MENU
Richard Dawkins and male privilege
Over the weekend, a full-blown scandal erupted in the skeptical movement atheist and skeptical communities* over sexism and attitudes about sexual harassment. It started with a fairly straightforward story about a clueless man putting a woman in an uncomfortable situation. The conversation about it was interesting, to say the least. An important point that came up multiple times is that many men do not truly understand what women go through in such situations.
This point was driven home when Richard Dawkins spoke up about it. Through his own words, he proved quite clearly that a lot of men just don’t get it.
Here’s what happened, boiled down from a video post Skepchick Rebecca Watson made about this (she tells this story starting at 4m30s into the video at that link). Rebecca was a speaker at a conference recently. After her talk and a late evening of socializing with attendees at the bar, she got on an elevator to go to her room. She found herself alone on the elevator with a man presumably also an attendee. He said he "found her very interesting", and would she like to get some coffee in his hotel room? Rebecca turned him down, and in her video talks about how uncomfortable that made her feel.
If the story ended here there would be obvious things to say about it (obvious to me, at least, but not everyone, as will become quite clear). This man may have had nothing but noble intentions, but that doesn’t matter. Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent. But when he hits on her? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to sexual assault; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most women are all-too painfully aware of it.
Rebecca, apparently, handled this situation with aplomb, and I’m glad. She turned it into a useful lesson for men on how not to treat women.
At this point there are many offshoot discussions and tangential topics being discussed on the skeptical blogs and elsewhere. I will ignore those, as they distract from what is in my opinion the most important thing here. As it happens, PZ Myers wrote a blog post about this, and Richard Dawkins — yes, the Richard Dawkins, PZ has confirmed this — left a comment in that post. And what he said… well. Read it for yourself:
It took me a moment to parse this. He was being sarcastic, obviously, but he wasn’t talking to someone specifically; he was using a rhetorical tool of speaking to an imaginary person. So he is saying to a generic Muslim woman, you think you have problems, why, Rebecca was hit on in an elevator! How horrible!
At first I thought I had misread this. Surely, Dr. Dawkins, who has written and spoken eloquently in the past on the plight of women suffering under religious intolerance wouldn’t trivialize what happened to Rebecca, would he?
Many people certainly interpreted it that way, as that does seem overwhelmingly to be his point. Dawkins then attempted to clear this up by leaving a second comment trying to argue that he was not doing this. However, in my opinion, what he claims he was trying to say is actually worse:
Oh my. I have tried and tried to see some other way to interpret this, but it looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum.
And I’m not the only one who thought so. Many others did, and none, I think, put it more clearly than Jen McCreight at her blog BlagHag (note: I have edited this because it uses some choice NSFW words that will get my own blog caught in nanny filters; seriously, go to read Jen’s whole post on this. It’s important), who addresses Dr. Dawkins:
Frankly, this is disappointing for a number of reasons […] you’re kind of an idol of mine, and it makes me want to cry a little when you live up to the stereotype of a well-off, 70 year old, white, British, ivory tower academic. But let me spell it out for you instead of just getting mad (though I’ll do that too):
Words matter. […] You don’t have people constantly explaining that you’re subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal. You don’t have people saying you shouldn’t have rights. You don’t have people constantly sexually harassing you. You don’t live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road.
This.
The real problem here is that Dawkins (and several others who left comments) didn’t see this as a potential assault scenario. This problem is driven home by Dawkins again in a third comment, where he literally argues that nothing bad happened to Rebecca in that elevator [I blurred the instance of a cuss word in the section below]:
It’s this third comment that truly stunned me. I know a lot of people might agree with his sentiment, but it’s staggeringly wrong.
I can understand that it’s hard for men to truly grasp the woman’s point of view here, since men rarely feel in danger of sexual assault. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a woman, being alone on that elevator with that man was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps he has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most men don’t understand this, so women are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.
Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.
So you may not think anything bad happened to Rebecca on that elevator, but something bad did indeed happen. He didn’t have to physically assault her for the situation to be bad. The atmosphere in there was enough to make it bad. And Rebecca was absolutely right to talk about it and raise awareness of it.
The discussion ongoing in the blogs is in general aimed at the skeptical and atheist movements. But this is far, far larger than that. This is a societal issue; sexism (conscious or otherwise) is still a strong force in our society, and a lot of men will dismiss claims of sexism from women. As has been made very clear here, we all need to make sure that all men understand the woman’s point of view, or else this type of thing will continue to happen… and people will continue to dismiss it as no big deal.
It is a big deal. If Dawkins — a leader in the critical thinking movement and a man known for defending women against religious oppression — can take such a dismissive stance, it’s clear that we have a long way to go. I don’t know if it was sexism on Dawkins’ part or just plain obtuseness, but this attitude is shared by far too many men. It trivializes the justifiable fear women have to live with as well as their point of view, and that’s just plain wrong.
[UPDATE: Rebecca herself has posted at Skephick about this, and it’s very much worth your time to read.]
* It was pointed out to me that all this started at an atheist meeting and not at a skeptics meeting. There is substantial overlap between the two communities, of course, though in reality they are different. I made the correction to the text to make that more clear.
Comments (2,036)
Links to this Post
- With Regards to Women on Elevators… | The Naturalist Biologist | July 5, 2011
- Richard Dawkins – and how the female atheist world is a little shocked… « The Puzzled Ponderer | July 5, 2011
- He grabbed my hand and I doubted myself | Hayley Stevens | July 5, 2011
- Pretty Worried About Richard Dawkins « Shams' Infinite Playlist of Quantum Sufi Madness | July 5, 2011
- Dear Feminism: Please Stop Trying To Speak For Me And Let Me Speak For Myself » Julia Sherred | From The Mundane To The Insane | July 5, 2011
- Getting and not getting « Butterflies and Wheels | July 5, 2011
- Elevatorgate: frustrations with creepiness as a man-slut « The atheist, polyamorous, skeptic | July 5, 2011
- Elevatorgate « Rooker's Soapbox | July 5, 2011
- Latest Rape News | July 5, 2011
- ‘Potential sexual assualt’? Mr Plait, you disappoint me with jumping on the Rebecca Watson hurt-feelings bandwagon. « The Web Presence of Anna Johnstone | July 5, 2011
- To my fellow men « Pig and Pepper | July 5, 2011
- Watson vs. Dawkins | The Large Idea Collider | July 5, 2011
- In which I lose all respect for Richard Dawkins « The Kitchen Sink | July 6, 2011
- The privilege of the forum « Falsify This! | July 6, 2011
- Sexual Harrassment | Free Everything | July 6, 2011
- Coffeegate: Atheists behaving badly | July 6, 2011
- Rebecca Watson’s Pink Hair and More « Fledgeling Skeptic | July 6, 2011
- An Analogy of Assault « Disjointed Thinking | July 6, 2011
- An Analogy of Assault « Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers of Waterloo | July 6, 2011
- No veas cómo está el patio « el pandemonium | July 6, 2011
- The long-suffering Richard Dawkins « The Delphiad Blog | July 6, 2011
- Rift brewing in New Atheist movement over Dublin elevator incident. - Page 3 | July 7, 2011
- Richard Dawkins Shows His Misogynistic Side | Homebrewed Theology | July 7, 2011
- Too Much Reason? | STEVE VOLK: THE GENERALIST | July 7, 2011
- Watson’s Experience: Empathy Needed for Accuracy « Evid3nc3 | July 8, 2011
- The Shrubbloggers » Wherein I Go Apoplectic | July 8, 2011
- So Long And Thanks For All The Fish « Female Gazing | July 8, 2011
- The Problem with Most Conversations on Feminism « Debunking Denialism | July 9, 2011
- nkblog » Ein paar Sachen, die man als Mann mal lesen kann | July 9, 2011
- Respectable Privilege and Common Decency « Alexander Safir | July 10, 2011
- Richard Dawkins, Sexismus und Privilegien « Alles Evolution | July 11, 2011
- Ironic take on female privilege exposes male ignorance — The Hathor Legacy | July 12, 2011
- How’s it going? « Butterflies and Wheels | July 12, 2011
- Sexual harassment discussion in the atheist and skeptical communities « Geek Feminism Blog | July 12, 2011
- Much ado about…wait, what? | And another thing... | July 14, 2011
- Personal update, plus some recommended reading « Greater Than Lapsed | July 17, 2011
- The New Atheist Guide to Women « ehmsnbc | July 19, 2011
- How loud can you scream? Thanks to either nature or nurture, I found out yesterday! « Victacular | July 21, 2011
- Ett onödigt inlägg om hissar « Skepchick.se | September 6, 2011
- Feminismo: um delírio » O Alvorecer | December 26, 2011
- Real Men Don’t Need the Bible to Grow Up « Friendly Atheist | January 30, 2012
- Rebecca Watson – Sexism and Feminism in American Atheism « The Self Taught Atheist | February 14, 2012
- Bule Voador » Está frio aqui dentro? | March 8, 2012
- Bule Voador » Feminismo: um delírio! | April 5, 2012
- A Small Matter of Privilege | Bill Cameron | April 24, 2012
- Elevatorgate | Rational Ugandan | July 5, 2012
- Elevatorgate – Part 2 – The Failure of Skepticism | Rational Ugandan | July 5, 2012
- “He just offered coffee!” | Terra Sine Logica | August 11, 2012
- Sexism in Secular Society: Can’t blame religion for Dawkins « The Happy Book Lady | August 17, 2012
This is why I really like you and PZ, Phil.
I 100% understand where you are coming from here, and I agree that it is important that women shouldn’t feel threatened in mundane circumstances (or any circumstances, for that matter). My question (and it’s a question to incite discussion because I’m way too self-conscious to ever actually do this) is this: Suppose that a man sees an attractive woman in an elevator after seeing her give a very intelligently delivered lecture, and he would like to get to know her better. Is there any way he can make an advance without creating a threatening situation or a “potential sexual assault”? I would like to believe that the man in the elevator did not intend to threaten, but am not sure how he could have gone about things differently without being threatening. Would it have been different had he waited until the elevator door was open and there was an easy exit?
I’m a woman and I think it was a bit of an overreaction. Yes, women generally have more to fear than men do, but being alone with any man doesn’t make him a threat. There are things that a man can do to end up being a threat, but a few words are not it.
It’s perfectly ok to feel threatened for one reason or another, but it seems paranoid to assume that any man alone in an elevator is a threat.
Thanks, Phil.
I think what really confuses me about this whole issue is this: Rebecca was uncomfortable. Many, many women would also be uncomfortable. So, uh, DON’T DO IT. Seriously, why is this so hard to figure out? Don’t be creepy, because it makes other people uncomfortable. “I don’t think this is creepy” is irrelevant when the other party is assuring you that, yes, it is.
And above all, this isn’t person a talking to person b for 3 hours, flirting, then asking them to come back to their room. Still skeevy, perhaps, but more reasonable. This was a TOTAL STRANGER SOLICITING SEX ON AN ELEVATOR AT 4 AM. WTF, people, why isn’t this completely obvious?
Men are not allowed to speak to or even make eye contact with women without express written permission, signed in triplicate, notarized with at least two witnesses. Because all men are potential sexual predators and all women are delicate potential victims. Sexism, much?
The confined space is definitely an issue—and if I were the woman, I would have been concerned as well. Understandably so. On the other hand, where is the line? As a man, am I forbidden ever to speak with a woman on an elevator? Coffee is pretty innocent, taken by itself. What CAN I say that isn’t a potential assault?
As I say, I get her point. But, really, there seem to be two sides to this one and I am not certain there is a correct answer. Although I do think Dawkins was way over the top.
I think most men are honestly clueless about what it means to live as a woman. There are a million little things that I hardly even think about any more which are ways in which I try to avoid sexual assault. It’s just things I do, things that I would be blamed for not doing if I were assaulted.
If I go to a bar without my husband, I never leave my drink. If I do leave my drink to go to the bathroom, I won’t drink from it again.
When I’m walking by myself at night, I try to stay under streetlamps and keep an eye on the people around me.
I don’t accept rides from male friends until I’ve known them a long time.
According to a (male) magazine editor, I shouldn’t visit male friends in the evening unless I want sex.
And I know that none of these things will necessarily mean I don’t get raped. Friends of mine have been raped by boyfriends, by parents’ friends, harassed by people in positions of authority. I’ve had men grab my butt or stroke my thigh on the street and on the train while I’m commuting (and no, I don’t wear short skirts, tight pants, etc). This isn’t something I linger on, but it’s a difference I become aware of when I’m out with my husband and do things differently because I’m not alone and I have a wookie-sized man who’s watching out for me.
If a man hit on me in a bar, I wouldn’t be uncomfortable, but if he hit on me in an enclosed space in which we were alone, I would. It’s a power thing. I don’t think Dawkins realizes just how much, but he might if he had to live with this mentality, this deep-down awareness of just how vulnerable one can be.
What I would give for a body switcher that would let men spend a week as a woman. And I’m very grateful for the many men I’ve met who do “get it,” even if they may not realize just how many ways it plays out in our lives. (Even my husband is surprised.) I’m also let down by the ones I think should who so clearly don’t.
You rock! I actually felt betrayed by RD.
Thank you, Phil. Diving into the fray when things have already gotten ugly isn’t always easy. I appreciate your willingness to do so and the great empathy it shows.
I see what you mean. It’s obviously wrong to speak or write in such a way that might cause someone to feel in any way threatened or uneasy or offended or insulted. Words do matter, more than anything else in human history.
Thank you for taking the time to write this.
He didn’t ask her if she’d like to have coffee sometime, he asked her to come have coffee in his room THEN, which to most people implies sex. “Come in for a cup of coffee” is a pretty standard code phrase
> It trivializes the justifiable fear women have to live with as well as their point of view,
> and that’s just plain wrong.
The most horrible part to me is that men never seem to grasp this no matter how many times it’s been told to them. It’s sad that you even had to write this, but I’m glad you did.
At this point you are basically advocating total segregation of men and women.
Men are not allowed to make even the slightest advance towards women. We’re supposed to deny our own sexuality while telling women to go off and celebrate theirs. Male sexuality is a dirty thing to be kept hidden away.
You’ve taken a one-sided report of an incident where the woman in question freely admits that the man ASKED her if she wanted to accompany him to her hotel room and effectively joined in the chorus screaming ‘PERVERT!’ – the possibility that the man in question might have a different view of events has gone completely unnoticed.
Have you found the man? Have you asked him what happened? No. You just assume that what the woman says happened is accurate, and that all men should stay chaste until a woman chooses to make the first move.
There’s a related problem, and that is that this incident doesn’t happen in isolation. Women at atheist/skeptic conferences are still somewhat of a “deviation from the norm”, and especially high-profile people like Watson probably have to put up with a lot more than they let on. The first proposition might be annoying but harmless, but after the 10th repetition the whole movement is looking like a bad trip back to the worst of high school. I’m speaking from the other side of the aisle here, so I’d be interested in female commenters’ experiences.
Basically, what I’m saying is that these places are the wrong places to be looking for a random fling. Meeting new people? Fine. Finding kindred spirits? Great. Potential love interests? Even better (key word: potential). But the chance that someone you just met is going to take you up for some wild monkey atheist sex? Not good, and even suggesting it makes you an ass. Yes, I’m talking to you.
Don’t be a dick, and don’t let your dick do the thinking.
Daffy, “come have coffee at 4am in my hotel room” isn’t “coffee”. It’s “let’s have sex now” from a stranger in an elevator. Just to be perfectly clear: chatting and flirting is fine and fun. “Let’s have sex now” from a stranger in an elevator is a sign that it is time to hit the “lobby” button in the elevator (do not go to your own floor, as there’s a reasonable chance he will want to go with you to your room). Anyone who is socially ‘off’ enough to get this far might very well cross the next line, too.
Returning to the lobby (or crossing the street, or whatever) is a reasonable precaution, not the end of the world, and we all do it from time to time. It’s just too bad that otherwise reasonable guys don’t understand why these precautions are sometimes necessary.
So, as men are all potential rapists, we’re forbidden from talking to women, lest we make them feel ‘uncomfortable’. Rape is rape. Talking to someone in an elevator is just that. Get a grip.
Chris – so what? It’s a perfectly honest question. The simple thing to do is say ‘no thanks’.
In the real world, where men aren’t all the evil rapists people seem to think we are, that would be enough. Instead we get this guilty until proven more guilty nonsense.
@Daffy: The point is … now you do know. That’s why Rebecca spoke up. She didn’t say that men can’t hit on women, or speak to women, or invite them up for coffee. She said, in this situation, and for these reasons, this made her uncomfortable, and she wanted to let men know that. I’m glad she said it, because I, and many other women, would be too.
That’s what no one seems to be taking away from this. Instead of telling her that it isn’t a big deal and that she should shut up, they need to recognize why she said anything at all.
“Don’t do this.”
Ack, wow! As a young lady, I find Dawkins’s statements really offensive and unsympathetic. Thank you for your post. I’ve had several men hit on me in situations where it’s late at night, one-on-one, and in closed spaces. It’s uncomfortable. It’s scary. Some of those moments of intense fear will probably stay with me for a long time. Like this one dude kept walking past my friend and I, late at night. He would come back and look at me and I would move out of the way… So the eighth time he’s walking by us, he stops and screams at me, “STOP STEPPING BACK, I’M NOT GOING TO HURT YOU.” Well okay then, that sure makes me feel safe! Ugh.
@Daffy
Uh, you tell her you enjoyed her talk, and maybe where (website wise) he could read more or her stuff, or maybe even other conferences she’s attending. Not that thard.
Well said Phil. Those of us men who do “get it” need to stand up in solidarity with women. I’m staggered at how badly wrong Dawkins is (and apparently a large percentage of “skeptic” men are) on this issue. I’m truly disappointed.
I’m glad this issue is getting more play. Feminism is very important and relevant to the skeptical community, because we’re too big for it to not be an issue. Dawkins’ take on the matter underscores a culture of indifference about these mundane, every day serious issues that men simply never have to experience. Thanks, Phil for talking about this.
I’m surprised at how tone-deaf many men are about this. I hadn’t really thought about it much but for my entire adult life, I have always been cautious and strictly polite if I found myself alone with a woman I didn’t know. It just seemed natural that any other behavior, even if completely innocent, could seem threatening when it wouldn’t in another, safer, situation. This isn’t PC, it is common sense.
Maybe Dr. Dawkins’ wife will explain it to him in words he can understand. Or maybe she already tried and failed. It is just something men can never truly understand on that instinctive level. Dr. Dawkins doesn’t get that this man wasn’t asking for coffee, although that is what the words said, he was propositioning her. You don’t ask a woman you don’t know for coffee in your private room at 4am while she in in an small enclosed space. Yes, she could press a button and be let out, but not if she were restrained. It is unlikely that this would happen (cameras in elevators for one thing) but a guy who would attack a woman in an elevator isn’t exactly always rational. Dr. Dawkins is merely ignorant of how this is bad. He can be convinced. He is rational. We just have to be polite and explain it rationally. Anyone who is just attacking him is being stupid. Just look at why he thinks Rebecca was overreacting and calmly and rationally explain why nearly all women in that situation would feel the same. People need to quit saying “you’re just a white dude in your 70s you mysogist prick” and convince him properly. We owe him that much respect, even if he was being a bit of a dick about it.
I think this is an interesting story and even more interesting chain of reactions. I could not have imagined the polarizing nature of such an encounter, but perhaps that is a good thing. What was not inherently obvious to some, is now an opportunity to put the shoe on the other foot.
What troubles me is this, and let me preface this by saying that I wasn’t there in the elevator, so I don’t know what was said verbatim. This guy has rights as well, he has the right to get into an elevator and return to his room. There seems to be an implication that simply his presence on that elevator made the situation a potential threat. If this is the case, should the man have waited for another elevator, as to avoid putting a female in an uncomfortable position?
Is the issue here that he said something? Or was it what he said? Or was it simply his presence? Perhaps a combination of all three?
I think there are potentially dangerous situations that I avoid everyday, but I find it hard to judge a man simply by his presence. In this case, we can judge him by his actions. As I understand it, he got in an elevator to return to his room, and made a pass at a female passenger he admired previously in the day at the conference. Simply because the potential was there for him to cause harm, I have a hard time condemning him of anything other than a tasteless pick up attempt, because, he didn’t cause or attempt to cause any harm.
I’m alone with other people quite often throughout the day, I have the potential to cause harm to any of these people, however I do not. I wouldn’t know how to feel if my mere presence made these people uncomfortable. I have my rights as well, as did this guy in the elevator. He didn’t infringe on anyones rights, he didn’t attempt to cause any harm. He made an inappropriately timed move to hit on a girl. I met my wife in a similar manner, albeit in a more appropriate location and manner.
While the woman has every right to feel uncomfortable, I think it is unfair for label this guy as a predator. He has rights as well. I don’t want women to fear my presence, and I give them no reason to. But sometimes I can’t help where I am, such as leaving a conference and heading back to my room, and that shouldn’t be enough cause to label me a sexual devint.
Still waiting for somebody to ask for the man’s side of events.
*facepalm x infinity*
Wow, Dr. Dawkins, tell me more about the issues that affect me as a woman! I just don’t think you did enough mansplaining.
If you seriously cannot understand the problem with a guy whom this woman has never met asking her to go to his room for “a cup of coffee”, I seriously don’t know what to tell you. Asking a woman to come have a cup of coffee at an actual coffeehouse is exactly what it is and no more. Asking a woman to come have a cup of coffee in your hotel room is propositioning her for sex, full stop. She would have been a fool to accept, especially from a complete stranger – no matter how polite he seemed. Maybe nothing would have happened, I don’t know, but I can say that it would have set off my creep radar all the same.
And it is a mark of your privilege, Dr. Dawkins, that this particular scenario is something you personally will never have to worry about.
Stick to evolutionary biology, please. It’s far easier to respect you when you know what you’re talking about.
What I can’t figure out, is why Dawkins felt the need to say anything at all. It seemed clear to me that he hadn’t watched the video (btw, a lot of commenters didn’t as well), and didn’t really know what he was talking about.
Perhaps it was a bit cowardly for the man to ask her out when he knew she couldn’t easily avoid answering, but aside from that (and the inherent uncomfortableness of it), I have a hard time understanding why this is an issue. Yeah, it wasn’t the best moment to ask; but why should the man be treated as some kind criminal over it?
Just as it would be insulting for me to assume that every moment I spend with other women is a possible sexual encounter, it’s also insulting to treat every moment a woman spends around any man as a potential sexual assault.
As a bit of extra context, Rebecca was also talking in her talk at the WAC, and to many of the attendees in the bar afterwards, about the weird fan / hate mail she had been receiving, which included “weiner” shots and actual threats of rape. “Elevator Guy” really, really should have known better, but that’s what drinking till 4.30 in the morning does to one’s judgement. (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was drunk).
I wonder if Dawkins would have felt differently if a large shabbily dressed man accompanied him in an elevator late at night and asked him, calmly, for $20. Would he have felt comfortable riding the rest of the way up?
