"What do women want?" Sigmund Freud once famously asked. Aretha Franklin answered him just as famously: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me!"
If you haven't been keeping up with the current online eruption surrounding Elevatorgate — and I suspect most of you have at least heard about it, as Skepchick and Pharyngula are just slightly more widely read than our little blog — I will just direct you to those sites for the full-immersion experience. But to recap, here are the main bullet points...
Rebecca Watson of Skepchick fame attends a conference overseas. Gets hit on by clueless doof in the hotel elevator at 4 AM, brushes him off. Mentions the incident in her talk, as well as online, saying, in effect, "Hey guys, don't do stuff like that, thanks."
This being the Internet, the situation Escalates into full-on web drama. Loser guys with same sense of clueless entitlement blow Rebecca's reaction all out of proportion, make her out to be stick-up-the-ass prude who pilloried some poor Nice Guy for the ghastly crime of asking her for coffee. Larger group of Rebecca defenders jump in, including PZ, Jen at Blag Hag, and many others, chiding the guys for not getting it and pointing to a very real problem of acculturated sexism that infects the skeptical/atheist community just as it does the wide world.
Then, out of the blue, Rebecca gets a "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" note from no less a luminary than Richard Dawkins, the boneheadedness of which stupefies everyone (except, of course, the clueless doof brigade). Short version: in a world in which women are undergoing such horrors as genital mutilation and death by stoning, any chick who has nothing more to complain about than an unwelcome pass in an elevator is clearly a petulant whiner. Seriously.
Understandably incensed — I mean, way to miss the point, Prof! — Rebecca publicly chastises and disowns Dawkins. And now, it appears the godless Internet is splitting into Team Rebecca and Team Richard camps.
From such pebbles do avalanches begin.
I will make my position so clear even a gerbil with dyslexia should be able to get it, because this is the Internet, and it appears one's words can be wildly misunderstood and misrepresented here. (Who knew?) In six words: Dawkins is wrong, Rebecca is right. Dawkins' point — which is fundamentally no different than telling atheists that in a world where the godless are burned at the stake, we're being kind of petty to complain about "little" things like God in the Pledge or creationism in the classroom — is simply wrong. He's as wrong as a wrong thing with the word wrong written on it by someone who can't spell.
Now, TAM9 is coming up, and I am concerned that the backwash from all this is going to cast an ugly pall over a convention that ought to be the community's annual high point. It isn't that Rebecca and her supporters (hello, I am one) aren't justified in their anger. They are. But...
The whole "throwing Dawkins under the bus" thing is, I think, unproductive. We are rationalists. We pride ourselves on our capacity for reason, which we boast of having more of than anyone else. So what do we do about this? Do we employ our reason, and turn this event into the teachable moment it needs to be? After all, Dawkins wrote TGD, in his words, in the interest of "raising consciousness." Clearly, acculturated sexism is a matter about which Dawkins desperately needs his consciousness raised. Will we give him the chance to do this? After all, the man's achievements over the last decade in the service of promoting atheism and reason — culminating in both topics today being suitable for bestselling books, rather than shameful topics you just cannot mention in polite society — are considerable, and the debt atheists worldwide owe him is incalculable. I am simply acknowledging a fact, not putting the man on a pedestal or anything. He's done a lot, and that deserves recognition.
So how do we pay him back for this? Do we say, "You helped us gain stature and credibility. Now you apparently need our help, getting over some ideas of privilege you seem to have a problem with. Here. This is why you are wrong. Please think about these things and man up to your mistake." This, is seems to me, is the path of rationality.
Or, do we abandon rationality, give ourselves over to emotion, anger and ego, and circle the wagons around the sense of righteousness gained from believing that we've taken the right side of a split? (Note: I do not accuse Rebecca of this, as she's responding to a personal insult and has every right to respond as she chooses. But I think such a thing would be the case if skeptics en masse did so.) I can think of nothing that would disappoint me more than to witness the drama of a mass walkout of Dawkins' speech at TAM. I would understand it, but I'd wish a path had been taken towards allowing this conflict to be something the godless community saw as an opportunity for education and problem solving, rather than digging in trenches.
Attitudes of sexism and male entitlement do exist among those of us who consider ourselves rationalists. You should see some of the fratboy bullshit that pops up in the chat room when either Jen or Tracie are on the show. It's like, WTF? Who are you people?
I know that I myself had to unlearn a lot of my own acculturation, and I am equally sure I'd get a "Needs Improvement" grade on my efforts even today. But I know that when I was younger, less secure and a bit more arrogant, I reacted poorly to rejection in ways that I can only now, years later, understand were wrong and, yeah, pretty damned creepy. I had to outgrow feeling sexually entitled, just like I had to outgrow homophobia. My perceived loneliness and need to dip my wick was not, I had to learn, any woman's problem to solve. There is so much about my 20-24 year old self that embarrasses me to remember.
But I learned, and am still learning, and I want those who still need to learn — even if they are 70-year-old celebrity scientists — to be able to do so. It's harder to change your attitudes as you get older, as you get set in your ways. But I think it can still be done.
For the most part, I do see an effort to correct and educate Dawkins has been made. Dawkins has asked to be led to understanding of where he is wrong, even if, as far as I could tell, he may still not yet get it.
What I want to happen out of this is consciousness-raising. Will TAM9 be the event that helps that occur, or that divides us further? I guess we will see.
"I mean, is there any male/female situation of courtship that couldn't be considered sexual objectification under your definition?"
ReplyDeleteGood catch, Murphy.
It's an example of the weird, neo-Victorian sexual misandry one often finds among the self-appointed Privilege Police.
It's one thing to call guys out for behavior which is boorish, disrespectful or harmful... but ydgmdlu's "objectification" goes well beyond this and presents male heterosexuality itself as the problem.
When Rebecca Writes:-(So many of you voiced what I had already been thinking: that this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experiences as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don’t think my reading list will suffer.)
ReplyDeleteI think she has gone way over the top.
I feel great sympathy for Rebecca.It sounds as though she felt intimidated by the bloke in the lift.She is entitled to write what ever she wants about it.
Rebecca's failure to except that a 70 year old man is gonna have a very different world view than herself is as bad a Dawkins failure to sympathize with Her.
@Murphy: I'm not engaging in the discussion in this thread (for the most part--I just happened to see farmboy's short post above mine & responded to that quick question) because I've already spent many, many hours on Pharyngula & Greg Laden's blog trying to educate and I'm tired. I haven't read the comments here because I don't really want to be drawn back in to what seems at this point a futile exercise. I figure that it's all been said over and over and over. If you're still having a problem understanding, there are other places for you to go to get educated. You can even read my comments on the subject where I address points raised by detractors.
ReplyDeleteI was having a side discussion with Martin about the neverending overt sexism on the AE chat (what Martin calls "fratboy bullshit" in his OP).
Roberto Aguirre Maturana: "I consciously try not to look intimidating even when I cross with a girl on the street"
ReplyDeleteYup, me too. I would never strike up such a conversation with a girl at 4am, in a situation where she knew she couldn't escape if I turned out to be psycho.
I'm a skinny guy, not too tall, and yet I'm still really aware that although I know I'm not a rapist, there's no way for a woman who doesn't know me to know that. I can't fathom other guys not getting this.
And I'm fed up with people making an argument along the lines of "It the situation was reversed here, no-one would make a fuss/everyone would make a fuss".
I see it when white guys say "Hey, if a bunch of white cops formed a club just for white policemen, people would cry racism, so how come black cops get away with it". And I see it when upper-middle class people moan that they're discriminated against. And again when men say "I wouldn't mind if I was getting hit on all the time!".
Are they all pretending not to get it? Are they all pretending that they really think the situations are analogous?
No, I don't think they are. I blame a complete failure of imagination. This is about guys making no effort to imagine what it's like to be a woman, and having to factor in fears for personal safety into dealings with guys.
TonyD: "Rebecca's failure to except that a 70 year old man is gonna have a very different world view than herself is as bad a Dawkins failure to sympathize with Her."
ReplyDeleteAn odd equivalence to make. What form exactly do you want her acceptance to take? She can 'except' it in the sense that she accepts that he has a different world view. Why does that mean she cannot attempt to discuss that view with him and change his mind? Do you mean she should just say "It's true for Dawkins, but not for me"?
Dawkins actually said words to the effect of 'If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why. Kindly attempt to educated me'. If he doesn't get it due to pigheadedness, or refusal to consider the issue properly (in her opinion), then she's quite entitled to say she's lost respect for him.
Ahh this topic has spilled over to tAE. And they are on the side of right. Good to see. I don't know how anyone could be anything else with a working brain though really. Dawkins was way out of line and over the top. No one can reasonably back him up.
ReplyDeleteThere is a bit of talk at how this blew up and who's to blame etc. The problem is there's a much larger dimension to this and it's not the only event of its type.
Some other things Watson has done lately are perhaps questionable (I think sometimes she forgets how big her audience is and that she's tipped over into podium politics and that carries with it certain expectations and etiquette.)but the despite all that the core subject is still Elevator Guy and the basic cause of this blowing up remains precious defensive males every time.
See, Watsons initial remarks were reblogged and supported in various places. This to many people necessitated a response (the usual 'OMG what's so bad about that?!?!', 'the poor guy is probably crying somewhere. We must help him!' stuff). It's hard to explain to the already defensive but people try, sometimes nicely, sometimes not, that the discomfort in that situation is likely caused by vulnerability. Fears of sexual assault, rape etc play a part in that. This causes more responses (you know the ones 'OMG you compared a pass in an elevator to rape!!!'), foreheads are slapped and round and round it goes.
People break it down to the minutiae of the incident like that's going to help (based on no information), speculate wildly, insert endless hypotheticals, personal experience and try to get an absolute ethical reading on the situation where none can really exist (the hypotheticals are the best part. 'If I hadn't cornered/scared the shit out of my current wife...', 'I'm an on call elevator repair man who doesn't get out much. How will I meet women if this is outlawed?!' etc Some people, males mostly, think damn hard about this stuff. Like, obsessively. Using information apparently osmosed from a century worth of pulp fiction and Penthouse letters).
10,000 posts later no one's got any idea what anyone is talking about anymore and everyone has beat to quarters rather than attempting to comprehend anything. To recap: yes cornering a girl you've never met in an elevator is likely to go badly; yes, regardless of intent there's fear involved derived from vulnerability and the amount of sexual assault in our world; no, saying that is not equating a pass in a lift to rape (you complete idiots), no matter how many times you see the term in the same paragraph as elevator guy.
Thing is, while the origins of this and the roles of the progenitors are potentially complex, and any given interlocutor might point to some line or post by someone that finally made them join in- this dust up, including I dare say Dawkins' contribution, is all comfortably at the feet of precious defensive males.
I feel comfortable saying that because this has happened many times across the web in the last few years in completely unrelated settings and it always takes roughly the same shape. One blew up around cartoonist Kate Beaton not so long ago. The joke video game 'Hey Baby' caused a similar ruckus last year (or the year before) in the video game blogs. Pharyngula itself has had several around some women's reaction to things that happened at Atheist and Skeptic events.
These largest ones all start the same way: a somewhat well known woman was propositioned in a way she didn't like and related these feelings, however mildly, on the internet. Doing that is a guaranteed epic shitfest every time.
Many fellas might believe they are acting as rational, impartial individuals when they speak to the defense of elevator propositions or male kind in general (or to the attack of evil feminism- often the tacit enemy) in these issues. But they might want to think about that obvious pattern a little.
i think its great we all think we should elevate our sensitivities regarding others but we also need to keep in mind, asking someone for coffee etc can be a daunting task...esp if you r shy...if this guy thought he wants to take a chance without a lot of embarrassment ie in the middle of the conference than thats the only solution he had! i can understand it! he just took a chance! if he was someone rebecca actually found attractive, then we won't be talking about it! but just because she found him creepy doesn't mean, this way of approaching people should be outlawed
ReplyDeleteTeam Rebecca.
ReplyDeleteIn the year 2011, it's hard to understand men not understanding these things, and for married men, which I believe Dawkins is (I could be mistaken), there is absolutely no excuse.
I don't think this is enough of a crime to get boycotted, however, it's exactly the kind of thing that should make everyone tell him he's being a dick.
Many good points here since I last checked in. Why did I read all of them? What the hell is wrong with me?
ReplyDeleteI only really have one thing to add, and that's the "wallet" analogy. Or specifically, it's a horrible example. Many many more people are robbed then raped. The reason the wallet analogy fails is that money is easily replaceable. Give the mugger your wallet and walk away. Rape is far far worse, and carries significant emotional baggage (and potentially physical harm).
That being said, I think this charge of "everyone who disagrees is sexist" attitude is what is fueling this debate. Calling someone sexist when they actively try not to be, is only fuel for serious anger. You will never ever get through to them if you immediately start by demonizing them. They may even have a more nuanced, well thought out point then your absolutist views.
I will use an analogy. I noticed a lack of black, Hispanic, or Asian people on AETV. Certainly below standard population levels. Under this ridiculous labeling that's going on, one could say the aca is racist. We could say "they're clueless", they "just don't get it", or "they don't understand how their actions are being perceived". We all know that's not true. But making that charge would certainly bring up a shitstorm. So, I think people need to be a lot more careful with their labeling of the other side.
Or, we could just keep calling each other names and ride out this wave until we have 2 camps of hate. Oh wait...
Well said, Muz
ReplyDeleteas to those people that still don't get it, or can't be bothered with following the other links, here is a quote from Rebecca that summed it up for me. This is the response she gave on 6/21 when asked if it would still have been a problem if he had hit on her in a bar at 2am, and had not asked her back to his room.
In that situation it would have been merely pathetic as opposed to threatening. And before a bunch of sad sacks start whining that I’m saying it’s always pathetic when a man hits on a woman: no. It’s pathetic when someone hits on a person (who has been talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to at conferences) by saying absolutely nothing to her before inviting her to his hotel room.
She states that those situations can be threatening, and how pathetic it was on top of it because she had just been talking nonstop about her feelings on sexual advances.
I posed a question about a hundred posts ago and I will try to condense it here.
In a nutshell, is it appropriate to do something that can be threatening to a woman? There was a reply that said in part, "The problem is that you can never know for sure how your actions will be received." My line of thinking was that BECAUSE you can never know for sure how your actions will be received, it is inappropriate to do something that you know can be found threatening. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it is akin to saying ...
"I know you might find this threatening, but ..."
Everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill here! I am so sick of this. I think that there was absolutely nothing wrong with RW's mention of the elevator incident, or with her plea, "Guys, don't do this." After that some other women--yes, women--chimed in with the opposite opinion (the St. Clair girl on youtube, and Stef McGraw). RW got angry and in her keynote address accused SM of "anti-women rhetoric." SM was shocked, felt defenseless (due to her less prestigious position in the skeptic community), and said so. RW chewed her out. PZ Myers and others got involved, mostly on her side. RD saw this, and posted something on PZ's blog basically saying, "A guy asked you for coffee in an elevator--no big deal. There are worst things to worry about." Now I do not think that RD said the right thing--and I especially think he did it in the wrong way. But people make mistakes, say things out of hand or without thought sometimes. It's human. Now what does RW and some other feminist skeptics do? They call him a misogynist, a racist, compare asking a girl for coffee to the threat of rape, tell RD that they will never buy another of his books nor recommend him to anyone, and that they hope his legacy crashes and burns. Above that, any time anyone (whether male or female) expresses an opinion other than that of RW and her gang, they are automatically accused of misogyny. They are way, way overreacting, in my opinion. I hope we can all just move on! Now I am personally skeptical of RW's feminism. I am not saying she's wrong, just that I am not totally convinced yet that her supposed fear of rape has much substance--at least to the level she and some others have claimed. People do overreact, and paranoia does happen and it does color how we perceive things. Where another girl might have just thought, "Awkward guy" she thought, "RAPIST! He's sexualizing me!" As far as I can tell RW was already primed to see a potential "sexualizer"--her whole speech that night was on the topic. So I am skeptical, and because of this I have been called a misogynist. Problem? I think so!
ReplyDeleteGeorge From NY: But this whole "Privilege" rhetoric smacks of an attempt to re-brand and deploy the concepts of ThoughtCrime and Class Guilt in service to one kind of gender politics... and I will have none of it.
ReplyDeleteHow is it "thoughtcrime" or "class guilt" to suggest (fairly obviously) that society affords benefits to certain groups over others in various situations? Christians have the privilege of that bubble where their beliefs are constantly affirmed, and we see how they react to the smallest infringements on that bubble (despite no such bubble existing for any other religious minority). I'm a teacher, mostly of high school, but I did a stint in grade school as well; I've seen in both places that women seem to have the privilege of not having to leave their doors open when alone with a student, or viewing every after-school study session as possible grounds for accusations of molestation or pedophilia.
And men have privilege too, in other circumstances. I'd say most circumstances, frankly, based on the wage gap. Men have the privilege of not being surreptitiously groped in crowded places. Men have the privilege of not generally having to worry about being raped if they're out alone at night, or if they're on a blind date, or whatever. Men have the privilege of not generally being blamed if victimized when out alone late at night or on a blind date. Whether or not it represents paranoia, it's something that women have to consider and be aware of, and it's hard to argue with the rape statistics that underlie it (though it seems that it's less common to be raped by a stranger than by someone you know).
None of that represents thoughtcrime. It doesn't even represent guilt of any sort, frankly, though people of upper classes obviously have privilege as well (I'm making enough money now that I don't have to do the math every time I use my debit card, to ensure that I have enough money to survive the week, and even at my most destitute, I never had to worry about losing my home or car). It's a matter of being aware that society offers majority groups benefits that they aren't even aware of. It's how Christians can say without irony that a billboard or a sign or some books being published is "shoving atheism down their throats"--they don't even realize how God-soaked our society is, because it panders to them.
No one's making male thought a crime, no one's trying to instill guilt (okay, no one worth listening to), what the "privilege police" are trying to do is make men aware of their actions and of the benefits society awards them for being male. Rather than dismissing women's concerns out of hand because it wouldn't offend/concern/affect them.
I think this has been blown massively out of proportion.
ReplyDeleteFrom watching her video, it did not seem like Rebecca was trying to make this a big deal. She told her story about the creepy guy, and then suggested (quite fairly) that guys shouldn't approach her like that (eg., alone in an elevator at 4AM). That appeared to be it.
Then, apparently, it has grown rapidly into the current situation since Richard Dawkins responded. His response, while definitely insensitive, did still make a good point about much more extreme misogyny around the world.
I don't think that this situation merits the "shit storm" that has been created around it.
Dave: I agree, in my original post, that treating Dawkins as a pariah for his dumb remarks is an outrageous overreaction, and the way that Team Rebecca and Team Richard factions have been forming in the wake of what was initially a minor occurrence is the kind of "pebble into avalanche" hysteria that I don't want the skeptic community to fall victim to. Let's learn fom this as rational people and move forward, rather than allowing emotions and egos to make enemies out of one another.
ReplyDelete@Ryan, my sentiments exactly--almost. Now like I said, I have no problem with RW bringing up what happened that night (the whole 1 minute in the elevator) and what she thinks about it. And yes, I don't approve of RD's involvement. Yet what I also don't approve of is RW's reaction to both SM and yes, RD too. She has this victim complex thing going on. It really bothers me when girls obsess over "creepy guys" and rape. Do I get it? Honestly, no I don't--not completely at least. I think they simply overreact most of the time. That's my opinion though--not absolute truth. I may be wrong. Like I said, I am just skeptical is all.
ReplyDelete@Martin, I get what you mean. In any case, my consciousness has indeed been raised--so maybe there's some good to come from this shitstorm! I like Skepchick's blog most of the time--but like I said I am just skeptical of feminism in general, as a whole. It's difficult for me to see things from their perspective. But I will try in the future. I too believe in being rational and trying to work things out in a more civil fashion than "Team Rebecca" and "Team Richard." So we agree there.
ReplyDeleteI already commented over at Skepchick.org, but here's the gist:
ReplyDeleteShe mentioned this incident in her video, and it was no big deal. Then comments were made, exaggerating it. Then PZ picked it up, exaggerating it further. Comments ensued at PZ's blog, exaggerating it further. Then Richard Dawkins made this big way way exaggerated joke. At this point I would speculate that had Dawkins watched her video, he would never have posted anything of the kind in the first place, since he would probably have agreed that it was no big thing. But seeing that it had caused such a big wave, he misattributed that to Rebecca Watson and responded in kind. Then of course several other rounds of exaggeration ensued, culminating in this Elevatorgate post (LOVE the title!).
My quick take on the whole sexism angle: We are all slaves to our hormones at least to some extent. I think that most other rational Atheists are with me when I say that we should not prosecute thought crimes. So when a male person objectifies a female person, that's no big deal at all. If this thought results in a criminal action, that's an entirely different story. Since nothing of the sort happened there, I'd say that Dawkins is right in pointing out that fact, but he's wrong in blaming Rebecca Watson for making such a big thing out of it, since she didn't ... at least not at first. When she posted the Privilege Delusion post she did her part to further escalate matters.
A joke I found on a reddit post just now, from that great fountain of wisdom that is Jim Gaffigan: "Life is a little easier for attractive people. Think about it, if a stranger smiles at you and they’re attractive, you think, 'Oh, they’re nice.' But if the stranger’s ugly, you’re like, 'What do they want? Get away from me weirdo.'"
ReplyDeleteAt first, I agreed with Rebecca and her supporters but now I think I'm swayed. All of this is subjective. If the elevator guy had asked a different woman in the same situation, they might have shared a night. We should not make blanket statements about what is appropriate or not based on one opinion. Consider this: Some store clerks might find it scary if a black man walked into their gas station at 4:am. Should we also ask that black men not do things that might seem scary? Of course not. This was a socially awkward guy who chose a not-so-good time/ place to hit on a woman. It would have made her uncomfortable no matter were it happened. Bottom line, he did not grab her, follow her, or harass her. He was harmless and she over reacted. Could he have a rapist? Sure. As sure as the black guy could have been a burglar. But he wasn't. That, to me is the key. You can't treat people as if they are guilty of some crime before you have reason.
ReplyDelete"Dawkins was way out of line and over the top." (Muz)
ReplyDeleteDawkins is not the one announcing some kind of half-assed excommunication of someone who merely said something that pissed him off.
