How Feminism Hurts Men

[Solitary]

All I can say is I love women and think a lot of men are pigs that treat women like sex objects  :-k  ---wait, they are sex objects if they are beautiful, attractive, and sexy. I don't see any difference in men or women in positions of power. I have to wonder how women can be better educated than men and have lower paying jobs. I was a stay at home dad, and got more grief from people because I was, and my wife still resents it because she wasn't with my two boys then---I didn't get paid anything just like women that do.

When I was younger it was a "mans" duty to take care of his wife and children because it only took one job to provide for a family. I can't believe most women wouldn't rather stay home with their family with a husband providing for them than out in the rat race. It's the fact that too many men shirk their responsibilities to their family and leave their family alone so the wife has to work now or starve. Single mothers really have it rough and deserve equal pay, as do minorities that do most of the hard work. Solitary

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I can believe a lot of women don't want to just stay home hoping 'daddy' will provide because men always have the option to leave or withhold money or whatever. With the exception of my own mother not a single woman in my family has ever had the luxury of staying home caring for kids while 'daddy' earned the money. Not one. Their husbands and bf's ALL turned out useless..my sisters, nieces, daughters have ALL had to work. I'd love to say my ex didn't have to work, but I would be lying. And even if they do have that 'luxury' and spend twenty years raising kids it's not much to put on a resume later in life in case the man leaves or dies or gets disabled or any number of unforeseen circumstances.
That doesn't even go to the perhaps overlooked issue of women who have multiple kids then their youthful looks disappear faster than women who never have children.
I gotta say, given all things being equal I'm glad I was born with 'dangly things' :shock: :-k :)

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I was a stay at home dad, and got more grief from people because I was, and my wife still resents it because she wasn't with my two boys then---I didn't get paid anything just like women that do. Solitary

Wow, which decade was that? I can't imagine the bullshit you got from men or women.

It was back when Joan of Ark was working..

[Jack89]

My Stepdad worked his ass off and handed all the money over to Mom who stayed home and ran the household.  She gave Dad a little for gas and incidentals.  He treated her like a queen.  She often complained of being bored and ran off with a guy who beat her and treated her like shit, and she stayed with him for years until he died.  Go figure.

I followed dad's example and my wife stayed home with the kids, had control of the paycheck, and was an equal partner in our relationship.  I had no problems with her working if she wanted to, but she didn't.  She left as well, because she was bored.  The kids were 8 and 10 years old, and I was deployed in the military.  She regretted it later on, but there's no going back.  

Don't know what my point is other than women can be just as shitty as men.  I stopped putting women on a pedestal and now only treat them according to their actions and ability.  When I hear someone label themselves a feminist I figure they got a chip on their shoulder and stay away.  I'd probably do the same if someone labeled them self a masculinist, but I haven't heard anyone say that yet.

[Jason78]

I was a stay at home dad, and got more grief from people because I was, and my wife still resents it because she wasn't with my two boys then---I didn't get paid anything just like women that do. Solitary

Wow, which decade was that? I can't imagine the bullshit you got from men or women.

I can.  Because I've tried it.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Then you added the below statement to that conclusion as if that is something defined as contradictory to the radical notion of being people?

I would like to propose an equally radical corollary: that women can be idiots, assholes, and outright liars.

The radical notion of human rights is that they are fundamentally and inherently belong to each individual. Period. Whomever, wherever, under what circumstances whatsoever. You cannot go more radical than that. Would you like to propose another "equally radical corollary" to that notion or do you reserve the privilege for feminism only. Because I assure you, lying, being an idiot and an asshole are the basic qualities if you are a homo sapient.

Precisely. The thing about a movement is that some people get holier-than-thou on you and start thinking that they are free of criticism because they are a part of a particular movement.

2) And all that is because of this series of media events you illustrated below. And you decided feminists are making shit up.

I've decided SOME feminists are making shit up. Get with the program.

