Wednesday, January 2, 2013

A response to Thunderf00t's latest video

Ok this is a break down and response to thunderf00t's latest video on youtube 
Why 'feminism' is poisoning atheism

Originally posted in the comments section of pharyngula

Provided here all together for easy reading and with minor edits. The first 1.5-2 minutes are paraphrases of his comments after about the 2 minute mark I tried to accurately record the speech of everyone instead of paraphrasing. I may go back and fix the first 2 minutes at a later time.
Shows a list of the people who contributed to SPEAKING OUT AGAINST HATE DIRECTED AT WOMEN saying he’s sickened that they were bullied into this PC appeasement.
He provides no evidence that they were bullied into making these posts (I know some of them were eager to contribute).

Since posting this Michael Payton, Michael De Dora, Michael Nugent and Matt Dillahunty have all come out saying they were in no way coerced. See the comments
and the links at the end of this post.
We have Harriet Hall’s T-shit “I feel safe and welcome at TAM” saying like people who find t-shirts like these offensive enough to reduce them to tears.
Does not provide context as to the reasons namely that people saw it as minimizing their concerns and fears. A kind of subtext of I don’t see a problem so what’s wrong with you approach. see

For Amy's explanation of why this bothered her you can read the comment here
Claims of using copyright to stifle free speech

Using someone else's photo without their permission is a copy right violation if they don’t want you to use it they can say so and they are in the right. You can still make your claims without it.
People who think that fake jewelry and not offending people should be classed as harassment at conventions on par with physical groping.
“all we’re saying it we want rules that say making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not ok nor is grabbing someones ass.”
This does not say that they are on par it does say they are both wrong just like Genocide and shoplifting are not on the same scale but are both wrong. A convention is not the rest of the world and can have more stringent rules (its a private event). For example there’s nothing illegal about wearing a t-shrit with a rape joke on it but the people running a convention don’t have to let you into their event if you’re wearing it. It is after all their event. Similarly jewelry made to imitate that of someone else that personally attacks that person is an attempt to bully them instead of engaging in their position. I have a hard time seeing why a community that prides itself on rational discourse would want to support that.
Ok there’s a break down of the first minute. I’m going to take a break and maybe come back with the second minute of claims later. All quotes are approximate as I really such at transcribing video (hats off to those who can do it better).
Proffessional victims going conference to conference saying the SH was so bad they were putting their lives on the line merely by turning up. (cut to video of rebecca) You can’t trust the cops, you can’t trust the people who hang out at you at these events you can’t trust the leaders of our community to give a damn.
There is no support for the idea that they are putting their lives on the line turning up but it would hardly be surprising if someone who receives threats from member of a community is at least a little on edge showing up at conventions of that community.
As to the quote from rebecca, there are plenty of cases of cops ( ), leaders of the community ( ) and plenty of commentators (you’ll have to find that one yourself try Greta’s recent post on the Delhi rape victim fighting back) engaged in victim blaming and minimizing remarks.
SH so bad the skepchicks had to go around in pairs (cue clip of rebecca) So at the conference all the skepchick writers who were there instituted a buddy system were we always traveled together or with a male escort especially when returning to our rooms at night.
There is only the one line, no citation or any other context as to what else was being said. If you’re receiving threats of sexual or physical abuse and you decide to be proactive about your safety when conventions don’t have SH policies I guess that’s bad? Also amusing given the many ways I’ve seen people try to dismiss claims of harassment of can you prove it at least here you’d have a second witness to the event but I guess that to would be wrong?
1:43 – 2:00
“Even though of course the SH was so bad these poor defensless women might not even have known they were being harassed unless there was a feminist organisation there that could educate them about just what a horrible SH they weren’t even aware of was.”
The idea that one can grow up in an environment and not notice the problems there in and associate them as normal isn’t a terribly new idea. If you go around on the street being accosted by men daily as part of street harassment you can just take it as a given as part of life and not as something sexist that only affects one sex. Just like a new atheist in the states may not realize the problems with starting a town council meeting with a prayer unless someone explains the constitutional law that it breaks.
clip of PZ rebecca et al on google plus no citation given. PZ startes reading ” “I’ve hung around with atheists and skeptics and I’ve never encountered this problem that being sexism or misogyny. ” his name is rick obviously”
There’s a subtle cut in the clip (especially if you’re listening) so the video continues tho doesn’t directly follow from the previous. Though if you’re listening to it it does seem to flow rather well together.
2:12 -2:40
Pz again “I suspect he’s flat chested that’s you know…”
Rebecca then cuts in “you know but it’s also important to remember there are also women in these communities who have never experienced who would say they’ve never experienced sexism. That’s not to say I’m implying they’re lying more that I think there are a lot of things that are part of a misogynist culture (at this point blue text reading “what? a woman hateing culture appear”) that go unnoticed by most women unoticed by me for most of my 20 (white text this time “but somehow the ladies don’t notice it?”)
See my previous minute, you can grow up in a culture and not realise the ways it is harming you or is otherwise skewed. Just like you can grow up not noticing all the bunk medicine around you. Homeopathy is just natural herbal remedies right? Education by others who’ve seen through these things is sometimes needed to make you think.
2:40- 3:04
thunderfoot “Those who suggest with a straight face that there is actually an active debate in the secular community at the comment as to whether women are fuck toys and eye candy for privileged white men or are equally colleagues. Yup apparently the debate is taking place in exactly those binary term with no other positions available. You see PZ myers said so”
clip of PZ myers once again no citation for the event.
Right now for instance the internet community is wracked with these paroxysms of arguments over of all things the status of women. We’re trying to decide whether women are eye candy and fuck toys for privileged white men or whether they are colleagues together in this movement. And I would have said some time ago that’s easy that’s settled we know what the answer to that. We’re equal partners in this effort but surprisingly uh that debate is going on on the internet right now.
He is at least right that there are a variety of positions (though in commenting on evolution v creationism one rarely spells out all the variations for example). Fuck toys and eye candy is a bit hyperbolic but if women honestly are colleagues (a word I may actually have learned how to spell by the time this is over)
then one should expect that when a group of them start bringing concerns to you that you address them thoughtfully a seriously. Unlike say the first minute of this video where several different events were brushed over with seemingly no attempt on your part to understand why people were bothered by them. If you won’t take their opinions seriously when they raise them then it’s hard to dodge the idea you just want them around to look pretty and back up positions you already hold.
Thunderfoot again “Look I don’t know who’s bright idea it was to get these guys to speak at critical thinking type conferences. But what he’s saying here is s outrageously detached from reality.
cue clip of PZ