Well, I guess I’ll be the first to point out a glaring error in your factual assertions.
It is simply false to say that all women feel that way – particularly in light of the related issue of Rebecca Watson’s abuse of power with respect to a woman who disagreed with her. Or, even, say, some actual women who’ve actually been raped who actually wrote in response to PZ’s actual post saying they actually don’t feel the way you’ve just said they do; congratulations on speaking for people who are publicly telling everyone they don’t feel that way. Like any good dogmatic cause, let’s make sure we do NOT take honest stock of trivialities like what people you’re saying must feel are saying they in reality do not feel.
To say that most men don’t feel as though they’re going to be raped is technically likely to be correct. Feeling, one notes, doesn’t imply rationality. Take us mere gays for example (I note you kindly redacted Jennifer McCreight’s dragging through the mud of the gays in her lecture to Richard Dawkins to make your post not NSFW, and blacks, and jews too!). Our realities of dealing with being raped are similar. But it’s also true that we don’t as a whole “feel” the same. Even though it’s a very real concern for us, the simple fact someone talks to us in a place we wouldn’t necessarily choose doesn’t instill in many of us some reason to claim potential victim status. We face the same very real possibility as many women do. And like many women, we choose to lead our lives understanding that possibility doesn’t equal a reason to live in mortal apprehension of Schroedinger’s Rapist.
Sorry, being emotionally crippled by the possibility that something might someday happen and therefore everyone who is nearby is a potential rapist isn’t an argument that everyone else has to turn out their pockets, and prostrate themselves to alleviate someone’s fear. If a Rebecca Watson chooses to live in fear that every man who dares to speak to her without permission is Schroedinger’s Rapist, so be it. She’s entitled to do that. It’s just not an argument that half of the human race has is obliged to defer to her emotional instability as though it warrants anything other than a reality check.
In fact, almost all of us do that with respect to things far more likely to happen than being raped in a crowded hotel during an international conference of atheists. I note at which, no single rape has ever been reported. If one did, I can rest assured that Rebecca Watson would bilk it for all its worth (like she is with respect to this issue on facebook). Yes, she’s bragging about how her popularity has dramatically increased as a result, and considers it a job well done. Almost like a goal one could “score”.
Speaking of which. Why is this man still anonymous? No description? Others would have seen him since he was with them somewhere in the bar. They would know who he is. A small-time blogger warrants an address in a keynote speech for disagreement, but the would-be/potential rapist she refuses to even say word one about. But you take it hook, line and sinker that he was even a he. She was even in an elevator with another person. People are saying “he” followed her in, which she didn’t say happened. But she won’t correct the story or answer questions because she doesn’t have to. PZ’s apronstrings have done it for her.
Thanks for this, Phil. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion, with people attributing a far more hysterical reaction to Rebecca than she actually had (which is probably also evidence of unconscious sexism, but I digress). All she said was “Guys, don’t do that. It’s creepy, and doubly so when you do it to a woman who just gave a talk about how being sexualized by strangers is creepy.” But the blowing out of proportion has brought to light that even Professor Dawkins is not immune to male privilege.
A point I saw on another blog that really struck home was, amid all the people saying “She doesn’t know his intentions, he probably just wanted an innocent cup of coffee and conversation in his room,” if she’d gone with him and had in fact been raped, a *significant* portion of those same people would be chiming in with “Well, really, she should have known better than to go back to a stranger’s room at 4AM. It’s just naive to think coffee and conversation are all he’s got on his mind.” Can’t win for losing.
A couple links to some blog posts — which were provided in the comments to other posts on this subject — that aren’t about this particular situation, but explain important aspects of the female perspective and male privilege:
“Schrödinger’s Rapist”: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ (Marty #15, read this one for an answer to your question)
“The Parable of the Lizard and the Dog”: https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/
I know it’s a stretch, but what if the person in the elevator was a white man being asked for spare change by a black man? Would they be justified in sending a message to all black men asking them to refrain from this, due to fear of mugging?
This 33-year old woman says: you CAN innocently ask a woman to coffee, but have the brains to invite her to a common area. We don’t mind being asked to coffee, but if we don’t know you, your place (room, home, other territory) is a RED FLAG.
If you ARE soliciting consensual sex, you should still ask her to coffee in a public space first.
I think the bad thing that happened to her was that she was attacked for what she said in that one minute of an eight minute video. She didn’t even seem to think of the elevator scenario as that much of a bad thing, she was just saying: “this happened. This is creepy. This is a bad idea. Guys, please don’t do this”, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for her to say. Then she gets attacked for saying this, as if she’s an evil man hater. None of which changes the elevator situation from bad to good, it’s just that why on earth do people have a problem with her comment on it?
It strikes me that this whole long conversation (argument? Sure) rolls right out of the same cognitive malfunction that creates so many of the problems that drive skepticism. People have to interpret the actions and behaviors of others, and that is hard. Daffy, you say “taken by itself,” and that’s where you’re losing the plot. It would be irresponsible for Rebecca to have taken that comment by itself. This man’s specific behavior and choice of environment were pretty much the worst context he could have created, and while he may not have been a real threat, it was his failure to see how it could look potentially threatening that caused this. Likewise, it is the continued failure of others to see the same that keeps this discussion going. Rebecca was being cautious and that behavior was legitimately creepy. She asked people to consider the way that a person at the other end of their advances will interpret their behavior. That’s all, and she was right. Not everything you do is a potential assault, but you should consider whether it might look that way, say at 4 in the morning, drunk, in a confined place.
Ok, the fact that I can’t read about anything else anymore on all the blogs I read starts to annoy me. I read a lot of bad posts from both sides with sometimes dubious arguments (there are also a lot of different topics being discussed under the same umbrella, like e.g. the way Rebecca used it in her talk, which is a different matter).
I agree that it was creepy from the guy who asked her. I wouldn’t have done it because I get that. This guy didn’t. Since nothing happened we now afterwards know that they guy did not want to assault her or else it would have happened and would have been a different story. I actually think both sides discussing this overreacted and still do and I think that this is normal on such an issue.
I didn’t want to comment on any of it, but then I read this:
“This was a potential sexual assault.”
Yes, like walking along a road with another guy is a potential robbery, or me picking up a knife in my kitchen with other people present is a potential murder.
The logical conclusion is that as soon as you are a man and there is an elevator with already a woman in it, you should wait for the next one.
As I said, it was creepy and every women has the right to think that the guy might have different intentions in that situation. But some women will definitely think this as soon as a guy enters the elevator because it is a confined space. Other will think nothing of it.
Rebecca mentioned it to raise awareness (and could have done so directly to the guy who probably would have apologized a 1000 times). Done. The situation was creepy, but the guy was not a sexual offender and most men are not.
I get the feeling that whole thing only got blown out of proportion because of the second issue of Rebecca mentioning other names in her talk.
Actually, I do think Richard Dawkins has a point. I’m female and feminist, nearly fifty and of fragile build- and yes have found myself in situations I saw had the potential to become dangerous. I also think that demonising men for what they might possibly have done if they had been someone else helps no-one, including women. If you go through life looking for scary stuff you will be sure to find it, and limit your life if you identify as a victim before there is anything to be a victim of. Do a risk assessment is very sensible, as long as you then give the risks a proper weighting without assuming the worst-case scenario every time.
I agree with Daffy. Dawkins made the point very poorly, but a man apparently has to choose his words extra-carefully when chatting with a woman in an elevator alone, or remain completely silent? I do have to wonder if he’d stopped short of asking her up for coffee, would she have thought the same way about him?
Am I to completely change how I do things simply because someone may be uncomfortable for a couple of minutes? Especially since I’m not breaking any laws?
It’s a slippery slope.
I often despair for humanity and here is another example. I find that in an elevator situation, a male should either remain silent and aloof but remotely threatening or be friendly verbal bu potentially threatening. The only option appears to be exiting the elevator thus removing the potential threat. I shall certainly keep this in mind for future. I think I get it. I am sure that the many thousands of encounters such as this which occur daily are statistically in the struck by lightning category. How sad for humanity.
Wow… Jen, Skepchick, PZ and now you Phil? This isn’t even a storm in a teacup at this point, it’s a comet impact in a saucer.
Now, mind you, I’m not talking about the incident itself because I can see where Rebecca has room for some serious concerns. It’s late, she’s with some strange guy in an elevator propositioning her, she has no idea if he’s sane and whether he’ll take no for an answer, etc, etc. I get it. She’s right. It’s stupid, creepy, and if you’re going to invite someone for a cup of coffee, do it somewhere public and invite her somewhere other than your hotel room. The guy was a dolt at best.
Now, with the obligatory exposition that I understand the issue, the aforementioned Category 6 in the proverbial teacup is how many people didn’t just laugh this off and say “wow, what an awkward creep,” and in light of the fact that everything turned out ok, make fun of his attempt at flirting. Why in the name of FSM’s meatballs did Dawkins suddenly butt in to ignite a fury of heated fights about gender, class and privilege? Why did this item have to suddenly become a firestorm and why are there so many twits who can’t use their imaginations about how things can go wrong in confined spaces?
I have been a BA lurker…and a woman.. for quite a few years now and this is the first time I’ve felt the need to comment.
What ridiculous overreaction. “Potential sexual assault”? How so? He asked her for a coffee. She said no. End of story. What if he would have said “nice weather”? Or said nothing at all? What if it was a woman who asked her for coffee? Is this also potential sexual assault?
Good post, Phil. And, in general, I agree. Here’s where I think the disconnect is: the struggle in our societies of finding a balance between male and female perceptions of communication.
Men tend to err in falling back on the tired (Victorian?) trope of women all being hysterical. Women must err on the side of safety, as you explain in your post, but as a result end up grouping all men in the role of (potential) ‘predator’. This leads to very skewed conversations on-line and off.
I have not spent any time wading through the comments in the posts you linked to, so forgive me if this has all been said elsewhere.
Ironically, the problem lies in the fact that we have not really found acceptable replacements for the sexist etiquette we got rid of with the rise of feminism. In the “Good Ol’ Days” it would’ve been unthinkable for a gentleman to proposition a lady in such a fashion in such a place. He would’ve been labelled a ‘cad’ and a ‘blackguard’ and possibly beaten within an inch of his life by other gentlemen the moment they got wind of this behavior.
Today, there is just no social control, or guideline to which men and women can adhere. The individualization of society has fragmented old social controls and eroded the upbringing/mores that could once be depended on to protect women from the ‘predatory’ behavior some men can display.
On the other hand, men are constantly being ‘trained’ by the feminist narrative to see women as equals and to treat them as equally capable in all respects. Of course, these narratives vary, but generally it can lead to confusion over even such innocent things as holding a door open for a lady or insisting on picking up the bill. The narrative of the strong, independent, confident woman is I think misinterpreted by a *lot* of men. No excuse for predatory behavior, of course, but it can certainly explain many mens’ cluelessness over points of social etiquette.
But where does that leave us? I was raised by my parents to be aware of such things, and do my best to behave in a “gentlemanly” fashion at all times: Politeness, a respect for another’s dignity and personal space, consideration for their feelings and keeping an eye open for seeing if anyone (male or female) is in need of assistance. Not everyone has the fortune of receiving such an old-fashioned upbringing.
Back to Ms.(?) Watson and the man in the elevator. If his intent was predatory, he succeeded in making Ms. Watson feel this and perhaps that was the only ‘thrill’ he’d been seeking. If his intentions were benign it would’ve helped if he’d understood the first thing about propositioning women and appreciated how important it is to ensure they’re in a comfortable, public setting with lots of people around. Either way, Ms. Watson’s response was logical and unfortunately inevitable.
Conclusion: Men need to be made more aware, as Ms.Watson has attempted in the video, of the impact of their actions and the contexts surrounding women. It might help if some guidelines and social etiquette was set down somewhere where men would come into contact with it laying out the basic rules of interaction. Also, it would be helpful if women stuck to the same rules of etiquette. It’s not common, but it’s not unthinkable that the roles could be reversed. 😉
Thank you, I will reblog, replay, and retweet this into eternity.
Marty–Decent men aren’t physically identifiable. It’s hard to look at someone and know if their intentions are good or bad.
Just so I’m clear on what we’re saying here… Is it wrong for a man to talk to a woman in an elevator when there’s only the two of them there, or is the line crossed when suggesting something like going to her hotel room for coffee? Reading the post, it wasn’t clear to me where that line was (might be a language/culture thing), so I just wanted to ask.
In any case, I’m on the fence here. I see how Rebecca interpreted the situation as uncomfortable, but I’m also saddened by the fact that all men seem to often be treated as potential sex offenders. Of course, the sad truth is that none of us will ever be able to see it from the other side.
I don’t know whether to classify Dawkins (and the guy in the elevator) as nerds or not, but they both remind me of the kind of nerdy guy I was in high school. I had no luck with girls, for many reasons; but chief among them was my inability to judge appropriate contexts for flirtation. So I often came off as being blunt and pushy because I chose the wrong time, wrong place, and wrong words. Like Dawkins, I couldn’t perceive the woman’s point of view, and thus measure my own words and behavior accordingly. Back then, I might have made a pass at a girl alone in an elevator, because the thought going through my mind would have been: “If I don’t do it now, she’s going to get off the elevator and I’ll never see her again, and she might be THE ONE!” I wouldn’t even consider making that pass as a mature adult, who has been through the dating and marriage game already. Now if I were at a conference, seated next to an interesting woman at dinner, and our conversation was clicking–then I might make a pass, but I’d still ask her to continue our conversation at the Starbucks in the hotel lobby first, not ask her straight up to my room. Hotel room coffee is awful anyway.
I began this blogosphere tempest on the side of Rebecca, PZ, Jen, et al, and now you Phil. I’ve been completely on board the recent push in the community to involve more women and minorities. I genuinely wanted to take Rebecca’s word since she was the one who experienced the event, and I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman.
But. I’ve been uncomfortably veering away from all the so-called feminist bloggers. I think what my problem boils down to is how everyone is conflating being socially awkward with being morally wrong, and how this guy in the elevator, who may well have thought he was being polite, is placed on the same continuum as chauvinists and sex offenders.
I mean Christ, Phil. You called it a “Potential sexual assault […]a potential threat, and a serious one. ” Jen says men don’t know what it’s like to “have people constantly explaining that you’re subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal,” but you’re demonizing this poor guy pretty harshly.
Watson herself, in her opening video, complains of the man “sexualizing” her, as though it were a given that’s all he saw her as.
Believe me, it makes me really uncomfortable to be using “men’s rights” rhetoric. I’m sure it does make women uncomfortable to be alone with a unknown man in confined space. But is the solution discourage interaction between the sexes? Should we have segregated elevators?
Is it helpful to validate the notion that all men are rapists? That’s the kind of mindset that leds to burkas.
Dawkins was clearly going over the top a little on that one, but here’s the problem. She was uncomfortable. The man asked her politely if she would like to come back to his hotel room. She politely declined, and everyone went on their way. Is every action by a male, if one shows interest in a female, a potential sexual attack? She has every right to feel uncomfortable, but shouldn’t be surprised that some may see things differently. Dawkins has a point.
Furthermore, whether in academia or elsewhere, females are still heavily outnumbered and are routinely surrounded a sausage fest. I can understand where she’s coming from, but I think sometimes we live in our own little bubbles, post our narcissistic meanderings online, and further slide down the slippery slopes of humanity.
I see her/your point, but I think the reaction to Dawkin’s is what is really out of line here.
She was uncomfortable, sure. The guy in the elevator was a sleaze, sure. But there was no physical altercation, nor as I understand it, did he continue to pressure her after he declined.
This is a big nothing of a moment being blown way out of proportion and Dawkins was trying to point that out.
I’m with him on this.
There is no such thing as “potential assault”.
Anyone could potentially assault anyone. Phil, if you have ever been in an elevator with a woman, you are guilty of potential assault. In fact, if you have ever held a kitchen knife, you are guilty of “potential murder”, and if you are diving a car you are guilty of potential vehicular manslaughter.
“Potential” crimes is the realm of Minority Report.
Everyone potentially could commit any crime at any time. There are no such things as “potential assaults”. You can attempt assault, but you can’t have potential assault, because then everyone potentially could be an assailant, especially when the only evidence is in the mind of the potential victim.
If no assault was attempted, then there was no potential for assault.
I love you so much right now, Phil. I have been so disheartened by the response by so many men on the internet in regards to this issue. Thank you so much for speaking out so intelligently and passionately about this.
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”
What? Why? That’s a ridiculous and borderline misandrist statement. Oh noes, watch out for the scary SEXUAL AGGRESSOR!!!! Yah right. If anything, the guy in the late night elevator is in the more uncomfortable position.
@15 (Marty)
“I understand both points, and while I don’t necessarily agree with Dawkins on this, why should we treat a non-violent, non-predatory interaction between a man and a woman as a “potential assault”?”
Who is “we” here? Given the statistics on sexual assault of women by men, of course I’m aware that every one-on-one interaction with men in an enclosed space is a potential assault. No, you would never assault a woman; yes, your intentions are pure, but *I don’t know you and I don’t know that.*
It’s just terrible that it’s so hard for men to ask women out in elevators at 4am, but seriously, would you approach a woman walking home alone at 11pm to ask for her phone number? (The right answer is “no, because she would feel threatened.”)
I can sympathize. Any time I walk through a neighborhood consisting mostly of black people, I assume that every one of them wants to murder me, or at the very least take my wallet. Any time anyone so much as looks at me, I feel like I should scold them for their potential assault. I would scold them too, but I’m always afraid that the potential assault could turn into a real assault if I acknowledge their existence. I’m essentialy a victim of potential violent crime at all times when I’m in a black neighborhood. Someone should really do something about that.
Give me a break you guys! Sure it might be creepy, but I’ve been in tons of uncomfortable situations before, and some way more potentially dangerous than this. Asking for coffee in an enclosed space is really a potential sexual assault? Than what isn’t a potential sexual assault. People need to chill out.
This is a stupid argument.
Since even remaining silent in the elevator would make a woman uncomfortable, I think from here on I’ll make a point of getting out of the elevator if the only other occupant is a woman. Seems reasonable.
No one seems to be considering the possibility that Dawkins is just a jerk. One can be a convincing writer, with an admirable intellect, and still be a jerk. In fact, that has been my impression of Dawkins all along. This example reinforces my initial impression of him.
@Eskil – There’s no distinct line. What is wrong is following a woman you’ve never spoken to down a hotel hallway to get to be alone with her in an elevator and ask her to your room. If there’s a line, it’s the moment he decided to get to be alone and isolated with a strange woman at 4 in the morning. Is it wrong in and of itself to talk to a woman in an elevator when you’re alone with her? Not necessarily. Particularly in the middle of the day in a busy place. But in the middle of the night, to seek out being alone in an elevator with a woman as your chance to talk to her – bad idea.
@Daffy
To me, the biggest point was asking to come back to his Room. If he had instead asked if she wanted to meet at the cafe later for coffee or some other public location then it would have been less problematic, and in this case, probably best to wait till the elevator was actually open to allow her the escape route if she felt the need.
There unfortunately does seem to be the attitude that if a man expresses Interest AT all its a potential assault. How does one balance that out?
@David Words Do matter yes, but there is also a responsibility to not take offense too easily. In a functioning society one should strive to not Give offense, but also to gracefully handle the situation when offense if given (which it sounds like Rebecca did).
Phil, I’m really saddened this finally came up on this blog too, but I suppose it’s to be expected since the cool kids atheist clique is rallying around RW at all cost.
But Dawkins is right, Sorry, “what if’s” and “potentials” are not how we treat other people! Anyone can come up with any potential scenario and that does not make it so.
Seriously, would anyone who is supporting RW here put up with the statement that any muslim on a bus is a potential terrorist attacker, so people are right to be creeped out by muslims riding the bus??????? This is the same thing!
How we interact as a society can not be defined by the most hyper sensitive among us, and yes, RW is hyper sensitive, as Stef, and my girlfriend both pointed out, but since they are not as “cool” or popular as RW their opinions don’t seem to count. It seems the world and all human interactions must be viewed through RW eyes alone. Seriously what’s next, RW says that biker guys with beards creep her out, then suddenly guys in harley T-shirts are not welcome at skeptics events?
And yes the ” tangential topics” are just as relevant. Everyone defending RW keeps talking about some “Male privilege” (and by what evidence supposed skeptics have that I or any man has had it in their life is beyond me), but RW also used her privilege status as a speaker, and internet celeb to humiliate someone lesser known than her at a conference, but that’s all ok (or not to be discussed).
Too bad Stef wasn’t in the cool kids atheist clique, then maybe her opinion as a woman on mens behavior would be treated as valid as RW’s!
I think it’s ridiculous to consider what happened in the elevator “potential sexual assault.”
I think it was on “Greg Laden’s Blog” where I found a bunch of quotes from newspaper snippets from assaults to women that happened or started in elevators.
In principle, with his third comment, Richard Dawkins implies that every woman who got assaulted, harassed, molested or raped in an elevator was simply too stupid to push a button. I know I am repeating myself here, but I still find that the most marvellous aspect of all his priviledges-old-white-guy babble.
THAT is seriously something he needs to apologize for.
And as BlagHag already said – it’s so disappointing for anyone who is actually admiring Richard Dawkins otherwise.
My first knee-jerk thought on this subject was “What a lot of fuss about nothing!”, which is probably what Richard Dawkins thought as well, but after reading all the commentary on the subject I see the bigger picture and must admit I have grown up a bit in the last couple of days and have reexamined my attitudes, which is what skepticism is all about. Thank you Phil.
Wow, this whole argument is stunning on many levels.
The first takeaway is, apparently, all men are just seconds away from a sexual assault.
The second takeaway, never talk to a woman unless she has an escape route, and more than two people are present.
Sad planet.
Can’t wait to leave.
I’m glad that in light of this whole thing, a few of you guys are actually taking the time to explain properly why what Dawkins’ said is a problem-especially his third comment. While(if this is what he was even implying) rape culture in one society is not comparable to the rape culture present in another society, women are nonetheless still treated without equity and trivialised and dismissed. Dangerous thinking often leads to the dangerous physical acts that Dawkins mentioned. Internalised sexism is present everywhere, in both Islam dominated countries and Christian ones, and affluent secular ones. It is apparently also present in Dawkins and it is a shame.
When he said he didn’t understand, at least he got that much right.
Knowing that women tend to see all men as potential rapists, I seriosuly always go out of my way to avoid all women as much as practically possible. If I’m walking on the same sidewalk behind a woman at any time I will cross the road to keep as far away from her as possible so she doesn’t get scared. If I’m at a bus stop I will talk to a man standing there ‘cos they wont assume I’m trying to chat them up, but I won’t talk to a woman as she might take it the wrong way, and when I pass through a door I will hold it open if a man is behind me as they won’t assume I’m being sexist, but if it’s a woman I’ll let it close on her so she doesn’t think I’m trying to ‘importune’ her by being polite. No doubt all these actions will be seen as wrong too, but short of killing myself I cannot remove the unintentional threat I pose as a ‘potential rapist’.