Who is Carrie Poppy, Hakurei? She is an actress, PETA activist and an internet personality. She writes on the order of the day. Why do you know about her? Because her name comes up with the key words 'skepticism', 'atheism' (she is a fresh atheist) and 'secularism'. Let's get mean. What's the difference between Carrie Bradshaw and Carrie Poppy, besides one is a fictional character and other is a real person? Not really much. Other than that Poppy addresses a minority group in comparison and using a very politically correct language for the issues she 'pretends' to question and write about. That woman gave an interview about a secularism and women conference she attended, WITHOUT uttering one word of feminism, human rights, how the religious norms are the underlying cause of most problems and the failing 'social justice' ( a word she loves to use). She raised the question of animal rights activism as an atheist activist in secularism conference. With her carefully chosen librarian glasses, 'good looking blondes can be smart too'. She is what we call in my country as a 'sweet water typist'. and she has a perfect package to get a place in American pop culture.

She also passed along a rumor of rape by a high profile person, a victim whose identity or even existence is yet unconfirmed. That's serious business. Last I heard, Shermer is looking into libel charges.

That woman cannot produce an independent, well thought original idea or let alone represent some rational stand to a bandwagon reaction triggered by a scumbag who was after some cheap defamation of a personal enemy.

I'm sorry, are you trying to defend Carrie here, because this doesn't sound like a defense.

Rebecca Watson. Internet personality. 'The Skepchick'. Rebecca Watson experienced something that happens to every woman in some way. But she happens to be someone WITH A VOICE.

Also, Skeptics Guide to the Universe, which I listen to every week, and in that venue, completely engaging, funny, and insightful.

So what outraged you is that she said atheism conferences are heavens for sexual harassment.

Without proof, or even a plausible pattern of bad behavior. She's on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, for fuck's sake. I expected much better of her.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any kind of deities and gods. "I would like to propose an equally radical corollary: those people can be idiots, assholes, and outright liars, rapists, murderers, sexual abusers."

Yes, they can. But most people aren't rapists, murderers or sexual abusers, you idiot.

But she shouldn't have talked about something that made her comfortable and may be a little frightened for a moment, because NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR IT.

She went further than that, Shoe! She berated all of the male part of the species to "not do that," as if she should be the standard of what constitutes creepy behavior. The encounter was —by her own account— courteous and brief. It's exactly how I'd expect anyone to behave on an elevator and ask me to coffee.

Because a deliberate defamation attempt renders all sexual harassment experienced by every women from early teens redundant. She should have shut up. Atheist pride and male pride gets injured. What a man hating cunt!

Go fuck yourself. Her own words and actions made me decide that, on feminist matters, she is useless, just like Jenny McCarthey is useless on medical matters.

This is a very good example to what happens to any woman complains about something like this. And all you are pissed off about, Hakurei is that 'but she said atheist conferences are havens for sexual harassment'.

A statement that she has, as of yet, not substantiated. Because I'm a fucking skeptic and have the damn gall to demand evidence to substantiate claims, esp. claims that an entire movement is festering with anti-feminism.

Could you please show me some examples for male bloggers receiving death and rape threats for speaking their minds, telling their experiences and the criticism they make?

Yes. Thunderfoot. Maybe not the rape, but he was sexually harassed when some moron put his head on a nude male body and passed it around the internet. He only lost his shit with direct threats on his family.

As I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?" I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.

Sounds like a completely innocent encounter so far.

A few days later, I was making a video about the trip and I decided to use that as an example of how not to behave at conferences if you want to make women feel safe and comfortable.

And here she goes off the rails.

After all, it seemed rather obvious to me that if your goal is to get sex or even just companionship, the very worst way to go about attaining that goal is to attend a conference, listen to a woman speak for 12 hours about how uncomfortable she is being sexualized at conferences, wait for her to express a desire to go to sleep, follow her into an isolated space, and then suggest she go back to your hotel room for "coffee," which, by the way, is available at the hotel bar you just left.

Wow. She must be a mind-reader. Not only did she diagnose that the guy wanted to bang her or cuddle with her, she knew that "coffee" was just a pretext for that. Also, he KNOWS that she had been speaking for 12 hours.

Or the guy really did want to have a nice private chat with her over coffee, away from the din of the hotel bar, and wasn't thinking about how long she had been up, and maybe could be talked into staying up a bit longer. Guys are like that.

What I said in my video, exactly, was, "Guys, don't do that," with a bit of a laugh and a shrug. What legions of angry atheists apparently heard was, "Guys, I won't stop hating men until I get 2 million YouTube comments calling me a 'cunt.' " The skeptics boldly rose to the imagined challenge.

Again, her amazing mind-reading skills at work. She brushed him off responsibly. That should have been the end of it. Instead, she makes a vlog post about it, pretending it was a 'teachable moment'.