“that debate is going on on the internet right now, I guess misogyny is not the sole prerogative of christian and Islamic fundamentalists there are also some atheist’s who feel this way.”

back to thunderf00t
“Its not even a straw man it’s simply bullshit. It’s an outrageous fiction told to conjure up this boogeyman that there’s this great faction of the secular community that argues that women are fuck toys and eye candy for privileged white men.

Outrageously detached from reality, straw man, bullshit and outrageous fiction. Not really, maybe a tiny strawman. The debate is not itself shaped as colleagues vs fuck toys it’s shaped around the kind of standards we use to listen to (particularly) women’s claims of harassment and what often comes down to just dismissing their complaints by setting unreasonably high standards of evidence.
While I personally think the atheist community is better then (at least some) christian or Islamic communities on misogyny it does a disservice to the issue to pretend that we are above it or that it’s not an issue. see for an example of the kind of passive sexism in the community. It’s not throwing acid in women’s faces or letting women die of a miscarriage but that would be a really low bar to set for our community. It’s still a problem and when people bring it up we need to work to address it not dismiss it with a 10 minute youtube video full of clips of events with none of the context to the events.
Thunderf00t “Maybe there is the tiny fraction who think women are eye candy and fuck toys for privileged white men.
Cue a photo from the Rise of Atheism of 2 women one kissing each side of PZ’s face.

Because a staged photo is I guess proof that PZ thinks all women are fuck toys? Oddly enough one can respect women as people and still take staged photographs.
4:16- 4:44
Thunderf00t “Well now thanks to scare tactics and boogeymen that these toxic parasites have conjured up, you now have conferences with harassment policies that look like this.”

Photo of the Skepticon 5 Harassment Policy His photo to have been taken from a different iteration of the website but both have updated Oct 1, 2012 at the top so the policy should be the same.

Thunderfoot then reads off from the policy “Additionally, exhibitors in the expo hall, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.”

