Mega-Surprise… Rebecca Watson lied!?!? Omg No Way!?!

A few of us have been discussing elevator-gate over at PsychologyToday, and quite a few people started finding major holes in Rebecca Watson’s story. Before I tell you what the holes in her story are, let me give you a quick-recap of elevatorgate.

Here’s what happened.

1) Some ugly chick goes to a conference, holds a lecture, then goes and parties up at a bar. After the bar, she decides to go to sleep, and in the elevator, she meets a guy whom she’s never talked to before, and he asks her to coffee. Insecure ugly brat feels ugly, so in order to get attention she posts a humiliating public lynching of this guy for DARING to ask her out.

2) Everybody asks her “Wtf? So this guy asked you out ONCE? You said no and he politely moved on. So why THE FUCK are organizing a mob to lynch him!?! Mind you, we would all agree that it’s harassment if you had previously told a guy NO and he KEEPS asking you out. But YOU watson said it’s the first time he EVER talked to you. How do you justify publically humiliating a guy who only asked you out once politely?!”

3) At this point, Rebecca Watson and her groupies had to come up with a rationalization for why she was justified in humiliating elevator-dude.  At this point, they invent the story about the “TWO NOs” – Basically, this story says that elevator dude had been told not to approach her twice before the elevator, and yet, he still did it.

But WAIT you might be saying right now “How could he have “been told no” by her twice before, if he had never talked to her before the elevator?” Well, this is where it gets interesting.

The First No

Rebbeca’s groupies basically come up with this elaborate story of how supposedly Rebbeca had spent hours and hours lecturing about how she hates it when men hit on her and approach her.

This lecture was supposedly done at the exact same conference that elevator-dude attendee, therefore, this should count as him receiving no. After all, he had just spent hours listening to Rebecca giving a “Don’t flirt with me you losers” speech – yet he still went and dared ask her out.

The Second No

When Rebecca was at the bar, she announced that she was too tired to do anything, and she had to get some rest. According to rebbeca-roids, this should also count as a NO issued to elevator-dude. Why? Well, being that he was a conference attended, he was at the same bar himself as Rebecca, and hey she said she’s too tired to do anything. Yet the asshole went and asked her to coffee only minutes later!

Here were the initial inconsistencies I noticed

A) I immediately questioned these claims for a very simple reason. EVEN IF it were true that she supposedly held a “don’t hit on me you losers” speech for “hours and hours” on end… Anyone who’s ever been to a conference knows that not every attendee listens to every speaker and speech. People pick and choose what parts of the conference they attend. Did she manually track who was listening to her “don’t hit on me you losers” speech as she was speaking? What proof does she have he’s heard her say that? See how narcissistic this troll is?

B) She “told people when leaving the bar that she’s tired”? HUH? And HE (the evil coffee offerer) was supposed to hear that how? I have no idea what kind of a bar this was, but most bars are not exactly silent. The only way people can hear you say something in a bar is if they’re seated next to you, and even then its not guaranteed. But wait, she CLAIMED (let me remind you) that this guy had NEVER EVER talked to her before the elevator. HUH? So, how exactly was the elevator guy supposed to hear this? How the fuck does her “I’m tired” statement then count as “the second NO”? See how the shit doesn’t add up? See how narcissistic this troll is? I said I was tired as I was leaving the bar and 1) everyone in the bar should have stood to attention and hear me announce it 2) take it as a sign that they are banned from talking to me, even if they accidentally bump into me later

YOU DO NOT TALK TO THE QUEEN FIRST!! YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK UNTIL YOU ARE SPOKEN TO!! REPENT!!!

But that’s not all, the evidence is now in

Leo, who’s psychologytoday comment I quote below, went to look at all the conference speeches of Watson and found NO evidence of her supposedly warning guys to not hit on her. NONE WHATSOVER. Let alone the supposed “hours and hours of watson pleading to not be hit on”.

Let me remind you, the femmie-fuckies said the ElevatorGuy is a harasser because he’d effectively gotten two NOs before the elevator, the first of which was a supposed pleading by Watson for guys to not hit on her. But these guys found no evidence of it anywhere (on top of what I said that there’s no evidence elevator guy even heard all of her speeches to begin with). 

Edit (5th september 2011): A few days ago a commenter at another site showed me evidence/transcripts that she did mention in passing the middle of her long speech that she’s not flattered by cheesy approaches. Not hours and hours and hours of “don’t hit on me you losers”, just a few sentences. The whole point of this 1 month old post stands – There’s no proof he was in the room when she said that one gripe, and there’s no supposed hours and hours of “pleading to not be hit on”.