That's why she got flamed. She pretended it was a teachable moment, and it was not. She pretended that it was especially creepy, when it was not.

Furthermore, that's ALL the first response was: flamage. Typical internet sewage from internet users upset that a couple of minutes of their life was flushed down the toilet because Rebecca decided this was a 'teachable moment'. And yes, it was inflamitory, but that's the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at work.

Even Dawkins weighed in. He hadn't said anything while sitting next to me in Dublin as I described the treatment I got, but a month later he left this sarcastic comment on a friend's blog:

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

Yes. Because, on reflection, Dawkins decided that Rebecca's 'teachable moment' was anything but, too, her response was disproportionate and undeserved, and was venting his spleen that Rebecca wasted everyone's time on what ultimately was a non-event. Hence, his sarcastic letter.

Dawkins' seal of approval only encouraged the haters. My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape "jokes," threats, objectifying insults, and slurs. A few individuals sent me hundreds of messages, promising to never leave me alone. My Wikipedia page was vandalized. Graphic photos of dead bodies were posted to my Facebook page.

Yes, she was harassed by anonymous trolls, because they sensed a high-profile and easily-butthurt target. This is typical troll behavior, trying to get a rise out of Rebecca, their chosen target. When she fed them (and knowing her personality, she is exactly the type who would feed trolls), they reacted with glee and doubled down, because that's what trolls do.

While I admit that Dawkins' own post may have quickened things by alerting trolls to an easily-butthurt target, the troll feeding frenzy would have ramped up just the same.

And nowhere here does she present any evidence that those trolls were atheists who were riled up because of something she said. Until such time, I'm going to assume that they were just in it for the lulz.

Twitter accounts were made in my name and used to tweet horrible things to celebrities and my friends. (The worst accounts were deleted by Twitter, but some, such as this one, are allowed to remain so long as they remove my name.) Entire blogs were created about me, obsessively cataloging everything I've ever said and (quite pathetically) attempting to dig up dirt in my past.

Given the amount of information that Anonymous has been able to dig up on more deserving targets, either they weren't trying very hard, or Rebecca really is that squeaky clean. Probably a little of both. I admit that dedicated blogs are a new tactic I haven't heard of, but given the ease that one can obtain an anonymous blog these days, I shouldn't be surprised.

The best they seemed to come up with was that I obtained a bachelor of science in communication from Boston University. The horror! I actually made a joke about this in one of the first talks I ever gave, many years ago: "Don't take my word for it—I'm not a scientist. I have a BS in communication. I literally majored in talking bullshit."

Nevertheless, my shameful past as a college graduate was "exposed" and passed around on social media and forums and blogs, as triumphant skeptics demanded I stop writing and speaking about science since I lacked the proper credentials. (Interestingly, no one has ever petitioned for my three non-scientist podcast cohosts to be removed from the show. Probably just a coincidence.)

Curious, but does Rebecca's open letter have links, because I'd like to see this stuff for myself.

Just a week after Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" comment, I was scheduled to speak at The Amazing Meeting (TAM), a skeptics' conference in Las Vegas that in years past I had fundraised thousands of dollars to send dozens of women to. In the weeks leading up to TAM, a man tweeted that he was attending and that if he ran into me in an elevator, he'd assault me.

And you believed him, Rebecca? He would attend the conference and if he met you he would assault you, with a traceable prior threat? Give me a break. I don't take seriously every comment along the lines of bodily harm, because the vast majority of them are empty internet tough-guy posturing.

The organizers of the conference, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)—the organization started by the person who first introduced me to skepticism—allowed the man to attend the conference and did nothing to reassure me.

Of course not. The threat wasn't credible. At all.

I attended anyway and never went anywhere alone. This past year I finally stopped attending TAM when the organizers blamed me and other harassed women in our community for driving women away by talking about our harassment.

Her only actual encounter with a conferencegoer was courteous and polite. She painted a big internet target on her back when she presented her 'teachable moment' and was flamed for it. Trolls smelled blood and started pouncing on her for the lulz, perhaps aggravated by Dawkins' post. And because she was making noise that this was somehow the "atheist culture", a few of the trolls got it into their heads to make trouble for atheists too by acting the part. Similarly, unless I'm missing something, these "other harassed women" were also harassed only on the internet. The internet, where random harassment is deeply ingrained into the culture by the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, yet she somehow deduced that everyone she was being harassed by was going to be after her at the conferences.