Eskil: Light chat in an elevator is fine. Body language is important, too – give plenty of room, and keep your eyes to the front or in eye contact (i.e. not on *her* front). If she doesn’t chat back, don’t be offended, just get off at your floor.
The problem here is that there really is no non-skeevy way to get from “complete strangers” to “come back to my hotel room” over the course of an elevator ride.
@Marty – I understand that you feel a bit defensive about this. You seem to be a decent man who is respectful of women, so I’m sure you can understand the bigger issue here. It’s not really about Rebecca’s reaction to the situation, it’s about Dawkins’ reaction to Rebecca’s reaction. He’s basically saying “shut up, you have nothing to complain about, nothing bad happened to you physically so it’s all fine.” That is WRONG. Having to live with anxiety or fear for your safety is emotionally stressful. No one said men should not approach women or that we view every approach as a potential sexual assault. We want you to approach us – that’s why we put on makeup and wear pretty dresses and go to bars. What we’re asking for is some understanding of how being cornered and propositioned makes us feel. Having men use a little better judgement about when and where they approach a woman is not too much to ask. And having a leader of the skeptic movement be so sarcastic, condescending and dismissive of that request is appalling.
@Marty – I understand that you feel a bit defensive about this. You seem to be a decent man who is respectful of women, so I’m sure you can understand the bigger issue here. It’s not really about Rebecca’s reaction to the situation, it’s about Dawkins’ reaction to Rebecca’s reaction. He’s basically saying “shut up, you have nothing to complain about, nothing bad happened to you physically so it’s all fine.” That is WRONG. Having to live with anxiety or fear for your safety is emotionally stressful. No one said men should not approach women or that we view every approach as a potential sexual assault. We want you to approach us – that’s why we put on makeup and wear pretty dresses and go to bars. What we’re asking for is some understanding of how being cornered and propositioned makes us feel. Having men use a little better judgement about when and where they approach a woman is not too much to ask. And having a leader of the skeptic movement be so sarcastic, condescending and dismissive of that request is appalling.
I’m not going to pretend that what he did wasn’t creepy, and that it wasn’t wrong. It absolutely was. But was it sexism? No, it was a misguided bit of drunjen flirting. It may just me misandry to assume that all men with sex drives are rapists, though.
I think the problem with this issue is that it sucks both ways, but most people don’t look at it both ways.
It sucks for the women because they do live in a world of caution, where every situation must be diligently monitored to prevent harm.
It sucks for the men because those of us who are decent folk get lumped in the same category as those that aren’t when women make judgement calls about potential harm.
It sucks more for the women, obviously, because they have the real issue of being hurt and having to live in the world with more fear than a man; men just have the issue of feeling sorry for themselves, mostly, which is justified to an extent but not as big a deal. What Dawkins and others fail to get is that the levels of suckiness are nowhere near equal. This doesn’t make people like him bad, don’t get me wrong, just a little un-empathetic towards this particular issue.
It’s a common saying that patriarchy hurts everyone, and that’s exactly the point here. It doesn’t hurt everyone equally, though.
Phil, you have made a grave error in my opinion:
Everything is a potential sexual assault. Whether you’re walking down the street on a bright sunny day, minding your own business; or whether you’re running naked through a room full of sex offenders, the potential for sexual assault is ALWAYS there.
By viewing this elevator proposition as some kind of prelude to sexual assault you are, at once:
a) Cheapening real sexual assault by lumping it in with the most trivial, and dare I say natural, of activities;
b) Trotting out a tired old canard of the Patty Dworkin era that any contact with a man is a potential sexual assault (she also felt that all penetrative sex was rape);
c) Justifying an old opinion that women are the weaker sex and need to be protected from evil, nasty men who are all potential perverts waiting to pounce on some poor innocent
If you are a woman, it is likely that at some point some heterosexual men (and maybe even some homosexual women) will proposition you. That is not a “potential sexual assault”, it’s just human nature… instinct. It’s perfectly normal. Whether someone feels threatened in those situations is another issue and that is absolutely NOT the fault of the person propositioning if they are not otherwise behaving in a threatening manner.
In fact, thinking in these lines, how would this discussion have unfolded, do you think, if the person in the elevator wasn’t a man, but a woman who had invited her to the hotel room? That’s just as much a potential sexual assault, but I’m willing to conjecture that this whole public spectacle wouldn’t have taken place.
What about if it was you in the elevator, Phil, and some woman invited you back for a coffee with an obvious wink-wink-nudge-nudge sort of way about her? That’s “potential adultery”… hell, maybe she’s potentially leading you on to blackmail you later! “Potential blackmail” Do you see where this “potential” stuff leads?
When I pick up a steak knife, it’s a potential murder of anyone around me and I’m sure glad people aren’t going to pillory me in public because they feel threatened that I want my dinner in bite-sized chunks.
There sure are alot of assumptions working here.
How do we know that the guy wasn’t gay? What’s with the automatic implication that he was propositioning her? If Ms. Watson is so terrified about finding herself ‘trapped’ in an elevator with a man, she should think about taking a self defense course. I don’t feel like she is doing the feminist movement any good by reinforcing the stereotype that women are shrinking violents who must be tip-toed around for fear of offending their delicate sensiblities. That doesn’t sound very ‘equal’ to me.
Ovary up, Ms. Watson.
Just to throw this out there, but anyone who’s heard Dawkins speak…haven’t we already kind of seen this dickish behavior from him already? I’ll always listen to him on evolution and such, and he’s a big promoter of the separation of church and state, but I’m not sure I’d want to talk to him outside of that.
@Eskil,
“… is the line crossed when suggesting something like going to her hotel room for coffee?”
Yes. If you really want to invite a woman for coffee and happen to catch her in an elevator, what about saying “hi, I enjoyed your talk,” waiting until one of you arrives to your floor and steps out of the elevator, then ask her if she’d like to get coffee “sometime” and swap contact info if she’s interested? Not exactly rocket surgery and eliminates the whole hotel room/enclosed space problem.
I agree with Phil. Men should be prohibited from riding in elevators with women. We need separate elevators. That way no one will ever feel in danger.
Interesting topic. As a chick, I would have felt uncomfortable too, considering how inappropriate it was to ask her back to his room. If you don’t understand why it was inappropriate, what’s the first thing you think of when a guy asks a girl back to his hotel room? So yes, duh, of course it felt like a proposition. And IMO women shouldn’t have to put up with being propositioned by complete strangers in elevators. Arguments that it’s “biologically natural” for men to hit on women are ridiculous. Humans have the capacity to be polite to each other and avoid being inappropriate/creepy. Otherwise humans would act like ducks, gang raping each other at any opportunity.
Does it surprise me? No. Have I had to put up with worse behavior from men? Yes, and it really emotionally f’s with you. Is that a big part of why I do kung fu and jiu jitsu? Yes.
Am I appreciative that I live in a country where I can have a job and don’t need a male proxy to vote? Yes. That’s different though. Bringing up genital mutilation in a thread on first-world gender issues sounds an awful lot like Godwin’s law.
A scenario that would feel similar to me as the elevator case, would be if she were in the corner of a room alone and he was standing in front of her, blocking her in, with his arm on one wall (this is a stereotypical enough situation that I hope people can visualize it). There might be other people in the room and the woman in that situation will still likely feel trapped, so whatever is said, no matter how polite, will be coloured by the situation.
I realize that many men won’t see a parallel. In the case I am discussing the man is going out of the way to block her in, whereas in the elevator it is likely just chance that they are alone. That doesn’t change the feeling I would have of being trapped and unable to leave if the situation is uncomfortable, and again, the situation will end up colouring any words that are said, no matter how polite.
Are there worse situations in the world? Definitely.
Should that stop us from learning from this? No.
Maybe I’m not really getting this situation correctly, but it seems like a guy asked out a girl, she shot him down, he said okay and left her alone, and then she proceeded to post on a blog how creepy and disgusting it felt? And now it’s suddenly being compared to sexual assault? I’m sure every unattractive man who’s ever been shot down by a woman is going to feel pretty crappy about themselves seeing as they’re all horrible sexual predators. I’m not kidding here, I really want to know…am I missing something?
Some people I worked with years ago said they lived in fear of something happening to them as they drove to work. The office was location in a predominately black neighborhood, one which I grew up, yet these people lived in rural white areas. These were men and women. Their fear was genuine. The talked of how unsafe they felt when someone on the street came up to them. In this case it was not potential sexual assault, but potential murder. Their fear was real. This was a time when kids were killed over tennis shoes. Yet I was unwilling to label every black person on the street as a potential killer, any more than I would label every man in an elevator a potential rapists.
I believe I do understand the feeling this person had, and she has a right to have them and express them. I do not believe anyone has the right to label the other person as a potential rapist, even if he did have the stupidity to ask a women to his room for coffee in a society that sees such a thing as taboo. You do that at bars. The problem I see is that we go around labeling people. It is true that some situations are potentially dangerous, and in those case provisional labels are useful, and acting on those labels prudent. But prudent precautions and fear are different. in this case, the vast majority of rapes are committed to someone known by the victim.
Fear is what this is all about. We are always in danger. It is part of life. Risk levels cannot be put to zero, and it is those who will take risks that push the limits of a posteriori knowledge rather than hiding behind a priori facts. It is in the interest to keep some people in a state of constant fear so they do not go our and do great things.
Wow, it wasn’t long before the jerks defending male privilege turned up.
I think some of the comment in support of Rebecca is also becoming similarly tone-deaf.
It took me awhile to understand and accept the concept of privilege (and I’m still constantly learning — I had similarly reserved reactions to this incidence as those who are siding with the man, but through reading the thoughtful, rational comments, began to see where the problem was…and I am a young female) and it wasn’t through reading absolutely assured statements such as “he was propositioning her”.
That’s bad skepticism, you don’t know what his intentions were with any more degree of certainty than Rebecca. We know that it was a /potential/ intention, one with a great likelihood based on his choice of hypothetical venue (his room), time (4AM), and the way that he asked her; those are the choices we are criticizing, and rightfully so, and that is the crux of the situation. Choices, and namely how they affect others.
Likewise, the lesson that needs to be hammered through here to the men who are feeling offended is that although we don’t know his intentions for sure, his intent is not the point, and neither is “omg lol all men wanna rape wimmens!!!”. If you are uncomfortable with a level of scrutiny being leveled on your own (even potential) actions, if you are unwilling to put a magnifying glass to your own personal ideologies and consider that you have a level of power/influence that you are responsible for, then perhaps it’s time to rethink just how skeptical you really are.
Huh. Seems to be a lot of guys whose first reaction to this is some variation of “Geez, how am I supposed to talk to a woman without being creepy?”
Here’s a nice rule of thumb: if you have to ask, don’t talk to women you don’t know. You’re not ready yet.
100% behind Dawkins on this.
This was a “potential sexual assault”? A woman feeling threatened just by being in an elevator with a man is offensive towards men, no?
Might as well say that every time I walk past a black person on the street is a potential robbery.
I completely agree that hitting on her in that way was a poor thing to do and that it understandably made her uncomfortable. What worries me though is the idea that what he did was morally wrong in some way.
Should members of a group be responsible for what other members do? Should one be morally obligated to make sure people don’t feel uncomfortable because of actions by other members of the group? I’m guessing if the person in the elevator was a lesbian woman, it might still be uncomfortable, but wouldn’t have raised this level of outrage. The reason is of course that men are far more likely to rape (way way way more).
You are more likely to be robbed in the states by someone who is black than any other race (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html). Should black people feel morally obligated to not act in certain ways around white people in case they come off as a potential robber? One could argue it’s the wise thing to do, but I can’t bring myself to think it should be morally obligated.
MarkW – it’s subjects like this that prove that ‘male privilege’ is a myth. We’re not privileged enough to have our side of the story heard before we are judged. You’re convicting people of thoughtcrime here, surely people realise that?
I have to disagree with you Phil. There is something that you don’t understand here.
You are right, men don’t understand what women go through. You are right, men don’t experience the fear of rape. But there is something else.
Intention matters, whether you like it or not. It matters in court when we judge criminals, it matters in relationships when solve problems, it matters when we debate. I am a modern young man, who grew up in a society where women are empowered. I was taught to respect them and always felt like their equal. Don’t you see that it’s GOOD that I can’t understand this fear? You see the problem is, I can easily imagine myself as the guy in that elevator, asking this question without a shred of bad intention, without the thought of rape ever crossing my mind.
What’s the goal of the feminist movement Phil? To create a world where women do not have to fear men. You participated in building this world. I participate in actuating it. I try to make it a reality, by showing them that they do not have to fear me.
Blaming this guy just on the situation, without more detail on his intentions, will perpetuate the fear and delay equality. It DOES matter what his intentions were.
So here’s what I’ve learned from all this: I am not always aware of my own privilege as a white male. Upon (re)watching Rebecca’s original video, her point is fairly basic and fairly clear: This situation is not acceptable, don’t do this. Dawkins responses are more about the furor surrounding the incident than the incident itself, and frankly miss the key point. Don’t proposition (even innocently) a strange woman in an elevator, because there is a subtext there that you are probably not aware of. Your intent is irrelevant. This is not acceptable behavior.
I never really thought about the subtext of a woman alone with a strange man in a non-public (or yes, even a public) space. It didn’t occur to me because it’s not part of my experience. It sure as hell will occur to me to think about my interactions in the future. Granted, I’m not involved in the dating scene, but whether or not I AM a threat (I’m really, really not) I MAY be perceived as a threat, and it behooves me to act as a decent human in these circumstances and not increase the anxiety of another person.
From now on I’m going to refer to all my conversations with women as “potential sexual assaults.” e.g., “I potentially sexually assaulted my mom this morning to wish her a happy birthday.”
I really hoped that this wouldn’t have grown into such a controversy.
Rebecca felt uncomfortable with the way a fan interacted with her and, in her way, requested that men refrain from interacting with her in that way. Totally reasonable. That should have been the end of it.
I am a six foot tall 300 pound man, apparently scary looking man. I know that I have to consider how I appear to others when trying to approach strangers. I quite often overcompensate and end up seeming meek or shy in those situations.
I do not consider myself dangerous or threatening at all, but as a rule, I need to try to see how I may appear to others because if I make others uncomfortable when trying to interact, I have failed.
One should never back someone into a corner, nor make advances in a steel box with no instant escape. If someone feels threatened, it doesn’t matter how soon in actual time the elevator doors may open, it can seem to be an eternity of fear, or at least discomfort.
And if you ARE attempting to get laid, I can’t see how being perceived as a threat is going to help you in the long run.
I’m sorry, but this was no more a “potential sexual assault” then a man walking behind a woman on a street, or a male employee helping his fellow female employee bring a heavy item to the back of the store, or any other hundreds of situations where a woman finds herself alone and somewhat confined with a man.
I suppose that one-on-one conversation with an African American in the convenience store I had today was a potential murder or hate crime, right? And that day I babysat my nephew was a potential child abuse?
If your argument is that anyone can do any number of bad things at any time, then I agree.
-edit- I see a number of other readers have been similar points as mine. Nonetheless, it requires repeating: Intention matters.
Rebecca felt threatened. That’s really all that matters. She is letting men know what behavior men do that might sometimes threaten women. Men for the most part are clueless about everything. Giving the man on the elevator the benefit of the doubt, he was probably clueless too. He really should know better, but might not because nobody ever told him his behavior spooked them. Kudos to Rebecca for saying it.
As a sciency aside, though. Does anyone else here think of the chapter in Pinker’s The Language Instinct (I think) where he discusses language idioms. By asking “Do you want a cup of coffee?” the man is obviously alluding to sex, but giving himself and the askee a face-saving cover story if either “yes” or “no” is the answer. It’s a fascinating chapter. But anyway, kudos to Rebecca for speaking up. And us men, and those raising boys to become future men, should listen, take it to heart, and be more considerate in the future.
It astounds me that Dawkins can make the statement
and not realize that he is saying that 1. hitting on someone in an elevator is okay because it’s the same as intentionally offending someone and 2. the heightened value of Rebecca’s safety was a fantasy in her own mind.
@Evolving Squid Try thinking of “potential assault” not as a binary state, but a sliding scale. It is not that things are or are not potential assaults, but one must evaluate the actions of others to find out how much of a potential assault they might be, and you, when dealing with others, should be aware of where your actions might fall on that scale regardless of your real threat level toward them. You know how much of a potential threat you are, but how will they know, exactly?
What Richard said was indeed odd and offensive, and deserves some backlash. But his plain point was this – the guy was rude, made her uncomfortable, but jumping to the conclusion of “potential sexual attacker” is also a bit over the top. If every man with a rude remark was a potential attacker, women would never leave the house. Yes, there are major douches out there (and some of them are worldwide recognised professors), but if you see them all as threats then it also stinks of prejudice, doesn’t it?
Now I’ll go read the links and what, if anything, has RW replied to RD. Oh boy
I agree with others here that there’s a whole collaboration of factors that made this situation utterly less than ideal, and one in which I’d have been worried had it been me.
I’m a woman who has had a sexual assault attempted on her. This was a highly public area yet crowded, where one can easily “get lost” in said crowd, and it was instigated by the then-boyfriend of a longtime friend of mine (not a total stranger, but not someone I knew very well at that point). There had been red flags prior to the actual attempt, ones that I ignored 1) out of politeness (I mean, socially, I would assume people would consider it “rude” to accuse someone of premeditating sexual harrassment or rape — and it was doubly uncomfortable that it was the man my friend was dating at the time) and 2) because I was a bit tipsy (as could be expected for one out at a dance club for the evening). Because I ignored those, I quite nearly might have been raped, had I not managed to, as the ill-tempered four year-old in the supermarket does, sink to the ground, all dead weight, making it harder for him to continue pulling me by my arm into the stall of a unisex bathroom. That people happened in at that moment (and it probably didn’t look like a sexual assault attempt to them, really, just a drunk girl who had lost her balance and fallen on the floor) saved me.
So there’s no way I could ever fault this woman for being preemptive even to the “extreme” that she was in this instance. The cultural joke concerning the implications of “coming up for coffee” late at night is quite an obvious one; and to those not in the know (perhaps Mr. Dawkins, in this instance), we should set the record straight. An invitation for coffee at such an incredibly late hour, ESPECIALLY in something so private as one’s hotel room (as opposed to an actual house with other rooms wherein the predominate features are NOT furniture upon which one typically engages in sex), is a pretty unambiguous suggestion. To do this to a woman in a confined space (and at that moment, it WAS a confined space — and at four in the morning, it would be safe to assume the corridors that would eventually open up to them might be sparsely populated, as well, creating a perfect opportunity for him to follow her, uninterrupted, to her hotel room) is in poor taste, AT BEST.
I have no idea if Mr. Dawkins will see this, but I think this is a sufficient and quite respectful explanation (even if part of it is anecdotal) of why she took this instance so seriously. Sexual assault is nothing one can ever predict; you’re either well on your guard, or you’re caught completely off-guard (and it’s really only blind luck as to whether or not you, as a woman, are strong or clever or simply strategically located enough to evade your attacker). Sure, women’s rights suffer elsewhere far more than ours here in America, but situations are relative. We’ve never grown up in a society where we’re genitally mutilated or beaten for the “crime” of BEING raped; however, we HAVE grown up in a society where rape is still especially hard to prosecute, resulting in few reported rapes *because* of the character attack a woman tends to endure in trying to bear out the truth of a rape; because of the often private and intimate nature of it, it’s usually the credibility of the person bringing charges that is put on trial.
Men, while they have their own unique issues as a subsect of humanity, very rarely have to deal with this in an everyday setting. Men are raped, absolutely, but statistically, only 10% of rape victims are male and most are children raped by larger children or adults. There’s always a power-struggle involved, usually a physical difference in power and size. Our biology alone subjects us to the majority of the risk. We’ve had to adapt our behavior and the way we look at situations to avoid this kind of attack.
Surely you can understand this, if you’re truly trying.
just because the situation COULD have been bad doesnt mean it was bad, it seems like a man was shocked at his luck and decided to take a chance, he was turned down and all parties involved went on with their lives.
i can see how it might have been scary or awkward, but unless you can prove the man had made a threatening advance of any form, i see no foul.
all i do see is blatant sexism. not male priviledge, but rather female priveldge. somehow this whole article seems to be attempting to prove that what transpired is irrelevent because how the woman interpreted it is teh way everyone should interpret it.
its no different than being in an elevator with a bunch of young black men and fearing for your life and running out the door first chance you get. Their only crime is encountering you ina confined area.
i side with dawkins, that mans only crime was poor timing, if he had ran into her at a bar the exact same scene would have transpired but never would have been newsworthy. the only difference is enviroment, and perspective
I read and respect most of the players mentioned in this little drama. My take on it is that Dawkins perceived the situation as over-dramatized. I think he’s right to point out that she wasn’t actually assaulted on the elevator, nor did she seem to suspect any immediate, imminent danger. She found the situation distasteful (as do I) and deflected it without escalation.
This *should* have been the end of the tale. Except that, this time, there are some very high-profile players in the drama. If the comments posted by Dawkins had been posted by any other random reader, this *would* have been the end of the tale.
In the long run, Richard Dawkins is an admirable and important person in the scientific community. He is not – as I’m sure he’d agree – not perfect, not faultless. Perhaps this is some kind of person pet issue of his; we don’t know. He wrote a few blog comments and inadvertently ignited a controversy.
To resume what I think his original intent was: let’s all settle down, let’s all regain some perspective. What happened in that elevator was unpleasant, unsettling, and Dawkins probably shouldn’t have tried to downplay the young woman’s fears. However, his body of work outweighs this handful of clumsy sentences.
I propose we give it a rest and go about our business. We’ve got much more important things to debate than whether or not Richard Dawkins can be abrasive.
Sigh, not on this blog as well…
Elevator guy: Inappropriate, probably creepy, at least Watson felt he was (which is her right). We have no source for his behaviour apart from Watson’s video, so I can’t say anything else.
Stef McGraw: While quite a few people disagree with her, I can’t say that her experience and opinion is any less valid than others.
Rebecca Watson: Used her position of power to belittle Stef who was (unprepared and surprised) in the audience and had no good chance to reply without making it all about her, dragging her post out and comparing it to youtube comments about rape. In short: A bully.
Dawkins: Bad form, but not as bad as Watson. Always saw him as a bit stuffy anyway.
In short: I lost some respect for Dawkins, but much more for Watson who behaved completely unprofessional. Her video was ok (no naming and shaming there), but the talk she held later was moronic and inappropriate)
“What’s the goal of the feminist movement Phil? To create a world where women do not have to fear men.”
Uh, no. To create a world where women are seen as equal to men.
Watched the video, don’t think that Rebecca Watson was being unreasonable. She finds it creepy, and encourages people not to do that. Okay.
Phil, calling it “potential sexual assault”? As others have pointed out, that covers any interaction at all, pretty much.
But here’s the question–if someone makes me nervous when they share my space or interact with me, is that their fault? What if I have crime statistics to point to that show that that person is more likely than average to commit a particular sort of crime against me? If I’m walking to my car in a nearly-deserted underground parkade and a black guy tells me, “Hey, nice car”, is that a potential carjacking? Should he have known better than to exert his black privilege against me?