For those unaware the purpose of this passage taken from a geek conference policy was primarily against booth babes etc. There is nothing necessarily wrong with using pretty women to try to sell your service but the event has the right to make rules that help set the tone of the event.
Thunderf00t “What you mean creating a sexualized enviroment like this?”
Cue the clip from skepticon 3 (its not attributed in the video but that’s where it’s from).

“If you the hadn then I would have to submit and have sex with you. (/cut) If you win I’ll give me hotel number. (/cut) We’ll do the sex thing later. (/cut) Ok go back to your seat. No take the card’s with you I gotta call you back for the sex part later.”

Thunderfoot has written on that clip: If anyone else did this they would be crucified for their sexually inappropriate behavior by the PC police. and I gotta call you back for the sex part later.

I guess the I gotta call you back for the sex part later was a big sticking point for him (and others). No mention of course that the sex part later was in fact a practical example using cards of how genes are mixed and rearranged during sex. These quotes are of course all provided without the context and you can go read about the whole thing and a much larger discussion of the topic on this post from a 3 weeks back.
There’s a link to the skepticon 3 talk and the relevant clips are taken from near the beginning of the talk.
There is a difference between a sexualized environment like a strip club and a talk on genetics and evolution that mention sex .
5:07 -5:22
Thunderf00t “Or maybe like this”
Cue a photo of Rebecca opening her top a bit and a guy posed to put money into her cleavage in what looks like a bar.

“Yeah that’s right the harassment policy is now venturing into telling people what they can and cannot wear at conferences. Sorry girls dresses, jewelry, makeup that’s creating a sexualized environment that promote gender stereotypes.”

First lets go back to the conference policy “Additionally, exhibitors in the expo hall, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.”

Rebecca is not at the expo hall or a booth and her outfit in no way mimics the kind of outfits this part of the policy is against like say the sexy school girl look of these booth babes.

There is a difference between not wearing a dress, jewelry and make up and wearing a highly sexualized costume. This is not about telling people particularly the attendees what to wear so much as it is about trying to set a non sexualized tone for the conference. If attendees want to be more sexualized that is different then the event itself promoting a highly sexualized environment. This point has been explained several times but it just doesn’t seem to sink in.

Cue a Photo of a (slightly warped?) PZ giving I think a thumbs up/ (it’s obscured by text). With the wording Patriarchy at the top and “When you no longer believe in god but still want to have something invisible, all powerful and unverifiable to believe in.
This perpetuates the idea that patriarchy is some sort of grand conspiracy and not a description of our cultures tendency to prop up and support men over women (not to mention other minorities). This could in fact be proven wrong. For example doing studies that look at employment biases
Or say not finding a backlogs of rape kits
Similarly to evolution it’s not that the patriarchy can’t be disproven it’s that there its lots of evidence that our culture discriminates (not necessarily consciously) against women. I’m sure the better read commentators could provide more discussion of this topic then I can.
5:24- 5:38
Thunderf00t: “Gender punishers and sister traitors diminishing and minimizing the experiences their fellow women have suffered at the hands of the patriarchy. I think are the words that those people who would want to protect you from this harassment that you’re not even aware of would use.”
Please go see my break down of part one for talk on diminishing and minimizing. I also can’t recall the last time I saw the phrases gender punishers and sister traitors used by a feminist towards other women. Probably not the words the women on FTB or Skepchick would use.
5:38- 6:04
TF again ” Seriously, who would pay money to go to a convention like this, the travel costs, the time away from your job, the hotel costs, the conference costs, simply to be judged by some highly strung and obseenly hypocritical professional victims. ”
Cue picture of PZ being kissed again with caption “no, it’s only misogyny when you do it!” and dissolving into the photo of rebecca and the money in her top.