Dawkins showed poor understanding and said something stupid. Watson, on the other hand, is acting like he not only ran over her puppy, but put his car in reverse and backed over it again to finish the job.
Now let me make this crystal clear, lest it not be: Dawkins was callously dismissive of Watson. He was wrong. He should acknowledge it and apologize to her.
A genuine, personal apology is Watson's due, as she was the wronged party.
But her apparent sense of entitlement and lese majeste results instead in a ritualistic purging all things Dawkins from her environs - She won't buy or read his books! Or attend his lectures! Or recommend them to anyone else!
(I'm sure the world-famous science author, educator and Royal Society Fellow is just shattered at having been banished from the Imperial Watsonian Presence. No more naked SkepChick calendars for him!)
That, Muz, is "way out of line and over the top."
George from NY: Why is that out of line or over the top? I won't buy "Religulous" or attend Bill Maher's talks, because I think his comments on medicine and science are completely balls-out nuts. Last I saw, Rebecca was stating her decision, not saying that others should do the same, not putting out a call to all atheists and skeptics for a big Dawkins boycott. On the contrary, she thanked people in the post for trying to educate Dawkins and raise his consciousness, and ended her Dawkins post by mentioning that various people were writing to Dawkins and if anyone wanted to join in, they were welcome to do so.
ReplyDeleteWhat's "way out of line and over the top" is your complete mischaracterization and exaggeration of what Rebecca actually said.
I've mostly stayed away from this. Rebecca's generally correct, Dawkins and ilk generally incorrect (in this instance).
ReplyDeleteThe problem that this very rapidly went from what skeptics do (discuss) to whatn uts do (shitting where you eat).
On both sides.
George: You seem to be saying that Dawkins was wrong and callously dismissive, as you put it, and should apologise, but it's somehow worse that Watson would be mad about it or express this anger.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I really understand this.
"How is it "thoughtcrime" or "class guilt" to suggest (fairly obviously) that society affords benefits to certain groups over others in various situations?" (Tom Foss)
ReplyDeleteIt's not.
Acknowledging that racism, sexism, etc. do exist and are genuine problems is quite different from using such concerns to delegitimize those who disagree with you.
The silencing tactic works thusly:
Bill: Anyone who says X is a racist.
Bob: I say X and I'm not a racist.
Bill: Are you saying racism isn't real?!
If people think I'm wrong about this Watson/Dawkins thing then so be it. Let them make their case. I will give it a fair hearing.
But if they come at me with, "Well, you're just saying that because of Male Privilege and You Don't Get It blah blah blah" then I'm not having it.
When I was a kid in the 70s, that long-ago epoch, our rebuke of choice was "What's your problem?"
As in, "Hey kid, you don't
...want to play baseball with us?
...sneak into the Rated-R movies?
...cut out of school?
...like the Mets?
What's your problem?
That the kid might have his own reasons didn't even occur to us. We were right and that was that. There was something 'up' with him; what was his problem?
Debates with the self-deputized Privilege Police operate along similar lines. You simply cannot disagree with them. You are wrong and that is that. The only issue is WHY you can't or won't see how right they are. (Hint: It's your Privilege!)
@Murphy said: "Even if the guy was just looking for a one night stand as you claim (and frankly its not clear at all from the actual facts on this page at least) then I fail to see how there is anything wrong with that? "
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with that. Her point was this... approaching a woman who is alone and asking her to come back to your room, at 4am, on an elevator, when she has stated that she is leaving and going to bed, without ever having spoken to her before, is NOT THE WAY TO GET LAID because IT'S KINDA CREEPY and could have the effect of making said woman feel like nothing more than a walking vag.
His actual intentions don't matter - his actions do. Not saying he's a bad guy, but he's at best clueless. .. and doesn't seem to feel the need to actually get to know a woman, or speak to her, before inviting her to his room, NOR does he take into consideration how such an approach might be perceived by the object of his invitation... ie: that it might freak her out.
Whether EG is a sexist prick or just socially retarded, it was a perfect illustration of privilege.
(Quick PS for the ppl who think that women walk around afraid of being raped all the time, or looking at all men as potential rapists... not so. Unless you're a total stranger, someone I've never spoken to before, who follows me into an elevator and asks me to come back to your room... then, it's 'potential threat' mode. Kind of like being camping, and hearing a rustling noise in the bush. Might be a raccoon... might be a bear. Better stay alert and aware, just in case.)
Rebecca Watson has every right to express her anger, etc. She's free to vote Dawkins off Watson Island if she so desires.
ReplyDeleteI am raising the proverbial eyebrow at why and how she's doing it. What kind of standard is being applied here?
Piss me off once, give me even one justified grievance and I will "un-person" you from my mind and life no matter how high my previous esteem for you?
Can you imagine living like that? How long could you even remain socially functional? Your circle of acceptable friendships and acquaintances would draw ever tighter, ending up as a noose around your own neck.
(Hey, that's a good image. Gotta remember that one.)
George From NY is the sanest, most articulate person on here.
ReplyDeleteMurphy, you seem like a sincere and articulate person, and I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I'm having a really hard time respecting you when you don't make a serious effort to engage in the discussion here.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you profoundly misinterpret and twist my position. Though I consider myself to be a "radical feminist," I disagree with some of the key positions of Radical Feminism. My positions are "radical" in the sense that I advocate radical changes in gender politics, such that the baseline assumption is that everything is fair game to both genders (since I believe that the concept of gender is primarily socially constructed). If sexual objectification were acceptable as general behavior toward women, then it should be equally acceptable and practiced toward men. However, since it is not acceptable toward women, then would not be acceptable toward men.
HOWEVER, please note that the keyword in my comments about sexual objectification is "general." And this is where I fundamentally break with the Radical Feminists. I believe that sexual objectification is acceptable in limited circumstances. I am 100% in support of (and passionate about) preserving the legal status of pornography and the legalization of prostitution. I will argue to the death with anyone, especially other feminists, that either of those practices, as well as others that feminists have been mobilized against (including polygamy, incest, and sexual relations between adults and adolescents), are inherently immoral or anti-woman. I furthermore see nothing inherently problematic about one-night stands, where all parties (in principle) understand that they are using each other for sexual gratification and nothing more.
Why do I believe that sexual objectification in limited circumstances is acceptable? It's because I believe in capitalism (which is ironically why many Radical Feminists are against all forms of sexual objectification). As a liberal who supports many socialistic policies, I recognize that capitalism, as it is practiced in the real world, has and causes a lot of serious problems. But I believe that its core tenets are morally neutral and philosophically and pragmatically sound.
In order to function within a capitalist society, everyone must engage in and be subject to objectification at one time or another. Most people don't expect freedom of speech at their jobs, even though most people also consider it to be a human right (more or less). We all understand that for our employers we must only do our jobs, and behavior outside of our job descriptions is otherwise subject to the leniency of our employers. No matter how passionate you might be about a political cause, such as abortion, the workplace is no place for it. We respect the corporate ladder and do what our bosses tell us, despite whatever feelings we may have at any given time. (Please note that I am not advocating for absolute obedience. I'm talking about the understood relationship between employer and employee.)
ReplyDeleteWhen you're the customer of a business, you're not under any obligation to care about that firm's employees beyond the ability to do their jobs competently. The customer support representative that's on the phone with you is at your service; he is not your friend. You may feel sympathy if he is not being very helpful due to having a "hard day" or some other circumstances, but you are justified in demanding that someone else service you instead. You ask your waittress at a restaurant what she'd recommend not because you think that she automatically deserves to give her opinion to you; it's because you can't decide what to tell her to get for you. The models in a department store ad aren't looking to have their humanity validated; they're there to make the products look good so that you'd feel like buying something. You don't care about a company spokesperson's personal life or opinions if they're not relevant to the task of delivery information about the company.
Just as everyone engages in a limited form of objectification of laborers within the capitalist system, everyone also engages in limited sexual objectification as a fact of life. Sexual fantasies and masturbation are perfectly healthy, natural, and unavoidable. One when engages in such things, one must necessarily think of certain other persons solely within a sexual context, with no concern for their other human attributes. Even feminists do these things, and some do so quite proudly. But most people usually don't extend this form of sexual objectification to most other everyday contexts and activities. The importance of context is why I support pornography and prostitution (etc.) in principle.
The difference between "general" versus "specific" or "limited" in terms of sexual objectification is very similar to the difference between a slave and an employee. You make demands and have expectations of an employee similar to those of a slave, but the scope is limited to the employee's job description. With a slave, the scope includes everything that you could imagine. Even if you were the friendliest, most generous, and most compassionate master, your ownership of another person would be wrong because the master-slave relationship means that the slave is a dehumanized object. When you think of the members of the opposite gender primarily in terms of how well they might fulfill your sexual desires, then you are engaging general sexual objectification, which is sexism. This attitude will be revealed in your behavior.
So to back to the point: No, I am not against walking up to a person that physically attracts you and flirting with him/her. Sexual attraction is a fundamental element in romantic relationships, and I am certainly not against romantic relationships. I am not against flirting with a stranger even if it's mutually understood to be for the purpose of a one-night stand. Neither case even remotely qualifies as "general sexual objectification." The problem is when a man approaches a person (remember, the issue isn't limited to heterosexual contexts) and propositions him/her without any attempt to establish that the object of his attention is even looking to hook-up. If you flirt with her, and she flirts with you, that's a good sign (but not the only sign). If her reciprocation does not even cross your mind, then your attitude is plainly that of general sexual objectification.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Murphy, I am just appalled that you would start spouting off before you got the best possible understanding of what happened. Your comments are based only on what Martin wrote in the post (and the subsequent comments here). So you're making assessments from hearsay? Then why the heck are you trying to make an intelligent contribution to a blog where rationality is perhaps the highest virtue? Rebecca Watson's first-hand account is just a couple of clicks away, but to save you the miniscule effort of finding it yourself, here's the video in which she explains what happened: http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-mythbusters-robot-eyes-feminism-and-jokes/ (the relevant part starts at 4:30)
ReplyDeleteThis is my transcript of her account of Elevator Guy's words: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" Apparently, this man was in the hotel bar with Watson, where she had spent quite a bit of time engaged in casual conversation with other people. Right before she left the bar, she said, "You know, I've had enough guys; I'm exhausted. Going to bed." The man proceeded to follow her to the elevator.
I wouldn't have much of a problem if the man had approached Watson in the bar, flirted with her, and propositioned her after he felt like casual sex was also on her mind, which she would've implied through words and body language. I also wouldn't have much of a problem if in the elevator, the man had instead said, "I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to have lunch together later?" (I do have quibbles in either case, but I don't consider them to be worth discussing.)
George From NY: Somewhere, your reading comprehensions skills got lost. I don't know how you could extrapolate that "male heterosexuality is the problem" if you read my post. I clearly said that sexual objectification issue is NOT limited to heterosexual contexts.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the spam filter ate one of my comments, so I'm reposting:
ReplyDeleteIn order to function within a capitalist society, everyone must engage in and be subject to objectification at one time or another. Most people don't expect freedom of speech at their jobs, even though most people also consider it to be a human right (more or less). We all understand that for our employers we must only do our jobs, and behavior outside of our job descriptions is otherwise subject to the leniency of our employers. No matter how passionate you might be about a political cause, such as abortion, the workplace is no place for it. We respect the corporate ladder and do what our bosses tell us, despite whatever feelings we may have at any given time. (Please note that I am not advocating for absolute obedience. I'm talking about the understood relationship between employer and employee.)
When you're the customer of a business, you're not under any obligation to care about that firm's employees beyond the ability to do their jobs competently. The customer support representative that's on the phone with you is at your service; he is not your friend. You may feel sympathy if he is not being very helpful due to having a "hard day" or some other circumstances, but you are justified in demanding that someone else service you instead. You ask your waittress at a restaurant what she'd recommend not because you think that she automatically deserves to give her opinion to you; it's because you can't decide what to tell her to get for you. The models in a department store ad aren't looking to have their humanity validated; they're there to make the products look good so that you'd feel like buying something. You don't care about a company spokesperson's personal life or opinions if they're not relevant to the task of delivery information about the company.
Just as everyone engages in a limited form of objectification of laborers within the capitalist system, everyone also engages in limited sexual objectification as a fact of life. Sexual fantasies and masturbation are perfectly healthy, natural, and unavoidable. One when engages in such things, one must necessarily think of certain other persons solely within a sexual context, with no concern for their other human attributes. Even feminists do these things, and some do so quite proudly. But most people usually don't extend this form of sexual objectification to most other everyday contexts and activities. The importance of context is why I support pornography and prostitution (etc.) in principle.
The difference between "general" versus "specific" or "limited" in terms of sexual objectification is very similar to the difference between a slave and an employee. You make demands and have expectations of an employee similar to those of a slave, but the scope is limited to the employee's job description. With a slave, the scope includes everything that you could imagine. Even if you were the friendliest, most generous, and most compassionate master, your ownership of another person would be wrong because the master-slave relationship means that the slave is a dehumanized object. When you think of the members of the opposite gender primarily in terms of how well they might fulfill your sexual desires, then you are engaging general sexual objectification, which is sexism. This attitude will be revealed in your behavior.
@Brian
ReplyDeleteI can't believe how tragically everyone has missed the point of my cigarette/wallet analogy. What you've done Brian is made an argument from consequences. Whether its being beaten up and having your wallet stolen, or being raped is completely irrelevant. There was only one point of my thought experiment (which sofar noone has answered), and that was to ask the question: can I make a logical segue from “i found the situation threatening” as thoughts and feelings in my head, to “he actually took threatened actions against me” as something the other party actually did as a matter of practical reality and is actually at fault for doing.
This I would say is my central issue with Watsons position. She is absolutely in her right to feel threatened or uncomfortable in the elevator situation. She is absolutely in her rights to say at a public conference that she felt threatened or uncomfortable. What I don't think she has the right to do is brand the guy a privileged, sexist, misogynist etc, for thoughts and feelings that as far as I can see existed only in her own head. This is no different to a theist calling me an apostate blasphemer who's offended them simply because I don't believe in their religion. I'm sorry she feels that way about being asked out by guys, but elevator guy isn't ultimately responsible for Watsons subjective opinions about a situation and possible emotional shortcomings regarding fairly mainstream interactions with others.
You hear a noise camping, is it a bear or is it a racoon? If the situation transpires and it turns out it was a racoon after all, you're well within your rights to tell the story to others and explain that you were freaked out at the time, but you don't get to claim that it actually WAS a bear.
Taken to the extreme, this is like the difference between saying “i think that guy looks like the perfect cartoon caricature of a pedophile” compared with “that guy actually is a pedophile”. The first is a rather nasty comment due to personal preconceptions that I don't think should be made if your a decent person, the second even if it has no basis in reality at all however, can actually destroy the guys life if its a charge you officially and publicly level.
I'm not saying this is the case here. Elevator guy has to my knowledge been completely anonymous up to this point so I don't think he's lost anything personally, but it worries me deeply that over propositioning a girl (perhaps even just for a coffee) and then being turned down, and leaving quietly, this guy has basically been turned into the poster boy for all the sexist misogyny that apparently exists in the atheist community, and if people like me, george and dhawk say “hang on a second, lets slow down here and examine the facts before we string the guy up in the town square” we simply get called unenlightened, uneducated, or in Ibis' case, simply nagging the admins to bring the banhammer of censorship down on us for the mortal sin of descent (shit, anyone would think we were skeptics or something). You even have MattD, one of the most level headed rational people I’ve ever seen saying things like the other guys side of the story is completely irrelevant and it doesn't matter if Watson made it all up because these things do happen (I suspect he may come to eat those words one day). Seriously what the fuck. Is this a discussion on the actual events or a damn witch trial?
@Tracy
ReplyDelete”Whether EG is a sexist prick or just socially retarded, it was a perfect illustration of privilege.”
I'm kinda with george that this whole privileged thing is really starting to piss me off. Exactly what do you mean by this? He propositioned her. Wouldn't assuming privilege mean he skips the proposition? I mean riddle me this, if you ask a guy you've met at the club if he wants to come back to your place (or for a late night coffee or pizza or whatever), are you assuming privilege over him, or is this simply a gender exclusive word you've used to describe guys you don't like.
Beyond that, I think we agree on most things, except for one critical point. I think you're drawing allot of conclusions about what happened in that elevator that we just don't know from the facts.
As I said, there is no indication that elevator guy was at her earlier talk were she said she didn't like being hit on. There was no indication that he even knew who she was. And frankly we have no way of knowing what transpired in that elevator car. We only have Watsons side of the story. Its not beyond reason she would embellish some facts, and omit others for the sake of entertaining or making her point to a conference audience. I'm not calling Watson a liar or anything here, i'm just calling her human. A human with allot of people who've paid money to her to publicly speak. And even based on Watsons description there isn't allot we can draw about the events.
I think the other guys side of the story (which we'll probably never hear) is a little more important that MattD makes it out to be. It could just as easily be that they were talking waiting for the elevator, talked on the trip up, and then the guy asked if she wanted to continue the conversation over a coffee. I'm not nessisarily saying this is what happened, I have no idea what happened, but it sounds closer to a situation that would actually transpire in reality rather than the Don Hertzfeldt animation you've described where Watson walks into the elevator car and introduces herself by saying “i'm tired don't fucking talk to me” only to have elevator guy instantly blurt out in response “LETS GET BUCK NAKED AND FUCK WHILE WE DRINK COFFEE!”
I completely agree that the guys intentions are irrelevant and what matters is his actions. So I have to ask, why is everyone trying to assign the intentions of privilege (whatever that means) and misogyny to him when we really can't draw those conclusions from his actions as presented in the facts.
poor guy...OBVIOUSLY not a rapist just using his freedom of speech to express an invitation...she was not harmed and i dont see how she thinks she has the right to be offended when THERE WAS NO ASSAULT nor the likelyhood of one. he wanted to have an intimate time with her not hurt her...he wouldnt have picked a public probably cctv equipped hotel if he had been a rapist...i think he was foolhardy to ask someone like her but i guess he liked her...
ReplyDeleteA few of my comments aren't published. Very strange...
ReplyDelete@ydgmdlu
ReplyDeleteI think we're pretty close in agreement here, except about gender being mostly a social convention. Its a biological fact that men have penises and women have vaginas. They also have different hormones. I absolutely think that as a society both sexes should have equal rights, but on matters of courtship and sex/reproduction, lets not pretend that they're exactly the same. I'm not saying one has privilege or whatever over the other, but lets at lest be honest and say they're different.
If her reciprocation does not even cross your mind, then your attitude is plainly that of general sexual objectification.
For the most part I agree with everything you've said. My issue in all of this however is that even from the one sided story as presented by watson, I don't think its clear to me from the actual facts that this is what elevator guy did.
Here's my brief explanation of the "privilege" issue in this case...
ReplyDeleteThese notions are considered "common knowledge":
1) Males are more libidinous than females.
2) Males are expected to initiate sexual or romantic advances.
From those two, then women should simply tolerate any (and all) unwelcome sexual advance as long as there's no obvious threat of rape. In fact, women who frequently experience unwelcome sexual advances ought to feel flattered and proud to know that they are considered so attractive. Catcalls are not degrading, since they allow bystanders to take notice of the sex appeal of a woman; the woman should be thankful that someone was nice enough to allow even more people to think that she's hot.
If you're a man, and you can't see the problems with the above, then you're blinded by male privilege. Do you have a clear understanding of why sexual harassment laws were passed to protect employees in the workplace? The answer is not simply about "professional conduct." You may give any number of non-sexual compliments to a coworker that do not qualify as sexual harassment. Additionally, you may make friendly, non-sexual, non-romantic advances to a coworker, such as asking if she'd be willing to babysit your kids while you and your wife engage in special anniversary activities (assuming that you're on good enough terms that such a request wouldn't seem like burdening a stranger). If requesting such a favor is OK, then why is requesting a sexual favor not OK? Even if you've been working together for years, and you chat daily at the water cooler, why should you worry about a sexual harassment charge if you're thinking about making an out-of-the-blue sexual proposition?
The point is this: Sexual advances are OK if the other person (male or female) makes clear that he/she would be receptive to them. Unwelcome sexual advances are dehumanizing. If you think that unwelcome sexual advances are OK, then you are blinded by privilege.
Elevator Guy made unwelcome sexual advances toward Rebecca Watson. Watson had personally experienced enough unwelcome sexual advances at various atheist social functions (including conventions) that she was compelled to speak at her panel about the problem of sexism within the atheist community. The issue right now is a denial of any sort of sexism within the atheist community that might be preventing more women from joining the community. This denial, which has been manifested by the people who see no problem with unwelcome sexual advances, is indicative of the claimed sexism and male privilege.
@ydgmdlu, Oh okay, I get it. So we're supposed to read the girl's mind to tell if our asking her for coffee is considered welcome or not.
ReplyDeleteSome of us guys are not very good at figuring out all the little "signs" girls try to communicate. So we ask them out--or ask them if they want to have coffee. They say no, we get the clue, and hopefully next time we'll be better at it, notice more of the signs. This is not "male privilege" at display here--it's male ignorance!
I don't know the intentions of EG, and hey, I also don't know if RW's description of the story is accurate. As we learn so often while discussing things in regards to personal religious experiences, people can and do forget details, ignore others, and even embellish the stories a bit--sometimes unconsciously. RW may have been, due to her talk that night about sexism, seeing much more into the event than it merits. Who knows? Maybe RW's "I'm going to bed" was soft and EG couldn't hear it--it was a bar after all.
My point is not, as I said earlier, that RW was wrong to bring it up--how it made her feel, etc. Nope. What's wrong is the way she and other skeptical feminists such as yourself have made this a scandal--how this has become entangled with this notion of "male privilege." Should female skeptics tell us men how we can improve? Sure. Just allow us at least a little dignity for god sake!
Murphy, a couple of my comments, which I attempted to post earlier this evening, have not appeared. You do not yet have a clear enough picture of my views. Hopefully, I will be able to post them soon enough.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you're making a leap to claim that I believe that men and women are exactly the same. To imply that I'm oblivious to the fact that males have penises and females have vaginas, and that there are hormone differences, is quite condescending. I KNOW that there are differences, on average. I find essentialist arguments to be untenable. Sorry, but there is NOTHING inherent in being man, other than identifying oneself as a man. Gender is distinct from biological sex, hence the phenomenom of transgender individuals. Almost everything that we characterize about men and women are socialized into people. Most of traits of the genders are culturally defined. HOWEVER, I do agree that they are based on certain average biological differences.