Yes, my example is a bit offensive, but the point is to show that the principle being suggested here is one that I don’t think most people would consider a valid one.
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”
Right..
No matter which way I look at it, Richard was clearly wrong. Rebecca mentions in the video she was “incredibly uncomfortable” and the incident was brought up by various bloggers. Even if Richard was arguing against the attention it was receiving over other, more serious manifestations of male privilege, the incident was clearly serious enough to Rebecca to mention it in her video.
I feel like I just lost a mentor.
Seems to me that this guy tried to make a bold, and clearly misguided, attempt to pickup a woman that he found attractive .. It’s difficult to know what really happened since both people were clearly not on the same wavelength.
However, stating that the next obvious step is a sexual assault is a bit rich. Maybe that might have happened in this situation (I don’t know what the tone of the conversation was really like) but probably not. Otherwise we should shut down every bar and nightclub in the land in case any guy attempts to pickup a girl and if he is rejected will immediately resort to rape …
Let me start by saying: I agree with you, Phil.
I’m a young woman currently attending CMU, in pursuit of my MS. I’m in a male-dominated field (in fact, there are no women in the MS program at all, though there are some in the greater department). I see stuff like this happen all the time, where men just don’t realize how women feel every day.
For example:
When I was attending a “meet-and-greet” at CMU this spring, the incoming students had lunch with the current students – a mix of MS students and PhD students. Several men asked where the bathroom was and went, and a short time later I got up to use the restroom as well. Jokingly I said “I assume the women’s bathroom is in the same place? Next to the men’s?” and got blank stares in return. The men in the program actually looked around the room, baffled as to where the women’s bathroom was. A woman – a PhD student – luckily was there and said “Yes, it is. But don’t use the stall closest to the wall: there’s a window there without a shade on it and I saw a guy on the roof the other day looking in.”
Obviously everyone in the room – myself and my male colleagues – were shocked. She hurried on to explain that it seemed like he was a worker, and he wasn’t actually looking in on purpose, he was just RIGHT THERE since the roof butted up against the window. Still, she went on, they were looking into getting some curtains on that troublesome window.
Anecdote #2:
Before that same trip I was supposed to be assigned a current student to room with for the two nights I was up there. Because my field is notoriously laid-back, no one really got back to me about where I was staying until I received an e-mail from a strange man the night before I was scheduled to fly out. He introduced himself as a young man in the program and as the person I’d be staying with. I had received no confirmation from the department about this, and was feeling – understandably, I think – uncomfortable with sharing a house for two nights with two men I had never met before in my life, and had no character references on.
I looked up the young man online, confirmed that he was in the program, packed my mace and hopped on the plane. There was nothing I could do about the situation. When I got there I joked with the young man (who is a lovely, upstanding person, but I didn’t know this going in) about how awkward it was, and he kind of shrugged and had a look on his face that said the thought had never occurred to him that this would be uncomfortable for me.
(As it is, I had a great time visiting, and am looking forward to attending this fall. But that doesn’t change how nervous I felt going into these situations – and I’m a pretty physically tough chick.)
These are the kinds of things that just DON’T occur to men – and probably occur even less to academic men, who have a tendency to be off in their head even more than the average man. This isn’t to say men are stupid or anything – they just don’t have to THINK about this all the time:
Do I have my keys out? Should I have parked down that alley? The movie let out later than I thought it would and the parking lot is dark. I don’t want to run into 7-11 for cigarettes now, because there’s a large group of men milling about inside the store. That guy behind me is walking a little close – should I be worried? Some guy rear-ended me on a lonely stretch of road – should I even get out of my car?
All of these are things that women live with every day of our lives, because the world can be a violent, mean place sometimes, and these are just basic realities of life. I wish it wasn’t like that, because I’m sick and tired of having to devote any part of my brain to worrying about stuff like this. But it is, and I do. Because otherwise I could end up being another victim, and that’s my worst fear.
Hopefully this helps bring someone out there to more of an understanding.
Cheers,
Vincenza
@DiscountDeity
Equivalent in that context, and at worst, one implies the other.
I would have to say I agree with Mr. Dawkins. The potential for offense is not offense. The only thing the gentlemen in question did wrong was show interest in getting to know her in the only setting that opportunity provided. If anything this article reeks of anti-male sexism. The mere fact he was a male automatically made him a potential rapist. It frustrating being the villain because I am a white male. I think I am a fairly nice person.
Of course the guy was creepy…What’s weird to me is I thought all the ruckus was about Rebecca Watson mentioning some random blogger by name in her speech? Wasn’t that was the initial hoo-ha was about?
love the debate…
being a male human, I agree that I don’t understand how female humans feel in such a situation.
I have seen an explosion of posts on this topic on most of the skeptic/atheist/feminist blogs I follow. For a while, I didn’t understand why the brouhaha. You are right Phil when you say:
[…]
… in general aimed at the skeptical and atheist movements. .But this is far, far larger than that. This is a societal issue; sexism (conscious or otherwise) is still a strong force in our society .
[…]
After reading the original blogposts by rebecca and stef, and the comments on them, I am leaning towards rebecca’s argument ( http://goo.gl/3hbPg ) that:
[…]
for the men (and women) who are behaving in sexist and destructive ways, I hope that pointing it out to them has the effect of making them consider their actions and stop being sexist and damaging.
[…]
So, I guess the ideal would be to have two separate elevators. One for men, one for women. That way NO ONE has to feel uncomfortable and we can avoid all these terrible instances of ‘potential assault.’
Because it seems that simply a man’s ‘presence’ in the elevator is a threat to a lone woman. So, let’s keep ’em separated.
‘Potential assault’ is everywhere, at all times. A person can haul off and punch you with no warning at any time. A person can pull a knife and stab you for no reason. All things are ‘potential.’
This is a semantic argument.
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent … a potential threat, and a serious one.”
What gets me about some of the subtext of this story is the implication that a man simply getting on an elevator in this situation is doing the woman serious harm, even if he never says a word. Fine, the pickup attempt was a really bad move, but I’m getting the impression that the guy’s deserving of condemnation merely for being a man on an elevator.
Are able-bodied men morally obligated to take the stairs? Seriously?
I think this whole thing is shameful and unfortunate. I should no more be considered a “potential sexual predator” because of what other men have done in the past, than all African-Amercian/black males should be treated as gang members or crack addicts. What does that say about us? I’m not discounting that women “do” or even “must” feel this way because “you never know,” but change the descriptor from guy in an elevator to something else, and it quickly becomes offensive and perhaps illegal.
What a sad society we’ve become, because I can honestly agree with Rebecca, even though I shoudn’t “have to.”
I really hope Gary’s comment, above, was at least partly tongue-in-cheek, but I have to admit, it has a certain charm of self-preservation about it.
CJSF
I’ll make a note to never talk to a woman I don’t know if she doesn’t have an escape route. But I’d like to make the reverse point. Women just don’t know what it’s like to be a guy, where you are always considered a potential rapist (or pedophile! we have penises and we just can’t control them!!!), so you better not say or do anything too friendly to anyone.
I’m a perfectly nice guy, I’m uncomfortable most of the time, and I’m thoroughly harmless. Ladies, I may not actually be physically stronger than you. But, if I had the courage at that moment, I would not have realized that talking to a woman on an elevator is a mistake (although I would have the sense not to ask her to my hotel room). Bam, now I’m a potential rapist in someone’s eyes.
Sure, it’s preferable to living in constant fear of rape, but it’s still stupid that I get thrown in that bin just because I have the Y chromosome. I guess we can all agree to hate rapists for both selfish and unselfish reasons.
Squid: “Everything is a potential sexual assault. Whether you’re walking down the street on a bright sunny day, minding your own business; or whether you’re running naked through a room full of sex offenders, the potential for sexual assault is ALWAYS there.”
Magnum: “Might as well say that every time I walk past a black person on the street is a potential robbery.”
Well that depends on the circumstances, doesn’t it? If you want to be as wonky as possible, sure, you can be sexually assaulted at any time, just like you could be killed in an accident at any moment. However, there are degrees of how severe the risk is. Walking down the street on a sunny day in a busy neighborhood with passing police cars? The risk is rather low. Running naked through a room of sex offenders in an empty warehouse on the outskirts of town? The risk is a lot higher.
Same goes for the racist mugging stereotypes. If you pass a black person on the street, the risk of you being mugged is statistically insignificant. If you pass a black person who suddenly turns around and starts following you with disturbing determination, your risk of being may have just went up. Same goes with a heavily tattooed skinhead. He might leave you alone or he might chase you down and beat you because you looked Jewish to him. Again, it all depends on the context of the situation.
Propositioning a woman in an elevator in the middle of the night carries a higher risk of a potential sexual assault than asking her if she’s like to get some coffee in the lobby.
back to Squid: “… trotting out a tired old canard of the Patty Dworkin era that any contact with a man is a potential sexual assault (she also felt that all penetrative sex was rape)”
Except you’re the one doing that. None of the women commenting on the issue seem to have a problem with sex or men in general. Just creeps. And hey, let’s keep in mind that there are also rather creepy women out there who do very stalkerish things to get male attention. It’s just that we have a much lower risk of sexual assault against us due to a wide variety of factors.
If he was better looking or possibly younger, she would have been flattered.
I am a male feminist, but I also understand how ‘it’ works. Dawkin’s is right on this one.
I certainly don’t think it is right, but I’ve said before: “Men don’t get dirty, they just get old.”
I dunno, there can be a lot said for one’s own perceptions clouding the issue. Potentially anywhere or any situation could be an area of “potential assault”. Potential exists everywhere.
As someone with anxiety problems, I see potential dangers everywhere and it constantly keeps me on edge. Through mindfulness training, I’m learning that I’m reading a lot into all situations. The potential for anything exists– including getting hit on the head by an meteorite when I go outside. Admittedly so is the potential for getting assaulted in an elevator. But is that fear legitimately founded? Perhaps in this case it is, but in many cases I am learning that fear is just that– fear.
Our society is overburdened with fear– and yet each year we actually are having fewer and fewer crimes, deaths, assaults, etc. Things are actually getting safer and safer. And yet our children are not even let out of the house anymore to walk to school.
Let go of your fears, everyone. Sometimes a polite request by a gentleman can be just that.
@Jonathan
Thank you.
“A point I saw on another blog that really struck home was, amid all the people saying “She doesn’t know his intentions, he probably just wanted an innocent cup of coffee and conversation in his room,” if she’d gone with him and had in fact been raped, a *significant* portion of those same people would be chiming in with “Well, really, she should have known better than to go back to a stranger’s room at 4AM. It’s just naive to think coffee and conversation are all he’s got on his mind.” Can’t win for losing.”
This is such a great point.
@Mark
Apparently. I’m deeply insulted by this.
Why was this a deal at all? Maybe Dawkins was being sexist, but Rebecca was being sexist first. Someone asked her to his room for coffee, she said no, and he dropped it. Where’s the deal? Where’s the part that’s worth saying anything about? She chose to complain about it and put it online. She chose to take it the way she took it.
I’m the security director at a conference. If an attendee came to me with something like this, there is literally zero to do. Nothing at all. We have real issues to deal with. There’s no “potential sexual assault” here at any point. If he’d followed her, gotten forceful, or wouldn’t drop it, then there is concern, but there wasn’t here. She said no and it was case closed for him, but she sexistly decided that because this was a man, he was a potential sexual predator.
This may sound insensitive, but grow up. Dawkins may have been out of line, but I found Rebecca’s reaction to the initial proposition to be completely over the top, out of line, and sexist and demaning toward men.
I have to agree with Dawkins here.
Would you accept this argument if a white person said he was intimidated by a black person walking down the street?
No – you’d call it what it is: racial stereotyping.
The sexist here is Watson, not Dawkins, and you shouldn’t encourage it.
The worst that can be said of Dawkins is that he used bad taste in pointing to Watson’s experience specifically to highlight the treatment of women in certain Muslim communities.
If I remember my old non verbal communications course that I took ages ago, every person has “zones” of personal space which they feel comfortable in a given level of intimacy. These zones vary depending on culture and personality but the basic problem is that if onversation is initiated at a level inside the proper “zone” that conversation forces a level of intamicy that might be uncomfortable (and to use a non sexual reference that drill sergent who just doesn’t yell in your face but yells within 6″ of your face is trying to deliberately make you feel uncomfortable). Thus the combination of distance and the confined space (as well as the fact that there are no other observers) forces a very high level of intimacy just by those factors alone. You don’t need much else to really get to intimidation here, even if you don’t realize it at the time.
Now I know I’m going to die alone. I’ll never be able to get a date because I’ll always be too worried about looking like some kind of pervert. Let’s say I ask a girl out. Assuming she doesn’t spray me with pepper spray she’ll think I’m some weirdo. Then she’ll tell all her friends that I’m a pervert and to stay away from me. And since there are only 6 degrees of separation between people eventually every woman on the planet will know I tried to ask a girl out. I’ll have to go into hiding because I know that they know. I’ll live the rest of my years hiding in shame. Eventually I’ll die and my cat will eat my remains. But then since the door is locked, my cat will be trapped inside and he’ll die of starvation. Great not only will I die alone, but my cat will be condemned as well. It’s a wonder that the human race has been able to survive this long.
Before I write this post, a disclaimer: Richard Dawkins is a total dick, and does not understand the scariness and the seriousness of sexual assault. The man in the elevator was creepy, scary, and way out of line. No matter how attracted you are to someone, no matter how likely you think it is that someone will sleep with you, to pressure and menace them in that way is not OK, and if I saw him do it I would punch him (or at least, I’d consider punching him, and maybe if I had had a couple drinks…).
That said…
On an unrelated topic, in her video Rebecca Watson complains about people sexualizing her. Here is a link to a picture she posted of herself reading Phil Plait’s book while naked on a bed:
http://a2.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/124/63ad30877bc1494285a4f44e7708cade/l.jpg
Here is another photo of Rebecca Watson, commonly used for publicity purposes, in which she also appears to be naked:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/415175552_065279a643_z.jpg
So, my recommendation to Rebecca Watson is: If you want people not to think of you as a sex symbol, you might want to stop posting naked pictures of yourself on the internet.
(Again, let me reiterate that this comment has nothing to do with the creepy, scary guy in the elevator, or with Richard Dawkins’ insensitivity and possible misogyny, both of whom I condemn. Anyone who misinterprets this post to lay any sort of blame on Rebecca Watson for the actions of the creepy elevator guy, or any other creepy or scary person, is misinterpreting this post. Also, anyone who misinterprets this post as a claim that women who are sexually threatened are somehow “asking for it” is misinterpreting this post. My comment was a comment about sexual objectification; violence, intimidation, and the threat of violence are completely separate issues, since these things are utterly unacceptable in a civilized society, while sexual objectification is merely rude and shallow.)
I agree with others here,
I feel like if we want to “take back the night” without imprisoning all men, we have to reward the men who don’t force themselves on women with anything more than an overt “Coffee? Yes/No”.
But, There are some clear issues. 1) she just finished covering how this sort of thing made her feel in a speech, 2) she had already told everyone she was tired and wanted to sleep, 3) If she is really so interesting, why not have coffee with her tomorrow?
I don’t feel like she over reacted at all. She didn’t start a campaign, she just posted on her video blog as a side note to all her other updates.
Honestly, I am of the mindset that this man thought he knew women… and that women never meant what they said (we’ve all met at least one person like this). He learned his lesson, she talked about it so that other people don’t have to learn too. But I doubt it needs the level of discussion that this has gotten, or the level of anger or insult that some people have stated here.
oh, and @Roger #96, “Men for the most part are clueless about everything. ”
I find that an offensive sentiment. A false factoid promulgated by the media and adopted by some men because, frankly, I think it makes their lives easier. Be clueless, let the women take care of things, because they are supermoms/multitasking experts. Men are NOT for the most part clueless about everything.
CJSF
Although I will never know everything women put up with, I definitely get that elevators and other confined spaces can be intimidating with men they don’t know. I happen to have the added feature of being a large, athletic looking man (friends sometimes describe me as having a linebacker build…one that would intimidate a lot of men if I was acting aggressive). Every time I end up in an elevator alone with anyone, I think about how I am presenting myself and how it could be interpreted.
I don’t have hard and fast rules about whether or not to speak to someone, but I observe their demeanor and try to determine whether saying a friendly hello would put the person more at ease or not. Of course, my women friends don’t mind being out in a crowd with me because they know that I can usually solve any problems they are having with men by giving them a stern look, handy skill to have sometimes.
I am sure some people will get all idealistic and say we shouldn’t have to worry so much. In in ideal world, maybe, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world with lots of strange people who can be dangerous and if you don’t want to be mistaken for one of them, use your loaf.
It makes me uncomfortable when minorities are in the elevator with me.
We can conclude, therefore, it is inappropriate for minorities to enter an elevator if they see me in it already.
That’s a pretty absurd position on the face of it – a minority isn’t doing anything that should make me uncomfortable. I’m uncomfortable because of my biases. However, the man that “propositioned” Rebecca Watson “sexualized” her. Let’s take a look at what she says he said.
“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?”
Let’s discuss this for a moment.
One: “don’t take this the wrong way” – I read that as, “I’m aware of your position on men &c, as I was at your talk earlier, so this is not an attempt to sleep with you.”
Two: “I find you very interesting” – I read that as, “I find your ideas (not your breasts) compelling”
Three: “I would like to talk more” – I read that as, “I would like to talk more and I recognize that the conference schedule is busy and I may not have the opportunity to speak with you one-on-one again”
Four: “Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee” – I read that as, “I recognize that you are tired and coffee would likely help maintain your mental acuity; however, it’s 4 AM and the cafes are all closed.”
She doesn’t at any point describe his manner as physically intimidating. It also appears that he takes no as an answer pretty unquestioningly. If there’s anything sexual or sexist or any manner of harassment in his statement, I can’t find it. Did he wink? Did he leer? Did he do anything to suggest that his intent was to engage in any manner of physical intimacy with her? If he did, she didn’t find it worthy of mentioning.
Shorthand: I’m with Marty here and Eskil asks the right question.
Richard ist correct, she might just have pressed a button and Phil is correct, she might not have been able too, if it would have been a real rape sceanrio. So much about would and might and potential worldlines.
Women are in danger of assault and man are in danger of being accused of assault.
Here’s your little skeptical subtext: If you are like me, in puperty a great deal of school yard talk revolved about the issue “How do you talk to a girl without sounding creepy?”
So what do fine magazines tell us? Let it be natural! Join a club – with girls in it of course – to have some common interest! Go out to some dance and music – which girls like. Of course. Etc.
In other words: Feign interests and personal traits which you don’t have in order to avoid looking creepy.
How dare you to be interested in talking to a girl as such? How dare you to articulate this? How dare you to be honest about it?
In still other words: Be a lier, be a cheat – or be a creep.
Nice thing you are putting your skeptical bro through here, folks.
Audiatur et altera pars. Get the offender and ask him for his feeling.
@Evolving Squid… thank you. There are a lot of people posting on here that this was a potential sexual assault, I think you summed up the only rational response to them. This isn’t saying she is a bad person, or that an icky vibe isn’t relevant… sure, Dawkins could have just let it go, but he is also right. The man who hit on her sucked at hitting on her. That could be for a lot of reasons. Hate to say it, but a guy who she found really attractive would have had a different reaction from her. Sure, she probably wouldn’t have done coffee with him, but likely she would have left the elevator with a happy feeling, a positive state of mind (this isn’t specific to her, or to women… it’s just a human thing)…
Jeff – I agree. I’m male, I have a sex drive that I will not be told to be ashamed of and I’m 6’4″. Just by my very existence I may very well intimidate a lot of women I meet because I’m a lot bigger than they are.
I can’t shrink, I’m not going to cross the street just to avoid passing a woman just in case I frighten her. Yet, somehow, I’ve managed to not sexually assault anyone in my 33 years on this Earth.
I’m not going to accept the inference that just by being male I am a latent rapist who should avoid all contact with women just in case they are intimidated by me. I’m also a geek, attractive women intimidate me as they do a lot of less attractive men. Should they stop being attractive to make me feel better?
You know what? As a result of this discussion I’m not going out at night anymore. I’m not joking, if women are that sensitive to male presence at night then it’s the only thing I can do. I’ll just spend my nights playing video games. Better stick to single player thouh just in case I end up in the same match as a woman who feels intimidated.
I never talk to women unless they talk to me first and I avoid them which helps reduce my chances of becoming the victim of a false accusation. This way I can live my life and never have to worry about being eviscerated by the court of public opinion or get involved in any mind games. Down side is that its a pretty lonely existence.
#17
Kim, you make my point very well. Chatting and flirting are fine (you say), but let’s have sex is not. Fair enough. But that’s not what the man said—it is your interpretation of what the man said. And it may be correct—or it may not. Perhaps nothing else was open for business at that time. I have been to many hotel functions where things went late, and someone wanted to continue the discussion in their room—simply for lack of any other place. Did that happen here? I don’t know and neither do you.
In any case, I am not suggesting for a moment that women don’t need to be concerned; clearly they do. I am asking how is a man supposed to know where the line is? If the woman feels his approach is a potential assault and therefore it IS a potential assault, how is a well meaning man supposed to approach a woman ever?
As far as I can tell from the story, the man took no for an acceptable answer. And that, to me, is where the line is. She says no; the conversation is over.
The lesson I take away from this is to be careful about who you are alone with. For women, it could be to protect themselves from potential rapists. For men, it could be to protect themselves from false accusations of sexual assault and/or rape.
I agree with Richard. The girl in the elevator was totally overreacting. If a person (man OR woman) is so timid that something as innocent as that will frighten them, the problem is with that person.
There are real problems in the world, and Richard did a good job at putting things in perspective.
When a person hits on someone, and the other person declines the advance, it creates an awkward situation for both parties. So the guy in the elevator made both parties feel uncomfortable, but that’s just how life goes. If no one ever risked getting rejected, we would have died out long ago. To assert that just because he is a man there is a threat of rape in the air, THAT is what is sexist here.
Let me start by saying I’m a huge fan of the SGU and skepchick, and my disagreement with Rebecca Watson on this issue doesn’t change that in the slightest. This entire discussion is exactly what does need to happen And I should say that as far as I can tell I don’t even strongly disagree. I have yet to see anyone implying that some sort of interventionist act to prevent or redress what that man said would be needed. No gender segregated elevators, no escorts for female attendees, no jail time for him, etc.
What I do see here that I disagree with is the unstated premise that the man should be aware of the fact that by being male they are inherently a threat to all women, and that they should take action to redress the fact that their existence is inherently threatening.