“As to whether their clothes constitute creating a sexualized environment and there for fall under the harassment policy.”
Once again it wouldn’t fall under the policy. You have to know this you read us the relevant part of the policy shortly after 4:16 mark. Saying something would fall under a policy it obviously doesn’t fall under will not make it so. Abysmal reading comprehension or lying those seem to be the choices.
As has been pointed out the HP is to protect people against situations and actions they do not want like say if I just walked over and kissed PZ or stuck money down Rebecca’s top.It’s at the very least presumptuous to think that they would appreciate these actions. It is not the job of the policy to stop people from saying hey can we take a photo of me and my friend kissing you and everyone agreeing on it. Again I’ve seen this point hammered over and over again but to no avail.
Out of curiosity as I’m currently unemployed what are the wages and hours of a profesional victim and who do I send my resume to? Yes I know it was snarky but I did it anyway this video is grating on my patience.
TF: But the poisoning doesn’t end there.
Unfortunately. I still have 4 minutes to go V.V Okay trying to put the snark away again.
TF : “These spanners (? maybe spammers?) actually want to redifine what words mean. You know like atheism used to mean just not accepting there was a god or gods.”
Actually the earliest usage that I recall was of christians for not believing in the roman gods. One of the most popular definitions you see in dictionaries remains a denial of gods existence or knowledge that no gods exist.
TF: Hooo. Now it means this.
Cue up a video of PZ at a conference I can’t make out the symbol at the back over the glare. Again no citation.
Pz” And when we use Science answers problems it resolves questions for us. We should do more of that I think. So you know I propose this. “Atheism is the radical notion that we should live our lives by the principles of reason and evidence that is by science.”

I’m sure long time readers are shocked to see that PZ isn’t fond of the dictionary definition of atheism and wants atheists to strive to be more. See for example this piece for his full position
Definitions change all the time and while it is nice to have a label for people who don’t believe in god(s) I don’t see a problem wanting atheists to be more then that definition (I in fact support such efforts).

The PZ’s slide changes to “feminism is the radical notion that women are people” while Tunderf00t talks over what ever PZ is saying.
TF: “A phrase in the same radical notion language that constitutes the false strawman dichotomy that lies at the heart of his feminist dogma.”

This is not a false strawman dichotomy. While you are free not to like the label the most basic definition of feminism is that women are deserving of being treated as men or more simply that women are people. There are dozens of different converging diverging groups/opinions in feminism but that is the basic premise. Just like to use Thunderf00ts own definitions there are Raelians, Scientologists, non theistic buddhists, dictionary atheists, humanists and atheist+ all under his definition of atheists. The fact that you have a particular set of views under that label does not mean that the label doesn’t apply to you. I’m actually surprised he practically refuted his own point.
I’m also not sure I’ve ever gotten a clear explanation of what constitutes feminist dogma. Maybe It’s like that atheist dogma I also hear so much about.
Thunderfoot “Let muppets like this have their way and they wouldn’t merely stop with trying to control what you wear they would extend their right to prohibit you from saying things people might find offensive.”
Change to google+ again and Esteleth if you want to see your part it starts at 7:00.

Estheleth: “your right to do something ends the second that what it is you are doing hurts someone else. You know its the original phraseing is you can wave your arms around but that right stops when you hit some buddy in the nose.

Rebecca: ” your right to your fist ends where my face begins

Estheleth: “Yes somthing along those lines and that’s actually very true and applies to things like language I could say all manner of words you know I have the right to do that, I have the freedom of speech but my right to do that ends the second that someone who is affected by those words hears me.”

Cut to lisa Simpson
“I’m not sure brocman’s out of the woods yet there are a lot of religious watchdog groups out there keeping the world safe from the horror of free expression”

While it would depend on the case there are a lot of instances where your ability to say something has limits. Libel, threats, criminal harassment there are a number of areas where in fact we recognise a limit on your speech because it harms others. It’s frankly quite stupid to try to brush it all off as free expression as if all offensive speech is the same. There’s a big divide between I someone getting offended you don’t have the same opinion as them and someone getting bothered that you threatened to physically abuse them for instance. I’d have thought that someone so found of talking of false dichotomies would recognize that but obviously he hasn’t examined his own ideas.

7:50 -8:00
Thunderf00t : ” For my part I watched with dispair as these ultaPC professional victims have slowly dripped poison into what used to be a vibrant and exciting conference scene such that I really want nothing to do with them.
Photo of a comment by Matt Dillahunty (face book I assume?)
Which reads: “Soon, I’ll be posting something non-drama..but to make things easier, I have a yes/no question. If you answer is YES, please post a response. If your answer is NO, do not post a reply:

Do you think that elevatorgate was just an overreaction to a request for coffee?