An important part of my radical feminist views involves exploding notions of gender imperatives. Thus, men should no longer be expected to initiate romantic or sexual relationships; women should be encouraged to initiate. Furthermore, women's sexuality should promoted and broadened such that female sexual behavior be largely brought in line with male sexual behavior. Men should learn to embrace certain roles and activities that have been traditionally designated to be the domain of women. Being a stay-at-home dad rather than the primarily breadwinner, without shame, is a key example of a good first step.
Dave, do you have a clear grasp of Watson's story? I suspect that if you did, then your comments would be very different.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the issue is not about asking a woman if she'd like to get coffeee with you. It's about making what clearly seems to be a sexual proposition to a complete stranger, in a hotel in a foreign country, at an odd time of night, without even trying to establish a rapport with the woman first. On top of that, she even communicated that she was tired and wanted to sleep. This does not require "mind reading"; the inappropriateness should be incredibly obvious, unless you're blinded by privilege.
I agree with Hannibal. Just don't get the drama. Some people must have never been in a social situation in their lives. A guy made a pass and got rebufffed, didn't press the issue and that's it. Why is Matt babbling about this "pass" making women not want to attend atheist conventions? That's complete nonsense. I like going to the grocery store late. Occassionally I see a woman I'm attracted to her. Am I allowed to make a pass? This is such a silly discussion.
ReplyDelete@ydgmdlu
ReplyDeleteYour second premise is valid. Though as a male, I can honestly tell you I feel this is more of a burden than a privilege. Furthermore, its not the guys fault or even in his capacity to change this. If you wanna see this point change then its up to the women to start initiating sexual or romantic advances with the men. (I'm sure i'll get slammed for this, but I think the same thing basically applies to the ratio of men to women in the atheist/skeptic community. I don't think its intrinsically a boy's club, but even if it is, the only way it will change is if more women join and change it.)
Your first premise however completely remains to be seen. I can only talk from personal experience, and its entirely possible that i've just collected a very strange group of friends, but I can absolutely tell you that within my group of friends, the females are many times more promiscuous than the men.
The point is this: Sexual advances are OK if the other person (male or female) makes clear that he/she would be receptive to them. Unwelcome sexual advances are dehumanizing. If you think that unwelcome sexual advances are OK, then you are blinded by privilege.
And how are you supposed to know if they're receptive unless you make some kind of advance in the first place? It seems like you're expecting the guy to be able to read the mind of the girl before he approaches her. I kindof get where you're coming from, I just don't agree. There is decorum, and then there is a world paved with eggshells. I'm not saying men should get away with blue murder, but I don't think women should be in hermetically sealed bubbles with a warning label “don't even look in my direction unless I give you explicit permission in advance” either.
At what point between all unwanted advances (i'm not sure what you mean by this. I'd have said an unwanted advance is any situation where the girl says shes not interested for whatever reason, but I get the impression this isn't exactly what you mean) is labelled objectification, and expectations of mind reading, become female privilege over men? I tend to think there is a middle ground where people can interact with respect, but at the same time without the this kind of sensationalised BS about rights and privilege as if you're somehow being treated as lower class for no other reason than a guy likes you and you don't like him back.
A few things:
ReplyDelete1.) I'd like to sincerely applaud Martin for his original post. It takes a REAL man to be able to say "My perceived loneliness and need to dip my wick was not, I had to learn, any woman's problem to solve." Martin, I'm not aware of whether or not you have a wife/girlfriend, but if you do, she should be very proud. :]
2.) ydgmdlu, I agree thoroughly with everything you said in your big, long post.
3.) It's baffling to me that the original problem of this situation is so hard to grasp. The first factor is that as a man, he's naturally physically stronger than her. That, in and of itself, does not make the situation threatening. However, add in the fact that he approached her in an enclosed space where she would have been trapped if he had tried to use force on her, AND there would have been nobody else around to help her or serve as witnesses, and then the situation becomes indisputably threatening from her perspective, and thusly, if this man truly respected her, he would have been mindful of that fact. Plus, she's not a mind reader; even if he was harmless, she would have had no way of knowing that. Why is it so difficult to see why a woman would feel threatened in a situation like this? WHY?
4.) Here's a somewhat relevant (and funny) link. Enjoy. http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/39/2010/10/1030gabbyfull_01.jpg
@ydgmdlu, there you go again with your "male privilege" talk. Yes, I have heard the details of the story over and over again. And my previous assessment still stands. I am skeptical of it, for what I think are very good reasons. I don't even want to discuss those details of the story anymore because, like I said, we are not at all sure how the events really played out, the intentions of the guy in question, how colored RW's perception was, etc. In my opinion, the most we can say for sure is that this guy made a bad move and "Hey guys, don't do that." That's basically what RW said at first, and I supported her back then.
ReplyDeleteWhat has made me turn around is the kind of asinine talk coming from skeptical feminists about how this is a glowing example of "male privilege," or how this guy could have been a potential rapist and all that kind of talk. To me, that is a gross overreaction. Now as to RD, yes there is justification for RW's criticism of his callous remark. I can see that, even though I actually agree with his main point--that this is no huge deal. I disagree with the sarcasm he used, with his delivery, etc. I think he should apologize for that.
Murphy, I am appalled that you would start spouting off before you got the best possible understanding of what happened. Your comments are based only on what Martin wrote in the post (and the subsequent comments here). So you're making assessments from hearsay? Then why the heck are you trying to make an intelligent contribution to a blog where rationality is perhaps the highest virtue? Rebecca Watson's first-hand account is just a couple of clicks away, but to save you the miniscule effort of finding it yourself, here's the video in which she explains what happened: http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-mythbusters-robot-eyes-feminism-and-jokes/ (the relevant part starts at 4:30)
ReplyDeleteThis is my transcript of her account of Elevator Guy's words: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" Apparently, this man was in the hotel bar with Watson, where she had spent quite a bit of time engaged in casual conversation with other people. Right before she left the bar, she said, "You know, I've had enough guys; I'm exhausted. Going to bed." The man proceeded to follow her to the elevator.
I wouldn't have much of a problem if the man had approached Watson in the bar, flirted with her, and propositioned her after he felt like casual sex was also on her mind, which she would've implied through words and body language. I also wouldn't have much of a problem if in the elevator, the man had instead said, "I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to have lunch together later?" (I do have quibbles in either case, but I don't consider them to be worth discussing.)
MARTIN!
ReplyDeleteCompletely off subject. But I received my AXP shirt in the mail last week and meant to say THANK YOU! It's awesome.. Even though no one in my town will know what it means. But I don't think they get my FSM decal either:) Thanks again!
I hope you're still paying attention to this Martin: I wish you'd changed one word.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Please think about these things and man up to your mistake."
Please change "man" to "own".
George: To see Watson's post as the greater wrong seems tough to me. I like to take my wrongs in chronological order where they are at most equivalent (and I don't think they are in this case). I also didn't catch any implication that this was somehow a normative dictum from her and that everyone gets one chance from now on. Obviously the fact that it's Richard Dawkins is material in this. We can talk about whether it ought to be or not. But we can be fairly sure that it currently is. That post was spectacularly assinine and personal to boot. From the guy who usually reserves his bitterest sarcasm for his worst enemies (although if you back a decade or so, anyone who vaguely disagrees with him and students of the humanities in general. So perhaps we shouldn't be so shocked). Yeah I wouldn't read the jerk's books anymore either.
ReplyDeleteaside: We've an interesting situation here where Watson is being taken to task for, I dare say, forgetting she's Rebecca Watson in another instance. And here's Richard Dawkins with some wildly rude and unnecessary Richard Dawkins.
I, like Martin, hope everyone cools off a bit sooner rather than later. Dawkins gets firsties however.
A "corteous proposal" is supposed to be the modern alternative to socialize our sexual drive.
ReplyDeleteSomeone at gawker wrote this comment:
"she has an unhealthy level of anxiety towards men"
Don't you see that the real problem here is not really about this one incident? Most of the comments in this thread, and at other places, I suspect, have been way too focused on debating issues specific to this incident. This is a failure to see the forest for the trees.
ReplyDeleteIs the notion that women are underrepresented within the atheist community, especially at atheist social gatherings, at all controversial? So what might account for the disparity? Yes, I'm well aware of studies showing that women in many societies are more religious than the men, on average. And there are plenty of very plausible explanations for this (e.g., women may be socialized to favor intuitive and emotional ways of thinking rather than logical), and all of them would be beyond the power of the atheist community to feasibly change, except for one: sexism within the atheist community itself.
Virtually all self-declared rational atheists would agree that atheists are a highly diverse group. Naturally, there are some bad apples, such as that Gavin fellow who drove people here nuts recently. But when several female atheists have testified (in this very thread, in fact) that they did not feel comfortable enough to participate in atheist events, or join the community in general, because of negative experiences with male atheists, then the problem is more than just a few bad apples.
I get the impression that many here have not yet taken the time to read Rebecca Watson's blog post about this incident. In it, she explains that she wasn't even a feminist before she became active within the atheist community. She naively assumed, as many of you here do, that the small number of blatant misogynists would be easy to ignore. But soon, an increasing portion of her email consisted of crude sexual remarks directed at her, the worst of which included numerous rape threats (not merely the garden-variety death threats). These were emails written by self-proclaimed atheists, not hate-spewing theists.
Watson says that unwanted sexual advances (experienced by her) were not a rare occurence at atheist events. And yet she didn't make a big deal about it, perhaps in the hope that someone else would. But then she couldn't take it any more, which was why she decided to raise the issue of sexism within the atheist community at her panel in Dublin. Coincidentally, everything came to a head with the elevator incident, which occurred just hours after her panel.
ReplyDeleteHere's the point: If the "Elevatorgate" issue were solely about one man's inappropriate behavior in an isolated incident, then it would be no big deal. However, now there are tons of people who don't even understand why the man's behavior was so wrong, and this reflects the sexism within the atheist community. The gist of their sentiment is, "Boys will be boys, so everyone just chill, OK?"
Non-sexist atheists must take a stand against the kind of behavior of the Elevator Guy. They should declare that there will be no tolerance of it, that they recognize it as potentially sexist and will denounce it. Only then will they make more female atheists start to feel like they are welcome in the community. Otherwise, women will continue to feel like other atheists are enabling the behavior that turns them away.
Unless y'all have a better explanation for why so many women don't feel comfortable about joining us?
Murphy:
ReplyDeleteI did not offer two premises that I proposed to be valid. I specifically stated that they were notions that were regarded as "common knowledge" (notice the scare quotes). I would absolutely not claim that women inherently have a lower sex drive than men. I would even hesitate to agree that this is the case on average (though apparently plenty of studies establish that this is true).
At the very least, female sexuality is (through enculturation or some biological mechanism) different from male sexuality. And even more importantly, female sexuality is still viewed much more negatively than male sexuality. The most obvious example is how the word "slut" is still used to denigrate prosmicuous females, while no equivalent term exists for males. Men who are promiscuous are most often called "players," and many such men regard the label as a badge of honor.
That isn't just sexist; it reflects the common attitude that men are naturally more libidinous than women. Hence, aggressive male sexual behavior is considered acceptable, even the women that have experience it find it to be offensive. "Boys will be boys," as the saying goes. This has been used in the past and in the present to encourage women to shut-up and tolerate what is allegedly "flattering" or "complimentary" behavior in the part of men that is, in actuality, degrading.
Many decades passed before consciousness was raised to the point where sexual harassment laws were finally passed to protect women in the workplace. And now, some clueless men, blinded by their male privilege, make the nonsense complaint that they're afraid to give ANY compliment to a female coworker for fear that it will be the basis of a sexual harassment lawsuit. What a complete lack of perspective.
Murphy,
ReplyDeleteThe words "speaking as a woman" were immediately followed by my thanking the guys at AE for being gentlemen. That is not the gender card. It would be like saying, "As I human being, I really like beef." I wasn't begging special privileged or recognition; I was being grateful.
To your further point, it's true that what I mentioned is not a direct comparison to Rebecca's story, so I can see how it would be possible to miss my point which I summed up here, "I'm certain it's not intentional, or else I'd have been actively offended by the behavior instead of put off, but gosh, isn't it better if you know that it sometimes happens so that you yourself can help prevent perpetuating the problem?"
That seems to be all Rebecca was trying to say in an attempt to open a dialogue. Now, instead of talking about the actual issues she was bringing to the table, this one incident is being nit picked to death, preventing any actual useful conversation or growth from actually occurring.
To relate the above back to the current issue...
ReplyDeleteMurphy, a poor memory seems to be another one of your problems. I specifically stated (and you initially seemed to comprehend) that I am NOT against men making any sort of advance. Again, you completely twist my position. That is exactly like the idea that sexual harassment laws mean that you, as a man, cannot give compliments of any sort to a woman. It's nonsense. Please try to get a little perspective.
What is with all of this "mind reading" rhetoric? At first blush, it just sounds like men are claiming to be free of all responsibility in their interactions with women. It's really not a big step away from a rapist saying, "Was I supposed to read her mind when she said 'No' and didn't mean 'Yes'"? What happened to the idea that "communication is a two-way street"?
I'm not saying that all scenarios will be black and white. Many will be ambiguous, and when there is ambiguity, usually men will be in the clear. But there are situations that are very clear. The elevator incident is clear. The woman was not in the mood for any activity at the time, let alone sex, and yet the man does nothing but ask for sex. That is the definition of an inappropriate, unwelcome sexual advance that anyone with good sense should recognize.
See, it's not a matter of decorum. It's a matter of having enough respect to not look at a woman and just think of her and treat her as a sex object, which is what Elevator Guy did. Do you honestly think that any man (without rapist tendencies) can walk up to any woman at any time and plainly ask for sex and not be called a chauvinist? I have absolutely no doubt that if you do it enough times, you'll eventually encounter a woman who will take one look at you and promptly jump your bones when you say the word. (I'd expect most of the other women to slap you.) Does this mean that your behavior is justifiable, if there are actually a few women out there who will readily jump in the sack without the niceties of friendly conversation?
Here's an example of privilege: It's when you feel so burdened by your privilege that you think that it's somehow beyond your control (or that of any member of your group) to change, thus the responsibility lies solely with the members of the Other group to change. This is not only nonsensical; it's also rather insulting to members of both groups.
ReplyDeleteI think that most feminists will agree that social change requires work from both men and women. In a patriarchal society in which women are socialized from a very young age to believe that they must wait for suitors to come to them, most women will not understand that deciding to be the ones to make the first move is a laudable and empowering choice. I continue to see that most females feel uncomfortable with the idea and think that males should always initiate, because that's the way that things are supposed to be. This is the problem with ingrained gender roles.
(It may be cliche, but isn't a common source of angst among females the anxiety about whether the objects of their infatuations will ask them out on dates, or why these men don't make a move already? If they could understand that they should make the first move, then the problem would be solved.)
Murphy, your attitude basically comes off as, "I'm too lazy and I feel too helpless to even investigate the reasons for the imbalances, let alone do anything to help erase them." If you really support the idea that females ought to be able to make advances toward men, then you could be working to encourage public discourse promoting the notion that females are allowed and encouraged to do so, that there's nothing wrong with it, and that many men would welcome it.
When that happens, it will be an important step to chip away at male privilege and equalize the power imbalance between the genders.
I don't think I've agreed with anyone regarding this thing more than I've agreed with this blog posting. Dawkins made a dumb comment, he has a mistaken way of thinking. He's generally brilliant and awesome, but here, he's wrong.
ReplyDeleteDave: Why do you think that Watson "has this victim complex thing going on"? You seem to also imply that she's one those "girls who obsess over 'creepy guys' and rape." What led you to this conclusion? Why do you think that such girls "overreact most of the time"? Why are are you "skeptical of feminism in general"? Have you even taken the time to seriously study feminism?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should stop and consider that maybe the fact that "it's difficult for [you] to see things from their perspective" is indicative of male privilege. Please note that I am not using feminist rhetoric here. The same principle applies to every privileged group: white privilege, heterosexual privilege, bourgeois privilege, Christian privilege, non-handicapped privilege, thin person privilege, etc.
Furthermore, when I read over your comments, I remain unconvinced that you actually are familiar with the details of the story. Please go listen to Watson give her first-hand account of what happened. At no time did she cry "RAPIST!" Based on her account, the vast majority of people (male and female) in the exact same situation would feel a bit degraded. (I'm not even talking about the supposed rape threat, which I see as a secondary issue.)
Oh BTW, I am 100% supportive of flirting. It's something that people do as (more or less) harmless fun. In fact, many people (men and women) who are married or are in committed long-term relationships engage in flirting all the time (with people other than their significant others) and have no problem with their significant others engaging in flirting as well. Flirting is just flirting; it's not an invitation or proposition to go have sex. That can come later; flirting serves as a first step. The rest will depend on how the interaction goes.
And just so that we're all on the same page about the incident and not basing assessments on hearsay, here's the video in which Watson explains what happened: http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-mythbusters-robot-eyes-feminism-and-jokes/ (the relevant part starts at 4:30)
ReplyDeleteThis is my transcript of her account of Elevator Guy's words: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" Apparently, this man was in the hotel bar with Watson, where she had spent quite a bit of time engaged in casual conversation with other people. Right before she left the bar, she said, "You know, I've had enough guys; I'm exhausted. Going to bed." The man proceeded to follow her to the elevator.
I wouldn't have much of a problem if the man had approached Watson in the bar, flirted with her, and propositioned her after he felt like casual sex was also on her mind, which she would've implied through words and body language. I also wouldn't have much of a problem if in the elevator, the man had instead said, "I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to have lunch together later?" (I do have quibbles in either case, but I don't consider them to be worth discussing.)
What is behind the urge to doubt Watson's story? Of course I agree that questioning the accuracy of any first-hand account is reasonable, but what I detect here, especially from Murphy and one or two others, is an attitude of incredulity, doubting that it could've happened exactly as she described. This skepticism, along with offering alternative "more likely" scenarios, contains more than a whiff of an ad hominem attack.
Why can't we deal with the scenario as it has been described, instead of wasting time supposing that it probably didn't happen that way (a red herring)? Elevator Guy remains anonynous, so it's not like we're doing him any personal harm by taking Watson's version at face value. The issues that it raises are valid, no matter the truth value of the story.
@BSkrilla
ReplyDeleteDitto:
Best response ever.
You feminists here are psychotic! I am done with this post, unsubscribing to further comments. Adios!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(I'm not seeing my comments show up after 30min, trying again...)
ReplyDeleteThis is embarrassing. I feel the need to comment on this because Martin, Tracy, and Matt are clearly being hypocrites here.
"Lets make a TV show where we call all religion false. People will feel offended/threatened/fearful for viewer's salvation, but in the name of free discussion, its worth it. After all, people don't have right not to be offended."
And now look whats happened. "Its good for Rebecca to set incredibly subjective social rules for all men (applying to all women as well) because she might be frightened." Lets get serious here. This is not about safety or sexism. This is about values. You are sneering at people who value casual sex, and say "We couples and domesticated-types get to set the social rules."
Dan Savage had an excellent column which demonstrates this perspective problem very well. In the letter from a woman, she recounts getting drunk and asking a male friend to spend the night, and was turned down. After, she felt guilty and thought she should apologize to him. Why? Because if the genders were reversed, a woman would have felt offended by the offer. Dan's response was spot on, saying women should reconsider what abusive language really is. After, the only way people can have sex, is by asking other people for it.
Let me go even farther about this privileged nonsense. It's clearly discriminatory to say older, white men just don't get it because they have an easy life. Evidence for them feeling privileged? How about we look at actual generational studies: The younger, tech generation show higher levels of narcissism than all previous generations. That's right. I'm calling Rebecca a narcissist. It's well deserved, just like Dawkin's ridicule of her. Telling the world about some innocuous pass at her, and then propping it up as larger pattern of sexism? Then disowning someone who has done far more than she ever will for women's rights, all while dismissing his arguments with ad hominems (he's old and white)? This should be a red flag for everyone.
Honestly, I've been so disturbed by TAE support of her that I wanted to call in and debate you about it. Although at this point I will at least write this much, and hopefully I will get a response.
Many blokes who attend atheist conferences are, perhaps unlike the socially blithe commenters, born with Asperger's syndrome.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I take it that "we", as a group of freethinkers, may assume that proportion to be a majority!
Have you attended a Star-Trek convention?
The Asperger's contingent is, (in my opinion), a distinct majority.
Had you considered that you are all scarring (to the vitiated potential outcome of *suicide* via shame) "elevator guy" with this outrageous baseless slanderous/libelous** speculation?
For the only word that of the event is Rebecca's?
And that IS NOT the main source of malcontent.
It is that RW chose to accuse (by association) a powerless member of her audience as an anti-feminist!
This is the abuse of power that no-one should excuse.
RW has not explained her gaffe, merely relied upon the sycophancy of her acolytes, as well as that of "PZ" Myers, who appears to veer toward appeasement of those who seem to think that male genital mutilation is a completely trivial bit of nonsensicalnessossity.
___________________
** Too hard to distinguish these days.
Perhaps we require a novel class of character assassination:
Tweetious?
Nor anyone else's.
On what basis are we to call our-selve's Skeptics if we do not question her version of events?
@Michael Kingsford Gray
ReplyDeleteI don't think that we should shut Rebecca down for potentially "causing" someone's suicide, even if he is an aspie. Nor is this character assassination, because she didn't name him.
Rebecca is following her free speech rights (if in a bad way). We should object to her statements through debate, not attacking where incidental power happens to be. Yes, she has many followers, and has no doubt built up a cult of personality.
And really, whats with everyone touting how proud they are of their own skepticism. If "follower of Jesus" is a phrase Christians use to delude themselves into thinking they are morally superior, then "skeptic and reason" are phrases used to delude atheists into thinking they are more intelligent than others.
