-12-05T21:01:07Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Is that what you said to your underage, retarded girlfriend? Mister F… ---
**Author:** ![Battle\_Pope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Battle\_Pope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Battle_Pope)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/82 "2013-12-05T21:40:25Z")
> [@LawMonkey](#): > > Hmm. This thread has been useful and interesting in three ways: > > 1. It clued me in to this “Atheism+” thing that I’d never really heard about before. I should probably withhold judgement, but my initial reaction is that I don’t dig it much. > > 2. It’s helped me realize that Ms. Watson is, while only very questionably a cunt, certainly more annoying than I’d originally thought, which encourages me to go look for a different podcast than the SGU, which has been sorta getting on my nerves anyway. Yeah, Watson and _Atheism+_ are to skepticism/atheism what the Peoples Front of Judea were to the Roman Empire. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/83 "2013-12-05T22:14:50Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …the guy asked her if she wanted a cup of coffee. He even went out of his way to say ““Don’t take this the wrong way,”, fully aware that she may well have taken it the wrong way. Oh please. It was 4AM in the morning, he didn’t want a cup of Sanka. She said was going to bed, he was alone with her int he elevator, and she’d made a presentation in a speech about this sort of thing was not a good thing do to. > [@](#): > > What is with your nonsense about “objectification?” How is a guy, asking if someone wants a cup of coffee, objectifying someone? 4AM in the morning…he did not want a fucking cup of coffee! This has been gone over thousands of times. I’ll just quote iiandyiiii from the last page as he puts it better than me: > [@](#): > > It’s not that it’s onerous- it’s that it was reasonable for her to feel creeped out (even if some people would not be creeped out by that), and it was reasonable for her to advise guys to not do that. Basically, I think it’s reasonable and wise for men to assume that a woman is being honest when she says she felt afraid, creeped out, harassed, etc. in a particular situation. She was reasonably creeped out, and her advice is reasonable. I wouldn’t do that to a woman in an elevator, because I would not want her to feel uncomfortable. > [@](#): > > McCraw didn’t miss the difference between sexual attraction and objectification at all. She asked a question. To quote McGraw again: > [@](#): > > My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on Earth does that justify him as ‘creepy’? Are we not sexual beings? That’s not ‘just a question’. Thats an implication. That implies “oh you silly little feminist, you should be grateful for the attention, and besides its just mens’ nature!”. She’s acting as if Watson has no right to feel the way she feels. It is dismissive of Watson’s concerns over the issue. See iiandyiiii’s quote again. > [@](#): > > She didn’t diminish anyone’s feelings. Really? Because I read those ‘questions’ and I see someone who thinks Watson doesn’t have any right to feel that way. But hold on: McGraw makes the situation worse: [QUOTE=McGraw] 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? [/QUOTE] Do you not see the problem with this statement? In order for “the situation to be reversed” the female would have to be able to force themselves on the male at will, get them pregnant, and other consequences of rape, etc. > [@](#): > > She didn’t accuse Watson of anything and didn’t call her any names. Neither was Watson. She did attack the argument, not McGraw personally. The comments she made was " This is unfortunately a pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought". It does not say McGraw is a misogynist(?) but it does note that the argument is actively helping those who diminish the incident. She also said it is a failure of basic feminism. I can’t say I disagree. A good feminist does not call another persona bad feminist based on their reaction to an unwanted advance. That might be harsh criticism of someone’s words but it is not a personal attack. She merely used McGraw’s own words against her. A personal attack would be to, say call her a bitch or c-word. > [@](#): > > McGraw did no such thing. Stop stating rubbish. Watson didn’t call her out on her claims. Watson ignored McGraw’s questions and made a couple of personal attacks that you yourself agree are invalid. BULLSHIT! Watson’s comments were no more personal than Mcgraw’s, and if anything they were less so as she was not referring to an experience by McGraw but her own fucking words! The text of the speech is [here](http://dalehusband.com/2011/08/01/rebecca-watson-vs-stef-mcgraw/) > [@](#): > > Hey, lets no break it down, shall we? Because you can’t answer things like this: > [@](#): > > Because you are relying on the words of an unreliable narrator for your “break down.” She broke the rules, Which ones? What items on their table broke the rules? > [@](#): > > You are letting your own experiences cloud cloud