Wednesday, 13 July 2011

A guy and a girl gets into an elevator..

And the guy asks the female if she would like to come to his place for a cup of coffee.. Sorry this is not the start of a dirty joke. But instead the newest drama on the atheist-youtube-internets. Where skepchick aka Rebecca Watson had the experience of sharing an elevator with a guy, who asked if she would like to have a cup of coffee, and she rejected, and then made a video about the incident, proclaiming she had been sexualised. That is the story as objective as I possibly can make it. 
Original video 
Now for my own subjective opinion.

Yes, the proposal for coffee and or sex might have been in bad taste. But so what? Speaking as a male, to get some, you might have to do something that is in bad taste or akward. That is the male role, yay for equality here, because what are the chances that the woman makes the first move? 
It is presumed and accepted that guys make the first move. Almost never the females. And that of course makes akward situations. This weekend me and a mate were in the town, clubbing, and guess how many females approached us. Correct; 0. We/he approached at least 3 x 2 girls, and none accepted a drink. 
I have the disadvantage that I hate talking one-on-one, with anyone, especially without making any lameass jokes, which mean I don't bag that many girls, because most of the time I have to be the one proposing. I have an online dating profile (okay, I have multiple, shut up), and I think the times I have gotten a message from a girl, where she took the initiative, can be counted on one hand, where the times I have written, you need a calculator and extra toes. 

So what is my point? It is fairly normal for a guy to ask a female if they should get a cup of coffee. 
There is no harm in this. Now he did ask in the elevator, and Ms. Watson stated it was uncomfortable for her. Really? How do you assume he felt? You ever considered that? 
He was just shot down, and now he has to ride alongside you, feeling ashamed. He was probably more embarrased than you were. He had to the job, and the set up, and it failed. Ergo he failed. How do you think he felt.. He couldn't get away either. 

And how did he sexualize you, Skepchick? For fucks sake, your name contain the phrase chick. And without knowing, I can assume it doesn't refer to Jack Chick, but instead to the expression for an attractive female. So you sexualize yourself. All he did was asking for a longer discussion, maybe a private discussion, over a cup of coffee. Maybe he just wanted to boink you. That is not for us to know, but I always thought innocent until proven guilty.. but I guess not..
And you have this on your website, Rebecca.

"1) The calendar applicant’s final photo is “pin-up” in nature, and includes science-y, skeptical, geeky goodness. We’re not after overt nudity, but rather ask that it be titillatingly and tastefully used. We are after the skeptical/science/nerd/geek angle, and those photos that use both will have an advantage. This is the main category for most everyone considering applying."

Sexualizing you? GO FUCK YOURSELF.  

So once again you sexualize yourself, by assuming that you cannot stand a discussion with him, but instead just strip naked. And you sexualize him, by assuming all he wanted was to touch you with his genitals. Actually by that single comment(s), he proved that there is sexism in the Atheist Community (TM). Let's assume that you had been unattractive, and he was a normal looking guy, and the same scenario unfolded.. What do you think the reaction would have been? Would he also just be looking for sex?
And you don't know anything about him, Watson. He could have been married, and just thought you were dead wrong on the issue, and might had a clumsy way of asking you to go discussing them. (4-5 beers can do this) Because not everybody likes to discuss these things in public. 

A lot of people have complained one shouldn't hit on a female on an elevator, because it is an enclosed unescapable area. What complete bullshit, because you can say that about everywhere. The only difference is that the elevator is kinda small.  But you can get off almost everywhere in an elevator. There are all the floors, and you can just say "Oh, I am getting of here" and then wait 20 seconds for the next elevator. No fucking problem. Next you can't hit on female in the club, because there is no escape there. Except leave, but since you paid.. 
Where does it end? 

Yes, it might have been clumsy, but if females should bitch about every time a guy hits on them and it is akward, they would have take time off in their daily routines. God knows that is more likely to happen, than girls taking the first step. Sometimes you as a heterosexual male just don't know if the female wants you. She might play hard-to-get or she might not be interested. The difference between the two - are as small as my penis. Almost non-existent. And then what are we supposed to do as guys? Just let women do all the akwardness? So, we should almost never get laid. 

Or perhaps we should only sleep with people we know fairly well. So no more one-nighters. 

So is any of this worth anyone's time? Nope. Just a regular occurence. A clumsy guy asks a girl out. End of story. 
But as many have suggested, what if the roles were reversed... 

And now to radfems.. What are you, fucking retarded? That he should be interested in raping her? Why? Not everyone with a penis is a rapist. Far from it actually.
Secondly, it would make no sense. Oi, would you like to go my room, 38c, so we can have coffee and then I could rape you. I might not be up on my hotelmanagement, but don't you reserve your room in your name? Don't you usually pay with your creditcard? So it makes no sense, since he would have been discovered faster than finding Valdo here:

So my opinion on this summed up: If you girls don't want males to hit on you akwardly, then either start hitting on guys yourself, you know equality, or start to show some fucking interest. Or at least stop bitching about a guy showing some interest. 

-Radon -single -has never been hit on in an elevator. 

You know what they say about elevators.. They go up and down.. Like girls riding my penis..
Some other people's opinion on the matter:

Monday, 4 July 2011

Is Geert Wilders far-right?

At least he is far-from-right. Now with that extremely poor joke out of the way, let's get to the business.
Pat Condell (from YouTube) made a video about BBC and in it he complained about BBC being liberal, and alike, because they were calling Geert Wilders, the dutch MP for far-right. 

In an interview with RNW, Radio Netherlands WorldWide, Wilders proclaimed his newfounded party, Party for Freedom, (Which has nothing to do with Beastie Boys) were more right than his former party VVD. "Tensions immediately developed within the party, as Wilders found himself to be to the right of most members [of VVD], and challenged the party line in his public statements"
The original of this statement is no more. 

This and not allowing Turkey into the EU led Wilders to create his own party. 

Even thou André Krouwel put Wilders' party, PVV, onto the center of the map
, if we are to believe Wilders himself, he should be right of VVD. Which is, in fact, very right wing.

So yes, Geert Wilders is far-right. And especially on the issue which he is known for, he is extremely right-winged. When it comes to immigration, he is far-right. There might be other issues where he is not that far-right. 

And actually Pat's accusation of BBC being liberal, reminds me of an old saying here in the Danish mediabusiness. It was that all the mediaoutlets voted for Radical Left (the party), and in order to be something big in there, you also had to vote B.. 
Of course it was not true. Even thou it would explain why I am still looking for an apprenticeship..