Ydg,
ReplyDeleteI did indeed misrepresent your stand on the whole "objectification" matter. You wrote:
I would go one step further and suggest that people stop apologizing for male sexuality. I don't mean this to be misandrist. I am taking issue with the idea that men are allowed to generally sexually objectify others, because of stereotypes about the male libido. It doesn't matter if the males in question are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual. It's still wrong, and the many millions of "more evolved" men would agree. But there's still this widespread attitude of "Boys will be boys."
So I just plain screwed up there, but believe me... demonizing male heterosexuality is a very real thing among certain precincts of contemporary political and social activism. I erred in ascribing that view to you, but that doesn't make it any less prevalent.
@ydgmdlu
ReplyDeleteI think i've already spent way to long on this topic already. I have to move on to other things (most notably work hours that i've foolishly spent typing here :) and I don't think there is much i'm saying at this point that I haven't already said so I think this will be my last post on the topic.
Murphy, a poor memory seems to be another one of your problems.
I could just as easily say that its not so much a poor memory on my part as you making points that (at least appear to me) contradict your earlier points. This late in the discussion I think rather than get narky at each other over shit like this, its just easier to say that there are some fundamental points that we intrinsically disagree on and probably won't and can't come to agreement on due to our radically different perspectives.
The most obvious example is how the word "slut" is still used to denigrate prosmicuous females, while no equivalent term exists for males. Men who are promiscuous are most often called "players," and many such men regard the label as a badge of honor.
Agreed. However its ironic that I hear most of this rhetoric from other women rather than the “privileged, sexist, misogynist, boyswillbeboys” males you claim are lurking around every corner. I actually pulled a girl at work up on this a few weeks or so ago when she was carrying on about how some other girl she knew was a slut for sleeping with a bunch of male models. No doubt you could still use this as an example of “male privilege in society”, but lets not point at males as if we're somehow the sexists pigs solely responsible when it is just as likely to come from the mouth of a female. I agree this needs to change, I just don't think its fair to fault the males that this goes on. It's the responsibility of people on both sides of the gender divide to make equality happen.
And whilst there is no direct word for word translation, lets not pretend like there aren't common stereotypical statements about men being brainless animals who are “led around by” or “thinking with” their dicks. I don't know if its as bad, but its certainly not unheard of.
Unless y'all have a better explanation for why so many women don't feel comfortable about joining us?
Even if I had no better explanation myself, that doesn't make “the atheist/skeptic community is majority white and male, ergo, the atheist/skeptic community is racist and sexist” a valid argument.
For my money, I don't think its about them being uncomfortable at all. I just don't think they really care. To be honest, I don't really think its an activity many guys care that much either as the ratio of atheists to atheist groups, is pretty skewif compared to the ratio of religious folk to churches.
I think the gender ratio difference is mostly due however to men and women having different interests. I don't know whether its social conditioning, or perhaps even biological (one of the most used feminist arguments against elevator guy on this thread is that males are more comfortable with, or at least more oblivious too, aggression and confrontation, and if these thread is any indication, being an activist for atheism, skeptisism, feminism, etc, is an inherently confrontational hobby). If I had to guess i'd say its probably a lot of column A and a little bit of column B combined. It doesn't surprised me that women wouldn’t' be as interested in such social groups as men.
Obviously this is a huge generalisation and there are definite exceptions from the rule. You're a member of the atheist community which is a predominately male institution, and I put myself through art school which is a predominately female institution, but I personally don't think you have to look much further than the fact that most men aren't interested in fine arts, and most women probably just aren't as interested in spending their spare time on atheist activism. I don't think there is really a sexist illuminati actively pulling strings from behind the curtain or anything.
ReplyDeleteIt's really not a big step away from a rapist saying, "Was I supposed to read her mind when she said 'No' and didn't mean 'Yes'"? What happened to the idea that "communication is a two-way street"?
I don't think that anyone here was saying that 'no' means 'yes'. The impression given by your post (perhaps due to poor writing on your part, perhaps misreading on dave and my part) was that we are supposed to know the woman's position before she said 'no'. Ie the actual act of approaching her in the first place and getting a 'no' answer was the unwanted advance and somehow inappropriate. As I said in my last post, I was not sure that was what you meant, but that was certainly the impression that you gave from your writing. Which sortof segues into the next part:
But there are situations that are very clear. The elevator incident is clear. The woman was not in the mood for any activity at the time, let alone sex, and yet the man does nothing but ask for sex.
I feel i've had to repeat this so many times now, but is this what actually happened? Admittedly i've tried to avoid anything after the initial statements as I frankly believe that the well has now been poisoned by so many people just making shit up post-hoc to prove their point, mutating the story so badly that its hard to tell original fact from bad conjecture, but from the initial posts its not clear at all. Even from Watson's one sided perspective of the story, in her original comment about the guy, her only reason for thinking it inappropriate was nothing more than the time and place the proposition occurred in. It wasn't in fact anything the guy actually said or did (I think she said that he “wasn't Bundyish”?).
It seems to me based on the actual facts, that you and others believe elevator guy should have somehow (perhaps through ESP) known she was going to say no before he actually propositioned her, and that was his crime. If elevator guy actually did harassed her after she said 'no' as you and others imply, then fine, your completely correct, he shouldn't have done that. But nothing in the actual facts presented in the original description of events should lead us to think this is the case. All we know is he propositioned her (admittedly in a setting she found uncomfortable for personally subjective reasons). She said no. He left without a fuss. Everything beyond that as far as I can see (making him out to be some drooling lecherous drunk sociopathic harasser) is sensationalised crap made up afterwards by commentators.
If you really support the idea that females ought to be able to make advances toward men, then you could be working to encourage public discourse promoting the notion that females are allowed and encouraged to do so, that there's nothing wrong with it, and that many men would welcome it.
ReplyDeleteI'm absolutely up for this, and despite our many differences of opinion, I don't think i've argued to the contrary. In fact, I thought that kind of discourse was what were are doing right now...
Murphy, your attitude basically comes off as, "I'm too lazy and I feel too helpless to even investigate the reasons for the imbalances, let alone do anything to help erase them."
What I am absolutely NOT up for is: Scapegoating. Sensationalism. Persecution complexes. Affirmative action. And unjustifiably making shit up to try and validate a point, even if the general thesis of that point is otherwise correct.
You really should stop with the whole “you don't get what is wrong with what the guy did” because we do. We do get it. And if the guy really did what you claim then you're correct that he was in the wrong and we would agree with you. The problem is that from the original facts, even as presented by watson herself, there isn't really a clear indication that the guy actually did anything of the sort.
There is an old saying that “the right choice for the wrong reason is still the wrong choice”. I'm all up for equality and do my small part to try and make the world a better place for everyone (one of the reasons i'm an atheist/skeptic advocate amongst other things such as oxfam etc). But if this whole incident you guys are marching the feminist troops on is simply based around scapegoating some poor guy (that from what I can draw from the facts didn't actually do anything inappropriate), to appease the neo-conservative feminist movement and scaremonger males into subservience, then as far as I can see you're just as bad as the other side, and i'll have no fucking part in your parade thank you very much. Sorry if this makes me lazy in your eyes...
Here's the point: If the "Elevatorgate" issue were solely about one man's inappropriate behavior in an isolated incident, then it would be no big deal. However, now there are tons of people who don't even understand why the man's behavior was so wrong, and this reflects the sexism within the atheist community. The gist of their sentiment is, "Boys will be boys, so everyone just chill, OK?"
ReplyDeleteThe gist is that if the guy actually did anything inappropriate then we'd be on your side.
There have been more than a few quip little comments from people here in response to me, Hannanible, George and others that “more evolved males” would see the light or whatever. As i've said I haven't been convinced based on the FACTS that the guy actually did anything wrong. What this whole debacle looks like to me is a guy being made into the poster boy for sexism and misogyny, even though for all intensive purposes his only crime was to ask a girl out at an hour past some peoples bedtimes, and then left without a fuss when she said no.
You keep claiming its not about this one guy, and that we can't see the Forrest through the trees. You and others keep going on about how we don't get it. Has it occurred to you that you don't get why we're so pissed of about this? Has it occurred to you that we find it just as offensive to be constantly labelled unevolved, or to generally be tarred with your broad the brush of sexist bigotry because one guy (which you frankly haven't even demonstrated based on facts) did something wrong? You don't like being treated as lower class because of your gender, well guess what, we don't like being treated as fucking criminals because of ours.
I'm not advocating a “boys will be boys” policy, and I think a thorough rereading of the comment thread will show that noone else has either. The reason this is such a big deal for us is that if these perfectly glowing “more evolved males” actually exist at all, we'd all be curious to know how any of them can get dates when we seem to be going down a path where so much as asking a girl to coffee gets you labelled sexist by an entire online community. I'd like to sign off with some food for thought, in the form of Jello Biafra's 5th spoken word album title:
“If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve”
murphy out...
"Let me go even farther about this privileged nonsense. It's clearly discriminatory to say older, white men just don't get it because they have an easy life. Evidence for them feeling privileged?"
ReplyDeleteAmong the many misconceptions in your post, I've chosen to address this one because the misunderstanding of the concept of privilege in this whole discussion is driving me a little crazy. "Privilege" unfortunately is a lot like the world "theory" as in "theory of Evolution". Because of the common meaning of the word, evolution-deniers can play semantic games with the scientific concept, which is well defined and understood in the scientific literature but not in the society at large.
"Privilege" in social-theory discussions does NOT mean that the privileged group has universally easier, more enjoyable lives that the disadvantaged group. It means that the privileged group is spared a whole host of petty indignities, inconveniences or injustices that the disadvantaged experience as a fact of life.
One example: Are you white? Have you ever been ignored or passed by a taxi you were trying to hail down? If you have, you probably thought the driver was a jerk, or didn't see you, or was on their way to another fare. You probably didn't think they passed you by because you are white. Black people don't have this privilege; they are often denied service by taxi drivers. I could relate anecdotal evidence of this, but I don't have to. Laws have been passed against service refusal, and plain-clothes stings have been organized by police to combat it.
"Male privilege" doesn't mean that all men, everywhere, have easier lives than all women. It means that women experience all sorts of behaviors that men are simply immune to, and must plan their lives around them.
E.g.: When you dress for the day, do you consider whether or not your outfit will attract unwanted sexual remarks about your body from strangers? When you fail at a task, do you worry that people will then say that all men are bad at that particular task? ( http://xkcd.com/385/ )When you take a new job, do you worry people will think you were hired because of your breasts? When you go out for a night of drinking or clubbing, do you consider all the ways in which you are placing your personal safety at risk? I'm willing to bet that in most of those scenarios, you do not. Because you have a privilege not to have a body that is assumed to be there primarily for sexual consumption. That is was feminists mean when they talk about "male privilege".
If I need an exemplar for what the precious defensive male argument I was talking about looks like, I need only point to Murphy's last post. Yikes.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand I sympathise. Many people just confuse things by employing sociological concepts like male privilege toward individuals in ways that are just confusing (not necessarily here) and they probably shouldn't. But geez that ultra defensiveness doesn't make it any easier.
The question I have to ask myself is why aren't I horrified by Watson's tarring of all male kind as sexists or rapists or whatever? Because it seems perfectly plain to me that she isn't. It's an off hand remark borne out of the irony of the situation (I believe the guy was at the convention and at the bar. Not perfectly sure about this) since he mustn't have quite grasped what she was talking about. That's really it. Suddenly she's out to ruin all possibility of living out Aerosmith songs and the possibly casual sex itself for everyone ever, drive shy men to suicide as well as running roughshod over the suffering of millions of women under Islamic regimes.
This. Reaction. Doesn't. Make. Any. Sense.
My God, a man proposing to a woman in an innappropiated manner! STOP THE PRESSES! Who would guess?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the girl's reaction was making a generalization of it. I mean, why she though it was a good idea to patronize the male atheist community with a stupid "advise"? "Guys, don't flirt on elevators at 4 AM, it's strange, wink wink". Oh, really, Little Miss Sunshine? Are you implying that every male atheist is prone to do that? That most of us cannot see that doing this is probably a bad idea? Thanks! Next time you may tell me how to use the bathroom, because I am a man and I have no clue.
"Hey guys, don't do stuff like that, thanks." is patronizing. "Hey, Drunk Idiot, don't do stuff like that anymore, thanks" would be perfectly fine.
I fail to see how the statement, "Guys, don't do that" is so offensive to anyone. However, I know if Dawkins publicly singled me out and insulted me for some innocuous statement I had made, he would definitely be on my "people to hate" list. I wonder if he has a publicist. I wonder that same publicist wishes he would just stay the hell away from the keyboard once in awhile.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, since I wasn't involved in this incident, I won't "boycott" him. I do think he's a bit of a douche though.
I apologize for my former comment where I called "you feminists" psychotic. I am so frustrated with all of this and let my emotional knee jerk instincts get the best of me. So I take that comment back.
ReplyDeleteI really don't want to discuss the details again, ydgmudl (this doesn't say anything about you personally, but I hate the spelling of your screen name!) I am a skeptic, so I question the principles of any and all "isms"--in this case, feminism. From what I know of feminism, it does indeed have some--perhaps many--valid arguments against a culture that is indeed biased towards males. I concede all that. However, there is definitely a point where feminism goes way too far. For example, there are feminists who are against the use of logic--they see it as a male way of thinking. These feminists think that there are other just as valid ways of solving problems. I am not convinced. Why? They haven't made their case yet. So I stand back, reserve judgment--and get this, I use logic to point out the fallacies in their arguments about that.
Now that's an example, but it's that kind of thinking which makes me skeptical of feminism in general--it does indeed go too far sometimes. In this case, Elevatorgate, it has certainly gone way too far. These otherwise rational skeptic feminists are simply making connections and inferences where there is no justification for doing so. And that's why I am speaking out.
I really did agree with RW at first, when she said, "Guys, don't do that." Thanks for the advice. Fine. What I am against is the way in which, later, some skeptical women in the community have linked that 1 minute in the elevator with rape, misogyny, and this vague notion of "male privilege."
As I said earlier, I am disappointed by the way in which RD dismissed RW's concerns. But I do agree with the point he was trying to make: the guy didn't touch her, didn't display any misogyny or a sense of "male privilege." He was ignorant, probably had underdeveloped social skills, may have been slightly drunk and therefore less inhibited. Who knows? And I stand by, also, my skepticism of RW's account of the incident. She may be exactly right about it, but it is possible that she could have misinterpreted what happened and why. She had just given a talk on sexism. In my mind, it is by no means unlikely that she was primed to see sexism or "sexualization" that night where there was in fact something quite different.
Lastly, I know that women do have a much higher chance of getting raped or assaulted than men. I get that. But I know some girls, personally, who seem to never stop talking about it, or about guys who seem "creepy" and all that. Many guys are just awkward and come across that way--as creepy. And they are bad at reading signs coming from girls. So the girl thinks that the guy is "objectifying" her by "not considering her feelings" when he asks her out or whatever, while what is actually happening is that the guy is just clueless. I said before and I will say it again: to me, this seems more like an example of male ignorance than "male privilege."
Um...
ReplyDeleteGIRL?
Since when sexual advances are sexist? Should a person be forbidden of FUCKING ASKING OTHER PERSON TO A DATE FOR FEAR THAT IT MAY BE OFFENSIVE? Shove it.
ReplyDeleteYou have the right to turn the invitation down, or even be angry if it was crude, stupid kind of pass ("C'mon, nice tits, let's shag it!"). If you find it creepy or specially unconfortable, go and call security, or even the police. That's fine. But if even asking politely if you wnat to hang up offends you, go on and shove it.
Out of curiosity, should gay males be forbidden of asking men they find attractive for a date because they may offend the straight guys, even if they are not being unnappropiate?
Dave, how is being "just clueless" different from "not considering her feelings"? *I* don't think Elevator Guy acted with malicious intent at all. I agree with Rebecca that he shouldn't have said anything.
ReplyDeleteYou see all the hysterical feminists talked about the misogyny and male privilege? I see all the butthurt male atheists whining about their NEED to talk to women, why CAN'T they talk to women? People need sex! THEY need sex! Women have the sex!!! How do you get it if you can't TALK to them?!?! THAT is the subtext I have seen in the debate, and THAT is the sexism and objectification I'm objecting TOO.
As ydgmdlu said, this isn't just about the elevator incident. The discussion it sparked has ranged far and wide and I've seen it before, often, in the comments sections of many, many feminist website and blogs. This is well-tread territory. Rebecca's comment touched a nerve in both female atheists ("I'm sick of getting hit on all the time too!") and in male atheists ("I'm entitled to hit on women!") SOMEwhere there is a compromise between these two reasonable desires, isn't there?
Uh, and Max? You wouldn't have things like glory holes or elaborate foot-tapping codes in male bathrooms if gay men felt entitled to come on to any man they were attracted to. Nor would you have such a thing as a "gay panic defense" be a legally acceptable argument. (It makes my skin crawl just typing that...)
ReplyDeleteI love how people immediately dismiss the possibility that Miss Watson could be just flat out lying ("not saying that she is lying, but..."). Why the special concession? Do we give special concession for the likes Ray Comfort and Fred Phelps?
ReplyDeleteWe only have her side of the story. Does it make it Gospel truth? Aren't we the people who are skeptics about personal accounts of facts without further evidence? And the Matt goes and say that "His side of the story is irrelevant." Way to go. Maybe the other side of all stories are irrelevant too? I mean, who cares, for example, if most atheists think gay marriage should be legal? We have those nice reports of Christians and even this fine gentleman Charlie The Atheist Guy who thinks marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman, even if man are prohibited of flirting with woman because this will objectify them in some immaginary and offensive way, no doubt scarring the poor Miss Watson forever.
My hypo-thesis about this is that we should all turn into ascetic monks and pray to Richard Dawkins - no, Miss Watson rebuked him forever, so we need to pray to Charles Darwin now - because having gay sex is a disease-spreading behavior, while having sex with women is offensive to women. We atheists are doing great, thank you!
@Kestra, how is being just clueless different from not considering her feelings? Here's how: we can't read girls minds. And, as I said, some of us are very bad at reading "signals". The difference is intent. Just because a guy who is bad at reading people missed a "signal" coming from a girl doesn't mean that, if he knew how she felt, he would behave in the same way.
ReplyDeleteYes, why can't a guy talk to a girl he finds attractive? Present your case. I am not convinced yet. Should guys stop talking to girls? Hey, I would actually prefer that. I am one of those people who are bad at "reading" women. I would love it for a girl to approach me instead of the other way around!
I am getting tired of hearing all this about "male privilege." Isn't it the privilege of EVERYONE to talk to, or hit on, anyone else if they want to? Yes, it is. In our society though it is generally the guy who is supposed to hit on the girl. Hell, like I said, sometimes I wish it were the other way around! But that's how it works. Now as I said before, I agree that RW was right in saying "Guys, don't do that." Great advice! We can learn better ways to approach women, when to do so and when not do so.
Is there a problem in the atheist community with too many guys hitting on too many girls? Perhaps. Should we be more aware of ourselves? Yes, I agree. But this is, as I've said time and time again, more an example of male ignorance than "male privilege." Most of us guys simply don't know any better and, like I said, we are not that great at reading "signals" and all that. My problem with RW and the skeptic feminists right now is mainly one of degree: they are taking something small and attaching huge labels to it, blowing things way, way out of proportion. In other words, please stop demonizing us guys! Give us a little here. Most of us are nice people just a little misunderstood. We aren't misogynists, don't want to "objectify" women, aren't solely thinking of sex every single time we approach any woman. That's making such sweeping blanket generalizations and to me, it seems unfair.
Kestra: I'm aware that's how things ARE now (gays have to take care with who they flirt, because it's very likely that some Charlie-ish "disgusted by disease" homophobe would feel justified in beating the crap ou of them). I asked if we think that's how it SHOULD be. My opinion is that heterossexual men should not be offended by a well-manered gay flirt, even if we won't correspond to it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, does the blog have any award for bringing our favorite atheist homophobe into a completely unrelated discussion in two posts? Because I would like to claim it, thank you very much.
I also find amusing the Aretha Frankin citation: "FIND OUT what respect means TO ME!". Right, because I have the obligation to guess what a definition means TO YOU, your self-centered idiot. If your definition of respect is not the common one, then either you explain it to me or you shut the fuck up, because I'm not trying to find what it is. Like I'm not trying to guess what Mr Theist thinks God is, if is "the God of the Bible", "Allah", "love and compassion", or "energy".
ReplyDelete"Here's how: we can't read girls minds. And, as I said, some of us are very bad at reading "signals"."
ReplyDeleteAnd I said it yesterday: There was NO way this particular man didn't already KNOW how this particular woman felt. He had attended her talk. He was present in the bar that night, where she elaborated on her points with a group of people. He heard her say she was tired and going to bed. She clearly expressed her feelings over the course of the day, and he just ignored her. Just flat-out didn't hear or understand or care about what she had been saying. (Like many people during this entire debate...)
I'm a bi woman, and I've hit on men. I met my current boyfriend by plunking myself down next to him and inviting myself into the shots he was about to take with someone else. We hooked up that night. I am no stranger to soliciting men I don't know for sex. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.
I meet a guy at a party. He's got an interesting hat, or he starts chatting with me in the bathroom line (this happened) or he and I are both singing along to the same song. We start talking. I get a read on his character, why he's there, who he's with. He seems receptive, and maybe I go home with him. Perhaps a friend escorts us, to make sure I'm safe. Perhaps the party continues at his place with lots of other people around. Perhaps I take a big risk and go home with him alone. The difference is: I spent all night talking with him, getting to know him, sussing him out. Presumably he did the same with me.
This IS NOT the same as a stranger, a real stranger, a man I've never spoken to, soliciting me for sex on an elevator. Or a bus. Or the metro. Or in front of Target at 2 AM. Yes, all of that has happened to me, and I HATE it. I've told the men so (when there were enough other people around). They've been apologetic occasionally. Other times, I'm a "cold bitch with a stick up [my] ass." Which doesn't make me feel all that great or safe. If stating that I Don't Like this behavior and Want It To Stop is "demonizing men", then I'll stop when they do. La!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Kestra, there is nothing more I can say to you about this. I have stated my point of view, you have stated yours, and I remain skeptical. I am not convinced that the comparison between asking a girl for coffee and soliciting sex amounts to the same thing. And yes, you do seem like a "cold bitch with a stick up your ass." I'm not saying all feminists are that way, of course. I am sure most of them aren't. But from what I've seen here so far, I think I can make that judgment about you, Kestra.