your judgement. There is nothing in Watson’s own account that shows anything other than professional behaviour on the part of the Dragon Con person who spoke to her. Tell me what items broke the rules? > [@](#): > > Watsons “calling out” was vicious and nasty and it was done in an environment where McGraw was outnumbered and didn’t have the right or ability to respond. It was passive aggressive bullying and completely out of proportion to the question that McGraw asked and that you cited up thread. Jesus, White Knight a little more whydontcha. > [@](#): > > No words are being warped. You agree with me that McGraw wasn’t parroting misogynistic thought: so why did she say it? You have a funny definition of ‘agree with you’. What I said was “That in of itself may not be straight-up mysogyny but it sure as heck is a party line of people who try to minimize the experiences women have where they can be creeped out or made uncomfortable.” As to why she said it? Because it was just one of many examples of people trying to downplay and minimize the incident. > [@](#): > > She dropped a stink bomb into the room when she attacked McGraw. It was a passive aggressive attack: but it was certainly an attack. > > [I’m using the accepted definition of the word.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)) Not really. > [@](#): > > When Watson attacked McGraw: she tossed a stinkbomb into the room and then ran away. My use of the word trolling even fits your definition of the word. When the hell did she run away? She even answered the defenders of McGraw until all they pretty much had was '[wah! shouldn’t have named names!"](http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/01/bad-form-rebecca-watson/) I’m not impressed with that as an argument. I’m not impressed with your definition of “running away”. > [@](#): > > Why? What on earth have I posted that would justify that label? " She demeans whatever positive work she chooses to do by trolling. I can’t see her body of work beyond the self-promotion and the lies." yeah, really. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/84 "2013-12-05T22:53:28Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Oh please. It was 4AM in the morning, he didn’t want a cup of Sanka. She said was going to bed, he was alone with her int he elevator, and she’d made a presentation in a speech about this sort of thing was not a good thing do to. …give me a break. According to Watson he said: "“Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more; would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” > [@](#): > > 4AM in the morning…he did not want a fucking cup of coffee! Says you. The words that he used though, seem to strongly suggest he wanted a cup of coffee. > [@](#): > > This has been gone over thousands of times. I’ll just quote iiandyiiii from the last page as he puts it better than me: Why is it so hard for you to give me your opinion? I’m not interested in what Dale and iiandyiiii’s have to say: I asked for your opinion. What iiandyiiii does not answer the question I ASKED YOU. The question was about OBJECTIFICATION. If you can’t answer it then simply say so. Stop hiding behind other people. > [@](#): > > To quote McGraw again: > > That’s not ‘just a question’. Thats an implication. That implies “oh you silly little feminist, you should be grateful for the attention, and besides its just mens’ nature!”. She’s acting as if Watson has no right to feel the way she feels. It is dismissive of Watson’s concerns over the issue. See iiandyiiii’s quote again. There was nothing gender specific in that quote, and considering that McGraw considers herself a feminist I very much doubt she was saying “oh you silly feminist.” Read the damn word she said and stop twisting it to fit your agenda. Watson has a right to feel uncomfortable at any time for any reason. McGraw questions her right to tell other people how to think. > [@](#): > > Really? Because I read those ‘questions’ and I see someone who thinks Watson doesn’t have any right to feel that way. There is no implication that Watson can’t feel however she wants to feel. > [@](#): > > But hold on: McGraw makes the situation worse: > > [QUOTE-McGraw} > 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? > [@](#): > > Do you not see the problem with this statement? In order for “the situation to be reversed” the female would have to be able to force themselves on the male at will, get them pregnant, and other consequences of rape, etc. This is possibly the dumbest thing you have written. I actually don’t know how to respond, it is so stupid. Can anyone help me here? > [@](#): > > Neither was Watson. She did attack the argument, not McGraw personally. The comments she made was " This is unfortunately a pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought". But it wasn’t a pretty standard parroting of misogynistic thought". There is nothing misogynistic about what McGraw said and it didn’t parrot misogynistic thought. That is why it wasn’t an attack on the argument: because she never actually addressed the points that McGraw made. > [@](#): > > It does not say