She allowed a small encounter with an elevator to spiral out of control into this big huge deal that affected the TAM conference. Of course the TAM coordinators were upset.

Other skeptical organizations have been more compassionate. Center for Inquiry (the umbrella organization for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), American Atheists, and several humanist organizations have enacted anti-harassment policies for their conferences. But still, there are leaders in the skepticism community who refuse to accept that there is a problem,

Of course not everyone's going to "accept" that there is a problem. So far, Rebecca's entire case hinges on one courteous encounter on an elevator, and behavior indistinguishable from a troll feeding frenzy. No, the fact that Center for Inquiry, American Atheists, and "several humanist organizations" preemptively enacted anti-harassment policies does not mean that there is an actual problem.

Rebecca's on the SGU. She KNOWS that. I expected better.

and those who play the "both sides are wrong" game, insinuating that "misogynist" is just as bad an insult as "cunt."

Well, it is, if it happens not to be true.

Meanwhile, other skeptical women are being bullied out of the spotlight and even out of their homes. My fellow writer on Skepchick, Amy Davis Roth, moved after her home address was posted on a forum dedicated to hating feminist skeptics.

Now, that's actually serious, and the police should be contacted. However, given Rebecca's poor handling of the entire affair, I'm not actually surprised that she and her fellows attracted genuine haters.

In September, blogger Greta Christina wrote that "when I open my mouth to talk about anything more controversial than Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster recipes or Six More Atheists Who Are Totally Awesome, I can expect a barrage of hatred, abuse, humiliation, death threats, rape threats, and more." And Jen McCreight stopped blogging and accepting speaking engagements altogether. "I wake up every morning to abusive comments, tweets, and emails about how I'm a slut, prude, ugly, fat, feminazi, retard, bitch, and cunt (just to name a few)," she wrote. "I just can't take it anymore."

Yes, it sucks when you pay because your fellow skepchick maligns over half of your audience and some get pissy enough about it to make your life miserable.

I know that this article will only rile up the sexist skeptics. I'll hear about how I'm a slut who deserves whatever I get, about how I'm a liar who made everything up,

Let me point out the obvious: if a skeptic asks to see the evidence for your claim that sexual harassment is epidemic at atheist and skeptical conferences, you produce it, or risk being called a liar when you fail to do so. You should already know this, Rebecca.

about how I've overreacted,

Given the huge deal this has become, I say this is experimentally verified.

and about how I should just ignore the trolls and they'll go away.

From what I've seen, it is exactly this approach that Rebecca hasn't tried. Instead, she keeps harping on it.

I've written this article anyway, because I strongly believe that the goals of skeptics are good ones, like strengthening science education, protecting consumers, and deepening our knowledge of human psychology. Those goals will never be met if we continue to fester as a middling subculture that not only ignores social issues but is actively antagonistic toward progressive thought.

What, like challenging claims that sexual harassment is really as bad as Rebecca thinks it is? I think people are addressing these social issues — it's just not going the way Rebecca wants them to go.

I also believe that old line about sunlight being the best disinfectant. Ignoring bullies does not make them go away.

Trolls are not bullies. Flamers are not bullies. Bullies want to exert power over you. Trolls just want a response. Flamers just want you to cut the shit and go back to posting content.

For the most part, the people harassing us aren't just fishing for a reaction—they want our silence. They're angry that feminist thought has a platform in "their community." What they don't get is that it's also my community.

Here's the thing. Rebecca has handled this entire situation very poorly. She's done the equivalent of taking a shit on the sidewalk and shouting, "LOOK AT MY IMPORTANT WORK!" when it's clear to everyone else that it's just a turd. Flamers want you to cut the shit. Trolls crave your butthurt tears. Both will be served by shutting up about it and moving on with your life.

I don't need Sarkeesian feminism to understand the negative affect of the visual culture on our way of thinking. (Did you know they made a video game to beat her up, look around what happened her to say her opinion)

People have made games to beat up all manner of public figures, yet nothing comes of it, ever. It's just a form of venting and trolling. "Sarkeesian feminism" is a steaming load.

We collect every kind of information along with the experience of the sensations and emotions it evokes in us from our toddler years. If these didn't play ant roles on our tastes, pleasures, dislikes, pains, how we view the world, we would have a very boring culture as a species, because there would be very little categories of everything. good, bad; benign-harmful.