ReplyDeleteMurphy:
ReplyDeleteI too have spent too much time and energy on this. Maybe I'll just let Kestra, who seems to have as articulate and rational a perspective as anyone, take over from here.
However its ironic that I hear most of this rhetoric from other women rather than the “privileged, sexist, misogynist, boyswillbeboys” males you claim are lurking around every corner.
You know why that is? Because in this patriarchal society, male sexual activity is viewed much more positively than female sexual activity. Men don't generally have a problem with sex, while women have internalized the ideas of "sex is dirty" and "monogamy is more expected of women." There is an element of shame involved, and women who think that other women don't live up certain feminine ideals think that they are weak and deserve to be derided as "sluts." I'm sure that some schools of feminism (particularly "sex-negative" ones) have this attitude. Despite the impression that I might've given with my previous comments, I'm not playing the "blame men game." Blaming gets no where, and while everyone has responsibility, no one is particularly at fault.
And whilst there is no direct word for word translation, lets not pretend like there aren't common stereotypical statements about men being brainless animals who are “led around by” or “thinking with” their dicks.
Such epithets are more about ridicule than shame. The social consequences are far less serious.
Even if I had no better explanation myself, that doesn't make “the atheist/skeptic community is majority white and male, ergo, the atheist/skeptic community is racist and sexist” a valid argument.
Sorry, but the evidence is not your favor. Since you've made no claims to the contrary, I'll conclude that your presence here means that you identify as a rational atheist. I thought that rational atheists assess the validity of an argument based on evidence and reason. What you said would be just like a creationist saying, "Even if I had no better explanation for the evidence myself, that doesn't make the theory of evolution a valid argument."
For my money, I don't think its about them being uncomfortable at all. I just don't think they really care.
Oh really? Where's your evidence?
I'm absolutely up for this, and despite our many differences of opinion, I don't think i've argued to the contrary.
This directly contradicts one of your previous comments: "Furthermore, its not the guys fault or even in his capacity to change this. If you wanna see this point change then its up to the women to start initiating sexual or romantic advances with the men. (I'm sure i'll get slammed for this, but I think the same thing basically applies to the ratio of men to women in the atheist/skeptic community. I don't think its intrinsically a boy's club, but even if it is, the only way it will change is if more women join and change it.)"
What I am absolutely NOT up for is: Scapegoating. Sensationalism. Persecution complexes. Affirmative action. And unjustifiably making shit up to try and validate a point, even if the general thesis of that point is otherwise correct.
Where's your evidence that this is what I and others are doing? It sounds more like a knee-jerk write-off than an attempt to engage the arguments. If you think that my assessment of your position is wrong, then show why I'm wrong. Instead, you continue to assert that your beliefs are based on nothing more than your gut feeling, instead of actually investigating the experience of female atheists.
You really should stop with the whole “you don't get what is wrong with what the guy did” because we do. We do get it. And if the guy really did what you claim then you're correct that he was in the wrong and we would agree with you. The problem is that from the original facts, even as presented by watson herself, there isn't really a clear indication that the guy actually did anything of the sort.
ReplyDeleteExplain how Elevator Guy's, as described by Watson's first-hand account, is anything less than what I have claimed. And I'm not talking about the rape threat.
that from what I can draw from the facts didn't actually do anything inappropriate
You claim to "get it," but this statement clearly shows that you don't. What exactly is your interpretation of Elevator Guy's behavior, without interpolating any hypothetical aspects? What don't you think is inappropriate about it? Are you saying that you would behave in the same way in the same situation?
What this whole debacle looks like to me is a guy being made into the poster boy for sexism and misogyny, even though for all intensive purposes his only crime was to ask a girl out at an hour past some peoples bedtimes, and then left without a fuss when she said no.
NO. He was asking for sex, not coffee. Even if he wasn't literally asking for it, it's the only reasonable interpretation of his request. You must some profoundly ignorant and naive fellow if you think that asking someone whom you just met (in the context of heterosexual interaction) to go back to your room means anything other than a sexual proposition.
Has it occurred to you that you don't get why we're so pissed of about this? Has it occurred to you that we find it just as offensive to be constantly labelled unevolved, or to generally be tarred with your broad the brush of sexist bigotry because one guy (which you frankly haven't even demonstrated based on facts) did something wrong?
You're upset because we've called you on your sense of entitlement, which you just keep demonstrating. Have I called you sexist? No. Go back and read my words again. I'm sure that you're a pleasant, well-meaning guy. But I'm calling certain attitudes here "sexist"; that clearly doesn't mean that I'm demonizing those who hold such attitudes.
I'm not advocating a “boys will be boys” policy, and I think a thorough rereading of the comment thread will show that noone else has either.
I've re-read your comments already and I still get a "boys will be boys" sense of entitlement.
The reason this is such a big deal for us is that if these perfectly glowing “more evolved males” actually exist at all, we'd all be curious to know how any of them can get dates when we seem to be going down a path where so much as asking a girl to coffee gets you labelled sexist by an entire online community.
Again, I specifically said that there's nothing wrong with approaching who someone catches your eye to ask that person for coffee. There's nothing wrong with flirting with or hitting on people, per se. Your statement here is a perfect illustration of an analogy that I made earlier: the complaints that some men voiced upon passage of legislation against sexual harassment, fearing that they would no longer be allowed to do so much as compliment or be friendly towards women in the workplace.
I'm glad that there others willing to pick apart Kestra's rather ridiculous and constant misunderstandings.
ReplyDelete"I see all the butthurt male atheists whining about their NEED to talk to women, why CAN'T they talk to women? People need sex! THEY need sex! Women have the sex!!! How do you get it if you can't TALK to them?!?! THAT is the subtext I have seen in the debate, and THAT is the sexism and objectification I'm objecting TOO."
This is getting ugly. How did you get this from anything anyone said? This paragraph is one giant straw man.
"Butthurt Male atheists?"
"We 'NEED' women for sex?"
(Actually we don't, do I really have to explain this to you?)
"How can we get it if we don't TALK to them?"
OK, I think will explain it to you. We can masturbate, there's a massive sex industry with prostitutes, porn, sex toys and so on. This is worth pointing out because most men shouldn't feel an urgency to get sex from women, nor a sense of entitlement to it.
I second that Kestra does sound frigid. Not to mention quite bad at reading comprehension.
I think I pointed out some of this poor comprehension previously, but my posts are not showing up, or maybe this blog is really slow? Is this typical for this site?
Some people here might be surprised to know that despite my very strong feminist views and arguing against male privilege, I am in fact male. Additionally, I am Asian, below average height, very shy, struggling financially, not buff, and very sexually and romantically inexperienced. And of course, I'm an atheist. I am disadvantaged so many ways, which should make me sympathetic to the views of guys like Murphy and George. The only significant privilege that I have is male privilege, which I often don't care to have. I've done plenty of things that I know were "creepy."
ReplyDeletePerhaps because I am so disadvantaged, I can better recognize privilege and entitlement when I see it. Additionally, I don't particularly identify with either the male or female gender, though I generally lean female nowadays, which means that I don't consider myself to be cisgendered. Additionally, I've recently become bisexual. For me, looking at the situation objectively and rationally, I just cannot see why it's so difficult to understand.
The problem, as I see it, is that most men just aren't interested in understanding the perspective of women. They claim to want to learn about it, but the reasons are generally dubious. They certainly rarely try to see things from the female perspective. How would you feel if guys are hitting on you all the time? A few of those times, you might think that it's flattering, even if you find the men unappealing. But then it gets old, and you start to get cynical, wondering how many of these guys really want to get to know you, and how many just want to get in your pants.
Again, I am NOT against people hitting on other people, per se. The fact that women have to deal with almost all of it, and men have to deal with almost none, is an unfortunate fact of life that can only be changed if gender roles change. But what makes it contemptible is when a guy isn't just hitting on a girl (i.e., flirting); instead, he opens their interaction with a sexual proposition.
And what's even worse is when that guy, and other similarly-minded fellows, think that there's nothing wrong with it, that there's no difference between that and some harmless flirting. This is where the male privilege and entitlement become revealed.
I'm posting Hemant Mehta's very clear-eyed take on the real issue here....
ReplyDelete[From Friendly Atheist]
Some people (mostly men) have said the elevator incident wasn’t a big deal. Here’s what you may not understand (and I don’t think I connected the dots until now):
I’ve been to dozens of atheists conferences over the past several years. At just about every one of them, the men have vastly outnumbered the women. As a result, the women become something of a competition for the men. Who can hit on them? Who can sleep with them? Obviously, not all the guys do this and we don’t even talk about it, but enough of them do what Elevator Guy did that the women have basically come to expect it. (And then we wonder why it’s so hard to get them to attend atheist gatherings.)
So why not just kick out those individuals who are making the women uncomfortable? It’s not that easy. To begin with, it’s not just a small group of men. Some of them are prominent guys. Some of them have run (or do run) atheist organizations. There’s not always a smoking gun that points to harassment (kind of like in the Elevator Incident), but incidents like that are not uncommon.
How do I know this? Because I’ve been around the women who are subject to this treatment. They talk about it. They talk about the “Old Boys’ Network” atmosphere that permeates not only our conferences, but also some organizations and their boards. Sometimes, they’re hit on, and other times, they’re excluded from important conversations and prevented from holding positions of higher authority. It’s a serious problem for us. It doesn’t just apply to one “type” of woman, either.
Paradoxically, I think the way we fix this is by getting more women involved in our movement. But we’re pushing them away by treating Elevator-like incidents as if they’re not representative of a larger problem. All of us need to call those incidents out when they happen and educate the people who don’t know better.
I don't think Watson is lying; I have no reason to think that. The story she relates is not prima facie unlikely or absurd.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think some of the more, shall we say, eager blogosphere members of Team Rebecca care less about what actually happened on that elevator than they do about the political uses to which the resulting story can be put.
To them,it's ammunition. It's Agit-Prop. It's useful whether or not it's true because it portrays a certain kind of behavior by a straight guy in "our community" which they can employ as a case study in, you guessed it, Privilege!
Speaking of the Big P...
Kestra,
On behalf of Murphy, myself and others...
When we challenge you on this 'privilege' business it's not because we imagine ourselves living in some egalitarian paradise wherein certain groups and categories of people don't have (and press) unjust advantages over others.
Nobody is claiming that.
What we object to is one side of the debate claiming a monopoly on ethics and social awareness, okay?
If I disagree with you on whether Incident X is an example of Privilege-In-Action, it's not because I dismiss the Privilege issue out of hand or because I care any less than you about people being treated shabbily.
Arguing about the applicability of something is not the same as denying that it even exists.
"Maybe I'll just let Kestra, who seems to have as articulate and rational a perspective as anyone, take over from here."
ReplyDeleteThis comment was posted before I could point out how Kestra was making a rather crudely worded strawman of many of our arguments. This is funny enough on its own, not withstanding that being articulate and rational having nothing to do with being right.
I have a suggestion. How about at the next atheist convention you all discuss actual logical fallacies and relevant arguments, instead of glorifying personality traits. From what I gather, you all pat each other on the back for being "skeptics" or "rational".
Does anyboyd also find strange that the guy would make a nasty pass on Miss Watson moments after she talked about exactly that same issue? Sounds a little fishy. Could anybody confirm that she didn't invented the whole fuss just to strengthen her point? Or that, if the whole situation is true, and that the guy really exists, that the guy was present when she ranted about guys hitting on her? Because, you know, I don't know her or her character, so I can't rule out the possibility, because people sometimes do that.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, all this talk about objectifying womem and I didn't see any words about male attraction on lesbian/bissexual women. Because, you know, the vast majority of heterossexual males would love to watch and participate into some girl-on-girl action. Men love to think about two hot girls kissing and touching themselves - but isn't that disrespectful with the lesbian/bissexual women? Should their relationships be fetish fuel for horny males?
And porn? Shouldn't we stop consuming pornography, as it is a way of objectifying women, specially some kind of porn (lesbian, gangbang, facials)?
I really hope the guys talking about the subject have considered these questions and stopped lusting for two women kissing and consuming porn altogheter, except the kind of porn that feminists would approve.
I have followed this for the last couple of days with some interest, and it seems to me to have been perfectly reasonable by Watson to point out the elevator event as having been creepy, and something that she preferred didn't happen. This is not only an issue of whether or not EG strictly speaking did anything wrong or not, but it's also about what should be done to avoid scaring women away from the community and similar events. I read a couple of articles linked from earlier comments by Martin and Matt, and I think that I, as a male, had my awareness raised a notch.
ReplyDeleteBut the main reason I got the idea to chime in here was this:
NO. He was asking for sex, not coffee. Even if he wasn't literally asking for it, it's the only reasonable interpretation of his request. You must some profoundly ignorant and naive fellow if you think that asking someone whom you just met (in the context of heterosexual interaction) to go back to your room means anything other than a sexual proposition.
Maybe he was asking for sex, but I just can't see how it's the only reasonable interpretation. I don't know what exactly you mean by "in the context of heterosexual interaction" here, but it has been argued elsewhere that EG actually knew who she was. Otherwise he certainly can't have been expected to know about her views. Maybe, just maybe, he actually did find her intellectually interesting and simply wanted to discuss a few issues, and he saw a chance to do so? I'm not saying this wasn't an ill-chosen moment, but I find the idea that this is "the only reasonable interpretation" to be going too far. As if males can not possibly have any other interests in associating with a female human being.
@Max, what's funny is Skepchick and her little naughty calender! Maybe RW is not a "true feminist," because if she was she would clearly see that what she's done with that calendar can be considered "objectifying" women! Oh, it's a little thing you say? Kind of like a guy asking her for coffee? WELL! It's the bigger principles that matter! Boycott Skepchick's calender! Anti-woman! Doesn't she know that her calender is inciting men to rape?
ReplyDelete@MattAnderson: That, sir, is a very good point.
ReplyDeleteAt least this boring discussion about a guy, a girl and and elevator made atheists disagree ON SOMETHING. Maybe TAM9 will be the BEST TAM9, because people will be on each ones throats. A little feud war can be fun.
I personally don't have this kind of problem, because I find myself disagreeing with everyone on the atheist community on 90% of the topics, if not on the opinions, at leats on the arguments or how they are presented.
I've definitely gotten to the "what are we even arguing about again?" point, but I'd like to say, my little rant about "butthurt male atheists" was largely inspired by the blatantly misogynistic comments that Rebecca received on her vlog about the conference, the 8-minute video that contained maaaybe half a minute addressing the Elevator Encounter. Re-reading the comment, I can see how it is implied I was talking about the arguments being presented in this thread, and I'm sorry that people think I was straw-manning them in particular. When I talked about "this debate" I meant the weeks-long discussion that has raged from Youtube to Pharyngula to BlagHag to Pandagon to FriendlyAtheist, and finally, to here.
ReplyDeleteSo sorry if you felt straw-manned, I guess my frigid bitchiness just got the best of me.
(And George, yes, I realize not everyone here is denying that privilege exists. But some people are, and I think they should be corrected, since they clearly don't understand the concept.)
I posted a careful response exactly about the content in pornography, unfortunately it appears to have been eaten by the server. I'll try to summarize:
ReplyDeleteSexually Objectifying: Oxymoron, objects are asexual. Even if it were true, not only is it thought crime, but real application is impractical.
Would porn be better to women if we first developed the porn star's character as a crime-fighting superhero with a Ph.D in astrophysics and volunteers for orphans?
Maybe, but we sure don't see the puritan branch of feminism promoting this sort of thing. They seem to have a short list of whats acceptable for men to enjoy. On the contrary, the pro-sex feminists seem to dismiss the idea of objectifying women.
Maybe somebody should ask Richard Dawkins the following: a muslim woman is on an elevator at 4:00AM, alone with an unknown man, and he invites her to his room. Does she have good reasons to feel uncomfortable on that situation?
ReplyDeleteWhy it needs to be a muslim woman? Why not just a woman?
ReplyDeleteBut the response is simple: if he asks her to go to his room, she declines and the guy says "Ok, sorry, bye", what's exaclty the problem? Anyway, in the case the woman feels the man is being somewhat creepy, she can call security, or even the police if the guy is being extra creepy. If the guy means no harm, he won't have a problem explaining himself. Problem solved.
Making this a big fuzz about how man should behave ("Hey guys, don't do this, thanks!") is wrong. It's patronizing. I wonder how women would feel if it was a guy complaining about anything on those exact terms: "Hey girls, don't do this, thanks!".
This all seems very silly to me. Anyone else imagine Dawkins with an Arnold Swarchenegger accent yelling, "Stop Whining!"
ReplyDeleteJust me? ok.
Would porn be better to women if we first developed the porn star's character as a crime-fighting superhero with a Ph.D in astrophysics and volunteers for orphans?
ReplyDeleteCan she dress like a lady pirate? Because that would be the best porn ever.
Regarding "did he know Rebecca, did he hear what she said earlier..."
I doubt we'll ever know, but if the guy was in the bag we can discount whatever good judgment or social manners he might otherwise have. That's just what booze does.
Kestra,
YouTube video comments are the best argument I have yet seen for wiping out all higher life forms on the planet and starting over with flatworms.
Why it needs to be a muslim woman? Why not just a woman?
ReplyDeleteBecause it's more of a veiled threat?
I'll be here all week, folks.
@ydgmdlu
ReplyDeleteExplain how Elevator Guy's, as described by Watson's first-hand account, is anything less than what I have claimed. And I'm not talking about the rape threat.
Sorry, I am actually done, but it seems that one of my comments from my last rant got chewwed by the spam filter. I will just repost this section of it because I want to clear up this point because its fairly central to my whole objection ot this senario. Reposting:
But there are situations that are very clear. The elevator incident is clear. The woman was not in the mood for any activity at the time, let alone sex, and yet the man does nothing but ask for sex.
I feel i've had to repeat this so many times now, but is this what actually happened? Admittedly i've tried to avoid anything after the initial statements as I frankly believe that the well has now been poisoned by so many people just making shit up post-hoc to prove their point, mutating the story so badly that its hard to tell original fact from bad conjecture, but from the initial posts its not clear at all. Even from Watson's one sided perspective of the story, in her original comment about the guy, her ONLY reason for thinking it inappropriate was nothing more than the time and place the proposition occurred in. It wasn't in fact ANYTHING the guy actually said or did (I think she said that he “wasn't Bundyish”?).
It seems to me based on the actual facts, that you and others believe elevator guy should have somehow (perhaps through ESP) known she was going to say no before he actually propositioned her, and that was his crime. If elevator guy actually did harassed her after she said 'no' as you and others imply, then fine, your completely correct, he shouldn't have done that. But nothing in the actual facts presented in the original description of events should lead us to think this is the case. All we know is he propositioned her (admittedly in a setting she found uncomfortable for personally subjective reasons). She said no. He left without a fuss. Everything beyond that as far as I can see (making him out to be some drooling lecherous drunk sociopathic harasser) is sensationalised crap made up afterwards by commentators.
Lol @ George's comments.
ReplyDeleteSeems like the discussion has sort of cooled down a bit. But I'm still shaking my head that The Atheist Experience members have taken such a white knight stance on how women should be treated.
I'm hoping someone will address my calling them out for hypocrisy. They make a TV show that offends and perhaps scares many Christians, then turn around and say offending and scaring people is horrible, lets jeer at the men who inadvertently do it to women.
I say, follow you own logic. Stop broadcasting The Atheist Experience.
I'd also say that Skeptoid's blog post should be required reading as well. I've found her blog post incredibly persuasive after having read all of Watson's replies to Dawkins.
ReplyDeletehttp://skeptoid.com/blog/2011/07/06/take-back-the-elevator/
@thomas
ReplyDeleteExcellent article. It was basically what I’ve been trying to say the whole time but much more succinct.
@Thomas and Murphy, EXACTLY! It's just that when a man (like me or one of you) says it, it sounds like "male privilege" or misogyny. I really liked that article!
ReplyDeleteTomas said...
ReplyDeleteI'd also say that Skeptoid's blog post should be required reading as well. I've found her blog post incredibly persuasive after having read all of Watson's replies to Dawkins.
------------------------------------
It's not too bad in a peace making sort of way, but there's things she, dare I say it, doesn't get.
She, like many people, overstates the whole "he could be a rapist" thing. Which is a fundamental problem that keeps coming up.
It goes like this:
Guy propositions in lift
Gal says don't do that it makes me uncomfortable, nervous even.
People reply: Awkward perhaps but why would that make someone nervous uncomfortable etc?
Because, to some extent, of vulnerability to rape and sexual assault.
And there it stops. Even when someone says "Because he could have been a rapist" what they are talking about is the above, most of the time. He's not a rapist. She may not even have felt overly threatened. But it's likely that this is uncomfortable because of rape to some extent.
I suppose this is a little hard to grasp. Half of this debate seems to be fumbling over Psych and Soc concepts with a long discourse that just annoy a lot of individualists and logicians who aren't familiar and happen to be men (but some women too, and Skeptoid editors in this case). And some of the people they end up talking to don't necessarily care to bridge that gap. In fact it'd be an interesting survey just to see how you could break the sides down along the lines of education. I venture that some familiarity with feminisms somewhat esoteric language makes a lot of the terms thrown about seem less severe. But I'm guessing.
Too many people seem to have osmosed Rush Limbaugh's version of feminism instead and feel they must fight it (despite sometimes being lifelong liberals who'd never listen to the man).
btw MattAnderson: It's a stupid argument and no one should give it credence, that's why.
ReplyDeleteSexual assault is demonstrable, god is not. As far as I'm aware tAE crew don't go around cornering people in lifts and telling them there is no god.
And 'white knight' in this context is a vile term only employed by toolboxes. Don't use it.
@Muz, Don't you see how you're embellishing the story right now? Using language like "cornering them in a lift" is sensationalist rhetoric! I am a skeptic, therefore I am skeptical of RW's interpretation of what happened in that elevator. Also, I am skeptical of any and all "isms"--including feminism. Several skeptic feminists whom I have spoken with seem to be treating RW's story as a kind of (if I may use the phrase here) "gospel truth." To me, this ardent defense for all the little details in the story--and of what is supposedly its only interpretation--reeks of dogmatism. And being a skeptic, I challenge any and all dogmas. So what's the problem with that?