While it is true that men are likely going to be the source of any given sexual assault on women it is NOT true to say that a man is likely to be the source of a sexual assault. This is a huge and meaningful difference. Claiming that his being a male, even a male with a sex drive made the situation a “potential sexual assault” bothers me. It makes so many assumptions about what he is based on his gender. Particularly I noted the mention of “he could have…” with a number of options that seem universal to me. She could have pulled a knife, or a gun. Recent history is rife with examples of smaller and weaker individuals overpowering others with the aid of modern technology. What this seems like to me is a series of assumptions of the worst case about what an individual was based on his gender. Assumptions he did not live up to (thankfully).
Had the line been racial most of us would quickly say such prejudice (judging an individual before learning about them) is inappropriate. And, unfortunately, the statistics for crime in the united states would back up claims that African Americans are inherently threatening just as well as they would back up claims that men are.
And I do not argue that there exist men who victimize women, on ever scale from verbal to physical. Yet I am not comfortable with holding that against all men any more than I am comfortable holding 9/11 against all Muslims, or any number of other generalizations.
That said, thank you Rebecca for providing the opportunity for us all to discuss such an interesting topic. ^_^
It might be interesting if the man from the elevator happened to see this uproar and recognize himself. I urge him to speak up if he does.
I do see her point, but I wonder when this goes from being a justified fear to being an example of sexism? As a male, I normally do not live with fear of being raped so I can’t come up with a perfect similarity but I will try: when I was in college I often worked in clothing stores to make ends meet and found that as a straight male I was a bit of a rarity in the workforce. Often I would go to parties hosted by fellow employees and found myself around many gay men, most of whom were larger in physical size than I was since I am quite small. Anyway, there have been many times at these parties when I would find myself in a small confined space with another man (such as both heading towards the bathroom on an upper floor at the same time or something and would be isolated in a hallway) and have been hit on during these times in a very suggestive manner. After politely refusing and explaining that I was not into men the situation would end. Sure, in my mind I was a bit weirded out but at no point did I consider the possibility that they were going to rape me. Honestly, looking back on it, I think being weirded out was an example of homophobia and was completely unjustified even though there have been male-male rapes in the past and being gay is completely natural. Maybe the guys just wanted to get lucky and upon refusal moved on with their lives.
So I guess my question is, if I was a blogger and went online to blog about my fear of these men raping me after making suggestive comments while isolated in a hallway near a bathroom with only stairs leading down three floors to other people, would I be called a homophobe or would my fear be justified? I honestly don’t know if there is a right answer to this question and similar questions could be raised about justifiable fear of urban-looking African Americans and robbery/shootings, justifiable fear of Muslims, and justifiable fear of all priests being rapists. I don’t have a problem with he being weirded out, but saying her fear is justified is, in my opinion, agreeing with stereotypes.
Is that cracker Dawkins is referring to the same as the communion wafer or host? Maybe they call it something different in England.
Seriously, will everyone quit the “stop calling all men rapists!” rubbish? That isn’t what is being said at all. What was being said is just this – DON’T BE CREEPY. Sure, the limits of what is and isn’t creepy aren’t always clear, but following someone you’ve never spoken to into an elevator at 4am and asking them to come back to your room alone is easily creepy and bound to make most people uncomfortable.
EMPATHY GUYS. LEARN IT.
Ugh. Does this have to be either-or? Can we not agree that a) propositioning a strange woman at 4 am on an elevator is kind of creepy and should be avoided (not criminalized; just try to be considerate) and b) describing this as a “potential sexual assault” is a bit extreme? It is possible for a woman to feel profoundly uncomfortable in a social situation even though she doesn’t think she’s about to be attacked. This isn’t about safety or assault; it’s about good manners and consideration.
I’m a bit upset that suddenly people have taken this to mean that Mr. Dawkins hates women. So his attempt at putting this topic into context was ham fisted at best, but I don’t understand how the skeptical/atheist community has labeled him a misogynist.
It certainly is true that the majority of men would rape a woman if given the chance, but Richard Dawkins has proven repeatedly in the past that he is against the current rape culture. It was a mistake.
Women will never be seen as “equal to men” when every awkward come on is seen as a “potential sexual assult”
I’m erring more towards Dawkins side on this but I hope we’ll have a good discussion on this. And I definitely need to talk about it with my wife because it does concern me to have an opinion that offends so many women.
The way I see it, the elevator guy was for sure inappropriate and creepy, no doubt about it. When people talk about the power of words however, would it have been less creepy and inappropriate if the guy had been staring at her and at her body without saying anything? I don’t think so, it could have made Rebecca feel even more uncomfortable. But there I completely agree with Rebecca when she says “Don’t do it” to guys who don’t want to be seen as inappropriate, a jerk, creepy, whatever you want to call it. However, that doesn’t make the guy in the elevator a rapist or a sexual predator. He might be one, he might be the nicest guy in the world and was just confused as to what to do to talk to a charismatic woman, we’ll never know. The point that Dawkins makes (I think) is that what the guy did should not be reprehensible in any way by our society. It’s akin to free speech. It’s not less or more appropriate than a coworker asking you to join his political party in the elevator, or your boss asking you to go pick up his laundry at the cleaner. You can say no in every instance. And in every instance, if there are physical threats, if there are repercussions about your job safety or whatever, then the yellow line is crossed and it becomes reprehensible and possibly punishable by law. From Rebecca’s account, there was no such threat and while I’m sure she was uncomfortable, I think her initial message of “Don’t do it” is sufficient. Sure Dawkins might have been inappropriate in the same way with his sarcastic comment but he is also entitled to his opinion and frankly, this is much ado about nothing IF Rebecca’s account is correct about the lack of physical threat. But I guess it boils down to whether one considers being in an elevator with someone else as a physical threat…
Should I feel threatened when I cross a street where there are cars present that could run me over? The fact that I feel threatened doesn’t put the drivers in the wrong.
I don’t mean that she should not have felt threatened – you have the right to feel how you wish, given a particular situation, as does she. Given the evidence she presented, I don’t think he intentionally wanted her to feel threatened. Some women respond positively to questions like that in similar situations, and women who do are just as guilty of propagating this problem as he is, if we’re meant to take the wrongness of this situation as a social norm.
The guy may very well be a creep, and she may very well have had reason to feel threatened, but to equate his actions with sexual predation is over the top.
Are these the sort of problems white women have ? Being in an elevator with another man who hit on her and when refused, didn’t bother her anymore. Seriously ? And that was taken as a ‘potential sexual assault’ ? I am a black man and sometimes when I walk past families/single women, they move away. I.KID. YOU.NOT. Does this count as a “potential mugging/rape” ?
This, THIS is being turned into a controversy ? Oh I see! Its a woman! Gee, its alright then I guess.
Just because you THINK you are right does not mean you ARE correct. Please, please see the situation from the other viewpoint.
So, she was asked for coffee at 4am in an elevator. All of us girls have been approached at one time or another by some guy, “asking for coffee.” She says no, that’s that. Any two people hanging out in a bar till 4am surely must have been drinking and having a good time. This guy thought he might try his chances and perhaps this was the only time he could get her away from a group of people. He asked, she said no. What’s the big deal? I’d call her a liar if she said she’s never looked at a man (or woman) with “coffee eyes.”
In my opinion, Richard Dawkins was 100% correct with what he wrote. It seems to have been a simple exchange of words. Nothing more. I can’t decide is Rebecca is more annoyed by the fact that this guy didn’t get the topic of her talk earlier in the day or the fact that she was hit on in an elevator.
@VAB
Men can be victims every bit as easily as women. I think that in my life I have found myself in situations where victimhood was a great deal more likely than in either of the ones you mention… in fact both of those prove that while you do worry about those things, that is something inside you, not something outside. When I had a knife to my throat while someone told me to get on my knees, that was a real threat (luckily it turned out okay for me). Not the idea that there might be a threat, and I still don’t live my life in fear of things like that, which makes sense because they haven’t happened again.
Further thought: If it was two men in the elevator and one propositions the other, is that a potential sexual assault? What if the propositioning man happens to be physically larger and more imposing?
Viewing “Hey, do you want to have sex?” as a threat is basically the basis for the “gay panic” argument.
I wonder if any of the guys here had experiences in high school of being labeled as a nerd and roughed up or beaten up–or even just intimidated–a little or a lot by boys older/bigger than you.
Imagine that you get up from a bar at 4 a.m. and are clearly *followed* onto an elevator by a burly, juvenile punk. You and he are the only ones on the elevator, and he gets up close to you and says, “You goin’ beddy bye?”
Just words, right?
I’ve been a woman in a male-dominated field before. I’ve gotten the, “Isn’t she cute” kinds of reactions and I’ve gotten the down-right offensive, “What’s the matter, does your pussy hurt?” reactions from peers. More often, though, I’m happy to say that the male counterparts in my field treat me no differently for having 2 x chromosomes.
I’ve been sexually harassed, I was molested… (I refuse to call myself a victim) and I have to say that the societal roles of men and women, the threats of rape and mistreatment, are very real and they color a person’s reaction. Words are products of ideas and those words spread…ideas spread. The idea that it’s okay to ask a stranger to your room at 4am is one such idea. I agree that this was an uncomfortable situation.
But… I think Dawkins and others (male and female) miss the root of the problem. It’s not that RW was propositioned, but that society told that man that this was okay. That society thinks its okay to mutilate women, belittle them or treat them as second class citizens or chattle. And how did we get here? Words.
It strikes me as amusing that most of the kerfuffle over this topic has been people trying to decipher every syllable uttered by a random stranger in a hotel elevator.
My take on this is that RW was made to feel uneasy at a convention and used the opportunity to bring up a healthy discussion on sexism. Feeling strength from Rebecca’s words (as I myself have experienced) the female skeptics created a movement that began to feel as an attack from a large number of male skeptics. I have no doubt that the female faction meant only to inspire, not attack…but the men took on the defensive regardless. Being a male skeptic/atheist/geek, I can understand the male blow-back. A great number of us in the community are not the most socially competent…in fact, we are met with a great deal of stress on a daily basis as we foolishly try to decipher the female mystique. Personally, my first reaction to RW’s story was “Well that’s mean. What if the guy really just wanted coffee?” I have been in situations like this before…stuck on an elevator or in line at the grocery store, and trying to muster up the courage to talk to a female before she disappears forever. Anyway, being a male of this mindset, I think it should be understood by the females that we take social criticism quite seriously. Hearing from a female that my actions could possibly incite fear of rape in her cut me straight to the heart. It’s quite panicking to think that lady you’re trying to develop a bond with could very possibly be reaching for her pepper spray as you fumble for coherent conversational phrases.
Misogyny? Perhaps. I’m sure there’s a good number out there. But I wouldn’t be so quick to label every male in this conversation a misogynist just for taking offense to the term. Both sides of the debate need to give the other side just an ounce of understanding. And as for Richard Dawkins, I understand what he was trying to say. I don’t think his words were as calculated as they usually are and his reasoning was a trifle off, but he was definitely blunt about it…and that’s why I am such a fan of his. The discussion of sexism needs to exist…on a continual basis…but as RD pointed out, perhaps the elevator story is not the correct vehicle.
@Thorston #133
“Women are in danger of assault and man are in danger of being accused of assault”
Exactly this.
As I mentioned above, I’m the security director for a conference (not skeptic/science related), and have worked staff/host at other events and parties. From my observations, woman and men commit what I would consider “assault” equally, but men get reported far, far more often. Men get grossly overreported, and women get grossly underreported. It’s gross sexism against men. A man can look at a woman just right and suddenly, she’s reporting a creep is stalking or harassing her, and then that same night, that same woman will be blatently hanging on, harassing, and stalking half a dozen guys, who continuously push her away, and a word is never about it. It’s a gross double standard.
Again, I’m not trying to imply that women are worse than men at this, or that women don’t get harassed. What I am saying, is that there is a sexist double standard that causes harassment by women to be overlooked, and oversensitizes woman to harassment by men.
The problem is, our society has become so bad that we always assume the worst of people.
A man asking a women out, should not mean the woman automatically assumes the man is a rapist.
Obviously, the man had poor judgement in this situation. But probably really fancied her and saw that the moment he was with her in the lift, was the only chance he would get to speak to her.
He knew he wasn’t a crazy psychopath and the thought probably never entered his mind that she might think that. The problem was he was too direct, he should have asked her if she would like to meet up at some undefined point in the future. If she was at all negative about the suggestion, he should have immediately put her mind at rest by saying it was no problem and returning to general chit-chat.
But lots of people are really direct like this guy, both men and women. The problem comes when a confident guy comes on to a women who isn’t.
But meeting new people and starting relationships is really hard, especially with all the social barriers we put up. Which is why so many people meet their partners when they are drunk and not really in full control of themselves.
It’s sad that it has to be that way… and it’s a shame that adults can’t trust other adults, in everyday situations.
Yes, Blue, words like ‘he harassed me’. Words that are accepted as true without question as this article has already proven.
Not to be light hearted about this, but I would love to talk to the guy in the elevator. It would be absolutely sensational to find out he was gay.
I can see both sides of this argument, really. Women shouldn’t be made to feel threatened, but as a male it is hard to know how someone is going to interpret your actions. You are told to treat women as equals, but at the same time you really can’t. If I tell a friend ‘hey, I am going to the bar..do you want something?’ it could be taken completely differently if the friend is a man or a woman. A guy will probably just say ‘yeah, get me a beer’. A woman may or may not suspect I have ill intentions. Its a difficult knot to untangle.
We need to get to a point in society where not only are men considerate of women’s feelings, but also where women don’t feel so constantly threatened. The paranoia goes both ways and makes simple friendly interactions into a potential mine field.
I would strongly suggest that people watch Rebecca’s video to understand the context. In this situation, context is everything. Rebecca’s talk had specifically been about sexist behavior and her objecting to being sexualized. She had stayed in the bar talking and hanging out for several hours. Apparently the man had had ample opportunity to speak with her all evening but chose not to do so. After she announced at 4:00 AM that she was tired and was going to bed–the unknown man followed her into the elevator and propositioned her. The man even said “Don’t take this the wrong way but…” That indicates he had at least some awareness that his behavior was inappropriate, but he went ahead and propositioned her anyway. Even if the threat of potential sexual assault was not present, the man was rude and inconsiderate.
Phil, thank you so much for highlighting this. I have always been a huge fan and supporter of Richard Dawkins. If you pardon my language, it’s good to know our saint has feet of clay. In light of everything that was said, I’m inclined to believe Dawkins is unaware of the measure of his own mysoginy. I sincerely hope he reevaluates his positions and apologize for his uncharacteristically uncaring words.
@CJSF: You are of course right. It wasn’t a good statement to make.
I meant that men are clueless, often but not always, about how their behavior can make women feel. It wasn’t meant as something to hide behind. But I think many men don’t realize that women can be uncomfortable in their presence through no fault of their own.
Men should realize this and know how to not act creepy, but they don’t. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of similar things myself and don’t even know when.
Example: as someone who always carries jumper cables, I’ve several times jump started a car for a woman late at night in a parking lot. Even though I will act the perfect gentleman, stand appropriately far away and not ask her back to my place for a cup of coffee, I can sense the nervousness they have being alone in a parking lot with a strange man. I hope they left with a positive feeling and thinking that I was not creepy, but I’ll never know.
What kind of idiot asks a woman he does not know back to his room while the two of them are in a confined space at 3am. I’m a man, and I would find it creepy if a man asked me back to his room in the same situation.
Smart men learn how to talk to women without being frightening (and sometimes they make a mistake, so, women, please be patient with us).
I am with Dawkins on this.
A potential scenario (that did not come true) is not and cannot be taken serious, it’s potential, not a fact. Skeptics should know that. It seems only Dawkins has a clear mind on this matter.
Nothing happened and someone felt uncomfortable, well so do I when I’m alone in a lift with a woman. Get over it.
When talking to a woman and being alone with her at the same time is being creepy now and you are seen as a potential rapist because of that then I am sorry but you have lost it. You know doing a crime is a crime, not someone thinking you potentially could do one is.
It’s a shame that you throw Dawkins under the bus while he is actually right on the matter.
Cymraes – How about some empathy for the man being accused of all sorts here without being given a chance to defend himself. I’m not American, but I thought your justice system was based on hearing BOTH sides of a case.
@Qwerty
Yea, that sums up what really has me saddened by this coming on this blog too, but I guess not to be unexpected. RW actions (and arguments) in all this have been bad. Yet since she’s in the Skeptics cool kids club her actions are all excused, and her opinions are all considered more valid than any other woman’s.
As someone else pointed out, this whole thing became a big fuss because of what RW did at the conference to Stef, not her original video, but notice how on certain blogs the deflection has to be pushed back on to either the original fellow (who is unknown), or Dawkins (who’s based in england so not part of the little cool kids club here in the US). What RW did to Stef is not to be considered either, since Stef is an outsider to them (and why only RW’s opinions on men are valid and not other women who disagree).
This whole thing has for me just shined a light on how the skeptics movement in the US has turned into a hierarchy of high school cliques with a peking order.
Perhaps it is an inhere t flaw of skepticism that it lends itself to unfounded paranoia. I understand the logic here, but is it not true that setting the bar too low for some conduct is not only a disservice to the truly harmful acts of others, but also sets the threshold for harm too low? In a civilized society we must allow and anticipate for some level of interaction that accounts for individual sensitivities without making the standard itself too sensitive. Here, she had every right to feel uncomfortable as anyone who finds themselves in a situation of an unwanted sexual/social advancement would, however to paint it as predatory is like turning a rabbit into a medieval knight slayer.
Has the human race gone mad!? Being afraid of this “potential” assault is the equivalent of a white man being afraid of a black “potential” assailant simply saying hello. Not all men are rapists, in fact very few are. This whole incident is premised on prejudice… pure and simple. Shame on you.
I’m not normally one for commenting on blogs, but this brought me out of the woodwork, so to speak.
I’m not really sure what the issue is to be honest. A man made an akward sexual advance and the woman felt uncomfortable? Has no one here ever been to a bar or a college party before? It’s part of learning. Men learn how to make advances that are better timed and more welcomed and women learn how to handle these things. That should be it. It’s not potential assault, it’s awkward social skills, that’s it.
As a straight male with gay friends, I’ve been on the receiving end of these before. I’ve had a gay friend who was crashing it my place after the bar offer to give me a blowjob, and he was sleeping at my house . . . that’s a lot more awkward than 5 minutes in the elevator. I was uncomfortable, but it wasn’t “potential sexual assault”, it was a drunk dude making a social faux pas. I didn’t freak out, I just said no firmly, walked off, and made jokes about it later.
How many of you would agree that this sort of situation is the reason more women should be armed (and well practiced)?
Granted, if Rebecca was packing, she would probably feel worse, not better.
Still, the option should be available for those who feel they need it. Of course, where this incident occurred, such an assurance was completely out of the question. I think that should change.
@166 I don’t think potential rapist should be allowed to have rights. wait what…
There are too many comments for me to take the time to read them all, so, this may have already been said. But, just to make my own point. Men don’t understand women. Women don’t understand men. Let’s be fair to both sexes.
Rebecca has a right to feel uncomfortable. I feel uncomfortable alone with another person in a confined space, also. If a woman said “come up to my room for coffee”, I would feel like there was something wrong. I would be stupid to do it. If the guy really wanted to discuss things with Rebecca, why not suggest meeting in a public place? Much less threatening. Since he suggested his room rather than a more public place, I think Rebecca did have reason for concern. So, I agree with Dawkins that there can be over reaction to “just words”, but, really, asking her to his room? Something was not right there.
Even as a man, I can not believe how clueless some guys are. Some women are also clueless about how men perceive them. I think it sucks that a man can not approach a woman and have a polite conversation without sexual tension involved, but the way we are wired, an attractive woman has that affect on us. However, there are a lot of us who do control that and can be trusted. How any woman cold figure out which ones can be trusted is beyond me.
So, guys, find a way to approach someone that you are interested in in a non-aggressive way and consider how your actions and words might be perceived by her.
Even if it weren’t threatening -even if he had bothered her in an open, public space- my understanding was that she had just told the entire group she was exhausted and going to bed. Ignoring what a woman says/wants to pursue your own agenda? Big warning flag. If he really was just a nice guy who wanted coffee, he could have said “Hey, do you want to grab coffee somewhere tomorrow?” before she got on the elevator, thus a) not confining her in a small, enclosed space to b) try and get her to go (with a total stranger) to another private, enclosed space (that is, his room, as versus a coffee shop, which is where most people would ask a stranger to meet for coffee) while c) completely ignoring her clearly-articulated wishes to go to bed.
He did not ask her out for coffee. He asked her to his room. At 4AM. As a complete stranger. After she made it clear she wanted nothing more than to go to sleep (presumably in her room). That? Is bloody obnoxious behavior, even without the threat of assault.
How could anyone argue that a, b, and c are perfectly reasonable ways to act amongst equals?
My usual way of discussing this with straight men is to ask them to imagine that they are being approached, using their exact words and demeanor and circumstances, by a gay man who is significantly larger and stronger than they are. If that imaginary scenario feels uncomfortable, then, yes, you have a problem in your approach methods.
That said: I’ve been a sex educator for many, many years, and spoken at uncountable sexuality conferences (BDSM, polyamory and general sexuality). I’ve been in situations such as this one many times, being approached one-on-one by men who don’t interest me much. Many questions can’t be answered except by the two people who were there: How close was he standing to her? What was his tone of voice? Did he use the standard “I’m not threatening you” cues in his body language and voice (an interrogative “up” at the end of his sentences, avoidance of direct eye contact, slight turning away of his body, etc.)? In the absence of information like that, I don’t know whether I’d feel uncomfortable or not… and I’m guessing that nobody else in this thread does, either.
What people seem to be missing here is that she didn’t call him out by name. She didn’t call the police. She didn’t accuse him of rape. All she did is try to start a discussion with men. Women are told constantly –in college rape seminars, in the questions asked in rape trials–that we should know that being alone with a man is potentially dangerous, and, further, that if we put ourselves in a situation where we’re alone with a man (like, say, in his bedroom having coffee), WE ARE TO BLAME for the bad thing that will likely happen to us.
I don’t believe that man intended what he did to be creepy or scary, but who cares? It was. Men are unintentionally creepy with me A LOT. It’s a conversation worth having.
Seriously, have any of you people who are saying Rebecca was wrong actually watched the video? It’s not as if she makes a big deal of it, or identifies anyone, or calls anyone a rapist. She says, this happened, I felt uncomfortable, you probably don’t want to do that sort of thing. She does it briefly, and with a sense of humor. It’s the people attacking her for saying that that are making a big deal out of that, and requiring explanations of just why she felt uncomfortable in explicit detail, and why it was a bad move on the guy’s part. Those explanations should be unnecessary, and Rebecca did nothing wrong. She didn’t call security. She didn’t make accusations. She handled the situation responsibly and then used her platform to suggest that this sort of behavior by men is not a good idea. There is nothing to attack in what Rebecca did.
The funniest part here is that we’re expected to automatically believe someone who advocates skepticism.
@Gus Snarp – I wish she had made an accusation. The man would at least have had his side of events heard that way. It would still be ignored, because we all know that when a woman accuses a man of almost anything she is automatically believed, but at least somewhere there would be some sort of record of the other side of the story.