If your understanding of the world comes cheifly through video games, then your problem runs much deeper than "sexist imagery."

Your gender is not irrelevant to anything.

It is for PLAYING the game, you idiot.

Anyway, she is a female feminist internet persona she will suffer every disgusting threat.

Along with every other internet persona.

I heard Anonymous made a call to her. Yeah, lol. Well, she is as dangerous as a terrorist! But I don't think you find a video beating up Sarkeesian or what Watson live through;

Yes, because trolls know that having bruised knuckles from actually beating up a victim is no fun. And that they wouldn't be nearly as nasty in real life anyway.

the threats and the constant harassment these two women has to put up with daily nowhere near as bothering as the word atheist brought up in an uncomfortable story. Do you?

I have the benefit of distance. Also, the fact that Rebecca and Sarkeesian have failed to substantiate these threats as anything other than background empty internet posturing leaves me utterly unconcerned about them.

Read this link. It's about an experiment made about the gaming world. It's a very short read. http://www.themarysue.com/academic-stud ... arassment/

I agree, it's a short essay. It's also near-worthless. For instance, this essay doesn't address whether or not players in the wild have had disproportionaltely negative experiences with women, impersonators, or young kids (whose voices may be confused for a woman in the heat of battle) playing online. You perform these kinds of experiments in the laboratory for a reason. That reason is 'controls.'

So this is the reason you are angry at feminism.

Excuse me? Are you a mind-reader, too?

I'm not "angry at feminism." I'm angry at the particular idiots who are trying to turn the feminist movement into a farce.

Internet bloggers and vloggers, column writers, sensational videos. And you don't think that the medium itself (a typical vlog or blog has to deliver its sensation under 5 min and has to be aggressive, easy) and the pop culture you live in and cangren situation described above has nothing to with, but it's all about feminists being radical. And there is no hostility in make reaction and how they response to the female threat?

Again, I see no particular "female threat" in the incidents we are discussing.

Tell me Hakurei, if I bombard you with loud and sensational enough, ratrace youtube videos and blogs-vlogs can I shake your understanding of reality? Because your take on the issue suggest you are not a really difficult one to manipulate.

I could say the same thing to you. My attitude towards Rebecca and Sarkeesian is tempered by my experience online. People who in real life are mild mannered and well-behaved, yet become beasts on the internet using all variety of insults they would not dare utter in real life and voicing threats they would not dare carry through. (Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at work again.) There are people online who will harass other people completely for shits and giggles. They will use any means necessary to get a rise out of you, including pushing your berzerk buttons. I've endured all manner of abuse in my life. I've even dealt it out occasionally. And, yes, they will use misogynist language if they think that their target will lose their shit in response to it.

It is not a condonement of the practice. It is simply the truth. There's all kinds of nasty on the internet, and you need your asbestos underpants and rubber chest waders to navigate through it, because that's the kind of environment it is.

So far, you have been completely unable to substantiate the claims that Rebecca or Sarkeesian have suffered anything much beyond that of a regular, joe-blow internet hazing, indistinguishable in general form from any other random internet hazing incident, and what little remains can be adequately explained by the ire she raised by patronizing the male half of the population with a 'teachable moment.' Rebecca managed to turn a very innocent encounter into a major shitstorm. Sarkeesian made a video that, on close inspection, was little more than a bunch of buzzwords thrown together. Neither is worthy of praise, and while the backlash was not deserved, the way Rebecca and Anita handled that backlash was not praiseworthy either.

[Jack89]

Don't know what my point is other than women can be just as shitty as men.

Women are human beings. Juts like men. Humans are also murderers, psychopaths, sociopaths, abusers, thieves...women get as good as humans can be and as bad as they are. Thinking one gender is something different than human is just...I don't know how to define it...like believing unicorns and waiting to see one all your life.

In your case, the experience you have with them is that one left your father other left you. They abandoned you.

I stopped putting women on a pedestal and now only treat them according to their actions and ability.

You shouldn't have been conditioned to do that in the first place.

When I hear someone label themselves a feminist I figure they got a chip on their shoulder and stay away.  I'd probably do the same if someone labeled them self a masculinist, but I haven't heard anyone say that yet.