ReplyDelete@Muz
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is a little hard to grasp. Half of this debate seems to be fumbling over Psych and Soc concepts with a long discourse that just annoy a lot of individualists and logicians who aren't familiar and happen to be men (but some women too, and Skeptoid editors in this case)
Jeez, more of the “we just don't get it talk”... Further to the unjustified sensationalism that Dave just pointed out in your retelling, I get it ok. She was perfectly justified feeling awkward, nervous, uncomfortable, threatened etc. She was perfectly justified in conveying that she felt those things to a conference audience. However she (or more aptly her followers) are not justified in blaming elevator guy for her personal subjective hangups about certain social interactions.
I notice that still nobody has answered my previous cigarette/wallet thought experiment on this. If a large stranger comes up to me on the street late at night asking for a cigarette, I may have been justified in fearing a beating and robbery, but I can't logically get from “i felt threatened” to “he actually took threatening actions against me and is at fault” when all the really did was ask for a cigarette and then leave. The feelings, as uncomfortable as they were, existed only in my head.
Wanna talk psychology? The feminists here have externalised their own personal hangups in the form of an 'elevator guy piñata' that they can smack around to make themselves feel better because they have a persecution complex built around the world apparently being a big old boys club.
Dave; you might have said something on this earlier I missed, but I don't see how it's sensationalist rhetoric at all unless you're anal to the point of absurdity. I don't see any ardent defense or gospel truth. I se taking someone at their word. And since the situation is already known to have been mild, what makes you feel like you have to break it down like a crime scene?
ReplyDelete'Cornering' might have certain violent implications for you. It does not for me. It means an enclosed space one cannot readily escape from. A moving elevator is one of those.
Jesus Murphy, get a grip. Did you actually read what I wrote?
ReplyDeleteAlso blaming elevator guy? What's your obsession with blame here? What, you want a legal ruling? Some discussion elsewhere might have set it off. You're perfectly justified in not paying attention to anyone asking for one. Anyone wanting a moral absolute out of this isn't going to get one. It certainly isn't what I care about. Yeah EG should have known better. Yeah I suspect, if he's read any of this, now he does. And perhaps anyone who saw Watson's video might think twice about their approach from now on too.
Communication. It's great.
Well, looks like I did get a response. I think Dave got the gist of Muz's dishonesty here. But for the sake of argument...
ReplyDelete"Sexual assault is demonstrable, god is not."
OK, I'm sort of stuck trying to decipher this. But I think what your saying is fear of rape=rational, fear of lack of God=irrational. I don't have a problem with how she feels. Feelings tend to be instinctual anyway.
I have a problem with her gossiping about this on the internet, then justifying it by aggrandizing the story into sexism (and the oxymoronic "sexual objectification"). This is pure narcissism and self promotion, as the rest of her actions affirms.
"And 'white knight' in this context is a vile term only employed by toolboxes."
White Knighting is vile behavior, men thinking they have to rush to protect women from any and all criticism, or especially from male advances in this case. Now that is what's really demeaning if you ask me. Besides, aren't you using a No True Scotsman fallacy to say only toolboxes use it?
And on the matter,
"It's a stupid argument and no one should give it credence, that's why."
Oh really? I love your acerbic language, but unfortunately your rather lazy and dishonest explanation doesn't help me understand much.
I'll make yet another suggestion: How about people double check for logical fallacies before they post. The entire "you just don't get it", is both an ad hominem and a crutch for lazy debate. Go ahead, convince me with reason.
I'm sorry. I can't help but share this pic I just found on Reddit!
ReplyDeletehttp://i.imgur.com/qLrL4.png
PS: Yes, this is just a joke, not an argument. It's poking fun at the situation. We can all use a bit of humor every so often right?
@Muz
ReplyDeleteIgnoring the fact that the situation is now allot bigger and has allot more voices than just Watson, if her only position about being hit on was “i felt uncomfortable” then I would agree with you, the issue probably won't have blown out of all proportion, and we probably won't even be having this discussion at all. This isn't what happened though. She said “i felt uncomfortable, don't do it guys”. How ever much of a subtlety you may see this as, there is a difference. In the first she is saying that she personally has a problem with certain social situations, in the second, she's saying that her problem with certain social situations is somehow other peoples faults. That is blame right there. That is my problem with this.
As I said, if elevator guy actually did act in a sexist, objectifying, misogynist manner, or did actually threaten and harass her after she said she wasn't interested, then fine, EG should have known better. However nothing like that can be drawn from the facts, even as presented by Watson. He asked her to coffee. She said no. He left. Simply making it a specific time of day or a specific place doesn't make it inappropriate by fiat.
Yeah EG should have known better.
We'll probably never come to an agreement on this issue. I'm not saying the guy was smooth, or that its something I would have done, but I don't see that he's actually done anything wrong, so when you write things like this, what I actually read is “Yeah EG should have known better than to inadvertently crossed one of Rebecca Watson's personal emotional hangups about being asked out by guys.” and I just find that an unreasonable expectation of other people.
After having wasted a whole day posting and ruminating on this garbage, I'm done. If all of Skepchick's supporters want to go so far to part ways with Dawkins, so be it. I still say Rebecca is a self-promoting narcissist, and any attempts to dissuade her will get uglier and uglier.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm getting sick of this too. We're all arguing over a 1 to 2 minute interaction here. There's this kind of persecution complex that I see in the feminist movement--and I'm seeing it here in the secular community even among people whom I normally admire. What just boggles my mind is that they say that the reason we men "don't get it" is because of our "male privilege." Yet, as Skeptoid's article illustrates, criticism of Skepchick is coming from women as well. So where's this "male privilege?" It's not there. And I'm out!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello internets! I seem to be on a double-posting spree and will delete this post if it happens again.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to accept that "she was perfectly justified feeling awkward, nervous, uncomfortable, threatened etc." That's plenty to work with!
Four likely reasons why "elevator guy" made rkwatson feel uncomfortable:
(1) She just spoke about how she didn't like being propositioned. She also indicated that she wanted to sleep. Apparently he felt is was okay to ignore her stated desires. Ignoring another person's wishes is a socially aggressive, egocentric behavior--- and it can be very stressful for the recipient.
(2) He isolated her in an elevator instead of talking to her in a public area. This is an example of a coercive behavior, intentional or not. More stress. It doesn't really matter very much whether he was striking a menacing pose or not.
(3) Women usually give signals if they are interested in men. He screwed up here as well. More stress.
(4) He propositioned a near-complete stranger. This is important.
Even if you can imagine yourself enjoying being propositioned by a stranger in the middle of the night in a confined space, that does not mean that many women would enjoy being in that position.
There is an often cited study from 1989 regarding how women react to propositions from strangers. The verdict: not a single woman in the study liked it. This may not have been a perfect study, but it matched fairly convincingly with many, many more recent studies.
A more recent and in-depth study showed that many women enjoy casual sex, and plenty are interested in short-term relationships--- but the vast majority do not like being propositioned by strangers. In fact, it was listed as a "uniquely repulsive" scenario.
You can read more about that here: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/
So, we all know that causing significant amounts of stress to another person can be psychologically damaging. It isn't the kind of thing we want to intentionally burden other people with.
And it is highly likely that at atheist-skeptic-humanist conventions, as with other male-dominated conventions, women shrug off much, much worse than this relatively trivial incident.
As an isolated incident, elevator guy doesn't seem to bother rkwatson very much. But it's not an isolated incident. It happens all the time.
If you read through the various blogs discussing the incidents, there are any number of comments from women on the matter. To quote an example from Pharyngula: "I know that the vast majority of people are pleasant enough, but it simply isn’t worth the stress of having a strange man follow me into a parking lot, touch my breasts and behind 'accidentally' repeatedly in a bar, having someone follow me into an elevator or otherwise be harassed. The time I had a male escort it was better, but I don't like having to drag someone every time just to feel comfortable." This is echoed by many other similar examples.
So, as Matt Dillahunty said much earlier in the conversation:
"There's constant conversation about the fact that women are generally underrepresented in atheist/skeptic groups and events. One of the big questions we keep hearing is 'why?' and there are many reasons."
This is one reason why. Not the elevator incident. A pattern of elevator incidents.
In light of this conversation, is it constructive to project ourselves on to elevator guy and prepare his defense? Or is it more constructive to find out what we can do about the stress and unwelcome behavior that bothers many female members?
Matt""Sexual assault is demonstrable, god is not."
ReplyDeleteOK, I'm sort of stuck trying to decipher this. But I think what your saying is fear of rape=rational, fear of lack of God=irrational. I don't have a problem with how she feels. Feelings tend to be instinctual anyway.
I have a problem with her gossiping about this on the internet, then justifying it by aggrandizing the story into sexism (and the oxymoronic "sexual objectification"). This is pure narcissism and self promotion, as the rest of her actions affirms."
Funny. I thought we were talking about whether the show is being hypocritical. Seems like you agree that they aren't.
"
White Knighting is vile behavior, men thinking they have to rush to protect women from any and all criticism, or especially from male advances in this case. Now that is what's really demeaning if you ask me. Besides, aren't you using a No True Scotsman fallacy to say only toolboxes use it?"
Er, no. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Doubt I see you're keen to erase.
If you want to play fallacies with that idiotic wanker term, 'white knighting' as it is generally employed by frat boy douches across the world is a quick way to dismiss the argument of any male who speaks on behalf of women. "They're just defending them because they're old fashioned pedestal pushers or out to curry favour with the ladies". That makes it well poisoning and ad hominem to boot.
Murphy: Yeah, I think you've split that hair so fine you could snort it. Which isn't to say you're outright wrong. I just can't fathom why it needs this kind of analysis. It seemed like a simple relation of advice. It is also his problem and his actions that need altering, however slightly. If that's 'blame' then yeah, I guess it is. I don't think the onus is on Watson or women at large to toughen up about propositions in lifts. I also think the 'punishment' in this instance is "careful next time" and everyone's been made aware of feelings they maybe hadn't considered before. That's it. Some might want more than that. I don't think they should get it. So the blame aspect doesn't seem terribly worrying to me.
So yeah, 'should' have known better is over stating it. That's just a teacher-ly expression, I guess. The lift and the time of day is material in this though. Its definitely part of any consideration. It will increase the likelihood of unnerving a woman you haven't really interacted with previously. RW has done her bit in forewarning any other fellas regarding the incident. Other women have chimed in that they agree. Net knowledge increased slightly.
The talk of sexual objectification, sexism, misogyny etc. This is vaguely what I was on about earlier. Some feminists do use these terms in specific angry ways, but I think most of them do not. They are often speaking in broader socio-cultural terms that don't often apply easily to individual actions and motivations (even though some people try). What these blog blow-up incidents generally show is that a lot of people do find them really inflammatory (and some people do use them in an inflammatory way, its true). But if they understood the whole feminist dialogue better it wouldn't seem so bad sometimes (but again, sometimes it is an attack so...). The dialogue for that is having a rough birth though.
It would probably help if a lot of feminist discussions saw this and held back on the terminology a bit and realised there's an esoteric or insulting component to it all. Leading off with "Sexism in the Atheist community" or whatever, for instance, just gets people's backs up. It sounds a bit spin-y I s'pose but while the dialogue is as fractured as it is it might be better to stick with 'fostering inclusiveness' and so on. I mean, that inclusiveness is actually what everyone wants I think.
I venture that some familiarity with feminisms somewhat esoteric language makes a lot of the terms thrown about seem less severe. But I'm guessing.
ReplyDeleteToo many people seem to have osmosed Rush Limbaugh's version of feminism instead and feel they must fight it (despite sometimes being lifelong liberals who'd never listen to the man).
I'm a lifelong Conservative with a shelf full of feminist and gender studies books ranging from Brownmiller to Paglia. I've not only read Judith Butler but translated her into English. ;)
I can keep up quite well, thanks.
I feel no need or desire to "fight" feminism itself; my quarrel is with those who would turn feminism into a photo-negative of the gender bigotry it was supposed to overthrow.
@Muz
ReplyDeleteI think you've split that hair so fine you could snort it. Which isn't to say you're outright wrong. I just can't fathom why it needs this kind of analysis.
I agree, it is splitting a hair. The reason is that from this one hair, it grew into much larger issue with allot more voices than just Watsons, where you have even the hosts of TAE saying that Elevator Guy exemplifies everything that is wrong with sexism and misogyny in the atheist community, and I simply don't agree this is the case. Splitting hairs though it may be I think the minutia of how this situation actually started and came to be is important to examine if the situation is justified. I must say though, I do agree with pretty much everything you just wrote.
Rebecca originally posted that *she* does not like it and don't sexualize *her*. I can respect that, especially considering her experiences. If she is going to continue to attend conferences, it is important to bring it up. Keeping it personal is the correct way.
ReplyDeleteHowever to extrapolate it to everyone, is simply wrong. Saying *all* women at *all* times would find this "creepy" is equally misogynistic as saying it wasn't "creepy" at all. It implies that women are nothing but victims, never like to be hit on and/or enjoy/want casual sex, and need to be protected at all times from the big scary men coming over the hill. It is dehumanizing to women and offensive to normal men.
@Sorien So you only have the courage to proposition a woman in isolated locations with the woman's back against the wall. And if any woman complains about this they should keep it to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI can extrapolate that all such men are spineless, including Sorien.
Sorien, while we can not extrapolate research to everyone at all times, there are decades of studies that indicate the vast majority of women in the United States feel uncomfortable when they are propositioned by men that they do not know. It is generally perceived as a stressful, high-risk, low-reward situation. It is also fairly commonplace in science-fiction conventions, dungeons and dragons events, Mensa clubs, STEM conferences, and other male-dominated groups. It's one reason why women don't show up. But you probably already know all of this.
ReplyDeleteThe statistics aren't misogynistic but they do imply that women in the U.S. live under a slightly different framework than men. Perhaps men should be more aware of that, especially if they want more women to become active in their community.
Of course, like you said, none of this means that many women don't like being hit on or that they don't enjoy casual sex. But context is crucial.
Well against better judgement, I'm back. I really want to make myself clear on this hypocrisy issue, because its the one damn thing I want to see resolved from this. The Atheist Experience members argued that Elevator Guy was out of line based on this premise:
ReplyDelete-Forms of speech should be shut down if it could possibly offend or frighten someone.
That would certainly have proven Elevator Guy wrong. But it would also mean the TV show should stop airing. Plenty of callers have talked about being offended, or in Mark's case, people are afraid for their children going to hell after viewing it. And what do the hosts defend the show with?
-You don't have a right not to be offended.
I have said Rebecca's feelings are irrelevant because things like taking offense are terrible arbitrators. They are too subjective. Its true, I've called her narcissistic. (Do you disagree with this characterization?) And guess what? Its not relevant to speech issues either.
Maybe I could have avoided confusion on my arguments by saying simply, her actions are selfish. Her actions are self promoting. Her actions are destructive. I have brought up pattern narcissism because we should distrust her motives. I think thats a smart thing to do.
As for the white knight thing, you don't like the term? Well how about veiled chauvinism. TAE is giving special rules Rebecca because she is a woman. The implication is women are delicate flowers who need to be protected by men. They go on to say this: They call detractors ignorant, and pretend to speak for all women by saying men just don't get it. This not well poisoning or ad hominem (not my intention at least) to point this out.
Way, WAAAAY too much hyperbole in this article. I do expect such "I bet you can guess who's side we're on" rhetoric if I pull up a Michele Bachmann video, but not here. It should never be here.
ReplyDeleteThe core issue here is sexism, plain and simple. Is it cool? No.
Now, one has to examine who was sexist? We have two individuals, one of whom made a joke about one person of the opposite sex, and we have another person who told an entire half the species how to behave. If you had to play Spot the Sexist, which one would logically get your vote?
Imagine, if you will, the one who told the other half of the species how to act was a male and a female derided it with a joke. I would imagine that the male would look like a pig and the female would get several rounds of 'go, sister!' - and rightfully so.
Step outside your reproductive organs and examine. Stop reacting.
Are you guys serious? A men hits on a woman and she fells offended. Is that the issue?
ReplyDeleteSome adults behave in ways that would make teenagers shake their heads.
"Look at me, a guy made a pass at me! Poor me! Don't do that!"
Really? Can't see why one would complain about it (normal life anyone?) or why it merits a comment. Grow up.
@ MattAnderson
ReplyDeleteCan you point me to where anyone involved with TAE has said that "forms of speech should be shut down if it [sic] could possibly offend or frighten someone"? It seemed to me that Matt D. meant only to admonish everyone that many women at atheist conferences suffer a large number of unwanted advances. Elevator Guy is simply one example. If we care about increasing women's representation in the atheist movement, it seems that many men simply need education on not making advances in inappropriate contexts. However offensive people in this thread find that point, it happens to be true.
Your allegations of hypocrisy on the part of the TAE crowd are attenuated at best. Broadcasting ideas through published media and cornering someone in a place they cannot readily escape are not the same thing. If Matt D. were to corner a perfect stranger in an elevator at 4 am and explain to that person without solicitation why there is no god, the stranger would be justified in calling out his inappropriate behavior. Likewise, if Elevator Guy had made a YouTube video in which he expressed his attraction to Ms. Watson and suggest they meet up sometime, well, the creepiness would still be there, but not the sinister aspects of cornering someone you've never met in an enclosed space late at night. Further, the latter scenario wouldn't have the secondary effect of dissuading Ms. Watson and other women from attending future conferences.
You brought up freedom of speech, which seems completely inapposite to me, but I can speak that language if we must. In the US, the state cannot regulate the content of speech. This is consistent with the principle of free speech: people should be free to express whatever ideas they want, whether or not the state or other privileged groups find them objectionable. This should apply to sexual propositioning as well. But even in the US, where freedom of speech is as near absolute as anywhere, there are still "time, place, and manner" restrictions. Speaking in these terms, even if a sexual proposition is acceptable content, all alone in a closed elevator at 4 am is an unacceptable time, place, and manner.
Put more simply, it's all about context.
@ viejo
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? A man hits on a woman in an enclosed elevator at 4 am, after she just told a crowded bar that she was exhausted and ready for bed, and after she spent the day telling audiences how tired she was of uninvited sexual advances, and you can't understand that she might have something to complain about?
Grow up.
MattAnderson: I fail to understand what is so "white knight" about suggesting that it's a nice idea to be respectful of women, their personal space, and their preferences regarding such things as the desirability of being propositioned by strangers in elevators at 4 AM.
ReplyDeleteConflating this with the imaginary notion that women should never be criticized at any time is the kind of straw man distortion I'd expect from the Becks and Fox Newses and Ray Comforts of the world.
Martin said.." I fail to understand what is so "white knight" about suggesting that it's a nice idea to be respectful of women, their personal space, and their preferences regarding such things as the desirability of being propositioned by strangers in elevators at 4 AM."
ReplyDelete-I don't think anyone on here is suggesting, or has suggested, that we don't respect women, their personal space, or their preferences. Rebbecca has every right to her preferences and opinions regarding what is appropriate and what isn't.(Time of day, location, how well acquainted with the guy, etc..)However, that doesn't mean that she speaks for all women at all times. As I've said before, different women with different preferences and lifestyles would have responded differently in this situation. And no doubt this does happen. Rebbecca denied the guy, the guy didn't press on. End of story. Just because Rebbecca holds a certain opinion on intimate issues, doesn't mean that people with different opinions are by default "sexists" or "misogamists". It doesn't mean that they don't respect other people's opinions, including Rebbecca's. Rebbecca was right to deny the guy's advance. If she had accepted the guy's advance, she would also be right. This doesn't mean that she gets to tell all guys how to approach women, and under what circumstances they get to do it. Your only argument Martin, seems to be "Oh well if you don't agree with me, then you must not respect women and their preferences, in other words, you're a sexist".........No. I completely respect women, and that respect covers all women with different values, lifestyles, preferences, and opinions on issues like these.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of straw men, how about this from Amy Roth at Skepchick, here equating male criticism of Watson with the belief that women should not be allowed to have their own thoughts and feelings - about anything.
ReplyDeleteI'm not kidding.
My mistake for bringing up women should never be criticized, it was hyperbolic and not appropriate to this.
ReplyDeleteBut my impression of Matt D's admonishing is that it sounds rather pragmatic.
"We have a problem in our community - women are underrepresented. That's an issue we'd like to correct."
I mean, is it crossing the line to ask you if this is coloring your opinion on the issue? Seeing these comments, it sounds like an interesting feminist discussion(imo) has been shushed away with "entitled loser guys" or "clueless doofs".
"Oh hell, is Elevatorgate going to ruin TAM9?" is the title of this thread, and the tone of most of Matt D's posts.
If I had to speculate, low female attendance is a cycle of: Less females present-> more proportional male advances-> more women leaving.
This is a problem unto itself. Rather, a cheap fix is being used, by capitalizing on some moron's mistake and giving everyone an after school lecture on respecting women. (Which will lead to some elevator pranks I'm guessing.)
I'm sure most atheists have experienced that merely stating what we are will shock and offend many of the religious. After all, we are implying they wasted their whole lives on false religions. And now we are being preached to about not making women uncomfortable? Are women being put on a pedestal, or are Christians sub-human?
As for how men should treat women, I say: Act within the law. Men tend to get better at talking to women by actually doing it, not by being given state-the-obvious lectures. (Especially if this incident is the norm).
If I have a bad read on this situation, I'm very sorry. My comments have been somewhat vitriolic, but I was really suprised by all this.
Vincent, she wasn't 'telling a whole gender what to do'. She was at best only addressing men who hit on complete strangers. And I see it more as giving advice to them if they want to avoid creeping the woman out, than telling them what to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think it's valid to play 'let's reverse the situation'. Men don't feel threatened by women in enclosed spaces in the middle of the night in the same way - the situations are not analogous.
As for whether it would sexist for a guy to give advice to all woman hitting on men, that would probably depend on the advice. 'Don't bring up marriage in the first two minutes' - probably not sexist advice.