McGraw is a misogynist(?) but it does note that the argument is actively helping those who diminish the incident. Oh stop with the rhetoric. The incident should be damn well diminished. She was asked if she wanted to have a cup of coffee. She said no. INCIDENT OVER. > [@](#): > > She also said it is a failure of basic feminism. I can’t say I disagree. A good feminist does not call another persona bad feminist based on their reaction to an unwanted advance. “Basic Feminism” “Good Feminism” “Bad Feminism” I am glad you aren’t the arbiter of who is and who isn’t a good feminist. The sentence you have written is distasteful. > [@](#): > > That might be harsh criticism of someone’s words but it is not a personal attack. She merely used McGraw’s own words against her. A personal attack would be to, say call her a bitch or c-word. She didn’t address McGraw’s word at all. A passive aggressive attack is still an attack. > [@](#): > > BULLSHIT! Watson’s comments were no more personal than Mcgraw’s, and if anything they were less so as she was not referring to an experience by McGraw but her own fucking words! > > The text of the speech is [here](http://dalehusband.com/2011/08/01/rebecca-watson-vs-stef-mcgraw/) Yeah they were. A passive aggressive attack is still an attack. > [@](#): > > Because you can’t answer things like this: > > Which ones? What items on their table broke the rules? > > Tell me what items broke the rules? Nope I can’t answer that, and neither can you, because all we have is the word of Watson as to what happened at the table. > [@](#): > > Jesus, White Knight a little more whydontcha. Jesus, quit with the labels whydontcha. That wasn’t White Knighting. > [@](#): > > You have a funny definition of ‘agree with you’. What I said was “That in of itself may not be straight-up mysogyny but it sure as heck is a party line of people who try to minimize the experiences women have where they can be creeped out or made uncomfortable.” So you do agree with me. Gotcha. People shouldn’t have to moderate their words because of the actions and the words of other people. Forget this party line nonsense: it simply allows you to ignore the words that McGraw wrote and not attempt to answer her. > [@](#): > > As to why she said it? Because it was just one of many examples of people trying to downplay and minimize the incident. It was a question. One that I don’t think it unreasonable one to ask, and an entirely reasonable one to answer. > [@](#): > > Not really. Yes really. > [@](#): > > When the hell did she run away? She even answered the defenders of McGraw until all they pretty much had was '[wah! shouldn’t have named names!"](http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/01/bad-form-rebecca-watson/) I’m not impressed with that as an argument. I’m not impressed with your definition of “running away”. And I’m not impressed with your definition of “trolling.” So she caused a reaction then hung around to fan the flames. Sure looks like a troll to me. > [@](#): > > " She demeans whatever positive work she chooses to do by trolling. I can’t see her body of work beyond the self-promotion and the lies." > > yeah, really. So you got nothing? Didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/85 "2013-12-06T00:30:56Z")
Seinfeld did a bit on coffee. In this case, at 4 AM in a hotel elevator, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that coffee was not coffee. ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/86 "2013-12-06T00:41:40Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Myers is an egg. He is currently under the threat of a lawsuit because he has publicly accused somebody of being a rapist. I find it hard to believe anything he says and find his blog to be almost unreadable. I would be skeptical about any words he writes about his “targets.” I have no idea at all what’s up with PZ. When he accused Shermer that was the last straw for me. Although to be strictly correct he said he was passing on an accusation that was given to him from one of the A+ ninnies because she was afraid to do it herself. Then more anonymous women came out of the woodwork with ‘me, too, he did it to me, too’. Now, seriously? Ok, I get you feel intimidated and for all I know Shermer did these things but go to the cops. Why would you get PZ to air it on his blog? The whole situation is looney and it shows how far the A+/Watson crowd has taken a good idea to it’s furthest, most bizarre extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/87 "2013-12-06T00:47:58Z")
