Archive for the 'Feminazism' Category

Why Do I Have More Respect For Men Than MRAs?

“A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.” -Albert Camus

Manboobz has another great post about Pick Up Artists (PUAs.) These are the men who pride themselves on picking up a large number of women and some teach classes on how to pick up women. I don’t really need to discuss how they are generally incredibly misogynistic but, it seems, they also have a low opinion of their own gender as well.

The PUA in question advises men to not stop with their sexual advances when a woman says “No.” In case you were wondering, this makes you a rapist. He goes on to discuss how, once a woman is naked and a guy is ready to go, if the woman changes her mind and says no, it’s not rape.

According to the lovely fellow,

“Women need to understand that men aren’t robots who can suddenly stop at the drop of a dime with all that testosterone pumping through their system.”

and goes on to say,

“Every roller coaster has a point while chugging up that first hill where’s there’s no turning back and you just need to hang on for the ride.”

So, if in the middle of sex, dude’s appendix ruptures, he will just have to finish before he can call 911? If a girl’s ruptured, we’re to expect her to lay there in agony, least she upset the beast? What would you have to do to get a guy to stop? Throw cold water on him? Stun gun? Tranquillizer dart?

Unlike this PUA, I actually respect men and their ability to make rational decisions despite being horny. It’s patently absurd to claim that men can’t stop once they get aroused. There is exactly zero scientific evidence to back this up. I’ve had many occasion to stop sexual activity and have never once encountered a guy who couldn’t stop.

Anyone who doesn’t stop sexual activity when told stop is a rapist and if you believe this tripe you are likely a rapist who is trying to rationalize their rapey behavior.


Your Argument Sucks

“Against logic there is no armour like ignorance.” -Laurence J. Peter

I wrote a post a few weeks ago, explaining that simply because someone is in an establishment that serves alcohol, doesn’t give anyone license to hit on them. PZ Myers tweeted it and a bunch of crazies came out of the woodwork to tell me just how wrong I was. I responded to some of the comments at first, then I realized that poking myself in the eye with a sharp stick would be a more productive use of my time.

I did notice a trend in the responses.

ZOMG FREE SPEECH

I’m guessing that most of these people are voting for Ron Paul. I heard a lot of “Telling me I can’t hit on someone is violating my right to free speech! I can say whatever I please!”

Sure, as an American, you have the right to free speech. It says it right there in the Bill of Rights “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….” However, it would seem that these people have mistaken me for a sovereign entity. Just to clarify, I’m not Congress. I don’t represent any branch of the American government. I don’t represent any other government. Ergo, me telling you to shut the fuck up doesn’t violate your right to free speech. Glad we’ve cleared that up.

Societal norms govern a whole host of human interactions without requiring government intervention. For example, I bet you don’t go to a movie on opening night, wait until just before the movie starts, and stand up and shout the ending. I bet you don’t walk up to a couple on a date and starting flirting with one of them. I bet during a job interview you don’t say “fuck” repeatedly. The government isn’t the reason for this. What I am advocating is you, taking a look at your expectations and behavior, and saying “I’m not going to behave like an asshole.”

It’s a bar, get over it.

A bar, by definition, is a place which serves alcohol. Brothels are a place which serve sex. If you go into an establishment and the menu has a list of beers with prices, you’re probably in a bar. If you go into an establishment and the menu has a list of sex activities with prices, you’re probably in a brothel.

If you’re going to make the argument that “bars are meat markets,” as one of my commenters did, then you should also believe in Zeus. Because you are a shitty skeptic. The entire point of being a skeptic is to be skeptical about all of the myths society throws at us.

Forms in triplicate

I’ve heard this argument repeated over and over and I’m still at a loss for how people conjure up this idea of requiring extensive paperwork for social interaction. This entire discussion got started because some people suggested that having an anti-harassment policy at conferences was a good thing. Somehow, from that, people have created a fantasy world in which bureaucrats wander around social events, requesting you to sign here and initial there before you can have a conversation with someone. If you think anyone is advocating this or that this would be the logical conclusion of a sexual harassment policy, you are delusional.

Consent does not require paperwork. If you think it does, I will direct you to this great website and book called Yes Means Yes. You should read them, then continue reading extensively about consent, then perhaps meditate on that information for awhile before you interact with other human beings again. If you stick out your hand to shake mine and I also stick out my hand to shake yours, congratulations, you have asked for consent and received it! No forms necessary!

Furthermore, if you continue to make this argument, you sound like the sort of person who cares more about ensuring that your sexual objectives are met, rather than preventing harassment. This makes you an asshole.

*I said “man” and “woman” because I was directly responding to a remark made by a man who was discussing hitting on women. It applies to all genders.


Stop Hugging Me

“I can never consent to being dictated to.” -John Tyler

As the whole harassment policy-conferences-feminism-sexism debacle drags on, there are more and more people writing dumbshit stuff about feminism and consent within the atheist community. I was reading through some skeptic blogs and read a few posts on hugging. This is one of them.