White knights crying about sexism whilst using sexist arguments and terminology is not doing their argument any favours. It seems the Atheist Experience contributors have forgotten all their previous teachings in this argument-- (ad-hominen attacks, double standardising, strawmen etc.)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI woke up this morning and suddenly realized that the thing Rebecca and the others are reacting against is the out of hand dismissals coming from many of us males in the community--and which is typified in the Dawkins remark. They are upset that we are failing to see any problem with these kinds of issues. True, Elevatorgate was in itself not a huge deal, but it is our crass dismissal of how she felt about it (and many other similar happenings, where females are somewhat targeted by over-eager males) that they have a problem with. So I've come to realize that hey, let's just let it go--and try to be more aware of how we act around females in our community. I think I finally "get it."
ReplyDelete@Dave
ReplyDelete*claps* That's basically it.
So we about done discussing this, or do we need to hash it out some more?
ReplyDelete@Dave
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the crass dismissals of how everyone else feels about this? Seems to me that people are giving one persons opinion too much attention and ignoring everyone elses opinion as "sexist" or "mysoginist" or "ignorant".
@hannanibal, I now believe this whole thing has been blown way, way out of proportion--from both sides, really. Yes, you're right. There has been an overreaction of sorts coming from several skeptic feminists in the community. But we (on the other side) have made it worse, I think. That is, if we had just said, "Hey, good point. We'll work on it" then they might not have started bringing up as much of the misogyny talk and all that. So now I'm just giving up--letting the grudge go--saying, "I see your point, I'm more aware of how many women in the community are sometimes treated by us men, and I'll work on it." I just want to move on with my life. I've been obsessing over this for a couple of days now--commenting here, or on FB or Reddit. Well, I'm done. It's not worth it.
ReplyDeleteYes, we need to hash this out more. Not the Rebecca Watson/Richard Dawkins thing, though. That deserves a better debate on feminism.
ReplyDeleteI think me, hannanibal, and maybe others feel like hardcore fans who have seen The Atheist Experience abandon their wonderful debating logic just to make a simple point to people like Dave. Maybe it was all worth it.
But I don't think so. My stake in this was always more about The Atheist Experience. You guys are a virtual megaphone for atheism. You're on public TV, gaining massive popularity on the youtube, get callers from over the world, and are notorious among the religious. And if anything, religious conflicts are the most dangerous the world has ever seen.
Why are you abandoning your stance "you don't have a right to not be offended" for a damn Mars/Venus problem? Can't you find a way to inform everyone while not using fallacies?
If we start from false premises, we get false answers.
@Dude. Yep. It's seriously too far now but I don't agree with accepting an argument simply because one side has decided to sling stereotypical insults at the other side and/or one is too tired to argue. I cannot say "good point" when there is no good point. I understand your ennui with this whole debacle though. I don't think we would have had such a flame-war if Martin's original post had been impartial.
ReplyDelete@alison, well to each their own then. I wish you luck!
ReplyDelete@Dave
ReplyDeleteAlison's last comment was me. My girlfriend was signed in on google and I posted using her account again. Grrrr.....
@hannanibal, no problem. So, good luck with that buddy! (I'm unsubscribing for real now--later!)
ReplyDelete@Dave
ReplyDeleteMe too.
Wish they would hurry up and write another blogpost!
@Dave - I don't know if you will see this, but I just wanted to say that you have gained a few respect points for those last comments
ReplyDeleteOMG. What a non-issue!
ReplyDeleteAs a woman, I find the repeated assertions that 'women' are offended by propositioning for casual sex, or that women feel threatened when alone with a man in an elevater completely sexist!
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!
Some clown (presumably drunk) makes a pass at you, you tell him to get lost, you both go to your separate rooms - end of story.
We all know this guy was not going to win any prizes for sophistication or class, and that he was very unlikely to get a 'yes', but why on Earth shouldnt he proposition someone he fancies? Why does this have to turn into an 'all men are bastards' and 'all women are virgins until marriage' scenario?
If you expect anyone you meet in an elevater at 4am to be a shining example of wit and charm, the you live in a very different world than I do.
Asking someone back to your room at 4am is pretty much asking them for sex. Asking someone who you do not know for sex is creepy. Why is this so difficult for men to understand? Most women have to put up with this sort of behaviour CONSTANTLY from men who assume that we want to sleep with them.
ReplyDeleteFrom getting shouted at from car windows (a daily experience for most women in my immediate circle) to unwanted advances in social situations we find it extremely unattractive and completely annoying. She'd probably just had enough, we all have. It just isn't acceptable!
He wasn't asking her to dinner or out for a drink, he was asking her to have sex with a total stranger. I know this sort of fantasy encounter in a lift is the staple of letters to men's magazines but in reality, seriously, is not on! We are not all raging slags ready to drop our knickers at the merest hint of interest from some random bloke in a lift.
The irony of all this is that if men were more respectful when they are interested in a person, they'd have a better chance of getting laid........strange that......
I don't describe myself as a feminist but honestly you have NO IDEA what we have to deal with on a daily basis from pig-ignorant, crass, and just plain rude men. A little flirting is nice in the right situation but seriously, talk to us with your brains, not your winkies!!
@Miss Bruise Violet
ReplyDeleteYou don't speak for all womankind. Stop preaching on behalf of 50% of the global population. There are plenty of women who do not find this behaviour "creepy" or "sexist". If you would rather have men get to know you better before asking if you want to drink coffee then that's fair enough but all men are not gonna change their ways just because you feel they should.
No comment.
ReplyDeleteBut listen to the latest "Pod Delusion" podcast for an alternate view.
It isn't about Dawkins. It's about unwarranted fear.
Hannanibal: Yeah, that's puttin the uppity bitch in her place! (Fist bump.)
ReplyDelete@Hannanibal, please take a moment to read:
ReplyDeletehttp://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/
Especially note the very beginning where they explain that among American women, being propositioned for sex by a stranger is a "UNIQUELY REPULSIVE" scenario. If we are talking about the U.S., you don't have very much room to suggest that plenty of women might welcome this behavior. Pretty much every study since 1989 states that random sexual propositions from strangers are a no-go and cause stress. Even if you are Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt, your prospects are not particularly good (although if you are a celebrity, many women noted that they are more welcoming of advances because they already have an idea of who you are). It may sound nice to say that “some women are fine with it” but you haven’t offered a good reason to throw out years of empirical research.
Of course, there is additional context that you are aware of: she had just given a speech (where I understand that he was present---correct me if I am wrong) about how she found behavior like this problematic. She was also available to talk with him in the bar all night (where he was also present---but chose not to flirt or even talk with her). As always, context is important; if it was a similar proposition at a singles’ bar, nobody would have noticed.
Certainly, it was a relatively minor event and by itself is easy to shrug off. So was the response: "Hey guys, don't do stuff like that, thanks." Seriously, what's wrong with that? Why does this advice bother you? If you want, you can even take this statement to mean “don’t do stuff like that to me, rkwatson.” That shouldn’t be too hard for you.
If that isn’t enough, however, here’s another perspective to approach the situation: the difference between flirtation and harassment.
Although it is something of a teeny mag, you may also want to take a few seconds and look over http://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/double_feature_harassment_and_flirting.
In regards to the difference between flirting and harassment, it reads: "we can think of flirting as things we do to put our interest in someone out there in ways we suspect they'll welcome, feel comfortable with and which would incline them to want to connect with us more. We can think of harassment as putting our feelings or wants out there in ways that either would not likely be welcomed [...]"
So, if you read the study above, you already know that late night sexual propositions are generally not welcomed by American women. Do you make a connection here?
Do you see the difference between "Oh, cool, you like robots too!" and "That point you made about x in your lecture was very interesting." vs. "Want to come back to my hotel room?"
The first two comments are assertive and are likely to be welcomed (flirting); the last one is aggressive and is not likely to be welcomed (vaguely touching on harassment).
@Martin
ReplyDeletePuttin' the uppity bitch in her place? That's quite sexist language Martin. You should really behave with that crap.
I can't type much due to tendonitis, but I made a youtube video about it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYo4dzbVWes
I apologize if this isn't allowed, please delete if so.
"Certainly, it was a relatively minor event and by itself is easy to shrug off. So was the response: "Hey guys, don't do stuff like that, thanks." Seriously, what's wrong with that? Why does this advice bother you? If you want, you can even take this statement to mean “don’t do stuff like that to me, rkwatson.” That shouldn’t be too hard for you."
ReplyDelete-Yes and Rebbecca is justified in voicing her opinion on this matter, and she is totally right to find this type of propositioning "creepy" or "inappropriate". Nobody here is saying that she is wrong to hold the lifestyle preferences she does. That doesn't mean she gets to tell the rest of the male world what to do in these situations.
"Of course, there is additional context that you are aware of: she had just given a speech (where I understand that he was present---correct me if I am wrong) about how she found behavior like this problematic."
-And how do you know he was actually present? Or if he even listened to the speech? Are we just blindly assuming that he had his eyes on her the whole night thinking to himself "Ohhhhhh later tonight, later tonight yesssssss......" Really? I don't think we should be presuming to know what this guy was doing, or what was going through his head during the night. Maybe he never paid much attention to her that night until the elevator, then after talking to her for a few minutes he "propositioned" her? Simply saying that she made a speech earlier that night, and he may or may not have been there, and he may or may not have listened to the speech, is stretching it a little.
"She was also available to talk with him in the bar all night (where he was also present---but chose not to flirt or even talk with her)."
ReplyDelete-Again we are assuming that he had his attention on her the entire time? That he consciously thought to himself "Oh I'm not going to talk to her until the elevator where I will make my move". Maybe he was flirting with other women in the bar? Idk, this just seems like people are desperate to find reasons to bash this guy, and it's totally unjustified.
"As always, context is important; if it was a similar proposition at a singles’ bar, nobody would have noticed."
-So you are saying that if this happened at a bar, same situation where they were complete strangers to each other, maybe talked for a minute or two, that Rebbecca would have just ignored it and not said anything? Not so sure about that. Depends on who the girl is. I wouldn't be surprised if Rebbecca had still gotten on her computer that night and said something similar, "Guys don't proposition women at bars that are complete strangers to you, thanks" Sorry, it's a big world out there, with lot's of different people with different values and lifestyles. As long as no one is hurt, or forced to do something they don't wish to do, or pushed to do something, then we don't really have anything to talk about. There's a lot of things that may make me feel extremely uncomfortable, doesn't mean I get to get on my computer and tell everyone to act a certain way in order to make myself feel better.
"Although it is something of a teeny mag, you may also want to take a few seconds and look over http://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/double_feature_harassment_and_flirting. In regards to the difference between flirting and harassment, it reads: "we can think of flirting as things we do to put our interest in someone out there in ways we suspect they'll welcome, feel comfortable with and which would incline them to want to connect with us more. We can think of harassment as putting our feelings or wants out there in ways that either would not likely be welcomed [...]"
ReplyDelete-And I don't think the elevator incident applies to this definition, if you read further down the page, the author explains in further detail the difference between harassment and flirting.
"When we're flirting, the aim is usually to express our interest in someone else in a friendly, noninvasive way and to feel out if the other person shares that interest in us and, if they do, to make clear we're open to that. Our aim in flirting is to make the other person feel comfortable being around us or getting closer to us."
-And simply asking someone back to your room for a cup of coffee and discussion might apply to this detailed definition of flirting. Depends on your outlook.
"With harassment, either the aim is to make someone feel uncomfortable, or the person harassing just isn't even really thinking about the other person; isn't caring or thinking about how they feel at all. When someone is harassing someone else, they're trying to force an interest in them or attention to them, not trying to set the stage for that interest or attention only if the other person wants to interact."
-Couldn't we say that all the guy was doing was trying to set the stage for that interest? Only if the women wants to interact?(Which she didn't, and he didn't press on) By the way, the "study" you cited, wasn't actually a study. It was basically an opinion and advice website. People ask questions, and some of them get answered. How we decide to define the terms, and what situations we apply them to, can be pretty arbitrary, except for of course extreme situations, like a guy deliberately making a woman feel uncomfortable on purpose for his own amusement. I don't believe the elevator situation qualified as harassment, either by my definition, or the one you provided in the link.
Martin,
ReplyDelete"In six words: Dawkins is wrong, Rebecca is right."
Dawkins should apologize and if his failure to do so ruins next weekend's skeptical hijinks for his fan-boy posse so be it. Praying for "Elevatorgate" to blow over in time not to ruin TAM Nine sounds like hoping that bus boycott doesn’t prevent the housekeeper from getting to work on time. There IS a pall hanging over the skeptical community. Hopefully, outrage at Dawkin’s loutish utterances will result in a big enough brawl to bring the conflict squarely into the light of reason. Were we to manage to put this all back in the bottle, what precisely would there be to celebrate at TAM, other than having found a way to assuage our cognitive dissonance? It’s time for everyone to dispense with their illusions. Male atheists are not feminists. Skeptics are not rational about everything. Several Über-famous skeptics are AGW deniers. When will the movement get around to dealing with that bullshit? A super-trendy atheist movie-making comedian is Big Pharma conspiracy theorist. How about the movement deals with that in real time? Putting this situation in perspective, "Rebecca was right, but let’s remember all that Dawkins has done for us," is rationalizing not rationality. There never was an atheist, skeptical, liberal, humanist, feminist monolith. Is this an alliance of convenience or are we birds of a feather? It’s better to decide sooner rather than later. Let's get dis-illusioned!
I was on an elevator late one night, in the distant past, with a woman who pushed the stop button, grabbed my crotch, and kissed me. She invited me to her room. I declined as I was going back to my room and my wife, but I was pleasantly taken aback, and felt complimented. I guess we all react differently in different situations.
ReplyDeleteMamba24,
ReplyDeleteYou may have conflated the two links I posted. The study is printed in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, not the teen mag.
Mamba24,
ReplyDeleteWe appear to agree on (what is for me, at least) the main point: that she is justified in voicing her opinion.
However, since you went through the trouble of actually following the two links, I will better organize my argument.
1. Practically every study since Kinsey's days identifies propositions from strangers in the U.S. as an unwelcome, uncomfortable situation for the vast majority of women. [A often-cited field study of college-age women indicated 100% rejection rates; this more recent study rated the average "welcomeness" of such a proposition as close to 1 out of 7. The top link I posted before goes into more detail.]
1a. Studies in communications also show that people in general (not just women, but especially women) prefer assertive communication styles to aggressive ones. One of the key differences is that being assertive involves "thinking before you act." Aggressive styles, on the other hand, involve pushing your own needs without considering others.
2. Various forms of legal sexual harassment exist and are categorized by context. I will simplify two of the major definitions for the sake of brevity: (1) a sexual proposal from someone who wields organizational power over the recipient; (2a)a pattern of situations involving unwelcome propositions; this also includes (2b)a pattern of situations involving an aggressive communication style instead of an assertive one in regards to sex.
2a. The pattern of situations does not need to be from the same person: in an organizational setting, it could involve unwelcome propositions from many different men. If management does not intervene, they may face legal repercussions. If they participate in the propositioning, they are likely guilty of the first definition.
2b. The legality of sexual harassment aside, the teen mag had a short and reasonable definition: likely to be unwelcome=harassment; likely to be welcome=flirting.
3. The psp study I mentioned earlier indicates that it is extremely likely that U.S. women will find such a proposal to be unwelcome. So, it qualifies as harassment under 2b, although we can argue over semantics. I'll save you time, though: yes, it was a trivial incident by itself; and yes, he asked her to his hotel room for something that they could have gotten at the bar moments earlier, but did not make a direct sexual request.
3b. If stuff like this happened repeatedly at the event, it might qualify as legal sexual harassment in the United States. To some degree, organizations are even held accountable for their customers. From comments on skepchick and other blogs, it seems that a number of women believe that this does happen repeatedly at conventions and it turns them off.
4. [Personal Opinion] Coming up with a plan to address a perceived problem is a bold and positive approach. If we do the legwork and it turns out that there is no pattern and this is just a minor, isolated incident--- so be it. If it isn't, perhaps corrections need to be made, even if they are only consciousness-raising efforts. On the other hand, dismissing the complaint (and similar complaints posted recently by others) as invalid because "Muslim women have it worse" or "many women may like it" or "he said coffee" derail the conversation instead of helping the community sort things out in a positive way.
@noahbox Thank you, thank you so much for linking that study. This is the kind of information that should have been used much earlier. Anecdotal talks from some women saying X unacceptable, and other women saying X is no big deal has not gotten much done.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes a good case for propositions being "banned" for men.
However, it leaves some unanswered questions. The small sample size of a homogenous college-age group has its potential oversights.
Also, women presumably have more to lose/fear in this situation. But I remember an in-depth study that looked at the rates of false rape reports, and why women make them. It was very conservative, and they threw out women who admitted to false reports, but didn't have convincing reasons for doing so. (Sorry, I'll have to dig to find the study.) But the results of confession-interviews showed a surprising number of women filed false reports; around a third of all rape reports I think. If this were common knowledge, would men be just as uncomfortable as women on quick sex?
Also, the whole risk perception may not even be a good measurement. At the bottom of the linked article is this gem by Jill from Feministe:
"Quit using that study where strangers walked up to people on college campuses and offered sex as “proof” that men desire sex more than women. Perhaps consider that women may want sex just as much, but have spent their entire lives hearing about how sex with strangers is a terrible, dangerous idea, leading to the (probably correct) understanding that the only kind of men who would approach you in broad daylight offering sex are men who are either serial killers or sex offenders or at least total fucking creeps?"
That would mean there is sort of a female 'privilege' here.
Dougreardon. You're not really making a proper comparison - Instead of being a woman, would you have reacted differently if a seven foot tall body building guy had pressed stop, grabbed your crotch and kissed you?
ReplyDelete@Andrew Ryan
ReplyDeleteAnd how the hell is *that* a proper comparison??
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
ReplyDeleteIf you are suggesting that it's disingenuous to remove the context and replace it with another situation-- you're right. The context is crucial.
That's why Doug's anecdote is irrelevant, even if well-intentioned.
A good-faith reading of Andrew's analogy suggests that it might have been a parody of Doug's. Or perhaps he was just trying to offer Doug another perspective to help him understand why his anecdote isn't particularly useful in this situation.
PS: I posted this a few hours ago but it isn't showing up. If it turns into a double-post somehow, I apologize.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMatt Anderson,
ReplyDeleteI probably agree with your quote from Jen. I certainly didn't mean to imply that men desire sex more than women and that wasn't my purpose for bringing up the '89 study. In fact, the psp study I linked to suggests that a reasonable percentage of women welcome casual sex. For everyone else who didn't bother to read the link--- Casual sex: yes, but depending on a wide variety of factors. Propositions from strangers: no, pretty much never welcomed.
I am impressed by the psp study because it seems fairly solid and has some depth; but most other surveys and field-studies that examine more specific demographics generally have similar results. Anecdotal evidence aside, it seems to be a nearly unexceptionable point that the vast majority of women might be caused undue stress if put in a similar position.
However, I'm not convinced that the data necessarily "makes a good case for propositions being 'banned' for men." I would want more evidence regarding how often this happens. I would also want to know if the intended effect (reducing stress on female participants in male-dominated atheist, humanist and skeptic groups) might be more effectively promoted through consciousness-raising than heavy-handed rule-setting.
Perhaps we might save ourselves some grief by promoting more mixer-type events where interested people can get to know each other better. Balance the negative (and easily mischaracterized) message of "in certain contexts, men cause women undue stress with propositions, no matter how well-intentioned" with "...but feel free to make new friends at the party on Saturday!" or "make sure to tag your OkCupid profile with the keyword: skeptic so women can find you!" [Tangent warning: OkCupid staff already recommend this and also note that using the keyword "atheist" in your first message correlates with more dates.]
I can't say with certainty if any of the above ideas would actually be effective at problem resolution, but this is the kind of conversation that I would rather be having.
How is it NOT a proper comparison? Seems fine to me. You tell me where the problem is!
ReplyDeleteI would just like to say I agree completely (well I've only read up to half these comments) with Hanninabal and I'm genuinely surprised at the attitude and I would say unreasonableness of some of the show hosts. This situation has completely been blown out of all proportion.
ReplyDeleteDespite some of the hysterical protests, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT OR WRONG way to have approached that situation in the elevator, only if you somehow knew beforehand the individual's reaction to it. One woman may have felt anxious, another may have had a very different attitude to it altogether. Rebecca does not speak on behalf of all women, just her own personal reaction to the situation. Perhaps Rebecca would have felt anxious being in a lift alone with a strange man at 4am in the morning regardless of whether he made advances or not.
We are complicating a really rather straightforward issue. You have a right to proposition someone, if that person says no, they're not interested, then you back off. End of. If this guy had persisted, then Rebecca would be right to highlight it but from what I've read, it doesn't sound that that is what happened, so I can't understand all the fuss?
The way this topic has hijacked atheist discourse lately has annoyed me, mainly because it's done little to solve the problem and loads to demonize people.
ReplyDeleteWe're humans, we make mistakes, we have bad ideas. The problems with sexism are problems with our society as a whole. The only thing we agree on as atheists is that there isn't a god.
For people who don't have a religion, a lot of us seem quick to condemn others like Dawkins for making a mistake.
Depending on who I've heard this story from the details change. From my own personal viewpoint a pretty innocuous video was made, some males got defensive at what they perceived as a feminist overreaction and all hell (excuse the term) broke loose.
Yes we should work to improve the way women are treated in our movement as we need to improve the way women are treated throughout our entire culture. We need to take this incident, learn from it, and move on. Some people just seem to want to keep it going because they can't get enough of the drama and they don't want to solve anything.
I don't get this hysteria.
ReplyDeleteI thought Richard Dawkins's comment was pretty hilarious and this ''Guys, don't do that'' shit is pretty ridiculous to me.
How is a guy supposed to get laid, if he's not allowed to flirt or hit on a woman???
It's not that common that a woman hits on a guy, it's become the social norm for guys to initiate such ''dealings''.
That dude probably thought to just try his luck and see if he could get some! Who wouldn't try it if you had the courage or ''balls'' I ask?
Then I wonder if guys aren't allowed to do this, then presumably for equality reasons women aren't allowed to do so either.
Now you're left with people either randomly meeting in the same bed, naked and falling into each other or arranged relationships and neither of those options sound very effective or happiness making to me!
Ps: I happen to support discussion of sexism everywhere, even in the atheist community, I just found this ''Guys don't do that'' thing so outrageously stupid that I had to say something.