> [@LawMonkey](#): > > Hmm. This thread has been useful and interesting in three ways: > > 1. It clued me in to this “Atheism+” thing that I’d never really heard about before. I should probably withhold judgement, but my initial reaction is that I don’t dig it much. In its earliest iteration, it seemed pretty good. Lots of statements about equality and equal treatment for women, minorities, LGBTQ and disabled people. Certainly I was quite happy with it, because I’ve been to cons and meetings and they were pretty white male heavy on the speaker side. I never felt uncomfortable, I did get hit on (once with my husband standing by me, which is the most bizarre thing ever), I did say no thank you, I moved on. So the initial statements of A+ were fine. The leaders of the movement turned out to be weird. Hell, they’ve even got a blockbot on Twitter - if you say something negative about A+ it blocks you from all the self-identified A+ guys and gals. It’s just so very, very strange. Incidentally I’m an atheist because I don’t really want to be part of a movement, so that turned me off as well. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/88 "2013-12-06T01:26:02Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > . The guy in the elevator didn’t necessarily “proposition her.” According to Watson’s own words he said: > > [Skepticism | Impolite Conversation](http://impoliteconversation.wordpress.com/category/skepticism/) > > That looks relatively innocent to me (one could legitimately see it as potentially socially clueless if the man in the story actually exists) and I’m not sure why in the real world a simple “no thanks, goodnight” is so onerous. Are you kidding me? Seriously? Other people have pointed out that he definitely did not just want to drink coffee with her, no matter how politely he asked. But beyond that, I think this is a symptom of the real problem. I’m going to take a guess that you’re male, and you’ve never been in an enclosed space, alone, in the middle of a night, with a man who was expressing sexual interest in you (no matter how nicely). It’s not a terrifying, life-changing experience or anything, and most people in the world are good people, but **you don’t know if this guy is or not**. And the stakes are really high. I’d bet this guy was a nice guy, and maybe he thought she was great and wanted to drink coffee for breakfast with her on their first date that would end in a blissful marriage or whatever. But I bet he, like, you, had never thought through what being on the other side of the equation feels like. (No dog at all in the rest of this fight, btw.) ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/89 "2013-12-06T01:30:26Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You’re just gonna leave that dangling? Come on, spill the beans! Sorry, I missed this earlier. In another life, I worked for AOL and for [Lycos.com](http://Lycos.com) as a chat transcriptionist/interviewer. Before Youtube was a common thing and before modems were fast enough to cope with video, we used to get a person on the phone, ask them questions from the chat audience and type their answers in real time. Alternately, we’d get questions together beforehand, ask the questions, then transcribe the answers. I did this with MS in interview format, whom (at that point) I was a huge fan of - his book really changed things for me as I was coming out of evangelical Christianity. He was a huge, huge dick to me. He viewed the whole thing as a waste of time, he said I was incompetent because I couldn’t keep up with how fast he was talking (part of my talk when I got someone on the phone was to tell them they’d need to slow down - I typed at that time about 110wpm but obviously people talk faster than that.) He was just awful, condescending and a cunt. I was upset because I’d really been looking forward to it. He made some pretty misogynistic off the record remarks, too. None of that means he sexually assaulted someone and even if he did he deserves trial by jury, not trial by internet. It just means the one time I spoke to him, he was a vile little creep. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/90 "2013-12-06T01:39:49Z")
Can someone explain to me how the elevator incident constitutes objectification? Creepy and/or socially awkward? Yeah, totally. I can understand completely how being in an enclosed space with somebody potentially hitting on you could be unnerving. But I can’t see how it’s objectifying. Especially since the guy wasn’t like “omg ur so hawttt!!!” He phrased it in terms of him finding her “interesting”. Was it bullshit? Maybe. I honestly think he found her content interesting, since she’s recognizable skeptic pseudo-celebrity that he was likely familiar with. But even if it was bullshit, I can’t see how it’s objectification, **especially** not if you’re a sex-positive feminist. And yes, I know sex-positive feminists can still find certain things objectifying. I’ve seen objectification in the media and at conferences. While it’s not always the easiest topic to understand, I can at least somewhat understand the other person’s reasoning when I personally disagree, but I simply can’t fathom how this specific incident is even in the same proverbial country as “objectification” unless you come from some insane viewpoint where any sexuality towards women is objectifying (which, again, clearly isn’t the case since they’re sex positive). ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/91 "2013-12-06T01:47:04Z")
