No, you fucking idiot, it’s defined as ‘idiocy that a five year old throwing a tantrum would realize isn’t going to work’.
But you keep chugging along.
Simple, yes. Reasonable and logical, no.
Because, you moron, it is. Only the idiots and psychopaths living in the MRA circlejerk think it’s reasonable to ignore the fact that a strange man approached a woman in an elevator - an area where she has no escape from - and propositioned her sexually - only MRAs who’ve been called on this think that claiming it wasn’t a sexual proposition is believable - and by the very nature of the situation intimidated her.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, no matter how matter how much it says it’s a fucking swan, it’s still a god damned duck.
How exactly is it unreasonable or illogical in your view? You don’t say now and you never said before. You simply hurl conclusions or insults like a “five year old throwing a tantrum” You are the anti-truth.
I’m not sure what your point is here. I’ve never denied that the situation as described by Miss Watson entails a sexual proposition. Nor do I deny that it’s potentially more intimidating to proposition someone in an elevator than in place like a bar. What position have I taken on this issue that you have a problem with?
Just to clarify, the reason neko is wrong is that I do in fact post substantive arguments and in fact provided an example. Thus when neko refers to substance free idiocy, it’s a far better description of his or her own posts than mine.
Hi Mr. 84. i think you take a lot of unwarranted abuse. I also think this is a misguided comment. Hitting on semi-celebrity women hardly sounds “beta.” Doing it to a somewhat trapped woman sounds like asshole “alpha.”.
And it doesn’t make it any less scary to be trapped in an enclosed space at four a.m. with an aroused person much larger than yourself… just because it’s conceivable that if the man was her ideal physical type and she was in an unususually receptive mood etc.
My guess is that is that the situation is going to unwelcome 98% of the time and frequently frightening.
I would say it depends on the context and what is said. In this case, the circumstances were pretty mild. Mild enough that no reasonable person would have felt frightened. I do agree that most of the time it would be unwelcome. Probably 98% of sexual approaches are unwelcome.
Well do you at least agree that the alleged words themselves were pretty “beta”?
Would you agree that things can get spooky in a huge building after midnight? (Exception made for a convention that is still busy enough that throngs of people are outside the elevator on almostevery floor.)
Would you agree that the (rough) 98 percent figure gets higher whe the person getting hit on is, say, in a late night hotel elevator? (Exception made if there was earlier mutual flirtation.) And that the percentages get way higher when rape would be logistically very possible?
Rape might be a one in a 100,000 outcome, but I --a medium-size male-- often get fear in situations where the likelihood of harm is similar. f’Instance driving between two semis. Passing a big person on a vacant late night street. Having a street person approach my car’s door. Walking along a ledge.
I can totally understand the impulse to ask a cute stranger for “coffee” at an atheist convention as you’re heading to your room to retire. I can also understand there’s an excellent chance it might leave her spooked and pissed about being spooked.
Since I originally brought up the catch 22 aspect, I shall defend it. First the premises:
a. 90% of men are not creeps/racists (not a scientifically accurate number, but fair for illustrations)
b. Women meet/speak to more than 10 men on average.
c. Women cannot reliably tell by sight which men are creeps and which aren’t.
Assuming those to premises are valid, lets take the two scenarios that are possible here :
A woman treats all men as potential creeps. She is guarded in public spaces, doesn’t go out without friends, makes sure that she is not in enclosed spaces with strangers, etc.
A woman doesn’t assume someone is a creep and lets herself drink with them, get an elevator with them late at night, or go back to their room and eventually gets raped/assaulted.
Now, no one is going to be all 1 or 2, some creeps will be identified, but due to premise c., sometimes there will be false positive and false negatives. And women know this. Some from more personal experience than others.
So now for the catch 22: The more a woman leans to scenario 1, the more she insults all the non-creeps (and the creeps who think they aren’t creeps). If she is open about this, she will get all kinds of lash back. But the more she moves to 2, if she does get assaulted, she will hear about all the things she should have done to prevent it (basically moving to 1). 1 makes you a bad person, 2 makes your assault your own fault.
And there is no magic balance between the two that gets universal approval. Treating any man as a potential creep can bring criticism and unless you’re at home reading from the bible in your fortress with robot guards, there will be something someone will point out that you could have done to prevent your assault.
Wrong. She mentioned he was in the group but she also specifically said she had not spoken with him. He might have been technically “in the group” but apparently not engaging in the conversation. And if they never engaged each other in conversation he was effectively a “stranger”. And this makes it all the more creepy if he was hanging out in the group, not engaging socially, and then at 4am when RW decides to go he actually breaks off from the group, followers her into the elevator, and the very first thing he says to her is “don’t take this the wrong way…”. How anyone can not understand why this would be creepy is completely beyond me unless you just really are socially inept or just inexperienced with the opposite sex.
I doubt it. For example, if Watson had asked a trusted friend, male or female, to walk her back to her room, I doubt anyone would have criticized her for it. Or if she had gone straight back to her room at 11:00pm instead of 4:00am, I doubt anyone would have criticized her for it.
Or imagine if Watson had said in her video that after the man got on the elevator, she got off again because she didn’t want to be alone in an elevator with a man at that hour. Would it have provoked a firestorm of controversy? Of course not.
What provoked all of the criticism of Miss Watson was that she condemned this man for his very mild actions. And there was no need for her to do that. As alluded to above, she could simply have said “No thanks, I have to get up early tomorrow” and then forgotten about it.
She didn’t “condemn” him, you simpleminded dingbat. She described how his action made her feel uncomfortable, exercised her free speech in advicing men in general that her opinion on that particular behaviour is that they shouldn’t do that, and got a shitstorm from simpelminded idjits like you who got so butthert by this basic request your emotion blinds you from recognising the feelings of others and makes you think it completely rational to disbelieve and criticise every aspect of the story, while at the same time whining that the story as described is completely and utterly in the realm of oversensitive hyperfeminists.
Of course she “could simply have said ‘No thanks, I have to get up early tomorrow’ and then forgotten about it.”, but due to her experinces in life what she did was feel uncomfortable. How you can take such offense at the communication of those feelings, feelings ***evidence *** show are not rare exceptions, is mindbogling to anyone not suffering from a severe empathy deficit.
It seems pretty clear that Miss Watson expressed an unfavorable judgment and/or indicated strong disapproval at least about what this man did – if not about the man himself.
But anyway, if you disagree with my choice of word, then can we agree she publicly criticized what this man did?
If so, then I will restate my point as follows:
My point stands.
Assuming that’s true, so what? It does not contradict anything I have said.
That’s complete nonsense, I have never disputed the basic facts of the story. I have inserted qualifiers like “alleged” as I would do with most uncorroborated anecdotes.
Again, so what? The claim being made is that she was in a “Catch-22” situation, i.e. a paradoxical situation from which she could not escape because of contradictory rules. Here, there was a simple easy escape.
It’s not a matter of offense. My position is that the approach as described was within the realm of reasonableness. Therefore, regardless of how it made her feel, it was not reasonable for Miss Watson to ask the world to change to accommodate her feelings. Also, I am skeptical about Miss Watson’s apparent claim as to the reasons why the approach bothered her.
If it doesn’t offend you, why do you post about it? Not that that really matters, what matters is that your “position” is that of an idiot.
And are you so in love with the word ‘apparent’ you have to shove it where it doesn’t belong? Or is “apparent claim” meant to acknowledge you have severe problems with interpreting oral communication?
She isn’t asking the world. She is asking people who attend skeptical/atheist conventions - people who should frankly be more thoughtful and understanding about things like this - to use a little more thought about causing situations like this.