Martin. Martin. Martin. Are you trying to be an accomplished polemicist or what? Look at it this way - transplant this experience to someplace you might understand - Its 4AM in a Hotel on the Strip in Vegas - the guy politely asks a person that appears to have struck out if she would like coffee - nothing more - nothing sexual was mentioned - two people in an elevator - she didn't thank him for his offer of company. She snobbishly told him, like he didn't already know, that Guys don't do that! He offered company and coffee if she wanted - nothing more - he accepted her decline, she declined - End of story. Next you will be telling me that it is offensive for men, not women of course, to chat idly, look anywhere but at the floor, to merely have the silly idea that another needs love, care, comfort, support, or the company of another for coffee. Its 4AM in Vegas - Who's going to bed now!! - She may have looked the way she stated in that she was tired, beat, needed to rest. The day is just getting started! Now if it would have been her 'idea of a dream boat' whatever that is the polite thing to do would have been to say Thank you for offering. But No. Thank You. They were both striking out - one was offering, the other was declining. I hope everyone is aware that sometimes an offer of support is just that and not just another example of the "men that hate all women" - It could have been more or it could have been just what it was - and it certainly wasn't offensive. She took offense. She shared her offense to gain favor with her audience - she is a media ham. Sometimes you have to just spot the situation as being manipulated by the intent for Being Center Stage for a while longer - GET THE HOOK! Pull these folks off the Stage and get back to the A-G-E-N-D-A of TAM9!!
ReplyDeleteDawkins' point — which is fundamentally no different than telling atheists that in a world where the godless are burned at the stake, we're being kind of petty to complain about "little" things like God in the Pledge or creationism in the classroom — is simply wrong. He's as wrong as a wrong thing with the word wrong written on it by someone who can't spell.
ReplyDeleteI get it that he is wrong. What I don't get is the implicit fiat that all wrongs are equally heinous. They are not. It is petty to complain that your tax subsidies are ending and you might have to jetpool twice a year more than you used to, when the poorest among us are going to face draconian cuts where they can't afford to fall sick. Does that make both equally wrong? No.
I have no issues with what Rebecca did initially. While I am a man and cannot, for that reason, relate to what it is for a woman to encounter a creepy person in an elevator, I can accept Rebecca's genuine fears and discomfort of the encounter. I also have no problems with her mention of the incident with the admonishment "Don't be creeps, people!"
I also agree that Dawkins fucked up. As did people who took umbrage at Rebecca's speech.
What follows after that is what I am struggling with.
Dawkins fucked up, but not in the way a raving misogynist fucks up. Not in the way a unrepentant sexist fucks up. He fucked up by picking the wrong subject where he tried to pooh-pooh the focus to a lesser wrong in the face of a much more heinous wrong. And after you are done hurling brickbats at me, take some time to understand that here are lesser wrongs, and there are greater wrongs. At least subjectively, we do have scales on some things. Atheists should be aware of this when they encounter black or white thinking from theists.
Note that such is not an uncommon ploy used by many of the detractors of Dawkins on this issue. PZ, who often lambastes cretins for trying to equate male circumcision with FGM, did this very recently. Note carefully, he did not do this in the context of FGM. He did so specifically in the context of the proposed SF measure on male circumcision ban. That had NOTHING to do with FGM. But he chose to trivialize male circumcision with exactly the same ploy and left a warning at the end:
I consider it a prime example of selfish privilege to invade discussions of female genital mutilation, which does cause serious sexual and medical problems, with demands that we pay more attention to the lesser concerns of males getting lightly scarred penises.
To be crystal clear, I am NOT condemning it to be a fuckup at all, but merely an illustration that dismissing the focus on a lesser wrong in favor of a greater one is NOT uncommon.
The question is not whether Dawkins fucked up. He did. But at this point he has received far greater acrimony hurled at him, than the guy in the elevator.
That can't be good for atheists either. In fact, I'd argue that what it has done is painted Dawkins as an unrepentant, somewhat misogynous, privileged sexist, who has no way out of it.
Any apology by him at this point would look insincere and lame, acceptance of that apology would make his current detractors appear insincere, gullible or both. And no apology, well, that's where we are.
I see requests for and subsequently letters galore to Dawkins. Where is the request for letters to the elevator creep?
Entirely too much toothpaste has been squeezed out of the tube.
Well, I think it's been fairly put by Matt and the ACA where their "thinking" and "skepticism" truly stop: gender. Matt sums up their complete lack of intellectual integrity, their entire treachery of intellect in this riposte:
ReplyDelete"His side of the story is irrelevant. In fact, it doesn't even matter if he exists and this is entirely fictional."
Excellent work, Matt. You sold the farm for cheap. I'm so proud to know you, and the rest of the ACA, are so against evaluating what it is true; rather, the important thing is how people feel.
I hope that I can now trust your show will no longer ridicule the religious because, again, what is true is irrelevant. All that matters is how the recipient feels about it.
Gag me with a fucking bloody tampon.
Contrary to what these asshats have been saying about what Rebecca et al have been saying, I've been documenting it point by counterpoint on my blog here. Of course, I don't expect that Matt will read it - there doesn't exist a set of facts, real or imagined, that will change his mind. Why? Because he is the owner the Truth.
What a intellectual deficient proposition, Matt.
Recently a feminist blogger has given dating advice to men on Youtube after being sexually objectified and nearly escaping a potential rape in an elevator. “Don’t sexualize me,” said Rebecca Watson. Many feminists are pointing out the obvious fact that this was merely dating advice, and are detailing very clearly that Rebecca’s complaint was also mostly a criticism of misogyny, objectification, and sexism amongst men in the atheist community, as evidenced by the elevator incident. (For nude photos of Rebecca challenging sexual objectification, see her new nude pinup calendar here: http://MileHighClubCalendar.XXX.cum.com )
ReplyDelete“I was the guy who hit on Rebecca Watson in an elevator. Okay? I did it. I'd do it again because I'm just Ca-Razy like that. I'm a sexist woman hating sexually objectifying creeper because I told a woman I found her interesting and invited her to my room to have a cup of coffee.” –Mr. Elevatorgate responding to the atheist community's feminist crisis of 2011.
A deep schism can be felt all across the Holy Mother Church of Atheism as feminist males and females take sides over whether or not this was a feminist issue. Many of these feminist critics have pointed out that Rebecca would look good bent over a toilet, she should shut her mouth before she gets hers, and that feminists are man hating lesbians. However, due to female’s inferior intelligence and hypersensitivity, many female feminists think these criticisms proove just how much work hast to be done to combat sexism within the atheist community. Other male feminists, desiring to win the sexual favors of women in and outside atheist conferences, agree with the chicks.
Mr. Elevatorgate is reported to be in a critical care unit. Apparently the shame from hitting on a woman in an elevator has caused him to commit suicide. He knew full well that made him a sexualizing creeper and potential rapist, but after having some drinks with her down at the bar he just couldn't resist his perverted impulse to say she was "really interesting." You won't be missed, you misogynist freak!
Richard Dawkins has taken the time to chime in by saying that her feelings didn’t matter since other women have bigger problems like spontaneously evaporating clitorises or something in Saudi Arabia. Many atheists are boycotting Richard Dawkins’ over his response by saying, “She was just giving dating advice, not feminism advice. How dare you draw attention to real feminist issues!”
While this issue has managed to bring attention to the voices of female atheists, many find their voices naggy, absurd, and many men are tired of being called misogynists for disagreeing with feminists, and tired of their criticisms of some feminists being dismissed simply because they have a penis, especially when it is a very small penis and might as well be a clitoris.
Jesus Christ was interviewed for his reaction to elevatorgate, skepchick, and Rebecca Watson and is reported to have said, “ONLY in the atheist community could something so marginal as a (b*llshit) accusation that getting hit on in an elevator is a feminist crisis, be taken seriously as a feminist crisis.” Jesus Christ was asked if his views have been broadened by the blogosphere reaction and responded that he has never been more convinced that feminism is a sexist movement. He now prefers to consider himself a womanist and is currently campaigning for the right of episcopal lesbians to be priests.
For more news on the subject, please go to http://churchofatheism.webs.com
Rather than reading through 400 comments, I'm just going to post this. If it's been said, fine.
ReplyDeleteHad she not been a feminist and not just given a speech addressing sexism; and then got hit on in an elevator at 4am, this might not have gotten this far.
I think the reactions are intensified do to the reactions towards feminism or the more militant version thereof (whether she is a militant feminist or not).
I have to admit my mouth dropped open when I read what Dawkins wrote. He's my favorite horseman of the apocalypse...not that I idolize him or anything.
ReplyDeleteShort story: Dawkins was fractally wrong on this one, but I'm not going to throw him under the bus. It seems like a rational position to take.
@BSkrilla
ReplyDeleteDamn good post you made. Both sides do make points but people really seem to be taking it out of proportion to the extreme. For those of you who haven't read it, it is located on the first page of comments.
When I first heard of this it made sense for each of them, and I thought "Okay, I get both of your points". I don't need clarification to know that Dawkins doesn't hate women or Rebecca thinks all guys are rapists or some extreme ridiculous view. Now it's this massive mess with people being completely irrational about it. It makes me sad to see people degrade like this, to throw each other under the bus when we're supposed to be rational. Emotions shouldn't take over and people shouldn't call Dawkins a misogynist or Rebecca some feminazi. If anything I think a better solution would be to clarify each person's position so the wrong message doesn't get interpreted. I get into disagreements multiple times where after a whole lot of talking I find the person I am speaking to has a very close position to mine.
We should want to understand what they meant exactly in a non-threatening environment. We need more communication and clarification before aggression.
I won't bother rehashing every point that's been made so far, but I do want to address two issues:
ReplyDelete1) The man who lied about how 1/3 of all rape reports are false. The rate of false reports of rape is around 2%.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=29ADC4918E481BB73867D9EB7C968144.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=430299
2) That men "can't read women's minds":
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/
So to those few who keep whingeing on about how we don't have enough facts and that Rebecca is a horrible misandrist: does it bother you more that a woman said no, or that she understood exactly what was going on?
From the way a few men are carrying on about how they have a "right" to hit on women anytime they want to (which they don't have), it's pretty clear that they don't care about how women respond to them...and they're actually just fine with making women uncomfortable because they don't think women have any sort of right to privacy and a life free of harassment (which they actually do have, by law).
And these guys claim to be rational thinkers and skeptics?
If there's one thing I have learnt from reading this is don't hit on a woman, ever. Wherever, whenever you may be, there might be something she finds creepy.
ReplyDeleteTo me, RW's position is:
I didn't tell EG not to hit on me. Although everyone thinks i did. But anyway, he did it! And he did it at a bad place! And a bad time!
So was there any possible good place? Or time?
No, apparently. A disturbing number of posters on this and other blogs are pulling out the prudish "any sexual proposition by a male is wicked!" line that I thought died with the 50s. Telling men that they may not do this, because it's creepy, unless it's part of a romantic activity or whatever, wow, so much for sexual liberation!
And it gets worse. It's a rule that only applies to het. men. Because "they just want to get their dicks wet" as one poster put contemptuously. Well, do you tell lesbians not to do the same bloody thing because they "just want to get their clits licked"? Nope, just men? Because men are, apparently, disgusting.
So here's the deal. If you tell someone that it's not ok to do something at location x and time y, and they say what about we vary those variables, later or earlier, before the lift, in a hall, and you scream YOU JUST DON'T GET IT YOU PRIVILEGED PENIS/GENDER TRAITOR then reason has left the building.
You know what? It's not harassment to find someone attractive, it's harassment when you repeat unwanted advances. Being politely propositioned by someone you don't think is hot? That's life. Get over it.
I still wonder what my survival chances would be if i was stuck in a lift with RW wearing a t-shirt which said SHUT UP WOMAN,GET ON MY HORSE
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/YSOqUswBfMs
Dear Blergh,
ReplyDeleteMen constantly interrupt me when I'm doing things because they seem to think they have some sort of right to demand my attention no matter what I'm doing.
They're interrupting me and either keeping me from doing something I want to do, or making it difficult to get work/errands done.
I don't have any sympathy for men who refuse to pay attention to visual and verbal cues. I don't have any sympathy for a man who'd interrupt me but not interrupt a guy under the same circumstances...that tells me he doesn't regard me as an equal, and thus he doesn't deserve my time or attention.
Finally, I'm married, and you'd think a wedding ring would keep me from having to put up with this crap.
Nope.
Cheers,
An irritated woman who still wonders why some guy thought it would be a good idea to stop me out on the street and try to get me to laugh at a woman getting her kids out of her car on a really hot day while I was carrying an armload of perishable items. Seriously, wtf?
@ChristineCCR
ReplyDeleteBut "Being politely propositioned" and "not politely propositioned" are different. Standing around doing nothing is very different from busily doing activity. So I'm not sure why you think i'd believe it was polite to interrupt you when you are busy.
Also, regarding the ring, tell me when those things start to work because i have seen far too many infidelities to have much faith in them. But fewer people would proposition someone wearing a ring than otherwise, which does make things complicated for the people who are married but in open relationships.
However...
"I don't have any sympathy for men who refuse to pay attention to visual and verbal cues."
If you have given them a verbal cue (e.g. "not interested" then they have already all the information they need. Continued proposition is not polite. What sort of verbal cues do you employ? Humming the "Macarena"? If it's "I'm just a girl who can't say no", change your tune.
Visual cues, aside from the wedding ring are just too ambiguous. And remember a lot of committed people don't wear them and uncommitted do.
Or if you mean body language, pfft, men are not wired that way as a rule. Even highly trained people can't read other people's body language reliably, which is why we invented language(as in hominids, not sapiens per se, and a few other species have some claim to it as well)
Quite a significant proportion of the male population is almost entirely unable to read body language. They reason out how people are feeling but it takes effort. There's a smaller proportion of women like that, but they are still there, and both groups are hardly to be ignored.
So here's a scenario. Person A says to person B "I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me?"
Is that obscene?
Does it matter what's between their legs as to whether it's offensive?
Can Person B employ violence on A in retaliation legally? Should the law be changed so that they can?
This is not a hypothetical question. This was typically used in defence by gay-bashers. "He made an advance on me! I felt threatened! He might have raped me!"
Thaat's in scenarios where all that happened was that words were used. No invasion of body space, no leaning over, cornering, whatever. Just words.
And that defense used to work.
You're wrong on body language and social cues. Check out that post on Mythcommunications.
ReplyDeleteVerbal cues: "Ok, I'm on my way to the bank, I think it's closing in about 10 minutes" and the guy keeps talking. Usually about nothing important. On the phone: "I have to run, I have about two more hours of work until I'm free today" and the guy keeps talking about everything except my request to end the conversation. Ugh.
Visual cues: If I have earbuds in or am working on my laptop and staring at it intently, that's a bad time to interrupt me...yet men do it all the time. Why?
If a man is going to interrupt me while I'm reading a book, it would be nice if he had some interest in the book. They never do.
If I'm carrying an armload of groceries down the street? Also not a good time to hit on me. It's pretty clear that I'm doing something, right?
If I'm randomly waiting around, I have no problem having a conversation with someone else...the problem is that men mostly try and start conversations with me when I'm in the middle of doing something. Not. Cool.
I think you're really missing the point on all this, however. This discussion actually has nothing to do with determining whether propositions are obscene. It has to do with showing something resembling common sense and courtesy toward the person you're speaking to.
If someone I didn't know propositioned me out of the blue, in the middle of the night in an elevator, I'd probably have kicked him in the balls, and possibly called security too. The guy obviously has zero interest in me as anything but a place to stick his penis. Why should I have to be polite to someone who's being a useless jerk? Why doesn't he just go find a prostitute if he wants random sex with a stranger?
If you want to hit on someone, use some common sense and maybe, you know, actually try *talking* to the other person first before propositioning him or her? Maybe try seeing if there's any interest or spark there before propositioning someone? It's common sense.
That's what started this entire discussion -- the fact that there's a bunch of men at atheist conferences who don't care about women as people, they only view them as sex toys. That's why I'll never go to another one - if I'm not going to be listened to and I'll continue getting sexually harassed, why would I want to go? I'll go find something that's actually fun to do.
If you want a woman's attention, try treating her like she's a human being and pay attention if she says she has things to do. It's simple respect, and the fact that men claim they can't do it is the "sexist" part of this. You guys CAN do it...you choose not to.
I'm on the Asperger's scale and I've learned to read social and facial cues and body language. If I can do it, other people can too. The fact that people don't bother to learn speaks volumes about their contempt for others. I'm better off without people like that in my life, and I think quite a few other women feel the same way.
@ChristineCCR
ReplyDeleteWe are talking at cross purposes. I talk about polite propositions. You are talking about someone ignoring a directly and clearly stated request. Which apparently did not happen in the Elevatorgate scenario (if you have evidence otherwise, please provide it).
"I have to run, I have about two more hours of work until I'm free today"
There's no ambiguity there. However, the situation of the polite proposition is one where the person making it has not been told you are unavailable. For example, saying "I don't want to keep you then but would you like to have sex later when you are free?"
But it is considered unacceptable to ask for sex directly, and it has been my whole life, despite the efforts to sexually liberate humanity. We have to skirt around the issue, as a rule. I know my automatic tendency is to say "no", especially if it's in public, because that is what we are taught to say. Sex is dirty! People who want it are wicked!
I was out with a woman i found very attractive when i was 19 or 20, and i remember talking about this with a group of people going to the Rocky Horror Picture Show. We are all dressed as characters, fishnets and make-up,and she turns to the table and asks each member if they'd like to go back with her and have sex. Everyone says no. I wanted her but I was too afraid of saying yes in public, especially as she could well have then rejected me or otherwise hurt my feelings.
"If someone I didn't know propositioned me out of the blue, in the middle of the night in an elevator, I'd probably have kicked him in the balls, and possibly called security too. "
And that's it in a nutshell. You respond to a polite request, in a relatively safe* environment, with violence. And if you tell the truth about what they said to you, and there's footage from the security camera, then your victim has a reasonable case of assault to charge you with.
If you don't believe me, contact your police department and say "hypothetically, if i kneed a guy in the balls for asking me for a coffee, could i be in trouble? I mean, it was in a hotel elevator, so that's ok, right? I have a free pass? and oh, i think when he fell he might have banged his head, but the blood will just wash off and the hotel staff can't charge extra for that can they? And I don't think he's breathing. But anyone who asks for coffee deserves to die, right? I mean, caffeine is very unhealthy!"
*according to the Crime statistics bureau of NSW, you are not in significant danger in a lift, especially a monitored one in a busy hotel, the street is more dangerous by far, and your home is overwhelming hazardous!)
"The guy obviously has zero interest in me as anything but a place to stick his penis. "
And that's your excuse for violence? Would you do that to a woman who just wanted you to lick her clitoris? Is the issue that you don't like selfish lovers, or that you don't approve of casual sex and are willing to enforce that by injuring or even killing transgressors? Gosh, that sounds familiar, have you considered joining the Iranian Morality Police?
It is not such a terrible thing to just want sex. It does not automatically imply degradation unless you feel sex is automatically a degradation. Plenty of gay men and women just want the equivalent and do it guilt free and certainly without assault. Or is the rule of "No casual sex!" something you only apply to straight men? Would you consider lecturing gay people on their sexual behaviour in the same way?
ReplyDeleteIf so, please film it and put it on youtube. The responses should be quite amusing
"Why should I have to be polite to someone who's being a useless jerk?"
But again, i said polite proposition... and telling someone to "fuck off" in response to that is just rude, but par for the course. Hitting them is way over the line and it's interesting that that's your reaction to come-ons.
" Why doesn't he just go find a prostitute if he wants random sex with a stranger?"
Because he might want to *share* pleasure with someone? Because he might find *you* special? Because he shouldn't have to pay for a mutually enjoyable experience? Because relationships often develop from casual sex?
I think you have a few hang-ups and I hope you are not serious about your desire to hurt people. it doesn't take much to kill someone. You'd be surprised at how many people are in jail because they hit someone and they fell funny or had a heart attack or whatever. The law usually makes allowances if the intent is not to kill but manslaughter is pretty bloody serious, especially as you have prior intent as you have pointed out here.
Still, you are probably just venting. Like my neighbour did, before she stabbed her husband (and that was over a minor disagreement, from memory). It only takes one little moment of anger and a life is gone.
"If you want to hit on someone, use some common sense and maybe, you know, actually try *talking* to the other person first before propositioning him or her?"
Why is it common sense that you have to get to know someone before having a sexual contact that has no romantic element intended? I would argue the opposite; getting to know them would be leading them on, giving them false expectations. Also, a lot of people find sex with strangers exciting. They manage to get through it without so much as exchanging names, or even a word in some cases, and who are you to denounce them from the pulpit? If you don't like peanut butter, does that give you the right to stop others eating it? Why are your preferences the only valid ones in your eyes? If you don't like BDSM, would you attack the people who engage in it as well?
You can dismiss anything i say. Why not log onto a site like http://fetlife.com/ and ask for opinions? Or you can just scream at them for their wanton sluttishness. Shame them for their short skirts! You could march against sluts everywhere, why I think there's even marches dedicated to that cause... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slutwalk
"there's a bunch of men at atheist conferences who don't care about women as people, they only view them as sex toys"
ReplyDeleteFunny you should say that, because sex toy sites often make claims like "you will never need a man again if you use our products". If anything, I think there's far more evidence that men are viewed as replaceable by machinery than vice versa. Men never boast "I wank, so i don't need a woman!" but it's a common claim by women.
Ok, I noticed you are very interested in talking about the rudeness of people but that has nothing to do with this situation.
"Would you like a coffee" in an elevator in a busy hotel might be annoying to you but it's a standard question people use, it works often enough that people will keep using it, and a lot of women don't see the problem. However, your violent fantasies are disturbing and I have to say if you won't discuss the issue of polite propositions, then we have nothing to discuss.
If your violent fantasies continue, you might want to see a therapist. If you act on them, sure, you could get away with it by deceit, claiming they tried to rape you, but there's so many people recording their environment now that you might well get caught; and your righteous smiting could well end with you in a cell with a woman who is not going to take no for an answer.
Honestly. I CAN"T STAND Rebecca Watson. I've never liked her but now I just want to puke in my soup for what she's done. Whan a narrow-minded, intolerant, pretentious little person!
ReplyDeleteDawkins is absolutely right. So is the Amazing Atheist.