You figure it wrong. You should look for that chip on a different shoulder. If you think that your child hood and adult hood experiences haven't made up your mind, you are missing a lot. Forget feminism, it's baffling to me that you cannot make a simple connection to think, like you, some women also might have experienced the same with their fathers or spouses. Your own experience should be the primary source and the other necessary info is that children also born as girls and their fathers leave their mother and their husbands leave them. Or could be something else. But you just think if someone calls herself a feminist "oh she has a chip on he shoulder". This, I'll never get. (I don't mean attitude against feminism, unfortunately I get that very well.) I mean this narrow minded, unimaginative vision of life. People are not complicated, Jack. None of us are. We like to fantasize ourselves as some astonishing enigmas, but we are not. We are very simple. If it happened to you, it happened to countless people from every gender.

You haven't heard anyone say that because, there is no such thing as a masculinist. If you mean a male chauvinist that depends on your ability to recognise that behaviour -male chauvinism is not just treating women bad in some typical way as shown in big and small screen at every opportunity- which also depends on your ability to build an empathy and how you regard women.  Male chauvinists do not just treat women that way, they also also treat certain type of men the same. I don't just mean homosexuals. I mean het men who treat women with respect as an equal. Look around a bit, you cannot miss it.

I'm sorry, you lost me.  You went off on some tangents there.  What I did get out of what you wrote is that you think that I have a "narrow minded, unimaginative vision of life" because I don't like the feminist label.  Contrary to what you believe, I am making it very simple.  I think people should be treated equally, according to their actions and ability.  Period.  Now that's pretty simple.  
It get's complicated when people label themselves a champion for a particular sex, or gender, or religion, or ethnic group.  It suggests to me that a feminist is only concerned with the advancement of women's causes and really isn't concerned with the equal part.  Some very powerful and capable women reject the label as well, for much the same reason.

[missingnocchi]

In the words of my history professor: "You men need to study so you can get a nice, smart woman with a high paying job who lets you sit at home and drink beer all day."

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let's break it down to simple terms.. Religion seeks total and utter dominance over nearly every aspect of our lives based on ancient, outdated texts they claim came straight from some invisible man in the sky.

Yeah, that's exactly the same as women wanting fair and equal treatment under law that most men enjoy..

Of course! How can you not see the similarities Shoezie? :roll: :)

And of course that's exactly what I mean.  No straw in that analysis.  :roll:

That's why I often say "because I believe in equality, I do not call myself a feminist."

[Plu]

As I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?" I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.

If this is a bad thing, I wonder how a male is supposed to approach an equal female for anything.

[Plu]

As I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?" I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.

If this is a bad thing, I wonder how a male is supposed to approach an equal female for anything.

Really, Plu? Is that the situation here?

If you want to be seen as an equal and not a weakling, the first step should probably being taking the things people say at face value. If I have to keep walking on my toes and treating women like glass puppets and be careful of the words I use around them because they immediately consider me a rapist thug because I have a penis, I will never consider those women my equals.

Until you reach the point where you can look at someone who comes up to you and says "would like to drink a cup of coffee with me?" and think "oh, he wants to drink a cup of coffee with me", you will never get any kind of  equality, because you are immediately pushing away any guy who is actually trying to treat you like an equal out of a fear generated by gender-bias.

How can I possible consider someone an equal if they fear me because of my gender? How can you be an equal to someone that you can't simply walk up to and have an honest conversation with?

Beyond that, I have no idea who Watson is, I really was only responding to the part about I quoted.

[Jack89]

I'm sorry, you lost me.  You went off on some tangents there.  What I did get out of what you wrote is that you think that I have a "narrow minded, unimaginative vision of life" because I don't like the feminist label.  Contrary to what you believe, I am making it very simple.  I think people should be treated equally, according to their actions and ability.  Period.  Now that's pretty simple.  
It get's complicated when people label themselves a champion for a particular sex, or gender, or religion, or ethnic group.  It suggests to me that a feminist is only concerned with the advancement of women's causes and really isn't concerned with the equal part.  Some very powerful and capable women reject the label as well, for much the same reason.

Wow, what a way to take the civilisation you live in for granted. Let me tell you something about it, it's not granted, it's championed.

What gets complicated when people 'label' themselves a champion for anything? How do you think any of those rights you rely on has been achieved? Did they fall from the sky? Or do you believe that you -or anyone else on this planet- live somewhere that everything has been achieved and sealed to stay that way irreversibly?  

