jimthepleb wrote:Lousy Canuck: Anyone trying to legitimately argue with the thesis of â€œguys, donâ€™t do thatâ€ without attacking in this manner, has likewise been (correctly) called out on sexist behaviour â€” maybe not behaviour as egregiously or unequivocally sexist as, say, rape threats or slurs, but it is definitely sexist behaviour to question a person relating an ordinary event just because said event was the genesis for a point you disagree with viscerally.
'Guys don't do that' constitutes a thesis? Am I missing something?
Besides which, can anyone else make head or tail of that sentence?
The argument seems to go like this:
1) The elevator story is an ordinary event.
2) If an ordinary event is recounted by a man, you would not question it.
3) (1,2) You would not question the elevator story if a man recounted it.
4) The elevator story was recounted by a woman.
5) If you question a story recounted by a woman that you would not have questioned if it was recounted by a man, you are guilty of sexist behaviour.
6) (3,4,5) If you question the elevator story, you are guilty of sexist behaviour.
7) If you 'legitimately'(?) argue against Rebecca Watson saying 'guys don't do that' then you question the elevator story.
8) If you're on the 'other side' but don't make rape threats or use slurs then you 'legitimately'(?) argue against Rebecca Watson saying 'guys don't do that'.
C) (6,7,8) Those on the 'other side' who don't make rape threats or use slurs are guilty of sexist behaviour.
I think it's unsound - I see no reason to believe premises 2, 7 or 8 are true.
The elevator story, as told by Rebecca, is part of a narrative that involved her:
1. Telling the audience of the conference that she didn't like and didn't want to be propositioned.
2. Repeating the same point about not wanting to be propositioned to the group she was speaking to in the hotel bar.
The problem I have with this is really one of basic skepticism.
First, there is a video available that shows that point number 1 is simply untrue.
She didn't tell the audience that she doesn't want to be propositioned.
So, she is either deliberately lying about this point - or she doesn't have an accurate memory.
In either case this gives me reason to be skeptical about aspects of the remainder of her story.
I don't have any physical evidence that she did complain about getting propositioned to the people in the bar - but what the hell, I'll assume it is a distinct possibility - however I don't see why I should also assume that the guy in question heard
her say this. Remember, she claims he was on the edge of the group.
He might not have heard that particular statement, or, alternatively, he might not have thought what he was doing was propositioning her.
In any case, some degree of skepticism (about the sequence of events or the intent of the guy) is deserved.
For the record, if someone did approach her in this way, it does sound creepy, in my opinion.
But it would also sound creepy for a strange woman to approach a man in this way. Or for a strange woman to approach a woman. Or a strange man to approach a man.
It is the action
of the individual that is the problem, not the genders of the participants.
I have seen more specific complaints of women
making unwanted approaches at conferences towards other attendees (both male and female) than I have of specific incidences of men making unwanted approaches.
To twist the situation into purely one of misogyny - (by which I guess they mean men in general acting in sexist ways towards women in general) denies any element of agency on the part of women themselves and is actually a sexist way of looking at the situation.