This post specifically finds fault with this aspect of the American Atheist code of conduct:

“You are encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent for all activities during the conference. No touching other people without asking. This includes hands on knees, backs, shoulders — and hugs (ask first!). There are folks who do not like to be touched and will respect and like you more if you respect their personal space.”

Apparently. this is “intrusive, infantilising, officious, badly thought through, and generally, to say the least, unfortunate – not to mention impractical.”

Yes, asking for consent is intrusive. That’s why you never ask for consent before, say, sitting next to someone (Is this seat taken?) or moving into someone’s personal space (Excuse me, can I get by you?”) or before touching someone else’s stuff (Can I move this bag?)

Greta Christina has a great post on hugging and handshakes in which she outlines how to properly hug someone, because apparently that wasn’t clear. Anyone who thinks consent requires a release form has been watching too much Law & Order. Look, if you open your arms to hug someone and they smile and step towards you and open their arms back, congratulations, you’ve gotten consent. With your body language, you have said “May I hug you?” and the other person has said “Yes you may.” If they don’t, then stop trying to fucking hug them.

You wouldn’t walk up to a stranger and touch their stuff right? So why do people think it’s ok to walk up to a stranger and touch their person?


Bars Aren’t Brothels

“Common sense is not so common.” -Voltaire

For someone who has neveronce attended a skeptic conference, I’m really infuriated by the attitudes and behavior of some of the attendees. I think this sums up my opinion towards the whole TAM-sexual-harassment-policy discussion.

Here’s a summary of the discussion, if you’re interested. If you’re not, just keep reading because I start yelling at people.

PZ Myers has now gotten into a debate with another Freethought blogger, Thunderf00t, over his take on the harassment policy. (Links here, here, here, and here.)

This has gone way beyond a discussion of the validity of harassment policies and into some completely insane debate over bar behavior.

From Thunderf00t’s original post:

“But like I say, IT’S A BAR!! and those are the rules of engagement in bars, as the old saying goes, if you are gonna eat tuna, you gotta expect some bones!”

Could someone point me to the universal rules of bar engagement?

I’ve been to bars with a dress code and bars where people dressed are out of place. I’ve been to bars with extensive wine lists and those with extensive beer lists. I’ve been to bars with no seats and ones where standing was prohibited. I’ve been to bars that only accept cash and only accept credit.

From a comment on the PZ Myer’s post:

Fail.

No, asshole, the onus is on you to not be an asshole. I realize this might be shocking but you, as a man, do not have any right to hit on me, as a woman. This isn’t covered by the Bill of Rights or The Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it isn’t a fucking right. Period. End of discussion. It doesn’t matter where I am or where you are or what I am wearing or how much I’ve had to drink or how attractive you think I am or how attractive you think you are or how badly you want to get laid.

People go to bars for all sorts of reason. I go to bars to watch sports. I go to bars to try different beers. I got to bars to get piss drunk because I’ve had a shitty day. I go to bars to get piss drunk because I’ve had a great day. I go to bars because I work from home and I’m tired of staring at the same four walls. I go to bars to write because I enjoy the white noise. I go to bars because I want a fucking glass of wine and the goddamn grocery store is closed.

If you’re under the impression that simply because a person is in an establishment that serves alcohol, they are interested in some hanky panky, stop. Because you are both wrong and an asshole.


You’re Not Socially Awkward, You’re An Asshole

“Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating.” -Andrea Dworkin

In a follow up to my previous post about inappropriate business-carding, I wanted to discuss something I see a lot of; the “excuse” that sexually harassing behavior can be excused merely as social awkwardness.

My partner is an engineer, working in an engineering department at a technical university. This is a very privileged environment. The places he has worked, the conferences he has attended are overwhelmingly male and middle/upper class. Those who are from North America and Europe tend to be white. Those who come from other parts of the world tend to come from the privileged racial/ethnic groups of their homeland.

In other words, you have an environment rife with social awkwardness coupled with privilege.

And yet the vast majority of men I have encountered somehow manage to not sexually harass women. I know from befriending some of the women in these departments that discrimination certainly exists but few of their colleagues are sexually inappropriate.

Beyond this environment, I know from being a woman that most men aren’t sexually inappropriate. I am a social person who goes to bars and pubs and clubs and most men manage to somehow not sexually harass me. Even the men who hit on me generally do so in a non-harassing way.

There is a very simple reason for this. Most men see women as human beings and not fuckholes.

If you see women as a human beings who are equal to you and don’t exist solely for your sexual gratification, then you aren’t going to catcall, ogle, touch inappropriately, harass, or otherwise molest women.

Staring at a woman’s chest isn’t social awkwardness, it’s objectification. Catcalling isn’t social awkwardness, it’s harassment. Hitting on someone in an elevator at 4AM after they just finished a talk about the problems of sexual harassment within your community isn’t social awkwardness, it’s a refusal to respect boundaries. Handing someone a business card with sexual explicit content isn’t social awakwardness, it’s totally outside the norms of basic human interaction.




Copyright
2008 - 2012 Neamhsplachas

Website by Molly