A wise man once said, understanding is a three edged sword – your side, their side and the truth.
@Horseman: You know how much of a potential threat you are, but how will they know, exactly?
They won’t know, exactly, but that’s not necessarily my fault. Lots of people feel uncomfortable in the social situation of elevators. Lots of people don’t. The onus is not on the world to make any one person feel comfortable.
@elaine!: And IMO women shouldn’t have to put up with being propositioned by complete strangers in elevators.
IMO everyone should have to put up with it. IMO nobody has to like putting up with it. There is no reason why all social behaviour has to march to the beat of the most timid, sensitive person.
If the issue is the enclosed space, then let’s discuss what the minimum room size for a proposition might be. We can work out the parameters for “number of people in the space versus the size of space, versus comfort level for various women” and perhaps work out some kind of formula that we can drill into boys from a young age so no woman will ever have to worry about feeling uncomfortable again… yeah, that’s the ticket! It will take a least a generation to be effective though.
@Greg Fish: None of the women commenting on the issue seem to have a problem with sex or men in general. Just creeps.
No, Greg, I was not the one who brought up the term “potential sexual assault”… Phil did. That is an old-school, Patty Dworkin description of male-female social interaction. It was unreasonable bordering on insane back in the 70’s, and it still is.
@Greg Fish: Propositioning a woman in an elevator in the middle of the night carries a higher risk of a potential sexual assault than asking her if she’s like to get some coffee in the lobby.
I see where you have it wrong.
Being propositioned in an elevator in the middle of the night may carry a higher risk of potential sexual assault. That’s a risk decision that the woman has to make. Some women may not see it that way.
However, from the other end, propositioning a woman in an elevator in the middle of the night does increase the risk of sexual assault commencing. The propositioner is no more likely to be a rapist because he is propositioning than he would be if he was not propositioning.
Some people seem to be trying to blame the man for something that is wholly the woman’s issue. Nobody owes Rebecca Watson a feeling of comfort to whatever standard she desires to feel comfortable. People seem to be suggesting that the onus is on men to take whatever steps are necessary so that women don’t feel uncomfortable. I disagree. The onus should never be on the rest of the world to take steps so an individual doesn’t feel uncomfortable. It’s not a matter of male privilege. It’s a matter of personal freedom. If Rebecca feels uncomfortable with the risk of assault or being propositioned in elevators then SHE should take the stairs.
@Sarah: “Any two people hanging out in a bar till 4am surely must have been drinking and having a good time.”
Rebecca said that she had never spoken to the guy before the elevator. That’s a big part as to why what he did was creepy.
Dr. Dawkins has many fine things to say. I do not agree with everything he says, and of some of the things he does say, I might not agree with the way he says it. However, in this case, Dawkins totally screwed the pooch. His first comment was a juvenile attempt at sarcasm, and quite frankly I am disgusted by it.
His second comment was not much better – comparing Rebecca’s situation to how someone entering an elevator chewing gum makes him uncomfortable? Really? Has Mr. Dawkins ever been assaulted by chewing gum?
His third comment just makes it worse. Here are my thoughts on why he should not have made the comment.
As Rebecca states on her blog, she was a single, attractive young lady alone in a foreign country. She, and many of the guests at this conference had been enjoying a night out at the hotel pub. It’s 4 AM, and she, and another man get on an elevator, he makes a comment to her that could be perceived as a come-on. Now, maybe it is different in Ireland, but here in North America, that situation has often led to a situation where a woman has been assaulted.
I know, all that man did was make a comment and invite her to his room. Did he do anything wrong? Maybe not, but the problem is many men are clueless about how women percieve certain situations. Change the setting: Rebecca is walking to her car in an empty underground parking lot at 4AM. Man approaches her and invites her back to his place for coffee. Would your thoughts of this situation be different? Why? Why not?
Again, change the setting: Man approaches Rebecca in the pub and asks if he could get together over coffee to discuss her topic. She may have still refused, but I doubt she would have felt as uncomfortable as she did being approached in a tiny, confined space.
The fact is, women are more vulnerable to sexual and physical assault. Men need to be aware of this. Maybe Dawkins should talk about this, and how men need to be sensitive to the feelings of women, especially in a situation like this. Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth, for what it’s worth.
I’m so ashamed of every man here who is jumping on the “Is everything I do potentially a sexual assault?” line of thought.
You’re so concerned for yourselves that you can’t stop for a minute and think about it from the perspective of women. Women who live in our world 24/7/365. Yes, it is our world. If you won’t admit that, then you’re not ready to participate in this discussion. Everything on this planet has been so tipped in our favor for so long that a lot of you can’t (or won’t) see the problem.
You cannot know what it is like to be a woman in this world, because you are a man. You will never know on an instinctual level what it feels like to be a woman in this world. Recognize that and respect women when they say they don’t want to be cornered and propositioned for ANYTHING by a stranger in an elevator. If that’s what they’re saying, then that’s the end of it. It’s not that you don’t have the right to do something. It’s that you have the responsibility as a human being to be respectful. What happened to Rebecca was in no way respectful and far too common of a behavior.
The sentiment that what happened in that elevator was nothing disgusts me and everyone who’s said it should all be ashamed of themselves for having done so. Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that Rebecca should have just shut up and taken it? Only men could be so arrogant to think that propositioning a woman they don’t know (for anything) while alone with her in an elevator is acceptable behavior. My FSM! Try for a second and understand the constant fear of sexual assault that dominates the world of women.
Boy. It is really disheartening to see so many men from the skeptical movement responding this way.
Invitation extended, invitation denied, accepted denial and did not push the issue.
I’m not sure how she survived.
It is absolutely amazing the language used in this post. This guy plucked up the courage to ask a girl out (yeah i know it was a bit sleazy), but she said no, and they both got on with their lives, both probably unconfortable and embarrased for the remainder of the elevator ride.
Yet this is referred to as a “potential assault”, give me a break. I have the potential to assault anyone who walks within an arms reach of me, yet i don’t.
Get over it, everything doesnt have to be a bloody crusade.
P.S. Oh did anything astronomy related happen today? Dissapointing
@91. Benji:
Yes, intention matters. And I think Rebecca Watson correctly intuited his intention. His intention was to corner a woman he had never met in a secluded area and ask her to his room to have sex.
That is CREEPY. Don’t do it.
In all these blog comments (RW/PZ/Phi/etc.) literally scores (maybe hundreds at this point) of women have concurred. This behavior is creepy. Don’t do it.
But, thank god you know better than us about what we should or should not fear.
The fact that you can easily see yourself as that guy in the elevator is not a cause for you to second guess RW’s response. It is a cause for you to reflect on how that behavior can and does frighten women (you know that it does because that is what we keep telling you). It is cause for you to consider that perhaps your magnanimous efforts to “show [women] that they do not have to fear [you]” are wasted, because women, by in large, cannot and do not rely upon you to tell them how they should feel.
After the fifth time I drove the female babysitter home, my husband asked me why I always insisted on doing it myself. I explained, gently, that it can be uncomfortable, and even scary, for a woman to get into an enclosed area with a male she does not know well. I know this, because I was a babysitter in my youth and struggled through many uncomfortable, dreaded drives home with “the dad.” I was never harmed, and I understood that the “dad” was driving me home so that I would arrive home safely. But I _hated_ those drives. I was mere teenager who was ignorant of rape statistics, never received a “strange danger” course in school, and had never been assaulted in any manner. Nonetheless, I felt fear.
My husband’s response to my explanation was, “Oh, I never thought of that. OK.”
See how easy that was?
I am a self-defense instructor, so I pay attention to the sorts of situations that can lead to an assault. I think about them from a tactical point of view, I suppose.
First, if the guy made Rebecca feel creepy, she did the right thing by clearly stating to him that she was not interested. Our ability to read body language and tone is very powerful and we should listen to our feelings. If it occasionally goes off around a perfectly nice guy, it is better safe than sorry.
Second, a unexpected question in close proximity is a tactic used by muggers and such called “interviewing”. They will approach asking a question, knowing it will lower your guard and allow them to get close. They are counting on the social awkwardness of the exchange to distract you. Rarely does someone simply jump on someone with no preamble whatsoever. Predators tend to “ramp up” a bit, like when a cat wiggles its butt before pouncing.
Now most sexual assaults do not happen from surprise in public, even in a somewhat secluded place like an elevator, but some do. They usually happens someplace more private, like in someone’s hotel room.
So if the guy asked her to join him in his room without having had some sort of conversation with her earlier, he should have known this would creep anyone out, and might make him look like a potential attacker.
So the lesson is, don’t make socially awkward comments to women (or anyone smaller than you, really) in close proximity if they do not have an easy way to run. It will likely make them feel trapped.
As for escaping by simply hitting a button, it does not take long to subdue someone in close quarters if you are larger than they are. Hoping a button press will reward you with an escape route more quickly than someone can grab you is unrealistic. A person can simply see you hit the button and grab you between the button press and the opening of the door.
Now, was he a rapist? Probably not. He was probably just a fellow that thought Rebecca was attractive and interesting and honestly wanted to get to know her better, but he messed it up.
So what does a guy do? He needs to approach women in a time and place where such approaches are appropriate, such as during the socializing or as she leaves the gathering, not when she gets in the elevator. You missed your socially appropriate window.
There is a certain amount of logic in the old fashioned etiquette of having someone introduce a you to a stranger instead of doing it yourself. It used to be considered rude.
thank you so very much for this blog post.
@Tony
“We need to get to a point in society where not only are men considerate of women’s feelings, but also where women don’t feel so constantly threatened. The paranoia goes both ways and makes simple friendly interactions into a potential mine field.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I can understand that a lot of men are feeling defensive right now, but those who are upset that all men are being painted with the some brush need to understand a basic truth. Women have to live with the fear of being assaulted. We may not feel that fear every day, but we have all felt it at some point. So please forgive us if we tend to see the potential for violence in seemingly innocent situations, but all we have to do is watch the news to know that potential exists and we ignore it at our own peril. So yes, being on an elevator alone with a strange man who has verbally expressed his interest in “having coffee” should set off at least a low-level alarm bell for the woman. This is not about what that specific man did on the elevator with Rebecca, it’s about a woman’s right to NOT be demeaned or told that she’s overreacting when that alarm bell goes off. If you don’t live with this fear then you can’t understand how it feels and you do not have the right to judge how a woman feels or reacts in that situation.
For me the core of the issue here is not really Rebecca’s reaction to the situation she was in, it’s Dawkins’ reaction to Rebecca’s reaction. He’s basically saying “shut up, you have nothing to complain about, nothing bad happened to you physically so it’s all fine.” That is WRONG. Having to live with anxiety or fear for your safety is emotionally stressful and extremely unpleasant. No one said men should not approach women or that we view every approach as a potential sexual assault. We often want you to approach us – sometimes that’s why we put on makeup and wear pretty dresses and go to bars. What we’re asking for is some understanding of how being alone in a confined space while we’re being propositioned makes us feel. Having men use a little better judgement about when and where they approach a woman is not too much to ask. And having a leader of the skeptic movement be so sarcastic, condescending and dismissive of that request is appalling.
My initial reaction here was to defend the guy because he never actually did anything. Upon further consideration, the situation is a lot more nuanced than any single person being in the wrong.
Dude was being creepy. He probably shouldn’t have done what he did. Making someone feel threatened is something you should avoid. I think that, in hindsight, Rebecca assumed he didn’t know he’d done anything wrong, and that’s what the blog is for: “Hey guys, this dude didn’t know he was messing up, so let’s all learn from his mistake.”
On the other hand: Can we please recognize that assuming he might resort to sexual assault is a sexist assumption in itself. If you want to try to cite statistics that’s fine: unfair discrimination usually has some basis in reality. Just consider how it feels for men to be raised under that assumption: It’s painful to know that every woman I meet has been taught to see me as a statistical rapist. It’s sort of a lesser of two evils: Let more women get raped or assume all men are capable of rape. I’ll take the second, but let’s not forget that it would be better if we could find a third choice that was a positive for everybody.
As for Mr Dawkins… well… to be perfectly honest, he said pretty much what I felt in the first two minutes of thinking about this. I completely understand his point of view because for a well-adjusted and civil man it’s offensive to think that any awkward or poorly timed remark is some sort of rape threat. It took me some time to wrangle that idea under control and analyze the larger problem.
If we can all agree that Dawkins thinks highly of himself and isn’t afraid to speak his mind (as has always been my impression), it’s not hard to see how he might have just let that initial thought run off without a careful analysis. It’s also not hard to see how he might refuse to admit that he was wrong or, at the very least, that he might have worded things better. All of which is to say: I’m less inclined to believe that Dawkins is being sexist or insensitive and more inclined to believe that he made a careless mistake and is too arrogant to admit it.
Christ… 😮 I haven’t seen this many responses since the BA was giving away a Doctor Who set!!
Anyway, after seeing this issue spread on many skeptical blogs over the past few days it’s helpful to finally have a clear overview of the events. As I am still young (with my brain more than occasionally migrating a meter downward), I have difficulty understanding the female viewpoint. But in a sense, both sides were right – Although the man may have had good intention, he did the wrong thing – given our culture and the fact of rape you just don’t talk to women like that at such times. And it’s sad to see RD being so unnecessarily sarcastic and incredulous, but he had ONE VERY MINISCULE point – IMHO her fear of rape was just a LITTLE bit reactionary. But then again, that’s human nature – so RD had no right to say everything else he did.
Aside rant: the thing that gets me with this (along with research onto the nature of homo and hetero relationships, as well as the nature of human monogamy) is that my lifelong, no-questions-asked view of sex as something so beautiful and sacred (you’re basically giving yourself to another person and becoming one with them; what could be more intimate?) that it should be respected and kept within the bound of lifelong monogamy – this lifelong view is breaking down. Based on the facts of the science, biology, evolution, psychology and sociology, sex seems to become simply a physical act to reproduce and/or spread genes, and nothing more. Monogamy becomes solely a social construction to help raise kids, and nothing more. And infidelity becomes totally natural (not necessarily right, but still) and (in the context of spreading genes) almost desirable.
In attempting to distance myself from the conservative evangelicalism of my youth and re-evalute my views of the world during these tumultuous, hormone-spiked years, I’ve been able to accept the facts of evolution, human insignificance and moral postmodernism without much heartache, but THIS goes too far. If sex is solely physical and monogamy unnatural, then what becomes of the value of the sexual act? And even human dignity?
(end aside rant)
@david: “It’s obviously wrong to speak or write in such a way that might cause someone to feel in any way threatened or uneasy or offended or insulted. ”
I think that this is a dangerous position. Although I do not like being insulted or offended, it certainly is not wrong for someone to insult or offend me. Just as Rebecca may have been unsettled by the proposition for coffee, it was not wrong for the man to ask. Should he have been more considerate to her situation? I do think so. But she cannot be protected from offense, either by law or by some other social agreement.
Also, I don’t see how this was as Phil put it – “potential sexual assault.” I don’t see how any crime can be “potential” as by definition there has been no act committed. Even crimes that are premeditated involve the “acts” of planning, which was not evident here. If a crime can be seen as potentially occurring, then all personal interactions would become suspect depending on your bias. A so-called “potential” crime cannot exist without a pre-existing bias. In this case the bias is that Rebecca was a sexual object and the man was a sexual predator. Both are gross assumptions which can lead to misunderstanding motives that for all we know may have been innocent.
Regardless, I think that ways of acting normally in social situations, wherein no criminal act is committed, are grey and should never be given hard rules of conduct for sake of free personal interaction. One needs to use one’s best judgement.
This entire debate is, I think, an interesting window in to our societal stereotypes. It seems to me, reading the comments here and other places, that many people seem to simply make assumptions about men and women as a class.
There appears that a sizable chunk of our society that sees all men as potential sexual predators. Is this true? Are they? How many men, as a percentage of the class “men” actually *are* potential violators of women? 1%? 10%? 50%? 100%? Some seem to believe the last number. I don’t know – I do suspect it’s much closer to the first number than the last. Perhaps civilization is simply a thin veneer we wrap around ourselves to make society work and the number actually is closer to the last. Though I will admit I have no absolute proof of either since, as my wife likes to say “ESP is not a supported protocol”.
It does seem though, as a society, we’ve stereotyped men as, at least internally to themselves, slavering beasts, with the beast simply waiting to make an appearance. Personally, I think this view of half of the species is a sad one.
The flip side of this is that it also seems we stereotype woman as inherent victims, reinforcing, at every opportunity, the idea that women are too weak – both physically and mentally – to stand up to the slavering beast our society says is in every man. This, it seems to me, can’t be the case either.
In my view the truly “bad thing” that’s happened here isn’t what did or didn’t happen in an elevator or what Dawkins said, but the assumptions that have lead us all here to this place where we see only uncontrollable sexual predators in half our society and weakness and a fear filled life in the other half. Surely we’re better than that, aren’t we?
Jeremy -HE DID FOLLOW HER. For heaven’s sake, he followed her into the elevator and waited until she was alone with him in an enclosed space with no witnesses to proposition her. Why didn’t he do it in the bar? Why didn’t he say something before they got into the elevator, when she could’ve backed away? Because being alone and afraid might increase the chances of her saying yes, because she’s afraid of what he’ll do if he says no? Maybe. Possibly he was just clueless as to how threatening what he did was, but in that case, all of you should be taking away the lesson from this that chasing a woman into an enclosed space in order to hit on her will read as threatening and assuming most of you are not That Guy, don’t do it. Why is that so hard to grasp?
All of you who are arguing about this need to go read Schrodinger’s Rapist: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
As a 25 year old woman, I’ve had my fair share of uncomfortable come-ons from strange men, though I must admit, in more public places than an deserted elevator at 4 in the morning. Were those events creepy? Yes. Was I uncomfortable? Yes. Did I at any point feel like I was in imminent danger of being assaulted? No.
Saying a man coming on to a woman in an elevator is “potential sexual assault” is a gross over-simplification, in my opinion. It reminds me of this joke I remember hearing.
A woman takes her husband’s boat onto the lake, where there is no fishing allowed, to have some peace and quiet. The boat is still laden with fishing equipment from the husband’s prior fishing trip to a different lake. The woman boats to the middle of the lake, starts reading and drifts off to sleep.
She awakens sometime later to see a police officer in a boat next to her. He asks her, “Ma’am, what are you doing?”
“Oh,” she says. “I was just reading, I must have drifted off to sleep.”
“Ma’am, I’m afraid I’m going to have to write you a ticket for fishing, as it is prohibited on this lake.”
“But Officer, I wasn’t fishing, I was reading.”
“Well, you have all the equipment, for all I know you could start at any time.”
“In that case, I’m going to have to accuse you of raping me.”
“What? Why?”
“You have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any time.”
The officer left her alone.
I mean, yes, hitting on a woman in a deserted elevator at 4am is a little creepy. Is it potential sexual assault? No. If something like that is, then what isn’t? Is a man buying you a drink at the bar potential assault? If a man bumps into you on the subway or on the street? Is any man anywhere a potential rapist just because he has all the equipment? Some men are skeevy, some men are violent and deranged, but I think it’s unfair to judge all men by those men.
And while I think Richard Dawkins’ comment was obviously a bit over the top and overdramatic, I think there are much, much worse things women in other places have to deal with than a man making her feel uncomfortable for a few moments in time. I’m with him on this one.
People can be brilliant and be socially awkward…as evidenced by the probably-kinda-deserved science nerd stereotype. See “The Big Bang Theory.”
Dawkins is no doubt a truly outstanding scientist in his field(s)…but there’s no reason to look to him for advice on social intercourse. Remember that he’s also the one who decided that atheists should declare ourselves to be “Brights” and celebrate “Bright Day” instead of Christmas. You know…because “atheist” had been given negative connotations by the rest of society, and calling ourselves “Brights” would be just fine with the rest of society. Yup…no one would have any issue with that!
Some great posts here, however I find it ironic that skeptics seem to have leapt into the fray based on anecdotal evidence alone. Are we not meant to test all sides.
Sounds like the guy in the elevator had a momentary lapse of judgment. Phil decided to respond to it by wallowing in bigotry and bad logic.
As Phil pointed out, merely being alone in an elevator with a man makes some women uncomfortable. Obviously men and women need separate facilities, or else men should be required to never have lapses in judgment. Hmm? (I realize he doesn’t say this, but it is the logical consequence of what he says).
I work as an EMT, with fundamentalist Christians who use the same argument Phil is using here. Except they don’t use it against heterosexual men, they use it against homosexuals.
I’ve tried to find a difference between Phil’s logic and the reasons the Christians use for why I should never drink alcohol or play role-playing games, but I can’t.
Also, Phil makes a serious error in fact: men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women are (mostly of course, at the hands of other men). We just have a higher tolerance for risk, probably because we’re trained from birth not to be “sissies.”
The Christians I work with claim that liberals are the real bigots, and I’ve defended the left at considerable risk to my employment. But I’m done. Fundamentalist liberals can be as clueless and bigoted as their counterparts on the right. I’m taking this blog off my list. I no longer consider Phil a reliable source of information. Dawkins on the other hand- he may have little understanding of how most people think or how they will react to what he says, but I have renewed respect for his moral courage.
@Jay 181
“I think the truly “bad thing” that’s happened here isn’t what did or didn’t happen in an elevator or what Dawkins said, but the assumptions that have lead us all here to this place where we see only uncontrollable sexual predators in half our society and weakness and a fear filled life in the other half. Surely we’re better than that, aren’t we?”
I wanted to say exactly that. You express my sentiment very well.
A man tried to chat up a woman in a lift, she said no, he left it at that! She felt uncomfortable for the length of time she was left in the lift with him. And I bet, so did he!
Are men not allowed to chat up women? Of course they are. A man chatting up a woman in a lift and leaving the topic when she says no is not a potential rape situation. It’s a man chatting up a woman in a lift and leaving it at that.
Are men supposed to be held responsible every time a woman feels uncomfortable?
If he hadn’t said anything, and she felt uncomfortable, would that be his fault too?
What was the man supposed to do? He liked the woman, asked her for a drink and she said no! End of!
It’s difficult enough for most guys to pluck up the courage to talk to a woman they are attracted to, never mind chat them up. Please, let’s not make it more difficult!
@Evolving Squid
“IMO everyone should have to put up with it. IMO nobody has to like putting up with it. There is no reason why all social behavior has to march to the beat of the most timid, sensitive person.”
But the problem here is the “sensitive person” is in the cool kids skeptic club, so she can’t be wrong. That’s why certain blogs are pushing this to make sure everyone must make sure their interaction with others are exactly as RW says they should be, while her actions towards others like Stef don’t matter (or are just “tangential topics”), and the opinions of women like stef (and the three girls I personally asked today who agree with Stef) who disagree just aren’t as important as RW so they should’t be listened to. That’s what really is disgusting me!
@Alex: “How about some empathy for the man being accused of all sorts here without being given a chance to defend himself. I’m not American, but I thought your justice system was based on hearing BOTH sides of a case.”