And then we have the photo!

This is a picture from the bar, taken by PZ myers. As you’ll notice from this picture, aside from the two-to-four people seated RIGHT next to Watson, there’s NOBODY else within immediate hearing distance. So how the fuck and heck was a guy who just happened to be in the same bar supposed to hear her “I’m super tired” bit when Watson was leaving? Let me remind you, the femmies count this as a supposed “second no” given to the elevator guy. But as you can see from this picture, things don’t add up.

- Watson supposedly never talked to this guy before the elevator

- There’s only two-to-four guys who could possibly hear what she said at the bar (unless she yelled), and they’re right next to her

DO YOU WANT ME TO BELIEVE SOMEONE SAT RIGHT NEXT TO WATSON FOR HOURS WITHOUT THEM EXCHANGING A SINGLE WORD!?!?!

And if not, then it can’t be one of the guys in the pic. And if it’s NOT one of the guys in the pic, then elevator dude can’t possibly have been in hearing distance of her “second NO”.

Basically, it’s all a big pile of bullshit.

Rebbecca is just a misandric bitch that loves to hurt and humiliate men. Now that people no longer let misandry fly so easy, she had to invent elaborate rationalizations, but those rationalizations aren’t working either. She’s a really bad lier.

Update: If you want to see the scientific basis of why an ugly troll likes to make a big deal out of rejecting someone, and then come up with elaborate stories to justify their doing so – then read this.

The original comments by the guys who discovered the videos and lies follow… Read it well

Comments on “Misogyny, Misandry, Respect, and Dating Etiquette: Rebecca Watson Continued” | Psychology Today

Magloire, this is the link for the panel video and ONE PART in which she spoke about and mentioned feminism: http://youtu.be/W014KhaRtik , also she soke in the Q/A where she answered about sckepticism not feminism, here: http://youtu.be/7RLcu_tcf78 

I’ve listen to the first part, and I can’t at any minute catch the word “objectification” comming from her mouth.

Also the specific workd of “sexalize” or being “sexualized”, I can’t find it.

The sentence: “I don’t like being objectified or sexualized at these conferences” was never pronounced by her.

Also, the title of the conference was “Comunicating Athiesm”, not “Feminism”, nor in it where only feminists, but atheists. I don’t think you can frame this as being savvy to attend a talk about feminism or from a feminist, no, this was incidental and he was there for a conference on comunicating atheism, if he listened to the first part of Watson intervention the things she said where probably surprise for him as they where for all the people in that conference (in fact some peope said she hijacked the time of the conference for speaking about something that was never programmed, and had called her on it)

In fact she did mentioned something that could be interpreted the wrong way, actually, she said she speaks about the Religous Right which is oppressing women, basicly they promote Absense Education which is wrong, she says Condoms are good and Abortion is a right. This seems like a very open minded person about sex to me.

She did said the words sexism and feminism, and gave example (examples latter) she has felt where sexism and misogony, but nothing about being hit on an elevator nor sufficient dating advice that could imply this or could teach proper timing.

She says feminism is equal rights for gender; and sexism; althought she never gave a cogent definition of it, but from what she said could be interpreted as the intention of realizing a state of affairs of unequal rights for genders. Not the intention of realizing women being hit.

I have to correct this, he didn’t said “I liked what you said”, according to our one eye witness testimony, Watson, he said “I found you very interesting”. Being found interesting could be implied here that he liked things she said, but necesarily all the things you said as no person has an attention span of 100% actually even if you find someone interesing, keep that in mind.

She did said she receives hatemail, in that hatemail she sees sexism and misogony, those hatemails has (the examples I told you):

- People who tell he “shut up bitch” about feminism in her podcast, it seems because what they really want to hear is sckepticism.

- She gets explicit graphic sexual content

- One religous hater sent her a letter saying he hopes she gets raped

I think the very polite _language_ of the Elevator guy can clearly diferentiate him from this people and it’s not necesary that he makes a conection that she disaproves hitting on women, you can’t compare hitting on a women this way with rape letters, nor graphic sexual content, nor telling someone to “shut up bitch”.

‘Equal rights for women (or all genders)’ doesn’t seem to me as something that prohibites hitting on women with polite language, actually this could be unequal rights in this case for men that now don’t have the right to invite women politely. Don’t see this _behavior_ condemned by Watson in his first intervention.