Well, I wouldn’t actually consider it objectifying, but female objectification isn’t the only thing feminists are against. I’d say it’s more an issue of the lack of a safe space for women to participate in this movement she clearly finds important. If I wanted to make an argument that it was objectifying, I’d say that she had no evidence he had seen her talk or knew anything about her other than that she was female and attractive to him and present at 4 am in an elevator. But, again, that’s not something I’d personally argue. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/92 "2013-12-06T01:48:59Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Well, I wouldn’t actually consider it objectifying, but female objectification isn’t the only thing feminists are against. I’d say it’s more an issue of the lack of a safe space for women to participate in this movement she clearly finds important. > > If I wanted to make an argument that it was objectifying, I’d say that she had no evidence he had seen her talk or knew anything about her other than that she was female and attractive to him and present at 4 am in an elevator. But, again, that’s not something I’d personally argue. Sorry, I knew I should have quoted, I wasn’t responding to you or anyone here specifically. It was mentioned somewhere in Banquet Bear and Mr. Miskatonic’s blood war that Watson claimed it was “objectifying” and I encountered that sentiment about the elevator incident in the past. I just didn’t feel like going back and finding a good line about it to quote :p. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/93 "2013-12-06T01:59:36Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Are you kidding me? Seriously? > > Other people have pointed out that he \*\*definitely \*\*did not just want to drink coffee with her, no matter how politely he asked. …really? Definately? Bollocks. You weren’t there. You can’t definitely know anything. Here were the words again: \*\*“Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more; would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” \*\* How anyone can definitively state that this is a request for sex is beyond me. It wasn’t a polite request for sex. It was a polite request for coffee. > [@](#): > > But beyond that, I think this is a symptom of the real problem. I’m going to take a guess that you’re male, and you’ve never been in an enclosed space, alone, in the middle of a night, with a man who was expressing sexual interest in you (no matter how nicely). Well yeah I have actually. > [@](#): > > It’s not a terrifying, life-changing experience or anything, and most people in the world are good people, but **you don’t know if this guy is or not**. And the stakes are really high. Indeed. > [@](#): > > I’d bet this guy was a nice guy, and maybe he thought she was great and wanted to drink coffee for breakfast with her on their first date that would end in a blissful marriage or whatever. We don’t know if the guy was a nice guy, an evil guy, or if he even existed. > [@](#): > > But I bet he, like, you, had never thought through what being on the other side of the equation feels like. You actually don’t have a clue how I feel. You couldn’t be more wrong about me. > [@](#): > > (No dog at all in the rest of this fight, btw.) Yeah. Sure. [QUOTE=iiandyiiii] Seinfeld did a bit on coffee. In this case, at 4 AM in a hotel elevator, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that coffee was not coffee. [/QUOTE] Seinfeld is a comedian. He makes light hearted observations that sometimes, but not always, match reality. The guy asked for coffee. He may or may not have meant more. than that. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/94 "2013-12-06T02:07:18Z")
Okay, maybe I’m totally wrong about you. I’ve been wrong before and I will be again. Are you male? In my experience, which is not universal, it’s usually men (and definitely not all, maybe not even a majority) who interpret come-ons as literal and not suggestive. For better or for worse (and certainly based on real concerns and real experiences), women are mostly socialized to believe that’s a come on, and to act accordingly. I’d say even fewer men (but practically no women I’ve ever talked to about this sort of thing) would dismiss a woman’s interpretation of a situation in which she was made to feel sexualized and unsafe. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/95 "2013-12-06T02:28:26Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Are you kidding me? Seriously? > > Other people have pointed out that he definitely did not just want to drink coffee with her, no matter how politely he asked. But beyond that, I think this is a symptom of the real problem. I’m going to take a guess that you’re male, and you’ve never been in an enclosed space, alone, in the middle of a night, with a man who was expressing sexual interest in you (no matter how nicely). It’s not a terrifying, life-changing experience or anything, and most people in the world are good people, but **you don’t know if this guy is or not**. And the stakes are really high. > > I’d bet this guy was a nice guy, and maybe he thought she was great and wanted to drink coffee for breakfast with her on their first date that would end in a blissful marriage or whatever. > > But I bet he, like, you, had never thought through what being on