(I’m not American either, but I fail to see what the point is of that comment)
It’s because the issue here is how Rebecca felt, because people are dismissing her experience. If I was in her situation I would feel exactly the same way as her.
As for the man, no one knows who he is apart from Rebecca, he might not even know this discussion was going on, but if he did I hope he would be adult enough to take away from this what is intended (“hey man, what you did, asking a woman you had never spoken to before to come back to your room alone at 4am, whilst in an elevator, was creepy, don’t do that, try to think of how a woman might feel in that situation”) and not what everyone is making this out to be (“Hey man, don’t be a potential rapist!”). I empathise that he may not have very good social skills, so I hope he has learnt from her comment and taken away something valuable about the way to treat women – which is basically, don’t proposition women (or, if that is not what he was doing, don’t ask them back to your room alone) at 4am if it’s someone you’ve never spoken to before. Get to know her first, talk to her in an appropriately public place.
See? Not that difficult.
BTW – Before anyone comments further, please watch the video from Rebecca. What she said and what feel is saying are quite different. Try not to put words into her mouth that she did not say.
@Evolving Squid “You know how much of a potential threat you are, but how will they know, exactly?” That’s pretty much my point. Essentially, they won’t. This whole “potential rapist” phrase is a bit of a red herring, because that’s really just a reference point for how one might interpret the actions of another person. I doubt very seriously that Elevator Guy would have raped anyone, but my point is that his actions could look creepy in context, and that if you’re going to proposition someone, it is your responsibility to recognize not where you actually fall on that sliding scale, but where you might look like you fall. Your own knowledge of your potential as any sort of creepy person, even on a much less serious scale than rapist, is irrelevant. The other person in the conversation is going to have to figure out where you fall for them, so if you’re going to present yourself, do it with that in mind. That’s all I’m really saying. The “potential assault” gambit is just a way of illustrating one possible element of context in which one’s actions will be interpreted. What Elevator Guy did wasn’t wrong morally because he was a potential rapist; it was just wrong socially because he failed to realize how creepy he would seem. And I think that’s pretty much all that PZ, Phil Plait, etc. have really been saying about Elevator Guy.
You are correct that the onus is not on the rest of us to make any other person comfortable, in general. However, if you want to make friends with her, or even better have sex with her, the onus certainly is on you to either make her feel comfortable with you, or not to be surprised or offended when she rejects you because you made her uncomfortable.
+1 @Jay 181
Phil Plait says on his twitter that “many don’t get it“, I think he doesn’t get “it“ this time. Please read comment 181 Mr. Plait.
My main quibble is with the idea that a clumsy pickup line is a threat.
A large male just walking into the elevator at 4am would be just as much a potential rapist as this bumbling guy.
I absolutely agree life is different for women. I worry more about my wife walking at night.
But I see no connection between the fumbling pass and rape.
Considering the guy didn’t press his luck it really is a minor incident. Good luck if you think that means I’m trivializing female safety.
I sympathize with this woman and I think her plight is similar to whites living in black neighborhoods. The other day I had to take the bus from the grocery store to my house in west philadelphia. It was the last bus of the day. On the bus it was just me, the bus driver, and a young black fellow. As it was time to get off, the man got off the bus with me; I believe he lived just a block away. As we got off, he turned to me and asked me if I needed help with my bags. I told him I did not and walked away. I think members of the black community need to understand that they account for the vast majority of violent crimes in Philadelphia. As such, when it’s late at night they should not be talking to white people because it makes us feel uncomfortable. I believe Richard owes an apology to this woman and all people who feel dismissed and threatened in such situations.
146: “It certainly is true that the majority of men would rape a woman if given the chance, but Richard Dawkins has proven repeatedly in the past that he is against the current rape culture. It was a mistake.”
Er, what? I don’t know what’s worse, you believing this or no one here questioning it.
I wonder if the man’s appearance has anything to do with Watson’s reaction. (I am asking for a scholarly answer. No intention of attacking Watson at all.)
I don’t necessary disagree with Mr. Dawkins, but surely a great writer like him can express his points in a more positive and sympathetic way.
I don’t want to seem unsympathetic, but I find the anti-male sentiment here kind of hurtful myself to be honest. If I’m alone and a black man is walking my direction on the sidewalk and I feel the need to cross the street to avoid this potential mugging, does that make him a predator for making me feel threatened or me a racist for calling this a “potential mugging” just because of his skin color?
And how does it make a difference that the distinguishing characteristic is a Y chromosome rather than melanin levels?
Posts like this make me feel like, as a man, I need to walk on eggshells around women and it’s probably best to just avoid them entirely so as not to be called out as a predator. I don’t think that’s a productive attitude to foster.
I had a lot of gender issues as a boy because I felt like my maleness was somehow “wrong.” I had few male friends because I was worried their testosterone would rub off on me and I’d come out too male. All of my friends were always girls. I think we should teach the sexes to get along with each other and treat each other right, not simply tell men that they’re always in the wrong and they should have known better than to do [insert action here] because men are all potential rapists and they need to constantly worry about dispelling any fear that they will rape at this moment.
I’m not saying Rebecca is wrong. I don’t doubt she felt very uncomfortable and quite possibly threatened, but blaming it on the dude *just for being a dude* is unfair. IMO, this should be framed as, “This dude was socially awkward, and this is not the right way to talk to people, NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PANTS.”
@Andrew Wilson: “What was the man supposed to do?”
Get to know her first? Talk to her well before they even got to the elevator, and see if she was friendly, and then maybe receptive to his advances? It’s not that difficult.
@Cymraes – the point is that maybe she propositioned him, maybe any number of things happened but we don’t know because we only heard one side of the story. We’re expected to believe that one side because it’s a woman giving it?
We automatically override the presumption of innocence whenever we talk about cases like this. Why is that? Do we think women are saints who cannot tell a lie? Isn’t that more sexist than anything that may or may not have happened in an elevator.
Can we please stop bringing up the “obviously this means all men are rapists” point? I thought it had been made sufficiently clear that wasn’t the moral of the story, but it keeps getting brought up tirelessly as if it’s some kind of nail in the coffin. This conversation is running in circles. If you’re here for an echo chamber, do the spirit of intelligent debate a favor and leave.
If you don’t understand someone’s point, ASK. Ask lots of questions! If you’re here in good faith to expand your ideas — even if you don’t change your mind — most will respond positively and try to help you see what they’re saying. Have none of you seen Phil’s “Don’t be a Dick” speech?
I’m sad to say I don’t get it either. I read PZ’s Blog, so this makes the fifth post I’ve seen about “elevatorgate”. I’ve asked my wife to explain it to me, but she doesn’t get it either. I understand RDs point about getting it in perspective, but I can’t see the other side.
I doubt anyone is going to be able to explain it to me, but maybe someone knows of some good media, books, films, maybe even a poem, that could explain what’s so wrong with what happened?
Well, here’s the thing. Sometimes men are alone in elevators with shady looking characters too. While the threat of sexual assault is practically nil they may still feel threatened. Does this mean that they do not have a right to feel safe? No, but we, as a society, have to understand that, in dealing with other people, face risks. If you want to bring those risks to nil, you can live like a hermit. Otherwise, we have to deal with other people. Polite people in elevators indicating an interest in someone else is about as innocent an interaction as you can get. Are men simply never supposed to engage in a conversation with a woman in an effort to make her feel more secure? Where do we draw the line?
Several issues:
1. I’m kind of sorry Phil is the latest “professional skeptic” to tone-troll this a bit.
2. I’m glad that not all women are wanting to stereotype all men, and worry this issue has headed down that road already
3. I “love” how some people are assuming, without evidence, that the guy in question was a creep.
4. As to the details of the situation, not every “coffee” approach out in the open is a sexual come-in. Probably not every one in an elevator. In this specific situation, did the guy plan to meet her there or was it just a chance coincidence. Per Rebecca’s own story, this wasn’t a total 110 percent stranger, but someone who had heard her talk.
sometimes the smartest people say the absolutely dumbest things.
Two additional comments:
“Yeah, but Richard was right about horrible things happening in other parts of the world” isn’t really a defense for being insensitive to the original story.
You can’t really negate how someone is feeling by telling them they are stupid for feeling that way without showing your own ignorance.
Using a name for male genitalia as an insult?
As Shawn S pointed out in his comment, isn’t it common knowledge that elevators often have cameras installed in them? You’d have to be one incredibly big ol’ dumb man to try and pull something in there. As a smart woman wouldn’t she be aware of such a camera? As Dawkins pointed out, the woman must also have been aware of buttons to open doors, emergency buttons, etc.
I must agree with Dawkins about the sense of danger (or lack thereof) in the situation.
I found myself in an elevator in a far less admirable location (a shopping mall) and a young man in baggy clothes and chains entered my elevator and proceeded to press all the buttons available. He also began to talk to himself and fiddle with things in his pockets.
Did I think there was a good possibility that he was about to physically harm me? Yes, certainly more than if a more normal person entered the elevator and acted appropriately.
Was I thinking, hours later, about how much of a dangerous situation I found myself in? Was I thinking about how he could have murdered me in his insanity? Did I ruminate on the topic and begin to reflect on my position as a normal person in society in relation to those of us less sane? No. Sure, I panicked a little in the elevator but I swiftly found my way out and that was the end of it.
Certainly a large part of the problem exists in the mind of the potential victim here.
Come on people.
Sure, most men are NOT rapists. But a fair proportion (maybe 2%) are. And how is a woman to know that you’re a “good guy”? See Schrödinger’s Rapist
Laughing this off as “no big deal” is NOT HELPING. We wonder why women feel unwelcome in the “skeptical movement” and then, when one woman has the TEMERITY to complain about inappropriate behaviour from a man everyone falls over each other to condemn her?
Get a grip and LISTEN to women’s concerns.
Speaking as a man, the nature of these comments bothers me. YES, as a guy, I’m often shocked at what counts as ‘sexual assault’ (I had that at freshman orientation in college, where (I THINK) asking someone out was considered sexual assault if they said no) but at the same time… but I’ve always thought the general rule of thumb is to give the other person an easy out if they’re not interested in talking to you. THEN… if I heard that in an elevator from a woman, I’m pretty sure I’d also be making similar assumptions about when and where and why she was asking. So, it’s not a ‘nothing happened’ scenario, and I can’t quite understand why Dawkins didn’t see that.
Inasmuch as the label of what constitutes sexual assault can be pretty broad if the person is determined to pin something on you, I’ve always thought the general rule of thumb is to give the other person an easy out if they’re not interested in talking to you. This guy didn’t really give her an easy out, and the topic of conversation was itself a little creepy. I wonder if RW would have mentioned it if the encounter hadn’t had two alarms.
I’m surprised everyone ignored Richard’s original point, that genuinely horrible things are happening to Muslim women around the world and nobody cares.
Why do we not care about them?
Why are there hundreds of comments about a girl being made to feel uncomfortable by a clueless guy. But for some reason, the women Richard was referring to, are completely irrelevant?
Is it not slightly concerning that we only seem to care about western people living in western society?
Oi vey. Sorry to say, now i have very little reason to bother to read this blog anymore. This story brings astronomy to a whole new low…
@ 104. DiscountDeity Says:
“Uh, no. To create a world where women are seen as equal to men.”
Tough luke than, because they in fact aren’t equal. And that is part of the issue here: Woman can not be seen as equal to men, in as much as the are not equally likely to be raped.
Insofar the fear of women to be raped is more justified. However the fear of being invaded by the Commies was more justified than that of being invaded by Marsians. But acting on this fear to the max and disrespect other peoples freedom smells of McCarthy.
So saying “I’m in fear, please don’t do this ” is surely ok with me, but responding to this with either agreement or rejection is optional.
Equality isn’t:
-Assuming that you are on an equal footing with someone, and making them an open and honest proposition.
Equality is:
-Remembering that women are fundamentally weaker than men, and thus can only be approached in specific circumstances and contexts in order to prevent causing them trauma.
-To avoid being a sexist, you must learn complicated and arcane rules about how to avoid treading on the particular frailties of women and follow them at all times. Men, however, are resilient and hardy, and thus can be approached as human beings.
The whole “creepy” argument is basically predicated on the notion that women are inferior. If we’re going to be breaking down stereotypes, let’s start there.
My problem with this whole “scandal” is that it turns a suggestion into an accusation. Nowhere in RW’s video does she accuse this guy of being a potential rapist or of sexual harassment. She simply said, given the context of the situation, that it made her uncomfortable. That’s not the same thing. She didn’t vilify this person, she used it as an example of the kind of faux pas we’re likely to make when interacting with the opposite sex. There was nothing dramatic or hysterical about it. So you have a lot of people crying foul over something she never said. The intense back and forth we’re seeing is in response to each other – not RW’s original point.
Come on, guys, it’s not a case of trying to talk with Rebecca. The definitive “over the line” part is inviting her TO HIS ROOM to talk. That part is most definitely not acceptable, and more than a little bit creepy. I suspect — though, being male, can’t say for sure — that something like “Interesting talk. I’d like to discuss it further over coffee sometime” would be less creepy, though perhaps not completely so, given the late hour and isolated location.
@james that’s the whole point. To take the concern away from muslim women and focus on the problems of women not in a an oppressive society, but in a stereotypical-double-standard society.
I’m not surprised. As much as I respect and admire Richard Dawkins’ accomplishments, having observed his public life for some years now, this only confirms to me what I’ve suspected all along: Richard Dawkins is an a-hole. He’s one of those smart people who totally lose it at the bare mention of religion, especially Islam. He doesn’t care about freedom or reason or anything else – the only thing that matters to him is to prove how justified his hatred of religion is and he can’t do that if you point out to him that we (Western civilization) aren’t all pure and good, either, especially when it comes to our treatment of women which can’t all be blamed on religion. This is very much like back in the good old days of the Cold War where all who dared to criticize the West were immediately accused of losing perspective and/or siding with the enemy.
As for the Elevator Guy, the first thing I thought of was a quote from Gavin de Becker’s “The Gift of Fear” which goes something like this: what men fear most is that some woman will laugh at them. What women fear most is that some man will kill them. And that’s all women, all the time. This is the context the elevator incident must be viewed in. Dammit, I’m a 6″ 300 lbs dude with murder in my eyes and I would take a good damn look at any guy in an elevator at 4am, so I sure as hell won’t blame a woman for feeling uncomfortable.
@Cymraes: “Get to know her first?”
That’s all very well saying that. Maybe he hadn’t had the opportunity and this was the only time he had to ask her. Maybe he was only asking her back to his room in order to get to know her better! Who knows?
I’m afraid people cannot be held responsible every time someone else feels uncomfortable. People are different and behave differently, we need to get used to that.
Chatting someone up in a lift is not a crime, not even a potential one. Indeed, some women that I know personally, may have said yes to him, even if it had just been plain sex he was looking for (and that’s fine).
There is noting wrong with consenting adults having sex and, believe it or not, getting chatting in a lift is one of the ways it happens!
She said no, he left it. He did nothing wrong!
@ Andrew Wilson #184 – “It’s difficult enough for most guys to pluck up the courage to talk to a woman they are attracted to, never mind chat them up. Please, let’s not make it more difficult!”
Wow – just, wow! Do you understand what you’re saying? Are you really asking women to not communicate to men what behaviors make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, because it will make men more nervous about talking to women?
“Chatting someone up in a lift is not a crime…She said no, he left it. He did nothing wrong!” – No one said it was a crime – those are your words. It’s a matter of using good judgment and being a little more understanding of a woman’s feelings in certain situations.
You have succeeded in providing a startlingly clear example of a man trivializing a woman’s perspective in favor of his own.
@SocraticGadfly –
I’m here to tell you that any man that I didn’t know, regardless of what he looked like, who pulled this come on in an elevator would be branded a creep. I’m going to hazard a guess and say that a lot of women would agree with me. Maybe this is something you’d appreciate learning?
Also – just because he heard her talk does not mean he suddenly knows her, and, more importantly, definitely does not mean she knows him (or even recognizes him). I graduated engineering school in a class that was less than 10% female. I had guys come up to me years after we graduated and I had no idea who they were….but they apparently “knew” (and remembered) every female.
You’re a man at a conference and you’ve seen/heard a woman who you really, really like. By a stroke of luck, you end up in an elevator together. You feel she could Be The One, but she doesn’t know you from Adam. What can you say to her that won’t get you featured in all of her OMG The Creeps I’ve Met stories?
I have a flowchart!
1. Hi!
2. I happened to (see/hear) your (presentation/workshop/comment made) and I thought you brought up some really good points.
[If she doesn’t respond in anyway (no eye contact/grunt/silence) she’s not The One. Oh well. STOP]
[But if she does respond with a smile, a thank you, “I worked really hard on that”, etc, go to step 3.]
3. It’s really late and I’m tired and need to get to bed, but I would love to talk to you more about this. I’ve done (research in/studies on/lifelong hobby in that area) and it’s nice to find someone who can speak so well on it. You wouldn’t happen to be free for lunch tomorrow? The restaurant has some (pretty good/pretty crappy but cheap) food.
[STOP. If she says yes, great! Make arrangements.]
[If she says she’s busy, she might truly be busy, or she might be blowing you off. If she says she’s busy, go to step 4.]
4. Yeah these schedules are packed. Here is my card with my (email/website/twitter/facebook). Feel free to contact me. OR. Hey, my twitter is this Easily Remembered Handle. Feel free to (follow/comment/contact me).
5. I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference. Bye! Take care!
There you go. You can feel good that you took a chance on talking to a woman, and you haven’t acted like a possible rapist featured in a local news story. (“The attacker lured the victim back to his hotel room with an offer for ‘coffee'”, said with a sad yet knowing look for the victim’s foolishness in falling for such a ploy.)
@James – Strangely enough, a middle eastern culture seems to be what people want here. Women have to cover themselves up whenever they go outside just in case us evil men won’t be able to restrain ourselves.
I am frankly amazed by all the idiots who keep saying they’ve been told all man are rapists and now it’s forbidden to flirt/talk to a lady or look her in the eyes and whatnot.
No, that is not what is being said and that deliberate distortion of what IS being said is only driving the point home that atheist males appear to be utterly unable to see where they need to work on their attitudes.
Looking a woman in the eye/talking to her/flirting with her/being interested in her =/= most unsubtly asking for sex when you don’t even know her and being a total creep.
Chris said it best in one of the above comments: If you think Rebecca SHOULD not have felt uncomfortable, that is completely irrelevant. The other side is telling you it IS.
A handful of males and females even point out to you that being harassed or sexually assaulted in an elevator is not extremely far-fetched, nor an easily escapable situation.
So please, do as proper atheists do, accept the facts and act accordingly. Your fantasy world, in which a woman alone in an elevator doesn’t have to worry about a thing when some guy she doesn’t know invites her for sex (or where she is likely to think: Hey, awesome idea!) is fiction. If you want to live a life based on fiction, you know where your local church is.
@CJSF, I wasn’t being tongue in cheek, I really do avoid all contact with women to reduce the chances they’ll think I’m a potential rapist or a creep. I’d rather be thought of as rude, antisocial and unhelpful as these seem slightly better than creep. Like Andy and Chris, I’m resigned to living alone as whatever I do women assume the worst and say it’s wrong, so I gave up long ago trying to live up to their ideals. Our society is being slowly torn apart by the mutual fear, paranoia and suspicions we have about each other, so the situation cannot last too long before we entirely destroy ourselves. In the end, humans cannot live together, so we’ll die together.
I keep seeing the same pattern in the posts I read about this. It does not seem to matter whose blog is it or how time it passed since the discussion started. It forces me to basically make the same post all over again.
I am a guy, and I don’t blame anyone for trying to meet women at these conferences because they are clearly going to be smart women with compatible beliefs. Though really, the elevator guy was wrong. Perhaps unintentionally so, but still. I will agree with RD that it was only “slightly bad”. What I don’t find to be “slightly bad” is RD’s and many people0s reaction to Skepchick talking about this.
1) No, nobody is asking you guys not to propose women. Or to lose your sexual identity, etc. What you are being asked for is to consider not to make the woman you are asking out completely uncomfortable. If you want to ask someone out try doing it in a public place like a bar when she actually looks like she is not incredibly tired. Perhaps you have to consider to get she to know you before proposing those things? And try to first check out if she is actually interested in meeting potential partners before going into that. I think it is basic consideration.
2) Yes, it was uncomfortable. Elevators are worse than a dark corner and much harder to get out from. You can’t just press a button, you will then have to wait at least 3 seconds for the door to open. If the guy is a rapist you are doomed.
3) No, you are not entitled for the benefit of the doubt. If your first choice to approach a woman for the first time is a confined elevator away of witnesses. She has no choice but to consider you a potential threat. Yes, perhaps you are a nice guy and are not a threat, but how will she know? You didn’t bother to get her to know you before that situation.
4) No, the guy didn’t “just” ask for coffee. “Coffee at his room” at 4:00 AM is obviously more than just coffee, and boy, I used to think I was socially clueless but if even I can see it, I don’t get why wouldn’t you see it.
5) Finally, and what I really want to say. Is that the overall attitude about thinking that you are entitled to ask women out regardless of any consideration to her situation and how comfortable it would be for her to receive the proposal. I don’t think it is right to believe that their only right is to say no. They shouldn’t have to go through these situations in their first place. It is great that they can say no, but they shouldn’t have to say it in the first place.
It’s offensive to label someone a possible sexual predator when they haven’t done or said or implied anything of the sort, isn’t it? How would you feel to be considered a possible racist, for example? Or what if it was a guy of one race feeling threatened by a guy of another race who invited him for coffee in an elevator? Would he have a point? Would it be to say that those of the other race should watch what they say in order to not be threatening?
Look, we all know that sexual assault and disrespect for women are real problems. I’m a guy, and I can’t imagine how annoying and threatening it must be when men shout things from the street or follow you or do any other things of that sort. Men like that should be shot. But a man in an elevator asking a woman back to his room for coffee is not that, and it’s not a threat, unless you’ve prejudged him as a possible sexual predator (because without an implied threat, there’s no disrespect here). And I think that’s wrong. You don’t have to agree, of course, but some people are going to feel offended if you suspect that they’re a racist, or a sexual predator, or a misogynist, or murderer or whatever.
One might also characterize it as less than respectful, but that’s largely a matter of perspective, and I don’t really hear any gender issues here anyway, unless you’re inclined to ascribe gender issues to any discussion coming anywhere near sex. That is, where’s the implication in what the guy did that has anything to do with the particulars of their sex?
Not to say that Rebecca Watson shouldn’t have felt uncomfortable, or that she shouldn’t say to the community, “hey, this made me feel uncomfortable, this is a problem for the community.” It’s a point of view, and worth saying because it clearly does make people uncomfortable: Watson, for example. And that’s worth knowing. But it doesn’t mean that people who disagree are misogynists, whatever their gender.
I suspect as well that there’s a cultural difference at play here between Europeans and Americans. America is somewhat more violent country than most of western Europe; we may be more inclined to feel threatened than Europeans in the same situation.
