@hpqp, thought you might like this.. or not or whatever.

Reading the title I thought thunderf00t had lost his fucking mind.....it seems I am gladly wrong on that one.

This video is confusing, it doesn't really introduce itself or the problem very well.

Please just remember that these are bad feminists. Not evil feminists but BAD feminists, meaning they do feminism poorly. Feminism has very important things to say about a great many things. Like any movement you will find some people take the idea beyond practical or logical boundaries. Combined with attention seeking personalities you get people of the kind that TF alludes to here.

Moral: Good feminism is good.

Still dealing with fallout from Elevatorgate? When will it end? Why can't the community let it go and move to more meaningful conversation? I mean I stood by Rebecca at the start, and still say the dude was highly improper, but for that incident to continue to divide the community is just beyond idiotic. Somebody overreacted to Rebecca's statements and she overreacted back, and from there it snowballed on and on... and on... Seems both sides are carrying it on and on rather than just agreeing to disagree over the issue and moving on to more important issues.

Good for him, for saying this so publicly. This shit got blown out of proportion to a ridiculous degree. It really sucks.

What a truly fucking terrible title. What a hypocrit. Oh well, some e-personalities get some attention and Feminism loses.

edit-nvm. quotation marks are hard to see sometimes.

*promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, December 29th, 2012 8:29pm PST - promote requested by original submitter gwiz665.

You've got to get over your fear of feminists, gwiz. They pose no threat to you, your gender, your race or your income bracket. Getting all worked up over this kind of stuff is sad.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by silvercord.

I'm no fan of atheism+ and that in spite of the fact that I do support most of their claimed causes. I just don't like the censorship and banning, the very conflation of religion with social causes that we've been fighting against for years, or the 'with us or against us' attitude I find when I look to see what all of the fuss is. noelplum99 (among others) has a sourced and detailed playlist of vids explaining his objections, long but it covers a lot of ground. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl8YBXeamXSI4rnZraJTu3RDXnkImNwD7

Rather than a double post I'll reply to the statement by VoodooV above here as well. VoodooV says...

"This video is confusing, it doesn't really introduce itself or the problem very well."

I'm not subscribed to anyone directly involved in the fights so don't really have a horse in the race and haven't followed every detail. But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued.

Freethought blogs took on Thunderf00t as a writer and he expressed opinions which pissed off some of the others at the blog. More people took sides, more drama ensued and Thunderf00t was asked to leave.

And in the middle of this those who took the more (to them at least) 'feminist' view decided to start a new group, atheist+, even they seem to admit these days that the launch of the idea was ham handed and more confrontational than it needed to be and according to them it's all just a misunderstanding. According to their critics it's understood just fine, the critics just don't agree. Yet more people took sides and yet more drama ensued. And here we are.

My favorite comment on the whole mess was probably a post by TheMudbrooker at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMy6zBft4s Can't say that I agree with every word of it but the end at least seems on point for my view. If they need a group to tell them what to do, a social structure, go back to church where they belong and leave the rest of us alone. It's hard enough as it is to get people to understand that atheist mean "not theist" and nothing more without these people confusing the issue. Regardless of any other opinions anyone might have about them for other reasons. I don't approve of mixing religion and politics and it's no more defensible to mix a lack of religion with politics. Separate debates even if they are both worthy on their own merits. It's not helpful.

Alternate Title: Thunderf00t Successfully Trolled by PC Crowd

Dawkins wasn't in the elevator. His involvement came from a few forum posts where he said some stuff that was rather patronizing. Not that I think Watson's position was any less so, but it's a good example of neither side being in the "right".

Fair enough, as I said I hadn't followed it in detail and less so at the beginning than more recent events. At the time I was subscribed to Watson and saw the vid that started this when it was first posted. Don't remember her ever saying who but later Dawkins name came up in the debates and it sounded like that's what they were saying. Maybe they were wrong, or I read it wrong, long ago so hard to say for sure. Regardless, I never expected it to be a debate a week from then let alone many months later.