the other side of the equation feels like. > > (No dog at all in the rest of this fight, btw.) A lot of men don’t realize that this sort of thing is precisely how some rapists pick their victims. They intrude on personal space, and try to get a potential victim alone. Now, an elevator isn’t a personal space, but it’s not the time and place to hit on someone, either. If you want to invite someone to coffee (even if it really IS coffee), you shouldn’t do it in a small, enclosed space, where the other person can’t get away from you. Most guys are not going to freak out if they get a refusal. A few guys, however, will start verbal and possibly physical abuse if they get turned down. The problem is, the psycho guys don’t have tags on them, to warn everyone. What goes through normal men’s minds seems to be “I’m a good guy, surely she can see that and will give me a chance.” Unfortunately, no, women CAN’T see that he’s a good guy, and we feel obliged to protect ourselves…especially if a guy has already shown that he’s willing to ignore our boundaries. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/96 "2013-12-06T02:29:04Z")
If he just wanted coffee he wouldnt have asked to have it in they’re (or any) hotel room. He’d have invited her to a 24-hr diner or coffee shop. Evety human adult that isnt completely naive knows what this is code for. It’s a “soft” way of suggesting sex. ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/97 "2013-12-06T03:33:27Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > A lot of men don’t realize that this sort of thing is precisely how some rapists pick their victims. They intrude on personal space, and try to get a potential victim alone. I did not know that! I mean, asking someone out in a lift is intruding on personal space and trying to see if she’s ripe for a rapin’! > [@](#): > > Now, an elevator isn’t a personal space, but it’s not the time and place to hit on someone, either. If you want to invite someone to coffee (even if it really IS coffee), you shouldn’t do it in a small, enclosed space, where the other person can’t get away from you. Oh, wait so asking someone out for coffee in a lift is exactly NOT how some rapists pick their victims, it not being personal space and so on. At best it’s maybe an awkward place to ask a girl out. Honestly, that thing you said there? It’s fucking dumb. He asked her for coffee. It might have been code for ‘do ya wanna come back to mine?’ She said no. She said it skeeved her out, which, yanno, is sometimes down to the personalities involved. Maybe it did. But at no time was it called out to be rapey at all. Can we not screech about how this is trying to cull the girl herd for rape week? Because, I have to say again, that’s just fucking dumb. It does women no favours, and it makes you look like an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/98 "2013-12-06T04:53:48Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > Are you male? …I’m male, but why does that matter? McGraw was one of the first to question Watson and her credentials as both a female and as a feminist are not in question. Do you think McGraw and other females should just keep quiet and only the females and males you agree with should be allowed to speak? If you only want to listen to female opinions there are [plenty](http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/01/bad-form-rebecca-watson/) of critics of Watson. Why are you making assumptions about people based on their gender? Since I assume you are female, what assumptions should I be making about how you think and act? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/99 "2013-12-06T10:11:39Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …really? Definately? > > Bollocks. You weren’t there. You can’t definitely know anything. Here were the words again: > > \*\*“Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more; would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” > \*\* > > How anyone can definitively state that this is a request for sex is beyond me. It wasn’t a polite request for sex. It was a polite request for coffee. Know this now. You did not know it before, but now you do. If you ever ask a woman to come to your hotel room, for any reason, it _will_ be interpreted as an invitation to have sex. It doesn’t matter what you really mean, it doesn’t matter what you literally said. It’s just a fact about how the request is interpreted. And knowing that the request will be interpreted that way, it would be irresponsible for you to ever suggest a woman come to your hotel room unless you _do_ intend it as a “coded” invitation to have sex. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468/100 "2013-12-06T10:13:40Z")
C’mon… asking for someone to come back to their _hotel room_, at 4 AM, can very reasonably be assumed to be a proposition for sex. Coffee was not just coffee… or if it was, in this case it’s very reasonable for the woman to assume it was not. I can’t believe this is tough for some people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ro-rebecca-watson-of-skepchick-you-are-a-very-bad-word/675468.md?page=6)