two years ago, guy and a girl found themselves in an elevator on the way to their hotel rooms, and the guy invited the girl to join him in his hotel room for coffee. she politely declined.
shortly before he had also invited 3 other people to the room for coffee. the guy and girl were both speakers at a convention, as well were the other 3 speakers.
the other people and himself goofed off for a while in the hotel room and discussed the convention and various other related topics. and they shared some pictures of themselves sitting around a a coffee table drinking coffee, as well as some general goofing off including highlights of a pillow fight.
the next morning the girl made a public announcement that she had been sexually harassed in the elevator the night before. and that is where the controversy arose.
something to keep in mind, is that if she was intentionally excluded and not invited on grounds of her anatomy (or ideological leanings, or personal incapacity to recognize faces), she might have considered the act bullying and able-ism. also in retrospect she might have regretted her interpretation of the invitation and the social consequences of not attending, and wanted to voice the disfavor she found him in with only making mitigated rhetoric of illrepute for ‘whoever’ did this. (he came forward later)
so who where they? Two speakers at an atheist convention; one a scientist, the other a ‘professional’ feminist. i don’t remember the topic of the scientist (probably scientific , but the feminist spoke at length about sexism in the community, and how it needed to cater better to women through acceptance and application of feminist rhetoric. one tacit inclusion, was that people shouldn’t form family style groups. men shouldn’t approach women, or get distracted from the overarching point of being there; which she alledged to be ‘combating the theistic patriarchy’.
at at that point we see a very different ideological definition. one group is associated by convenience, the other group by identity and necessity. it isn’t that theism is wrong, but that it is incorrect. and the equivocation was what gave resemblance of greater identity when there was none, the motivations were different. one was inspired by want and need for rhetoric and the other just happened to provide allot of topical and inarguable munition against the target of the former. so the former made an alliance/treaty of convenience in exchange for more popular presentation of the arguments.
the problem which arose through elevatorgate was a breach of treaty. the ideological pedantry tolerated of feminists so long as they oriented their faulty reasoning and poor logic on targets outside the group, had targeted within the group. and the hyper rational logic of a disinterested cultural paradigm had expressed itself in codified manner, rendering a buffer overflow of intent from culture clash.
men don’t watch ‘chick flicks’ generally so many are unaware of the slang of ‘coffee’ as ‘sex’, and metaphorically it doesn’t make sense unless a dark skinned person is involved. also if the meeting was intellectual oriented and honest, people could be expected to say what they mean. and if a criminal act had occurred, then why weren’t the police involved?
the antithetical perception was equally valid. ‘coffee’ and ‘room’ are slang for sex. why would someone invite another to a room for coffee and talking if it wasn’t solicitation? why not just talk in public? what else could they have to hide? is that why i’m being approached alone in this elevator?
so elevator gate brought to light the ideological divide between equally dogmatic feminists and non feminists. it gave light to the contradiction of identity due to two separate and irreconcilable paradigms sharing an umbrella label/title. and this brought into light the legitimacy of presumptions:
- is association inherently sexual?
- can you project/coerce your beliefs/meaning upon others or does the intent matter? also does gender of speaker matter?
- can female meaning be mitigated?
- should one target/appeal to women due to their gender alone? and does gender matter in the marketplace of legitimate ideas? are women the purveyors of culture and if so do they have the right to complain to men to fix when men are not relelvant in cultural analysis as people? also if women are culture crafters doesn’t thing complaining cause the very thing they protest?
- should people of a ideological base form friendships? does the gender of the interested’s subject matter? does the gender of the interested?
- what is athiesm about?
- is coercion’s legitimacy contingent on the target group and the ends?
- hopefully with others for you to pick up on and share.
to me personally, i don’t know why people put up with the conflation/equivocation to begin with.
she as a public figure repeatedly abused tolerance to complain about irrellevant claims. this one time she went too far and got blowback from the people who faccillitate her arguments, and forum. i have no idea why anyone would invite her to speak as she hasn’t done anything constructive. she used the community as a movement- a podium- to further spread pretence of acceptability of her agenda. which railed against and alienated the opposition through hate of deluded legitimacy.
feminism went against diversity, and has a large set of arbitrary moral dogma. what athiesm seems to be against. the event just brought to light how arbitrary and mindless the convictions of some athiests seem to be. rendering legitimacy to the pining wish of the opposition that athiesm have doctrinal presumptions suffecient to make it an alternative religion rather than a position regarding a single claim. and the most damage this has brought to light as that there are morons who think they can have it both ways.
for the purpose of this article, feminism isn’t allied with science or atheism. it desires only further female empowerment, discretion, and choice without consequence. just like religions they have their own absolvement of sins through redemptive acts, thought crimes, and ‘factual’ or defined beliefs regarding the nature of how the world actively is. not just which arguments or beliefs are not supported sufficiently to be compelling.
this doesn’t make it inferior to Athiesm, or science, or logic or whatever. but it does make it identify as a completely different group. and by nature of trying to coerce people to faccillitate sexist/bigoted ends like making math more accessible to women; rather than more accessible to students, including women. there just is no possible reconciliation. it is as bad as if you replaced ‘women’ with ‘men’ and it is only worse in that men is just the default gender, not the male one. it is the root word. if one honestly wanted equivalency of men to women there would be a male prefix-men which let men be default still but created a male form of men/humanity (humanity in a non racist sense).
also an alliance of unreason between people who happen to have a dislike of the same group, but no shared ideological leanings, repudiates shared identity as petulant/trifle.
the only way for a group of impartial disinterest to exist is at the most intellectual, the most humanisticly supressive levels. because once the ivory is animated or personified. dogma will inevitably emerge. so if athiesm was to mean merely the lack of supporting the premise of god, and no further claim, only then will there be no argument about direction. also when you breathe life into standard communities you have to realize it will be hard to argue with collective human nature. you might get a population of really smart people who agree with everything you believe, but chances are you will only get a fraction of that. so the things you think are derivative from a faulty ideology may not be recognizes as of such inherent or obvious lineage, nor reason to fight against allegedly ‘acrid pretence’.
this might relate to how we are biologically predisposed to identify with smaller groups rather than large ones. normal humans seem only have the mettle to reconcile with smalle groups, and only with larger groups when stratified by pervasive and circumscribing dogma.