There seems to be a new brand of "feminism" that's cropped up in the last few years that is against any acknowledgement of gender or expression of attraction to a woman.

The guy asked her back to his room for coffee. Did he have other things in mind? Very possibly. Did he do anything wrong? Fuck no. If he had tried to intimidate her or had gotten pushy it would be different but, as far as I know, none of this happened.

I understand that women don't want to only be seen as sexual, but do you really want to never be seen as sexual? That seems like the way this trend is going.

"This guy was attracted to me!" "OMG, what a fucking pig!"

When did I become Thunderf00t?

Woah, hey now. It wasn't Richard Dawkins in the elevator; that was someone completely unrelated. Richard just posted a comment in his forum that essentially said she was being a baby about it and there were more important issues to make a fuss about.

@drattus: "But in a nutshell... many months back at a conference a woman in an elevator was made uncomfortable by a man, man turned out to be Richard Dawkins. People took sides and much drama ensued."

It's not really new, there has always been a feminist fringe out there who believe that any man who even thinks about a woman sexually without their express permission is a pig. What I want to know is, what the hell does cheap jewelery have to do with any of this?

When skeptics - especially those who are critical of religion - adopt the position advocated by Esteleth that (I paraphrase) "the right to free speech ends when someone who might be affected by my words hears me", then I despair for my community.

You know, initially, I thought this was a good vid. Now that I've learned more about the content, I can see how unfair it is. Quite misleading. I think I have to retract my "good on you" thoughts. I'm allowed to be wrong, I think.

Elevatorgate... This topic of misogyny in atheism... This entire subject still confuses the shit out of me. How it exploded into a huge deal, whether or not it was an exaggeration... God, it still has me feeling conflicted and confused to this day. The original video that sparked the whole thing was:
http://youtu.be/uKHwduG1Frk?t=4m35s

And rewatching it - I remember why it rubbed me the wrong way. Yeah, there were a ton of reasons why the dude shouldn't have done what he did. Yes, it was creepy. Yes, poor timing. Very poor. But it's the "sexualizing me creeps me out" comment that gets me. It wasn't the the fact that she was stuck on an elevator with some creepy dude who had no tact that creeped her out. It was the sexualization. That always rubbed me wrong - but I am pretty sure it's not what she meant.

If a guy likes her and asks for coffee because he's attracted to her, that's not a big deal. But that's not what happened - that leaves out the important bits. Everything else surrounding the coffee request was a big deal - and yeah, she has the right to say "Guys, don't corner girls you don't know in the elevator to ask them out or back to your hotel room. Not a smooth move and it's really scary. Seriously." But that's not what she said creeped her out... Pretty sure that's what she meant, though. Or something close to it. I very much doubt she meant "Guys, never try to flirt with me. Sexualizing me in any way creeps me out."

Words are a bitch and people read the wrong things into them. That term "sexualized" is probably the pivotal piece of the entire "controversy." Which is a shame, since the whole experience is a valuable lesson to socially awkward, dumbass dudes: don't do the shit that guy did, it's not good.

So from this flowered all sorts of controversy... That I'm still feeling awfully confused and conflicted about. I still feel like things got blown out of proportion in areas and I DO feel like I couldn't step into these communities and speak my mind, because I'm afraid I'd just get ostracized or attacked. Which is a shame. And it's probably those feelings which fuel any frustration or anger that I have because of the whole topic.

I'm also feeling conflicted, because I still wonder if I don't get it. Maybe there's some sort of serious problem I'm not seeing and I'm actually a misogynist and I have no idea. Hope not.

I'd rather not get involved in this discussion because it just makes me mad. I've skimmed over several discussions of this video, and find Nugent's to be the one that reflects my opinion thereof in the politest fashion:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/01/03/thunderf00t’s-inflammatory-video-of-misleading-personal-attacks-on-atheist-feminists-is-not-helpful/