Again, only post if your answer is “yes”. Anything other than yes…steer clear. Mass blocking…incoming.”
I guess having a blog, and a call in show isn’t enough free speech now people need to be able to post their views to your personal facebook page? 
Matt has since  covered this in greater detail in his response to thunderf00t see his video linked at the bottom of this post.
Thunderfoot: Hell I’ve been pining back to the happy days when I actually knew who none of these people were. Look let me make this simple I just got back from an experiment where I was surrounded EVERYWHERE by sane, capable, rational, able, capable and intelligent people.
Well I’ve been pining back for the days when I respected you or never knew you existed either. I’m going to be charitable and assume you didn't mean to disparage people with mental illness or physical disabilities with sane and able. Although I find capable amusing given you were incapable to understand the meaning of 2 god damn sentences from a harassment policy.
thunderfoot: “And then you come back to the secular community where you have people like Melody Hensley. That’s the executive director of the center for inquiry DC going creationist style ban happy on people who havn’t even mentioned her name yet.”
Photos of what are probably tweets from 28Nov 12

I blocked everyone but 2 ppl that follow the Elevatorgate account & I lost 20 followers  Why would you follow me & someone that harasses me?
@tweek75 Or they may want to keep tabs on me and I’m not taking that chance.
@emilyhasbrooks @bethpresswood Don’t want to take a chance. Better to lose some followers than risk having creepy people following me.
Also one from Ian Cromwell
@MelodyHensley – I’m not sure what deleting people accomplishes in that case. They can still see your tweets, even if blocked.

thunderf00t: “because they might say something bad about her someday. “
Because I guess we are all obliged to let people follow us on our personal twitter accounts? Frankly so what. Ian even points out they can still read her tweets. If I don’t want people following me, especially if they’re hanging around someone that’s harassing me, there’s no reason I have to let them. Just like there’s no reason why I have to try to be even handed and curb my language in this post that’s just how I write most of my posts. Your twitter account you make the rules. Someone else’s twitter account they make the rules that’s how it works.
And starting flagging compains against videos critical of her.
Picture of Probably her face book page it reads:
Melody Hensley
Hi friends! I would appreciate if *everyone* of you would flag this video as “bullying”. You have to sign into youtube. If you don’t have a youtube account, they are super easy to create. this means a lot tome. I’m tired of the constant online harassment and bullying. This is too much.

and a link to another video melodramatic melody by whooly bumblebee. there’s a mirrored version.
I’m not spending my night going through another video but we get such thorough criticisms as ” every rational person knows feminism doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny” “Shes a fan of rebecca watson so she’s as much a skeptic as a flat earther.” Calls her feminism misandry. Starts describing her tactics by beginning by putting on pink military panties and matching combat boots. Calling her a twat. Calling her a professional victim. In a tissy.
Basically a whole bunch of harassment and personal attacks instead of actually trying to address her concerns or positions. Once again we see that to the rational champions of free speech bullying, minimizing and harassing someone is criticism. Colour me unimpressed.
Thunderf00t: “Oh and would you believe it she labels herself as a feminist too. It’s just sickening to see someone from the center from inquiry embrace with such relish these silencing tactics which we’ve seen creationists use here on youtube for years. To protect their bullshit arguements from criticism.”
Oddly enough a creationist can do something and it doesn’t make it bad. For example there’s probably a creationist right now eating take out chinese. Again there’s a difference between to protect their arguments from criticism and to take actions against someone who’s verbally harassing them. A video on Ken Ham’s creationism is different then a video on Ken Ham’s hair cut.
It also requires you to make a point instead of just claiming that every as everyone knows you’re right. I wish it wasn’t so I mean it would make this easier. Everyone knows I’m right and this video is a waste of time case closed. But no we still have 1 more minute to get through.
Thunderf00t: “I mean really an executive director from the center of iquiry running a flagging campaign. I mean shit these people would give scientology a run for their money.”
So apparently trying to take action against a video that is over 50% attacks on you and not your views is on the same ball park to running a multinational church the hires out private investigators, litigators to harass people at their places of work and their familly. I just don’t buy it.
Thunderfoot: “Thankfully these PC bullies really can’t get much purchase on the open forum of free speech. That is on youtube these thin skinned whiners are an utter non event.
I agree youtube does nothing to censor the vapid bullying and harassment of its users who cling to the banner of free speech.
Clip of PZ unsourced possibly from eschaton
“you know I don’t have a major presence on youtube”.
Thunderf00t: “They’re like creationists their views can’t compete on an open and fair playing field and they know it. Stating things like:

clip of PZ
“the comments on youtube are a cesspit they really are.”