It suggests to me that a feminist is only concerned with the advancement of women's causes and really isn't concerned with the equal part.  Some very powerful and capable women reject the label as well, for much the same reason.

Oh, does it? So either you are living in some society which exist above the social norms of human culture dictated by religion and the state or you actually didn't think much about it at all, did you? Who are these women Jack? A secret underground organisation?

Jack, 'people should be treated equally according their actions and ability' is a wishful thinking that gets printed on somewhere as the daily quote. People are not treated equally according to their actions or abilities. If you are born rich or poor, black or white, male or female it determines your life doesn't matter what your actions or abilities are.

Every right, liberty we enjoy, including the ones I do in this backwards place I live is a result of people championing them in one way or another. For some they died and never even seen it was made real. They were labeled with far more worse labels than feminists.  

Equality is not some construction arch made of indestructible material that gets build it once a civilisation becomes developed enough to understand the importance of it and carry it away. Equality is something that has to be provided constantly.

About the narrow minded statement as I said in the post, it wasn't about feminism itself. It was about the obvious connection you made when you are talking about your general experience with women. And as I said up there if you think there is no connection, you're missing a lot. This is not insulting you. This goes for every fucking one of us. And I tried to tell you that with "if it happened to you, it happened to countless people" including a very large amount of women. This was what I meant.

Why is it a fucking big deal to say someone 'step back for a moment and see your place in the world and all that mess, before producing a chip at someone's shoulder because you happen not to like what she comes from' Does that imply this doesn't go for me? How? That's all I have been saying almost about everything.

I'm tired of your insults and lectures.  I'm done with this thread.

[Plu]

Reading through some of the above (your quotes are screwed up drunkenshoe, I think you missed a tag somewhere) it seems that the problem that Watson is trying to pass off as a gender problem isn't actually a gender problem and she's just abusing/mis-representing the situation for some reason.

It sounds like the problem is not at all that a guy asked her for coffee, but that she was threatened and thus scared when someone caught her alone and asked her a question.

This then creates a few problems...

A) It's not at all gender related. If she were a guy, this would have gone over exactly the same. It's not because she's a woman that this is a bad situation; it's because she has been threatened and is thus fearful.
B) It's being made out that it's the guy's fault, when most likely he has no idea that Watson was threatened and was just trying to chat with her. I don't think he's doing anything wrong for trying to talk to someone he considers interesting.

[Plu]

Forgive me for not reading through all of the posts in this thread, it's way too long for my tastes. Also, I'm not (and I don't think anyone is) blaming her for politely saying "no" to a guy she doesn't know. That's perfectly reasonable. It bothers me that she thinks this guy did something wrong in asking someone to come over for a drink. That's not a bad thing. It shouldn't ever be considered a bad thing.

If you aren't interested, you just say no. You don't blame the person for asking. But it's not a gender issue, and it's not the asker's fault. It's just one person asking another person for a cup of coffee and them saying no. And it should absolutely end there, with neither side being in the wrong. But somehow it gets converted into a gender issue and then made a problem of. And that annoys me.

But if people stop asking these things, you don't solve the gender problem and you will never solve the gender problem, because you are acknowledging and creating a giant divide between men and women that really shouldn't be there.

In a perfect world I would agree with you. However, it is wishful thinking, an idealist approach. Doesn't work in reality.

Be the change you want to see in the world, or something like that. If you want people to be equal, treat everyone you meet as an equal. If that bothers them because they actually think they are lower in status than you, so be it. Either they can continue being confused that someone is treating them someone beter than they think they are, or they can slowly accept that maybe they really are an equal.

(And if someone is annoyed because you are treating them as an equal and they think themselves higher than you, they are not worth your time.)

Or, to recap in short, you can either ask me to treat you as an equal or as a woman, but not both. Either your gender matters, or it does not. I'd personally rather it didn't.

[Plu]

I'm trying to be that change in my personal life.

More power to you then. I wish everyone did that :)

And I don't do what she did, but get that why she did.

I get why she said no, but I do not approve of her posting about it later the way she apparently did. That said; I don't agree with the crap she got over it. Nobody deserves more than counter-arguments, being told they are wrong and maybe some ridicule over words they post online. Anyone responding to someone's opinion with the threat of violence is clearly in the wrong, and nobody deserves that kind of thing.