Also the guy in order to understand watson feelings of threats of rape in elevators would have had to listen an explicit explanation for that, proof: It’s noted in the comments of the posts in this issue that a part of women aren’t able to know, just by imagening it, the danger this situation might imply to themselves, these have needed to at least being explicitly told and explained (even in that way some still are not convinced it should be the case men should stop hitting on women at elevators, calling Watson on that). If you think a women needs to be explained this explicitly, are you going to tell most men will be able to understand this better without explicit explanation at all?? Men understand emotions, feelings, expeiences, circumstances, etc. of women much less than women understand their own because women live them and are able to picture on them more easily, but men not that easily. So this _behaviour_ of the Elevator Guy must not be interpreted as showing objectification or sexualization.

Also another part of the context that is missing here from what you said is that they where on a bar, so I’m pretty sure there is alcohol in this situation, I don’t think that Watson took the microphone of the bar to tell everybody there that she’s leaving and that want’s nobody to never say her anything else and that it would be label as sexism. And I don’t think she yelled that either, nor telling it as she normally speaks, looking at her youtube channel, would be heard at far distance as she has a soft voice. Seems the kind of thing a person with three vodkas would miss.

The closest we do get from Watson is a snipet of “Watch your behaviour and language [for sexism]” at the end of her first intervention. But as I’ve pointed out, the language of Elevator Guy is very polite, not explicit sexual nor equal to “shut up bitch” nor equal to “rape letters” these are the things named sexists by Watson, not polite invitations.

So we are left with “Watch your behavior”, but as I have pointed out she never explicitly tells that elevators provoque fear situations for women thus we can not asume him to know this, so we are left with “Watch your hitting at women”.

But as I pointed out she never actually said to dispise people hitting on her and in fact his condemnation of religous right could be interpreted as a person who doesn’t have a problem with this, so we are left with “Watch your timming when inviting women”, well, looks like someone who needs dating advice not someone who sexualized her or objectified her

And if Watson thinks this one sentence is going to make males savvy at inviting women, ok, whole books have been written about this, what a waste of paper! all they needed to have is this one little sente and all problems of shy geeks are solved …

Intented vs Real consequences.

Now you may not care about his but I’m do, there is a difference with what Watson intented and what Watson actually created, the real consequences of this event. Don’t avoid this, look what this guy is being called all over the internet. My estamation of the repetition of this message as I have seen in their respective posts:

A- “he sexualized her” (Watson, looking at the comments I would say half of the community, and a lot of the comments on Watson posts)

B- “he sexually objectified her” (Watson, second post, looking at the comments I would say half of the community)

C- “he harrased her” (PZ Myers, like half of PZ Myers readers I could be sure)

D- “he is a sexist” (Amanda Marcotte, a ‘good feminist’ that Watson links in her second post about this (beware this could be tacit admision of her statements), and of course like 75% of the comments there)

E- “was following her, and cornered her, to press her to accept the “invitation” ” (frames him as a stalker, Amanda Marcotte, as I count like 90% of the comments there, and a lot of the comments on Watson posts)

F- “he is a misogynist” (Amanda Marcotte, group of people on PZ blog and in Amanda’s, I would say about 30% more or less, go count there)

G- he deliberatly intoduced “a whiff of coercion and fear into a situation” to get his dick wet, because he knew and every men really knows, as she explains (Amanda Marcotte)

Again, ACTUAL effects of this, not intented, ACTUAL.

Some points:

-Some people say already that know who this guy is, not just Watson, people whom Watson don’t have mental control over, AFAIK althoug she seems to believe she has mind readings capabilities by making wide asumtions she’s not Charles Xavier.

Youtube user StealthBadger, in his video about this said it, that some poeple have told him know who Elevator Guy is, and I’m not surprised, we have time and place, and a very notable incident which is the moment Watson got out of the elevator as people of the Atheist Comunity that know this and where there, some probably saw him at that moment.

-PZ Myers published pictures of the bar that night: Here is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Qglj7Pes0&feature=player_embedded

I said this because some naive people seem to believe this is no traceable.

It’s been 9 days since this incident exploted. And maybe it’s never going to be know but how does the Elevator Guy knows this? For him, it’s traceable and this puts him in a stress that someday this can explode in his hands and affect his personal life, a guy that can be simply a shy geek that just listned to the second intervention in the panel from Watson … How do you see it now ?

This is why this post is important, and I thanks Dortor Jeremy for erring on the side of caution and putting out the right message, a contribution for mutual understand of sexes and a letter of hope for this probably simply misunderstood fallible human being.