Thunderf00t “Indeed after resoritng to these creationist tactics of disableing ratings and comments.”
Oddly enough youtube is not the sum total be all end all of free speech. I watch video reviews of science fiction shows and they are on blip not youtube. Is that because they can’t compete in the open source of ideas? No it’s cause Viacom was putting up too much of a stink of using their footage and it was easier to move elsewhere. Youtube is not a level playing field nor is it the be all and end all of free speech no matter how many times you say so.
I’ll point out that pz’s poll bombings are infamous so I’m not surprised he doesn’t think well of the scores on youtube. Although comments are disabled they are provided a link to pharyngula where it can be discussed there is also an unmoderated post on the blog at all times the Thunderdome if you really want to enjoy your free speech without any interfering.
Thunderf00t: “Get a grip. You do not have to appease the request of every PC whiner.”
Picture of Harriet Hall’s safe and welcome shirt again. Subtitled: “OMG A SMILEY FACE! THE MISOGYNISTIC MONSTER! Quick someone call the ‘I’m offended’ skepchick police and get Amy Roth a box of kleenex.
Again I’ll direct you to part 1 for why people were hurt by the t-shirt.
Thunderf00t: “The secular commuity can achieve great things but it will never achieve anything while it has poison like this dripped into it’s heart.”
Photo of women protesting captioned “RADICAL FEMINISM It’s no longer about the legitimacy of women’s original complaints, but the inherent injustice of their proposed solutions.”

Please forward this video to leaders of secular groups who you think need to hear this message. and a request to mirror because of feminists habbit of false flagging campaigns.
Well we just have to disagree with what’s poisoning the secular community. I’m also confused by the caption as to whether your implying radical feminists are upset by the solutions they proposed or if you’re upset by the solutions they proposed or what your exact problem with radical feminism is.
I’m not sure who I would send a badly argued, cherry picked, video that frequently missed the points of those it argues against but also lumps harassment and criticism into the same boat. Why would I send any one a video where you spend a chunk of it arguing over your misreading of 2 sentences. Why would they think this is convincing or even a laudable example of reasoned argument. I just spent far too much time on it but I hope everyone found it useful. I’m MichaelD I just wasted half my day ripping into this stupidity so you don’t have to!

Since I wrote this several other people have  added their voices here is a collection.
Matt Dillahunty
Will on skepchick
Ophelia Benson
Michael Nugent


  1. You don't seem to understand how this kind of coercion works. You don't hate women, right? So what would you do if a woman, seemingly in distress, asked you to speak out against her and her sisters? You'd do it. Because if you refused, you'd be lumped in with the men who hate women (ad DJ Grothe has, for example). That's what TF means by "bullied or cajoled."

  2. Also, what are you talking about? TAM *had* a sexual harassment policy first, even before Skepchick did. It had one at the conference that immediately followed the Elevator coffee invite.

    1. That's not bullying that's may at best be cajoling. A number of the contributes were not even asked to participate and did so because they thought it was worth while to. That to my mind is not cajoling. If someone rights a post saying the catholic church has problems in the way it is dealing with issues around sex, birth control and abuse in the modern world its not cajoling if other Catholics even vocal Catholics come out and say I agree and here's why.

      Unless you can point to specific instances of someone trying to leverage that position like "harassment against women is wrong and don't you agree and shouldn't you speak out" then I don't buy it. I see no reason to assume cajoling instead of people agreeing with the assessment and wanting to speak out as well.

      Where did I imply at any point that TAM did not have a policy before hand (it is mentioned only once in the piece). My personal opinion is that the policy needed to be made more explicit and I don't think their hidden policy this last year was helpful. But that is not to say or imply that it did not exist. If you can point to the section where I appear to be claiming this then I will edit the post to make this point clear.

  3. I grew up in a culture that made me think there was nothing hugely wrong with sexual partners refusing to take "no" for an answer. The fact that they kept on doing what they wanted to do even though I made it clear I didn't want it seemed totally normal to them AND myself. I had this type of thing happen multiple times growing up and the culture I was raised in told me that this was probably just "guys being guys".
    When people laugh about people not understanding what sexist behavior is or even what harassment is, it says to me that maybe you never had to deal with it or (and hopefully not) you like things this way and wish they'd continue without being fought back against.