Phil,
You’ve added nothing to this overblown, drawn-out conversation. (did you really think you could at this point?) This has been going on for days with some of the stupidest commentary I’ve ever seen on the web. Tempest in teacup doesn’t come close to describing it. It should have died down long ago. Even PZ said he was done with it but couldn’t help typing up another post about it today. Also offering nothing new. It’s now clear you and everyone else see the benefit of dragging this on a little more. More hits for me! Congrats, my man! … you too are a low rent hoar. You’re a hoar for cheap hits. (misspelled on purpose in the hopes of avoiding pathetic nanny filter)
And that goes for anyone else who makes a post about this ridiculous dust-up.
(And yes, I’m kind of embarrassed I’ve just enabled you with this comment… ugh.)
This and other blogs on this topic reminds me their are infact two species of human males: Ones that get it and ones that don’t. I guess it would be prejudice of me to say, I wish the latter where unable to reproduce. But suffice to say, I think the world would be a better place if they didn’t. Just saying.
The problem isn’t so much that the man made her feel uncomfortable, but that the man put Rebecca in a position where she could not tell if he posed a danger or not. Her uneasiness stems not directly from his actions but indirectly from her inability to determine his intentions. The moral is not that her interpretation of the situation was wrong or over reacting, but that men should take care not to act in a way that makes innocent intentions come off as ambiguous, especially given that the threshold of being threatening to a woman is much lower than it is to a man.
Sorry, but forgot to include.
You really wanted to meet a certain member of the opposite sex and you haven’t have a chance to do so. So, by fate you end up in the same elevator! And it is 4:00 AM! This is your only chance! What do you do?
You do nothing. Because meeting her in a secluded area when she is looking really tired is NOT your only chance. Because it is NOT a chance. There is a great deal of probability you will come out as creepy or at least inconsiderate if you do that. So, try not to do it and wait for an actual opportunity.
I don’t think people understand the potential implications of what this line of thinking means. By saying this is a potential rape/assault scenario and suggesting that the elevator guy should have seen it as such has broader social implications. It means that every time a black person is shopping in a white owned establishment, they are required to avoid appearing suspicious. It means that white people should go out of their way, in all interaction, to not appear to be racists to blacks and other minorities because of the entrenched history of racism in the US. If you’re white, you may have a black friend that you can tell a benign racial joke, to and she might laugh, but if you were to tell that joke to another black person you are a perceived racist. Does it make you a racist? This is a ridiculous standard of behavior and completely discounts the individual. No one should purposefully put another person into a position where they feel uncomfortable, however people are overlooking the elevator guy’s state of mind throughout all of this. Bloggers and commenters are turning this situation in to a cosmic universal truth that everyone should just get, but to do this, you have to assert that every woman would have the same fear or level of discomfort that Rebecca Watson had in that situation and it’s just not true, as demonstrated by many women in various comment threads that have indicated they wouldn’t (at least based on the facts available). This is a ridiculous standard, and in my opinion, the reason why we have so much discrimination and mistrust in our society. People making broad sweeping generalizations about one group is the reason why people are discriminatory and live in states of fear, whether they have power or not. I know for some, it doesn’t appear to be as big of a crime when one group is holding another group with more power to that standard, but it becomes a problem when you start applying this standard to other aspects in our lives. It is what many people do to others and it created the system before the civil rights movement when blacks changed and adapted their behavior to please whites, to include walking around the block when white women were standing in certain places.
I want to make it clear that I am in no way complaining about what Rebecca Watson may have felt during this incident or saying she should have felt differently. If she felt creeped out and uncomfortable, she was well within her rights, and had the right to blog about it. My issue with people is when they say this guy should have known he was placing himself in a situation as a potential rapist or assaulter. They are discounting his state of mind altogether. The same way he knows he’s not a rapist is the same way I know I’m not a shoplifter when I go to the mall to buy some shoes, and I’m not going to walk around worrying about what people may think of me. As a black man in an elevator with a white woman who is clutching her purse (because of her fear of me as a black and also a man) am I supposed to step out of the elevator, or should I go about my business and ride the elevator to my destination? What the elevator guy did was a social error, in my opinion, but it was a part of the everyday interaction that most people do. Perhaps he did it at the wrong time and perhaps he lacked adequate social skills to know the times where things are generally more acceptable (measured only by personal experience and honed through many years of social interaction) but it doesn’t make what he did universally wrong in a cosmic sense. It makes him a person who made someone uncomfortable because of how she felt.
@Squid:
“No, Greg, I was not the one who brought up the term ‘potential sexual assault’… Phil did. That is an old-school, Patty Dworkin description of male-female social interaction.”
Yes, but Phil is not one of the women commenting on this. Somewhere after the initial “hey this is a creepy thing that happened” something went horribly wrong and all too many skeptics are now debating whether man + woman + elevator at 4 am = rape waiting to happen. As I said in my initial comment this is a storm in a teacup that should’ve been left as an example of how not to approach women in hotels and became an amalgamation of the readers’ fears and sensibilities.
“That is an old-school, Patty Dworkin description of male-female social interaction.”
No, a Patty Dworkin description would be saying that every time a man looks at a woman all he can think about is how best to rape her and make her his sex slave. (For those who don’t know, she insisted that penetrative intercourse between consenting adults is rape by definition of being penetrative.) Yes, a lot of the reactions of “OMFG! Rapist!” here are way overblown, I’ll grant you that. But again, as noted above, we’re now talking about possibilities and potentialities colored through the readers’ biases and fears rather than the actual incident.
Being propositioned in an elevator in the middle of the night may carry a higher risk of potential sexual assault. That’s a risk decision that the woman has to make.
After something has already happened, or as it’s happening, is a little too late to make a risk decision. To Rebecca’s credit, we should note that she didn’t freak out that she was alone with a man in an elevator and consider that a countdown to sexual assault, nor did she say that she was terrified that he was going to rape her if she said no. All this is being added by the readers and acquired a life of its own.
“Some people seem to be trying to blame the man for something that is wholly the woman’s issue.”
Well, I think we owe it to women to gauge the situation and try not to be creepy. In another post, I showed how he could’ve still asked her to get some coffee without coming off as a total creep. Again, he didn’t have to be silent or refuse to take the elevator so a woman didn’t even have to think about being uncomfortable. He should’ve just picked a better moment.
“People seem to be suggesting that the onus is on men to take whatever steps are necessary so that women don’t feel uncomfortable.”
Well, being respectful and non-threatening to others should be everyone’s responsibility. Yes, we as men should try to do what we can so we don’t scare the women around us. And having met some rather creepy women a few times, yes, there are things women shouldn’t do as well. Now if the issues is that some women are threatened by the very presence of a man around them and immediately assume that he’s a rapist, that’s not a problem any amount of social decorum will solve.
I think Phil has really distilled the argument down here fairly well (or, rather, the argument that people are all clinging to, but not the poor way Watson handled the other issue, when she called out someone who disagreed with her at the beginning of her speech on something unrelated).
He refers to the incident as a “potential sexual assault”. Some people (men and women) do not agree with that assessment. So to say that Dawkins is comparing chewing come to a potential sexual assault is rather defamatory.
Here’s the rub: I can see how a woman might feel that way in that situation, but how someone feels does not translate into an actual fact. If a woman feels that a man in an elevator (even one that doesn’t talk) is a potential rapist, that doesn’t make him a potential rapist.
I, like others on the sane side of this argument, have no problem with Watson finding the invitation creepy and uncomfortable. Nor do I have a problem with her saying so publicly. I agree that the guy was clueless, and shouldn’t have done what he did.
I do have a problem with the invective received by those who don’t share her feelings on the matter, not least the woman who was named in her speech (Watson accused a woman who disagreed with her of parroting sexist attitudes, in a forum where no response was possible). No one is obligated to believe that Rebecca Watson’s feelings reflect anything more than her opinion, which can be disagreed with.
And quite frankly, Phil’s equation of “man and woman in an elevator” with “potential sexual assault” is incredibly insulting to men in general. It ranks right up there with “group of black kids” being the same as “potential mugging”.
I think the problem here is a fundamental failure to understand by both sides. Dawkins didn’t get that Rebecca Watson’s purpose was to explain how these types of situations can make some women feel. She was explaining why and how situations that appear innocent can turn into a terrible situation. It is a legitimate concern to many women and something people should be aware of. If I interrupt it right, the purpose of her talking about this story was to raise awareness so that people consider how their actions might be interpreted.
Now, on the other side, there are people who don’t get how the people on Dawkin’s side feel. Just as it is important to understand how Rebecca Watson perceived the situation, it is important to understand how Dawkins and other perceived the situation. To them, there was an innocent man, making a polite bit of conversation with a woman, and being treated like a rapist for it. To them, he did nothing actually wrong so he shouldn’t be treated like he did. Their argument was that all of the people saying “Don’t do this!” were being ridiculous because if you tried to avoid doing anything that might make someone uncomfortable, you’d never do anything.
The problem is, they are both right. Everyone should be aware of how their actions may be interrupted and may affect others. Words do matter and the other persons perception matters. But at the same time, intentions also matter. You need to consider how you’re actions will effect and be interpreted by others. But that applies to the creepy guy in the elevator as well as the lone woman in the elevator.
Not all women and not all men are the same, nor is every situation. The line “There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable” is incorrect. A predatory vibe can exist under two conditions in this scenario. If the man is intending to be predatory or if the woman perceives him to be predatory. Neither have to happen. He could be intending to be friendly and she could interpret it as friendly.
He should be aware she might perceive that, and she should be aware he might not have meant that. Maybe he should think twice before inviting a strange woman up to his room but she should also think twice about assuming he wants to do something bad to her just because it’s possible.
I fully agree with Phil and I hope my following comments will not be taken out of proportion.
The above just reminded me of something that happened to me a while back. When I was a teenager I used to like to smile, wave or talk to children on a sunny day, just as a friendly gesture or to enjoy the marvelous imagination of young kids. (ok this already sounds weird if you write it down..) It wasn’t considered strange due to my age. However, recently (I’m 25 now) if I were to even smile or wave or talk to a child in the presence of her mother, I would get a stare from the mother that says something like: get away from my child, you rapist. I completely understand the attitude, but it kind of hurts.
The same is the case if I get into a elevator and there is only a woman. I usually get so uncomfortable (under the implication of that I might be some kind of weirdo) that I’d rather take the stairs, which I then most often do.
I know it’s always better to be cautious but sometimes I get depressed by the fact that people are basically implying that you might be some kind of sexual predator.
Remember: the above inconveniences should certainly not be compared with any of the above, since they are certainly of a more serious quality.
Ok, I think I understand now. After decades demanding equal rights for women because they aren’t fragile little snowflakes, it turns out women are, in fact, fragile little snowflakes who can’t handle simple conversation with a lone man. So I guess we should go back to the old ways of keeping women protected and safe from the big bad world. After all, every single male is a potential rapist and can’t be trusted to be alone with any woman.
Should we rename this blog “Bad Philosophy” now instead?
@SocraticGadfly: “I “love” how some people are assuming, without evidence, that the guy in question was a creep.”
As far as I can tell, no one is calling him a creep, just that what he did (or rather, the manner in which he did it) was creepy. There is a difference.
@Alex: The point is, you’re still dismissing her experience. Can you really not understand how a woman would feel in that situation? The issue blew up like this because people just don’t seem to understand why what he (allegedly *sigh*) did was inappropriate. THAT is the point. Whether he did it or not is beside the point – Rebecca was just trying to inform guys that it is the wrong way to approach someone. That’s it. On the other hand, if she had named a guy, said he did this thing, and called him a malicious creep or something, then yes, I would need to hear his side of the story. I definitely do not always assume innocence when I hear a woman’s side of a story, but that isn’t the point here.
If we’re choosing sides, and Rebecca’s story is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it inaccurate), then I think Rebecca’s in the right here: she, and other reasonable women, feel that this was creepy, so don’t be creepy. Easy enough. I think most men would recognize that this was creepy from the get-go, without having to be told. Calling it a “potential sexual assault” might even be accurate, if somewhat hyperbolic (pretty clear he was propositioning her, but I’d *hope* the odds of actual assault after clueless-propositioner-shootdown are tiny compared to the propositioner just moving along, as apparently happened here.)
But, speaking as an adult male who (hopefully) manages to avoid being creepy, it saddens me that just my solitary, silent presence in an elevator with a woman would also be interpreted as creepy by (some) reasonable women. Although I know there are men out there that have given reason for women to think this, at some level that seems to share roots with the batch of crazy that the skeptical community was so recently calling Scott Adams out on (with the worst of us men being used as a model for the rest of us.) It’s hard for that realization to not prompt at least a little defensiveness, though.
My guess is that Ms. Watson posted her video for pure lucrative reasons. Ka-ching!
I don’t think I have time or energy to read through and respond to the comments on this post, but I fell the need to speak up all the same. Dawkins has always been a hero of mine, but it is tremendously disappointing to see him shoot so incredibly wide of the mark. I am a white, straight, middle-class American male. Now, I don’t think this makes my thoughts on feminist matters automatically invalid—but I do respect the simple fact that WOMEN will always know what it’s like to be a woman better than I do. Furthermore, the perception of danger is a bad thing. Less bad than real, actual danger? Sure. But still bad, and still worth considering.
Look, the actual problem in Dawkins’s response is rather fundamental: it shows a lack of compassion and consideration for another human being’s perspective I find deeply troubling.
@lagomorph:
146: “It certainly is true that the majority of men would rape a woman if given the chance, but Richard Dawkins has proven repeatedly in the past that he is against the current rape culture. It was a mistake.”
Er, what? I don’t know what’s worse, you believing this or no one here questioning it.
I think it’s just too much of a WTF?! comment to even question. There’s nonsense, absurdity, inanity, and things that make you walk away shaking your head in shock or disgust and disbelief. That comment falls firmly into the last category for me.
Judging by the comments, this debate could go on all night…
So do you guys want to come back to my place for coffee?
Seems like both positions are extreme. I’m a younger man, albeit married. Is there any situation in which I don’t run this risk of seeming “creepy” to a randomly-chosen woman? I’ll wager no, so the solution derived from this sort of argument is to never speak to women. That’s unsatisfactory to me (and, I would hope, anybody), so I’ll continue as I have been thus far: doing my best to act appropriately for the situation at hand. That’s not very easy for me in particular, but I’d rather fail than not try.
In this case, I can absolutely emphasize with the man (assuming he wasn’t a predator). If I ran into someone whose talk I’d seen, I’d probably jump at the opportunity to talk with her about it more, even if it was late and in an elevator. If she’s offended by this, she has every right to tell me why, so hopefully I can avoid it next time.
I disagree that awkward situations are atrocities to be avoided at all costs, but I also disagree that women don’t have the right to be offended.
@Mrs. BA
” … @ Andrew Wilson #184 – “It’s difficult enough for most guys to pluck up the courage to talk to a woman they are attracted to, never mind chat them up. Please, let’s not make it more difficult!”
Wow – just, wow! Do you understand what you’re saying? Are you really asking women to not communicate to men what behaviors make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, because it will make men more nervous about talking to women?
You have succeeded in providing a startlingly clear example of a man trivializing a woman’s perspective in favor of his own. … ”
I am actually asking women to make it more clear if they are uncomfortable.
Had she made it clear to him in the lift that she felt uncomfortable then I would agree. She didn’t. She made a video claiming it was a potential assault situation and put it on the internet! Way to increase face to face communication!
As it was, we don’t even know if that guy was attracted to her. As far as she knows it could really have been in innocent suggestion (to assume otherwise is to assume that any man in that situation is a potential rapist which, of course, they are not!).
Are you seriously suggesting that, by trying to put forward how the man may have felt, I am trivialising the woman’s situation?
@Mrs. BA – You have trivialised men’s perspective in this, not the other way around. There is nothing trivial about the ridiculous, Victorian approach some women seem to think men should take.
Let me make this perfectly clear so you can pass it on to every woman you know. Men want this thing they might have taught you about in school called ‘sexual intercourse’. We’re bombarded with messages every second of every day telling us that we should want this.
We were, unfortunately, also led to believe that the people we want sexual intercourse with – I believe they are called ‘women’ – are equally interested in sexual intercourse with the male of the species.
What we weren’t told was that we are only supposed to want it when we have a signed contract specifically stating that the woman wants it to, and only then once there has been some sort of ceremony involving a church, lots of crying and an expensive ring. And only then once a week on Saturdays with the lights turned off.
Even more unfortunately, despite what certain Mel Gibson films suggest, the male of the species is not telepathic so we are incapable of knowing whether or not a woman is interested without opening a discussion first.
In all seriousness, this man’s only crime (which I’m now more inclined than ever to believe didn’t actually happen) was being honest about what he wanted.
Phil: “we all need to make sure that all men understand the woman’s point of view”
There’s a monolithic “woman’s point of view” that I can study? Link please!
If such a public education campaign actually succeeded, wouldn’t it give the real creeps (whether manipulative pick-up artist or violent rapist) a chance to fine-tune their strategies? I speculate that the evolution of empathy was at least partially from the benefits that being able to think like your prey/opponent gives you in hunting/war.
IMO, it’s issues like these that destroy communities. The extremists square off across a somewhat artificial line and start “representing” the community, while those in the middle just kind of quietly wander away. It doesn’t help at all if those with prominence in the community allow themselves to be dragged in, without trying to find and stress the common ground. It seems like there is a common issue here, that all humans everywhere should be able to live without feeling fear of the threat of violence. Is it helpful or necessary to debate the *type* of violence threatened?
@218. james
if any thing happens we could hire Casey Anthony’s lawyers.
@Horseman: However, if you want to make friends with her, or even better have sex with her, the onus certainly is on you to either make her feel comfortable with you, or not to be surprised or offended when she rejects you because you made her uncomfortable.
I agree. However, what I may think of his personal technique for doing that is largely irrelevant. *HE* thought he had a chance, and in the absence of any evidence that he did anything that might actually be physically threatening, the whole of this issue is in RW’s head. Further, in the heads of some others, like Phil, they are basing their outcry on a “potential sexual assault” – a position for which they have not a shred of evidence. Still further, it is being suggested by some commenters that the onus to not appear to be in a position of “potential sexual assault” lies with the man.
@bulbul: As for the Elevator Guy, the first thing I thought of was a quote from Gavin de Becker’s “The Gift of Fear” which goes something like this: what men fear most is that some woman will laugh at them. What women fear most is that some man will kill them. And that’s all women, all the time.
Which is really interesting because if you look at assault statistics (many links, easy to look up), men are overwhelmingly the victims of assault, including deadly assault. If you waved a magic wand and wiped out all violence against women tomorrow, it would only lightly dent crime statistics. Even if you look at aggravated assault and cut out common assault, men are overwhelmingly victims, and aggravated assault is seriously injurious by definition. Men are not expected to live in fear despite this. Or is being assaulted an example of “male privilege” ?
Is being groped or raped really worse than being stabbed in the face with a screwdriver and beaten to within an inch of your life because you looked at someone wrong on a Saturday night down at the bar? I don’t know.
Who would’ve guessed that a man whose primary authorial gimmick was to be unnecessarily confrontational and nasty towards religious people would turn out to be unnecessarily confrontational and nasty in what by any standards should’ve been a small internet debate. People are surprised by this?
The heart of party politics is believing people who agree with you are, on the whole, somehow morally superior to people who don’t. Or, to restate that, if a person who… let’s say believed in ghosts/homeopathic medicine/some other nonsense posted those same three comments I feel the general level of outrage around here would’ve been 50-60 times higher. Based on half the comments on here, saying the right things apparently buys you a lot of “benefit of the doubt”
Regardless of his impressive scientific achievements, Dawkins has bluntly been a jerk for a while now. I guess people didn’t notice because he was being a jerk to the right sorts of people.
Here’s my problem with the whole “creepy” thing:
The term “Creepy” is often (especially in a case like this one) completely defined by whether or not the woman is interested in turn, with NO CHANGE in circumstance. If I’m at some sort of conference, and see a woman in the elevator also an attendee, and I invite her to lunch, is that creepy?
The answer is: it depends on if she says yes or no. If she likes my pheromones of voice or facial symmetry or whatever and says yes, and we have a pleasant lunch… it’ll never be considered strange. But if not, then I’m a weird creepy guy hitting on her.
While I get that it’s a little uncomfortable, given that this guy is NOT some sort of predator, and that the social expectation is on men to make the first move, I think he needs to be given ex post facto a little slack.
The guy was being a creep. He was also quite likely under the influence of some alcohol. Hands up those of us who have not done something stupid or insensitive after drinking until 4AM…
@Andrew Wilson: “Maybe he hadn’t had the opportunity and this was the only time he had to ask her.”
Then he should have just left it be and hoped he’d have another chance at another time. 4am after a woman has declared her wish to go to bed is no time to start chatting a woman up. Really.
“Maybe he was only asking her back to his room in order to get to know her better! Who knows?”
It doesn’t matter what his intention really was – he was asking a woman that he had never spoken to before back to his hotel room ALONE AT 4AM. That is creepy. Most women would be creeped out by that, and rightly so because it’s an inappropriate situation. Because a false negative is safer than a false positive – it’s safer to assume he might mean her harm and not go to a strangers room alone, than to assume he means no harm and go to a strangers room and be assaulted. That is the basic judging of a situation anyone will do for their own safety.
“I’m afraid people cannot be held responsible every time someone else feels uncomfortable. People are different and behave differently, we need to get used to that.”
And people should be able to judge what is appropriate behaviour, so as to avoid making anyone feel unnecessarily uncomfortable.
“Chatting someone up in a lift is not a crime, not even a potential one.”
No one said it was. Just that it is creepy if you don’t know the person, and it is 4am in a hotel.
“Indeed, some women that I know personally, may have said yes to him, even if it had just been plain sex he was looking for (and that’s fine).”
That is totally fine, but I would be rather concerned about how these women manage their safety if they were my friends.
“There is noting wrong with consenting adults having sex and, believe it or not, getting chatting in a lift is one of the ways it happens!”
Wow, you are REALLY missing the point here.
She said no, he left it. He did nothing wrong!
So is this finally the situation where Pascal’s Wager makes sense? It’s safer to assume a man is a rapist because the consequence of making an error in the other direction is horrific. I know. A huge majority of men are not actually rapists, even the creepy ones. Are male rapists giving the rest of us a bad reputation like those darn Islamic terrorists who cause so much trouble for peaceful Muslims?
As a fairly introverted guy I can say that almost all social situations make me uncomfortable every day. I realize there are people who freely blurt out every thought that crosses their mind, while seeming comfortable with wide eyed stares and laughter. But it seems to me there is a huge difference between being rude and “potentially assaulting” someone. I certainly admire Rebecca mentioning the encounter in order to educate the filterless people that there are some times and places where come-ons are not just unappreciated, but also scary. But I think Richard makes a valid point that you can’t expect people to not be human. When one person is attracted to another, it is not uncommon for a proposition to follow.
It seems there is a very wide gray area on this topic, and people on all sides of the conversation are going to be uncomfortable. When the resolution of this topic finally settles to some equilibrium, I very much hope that it doesn’t result in the Pascal’s Wager-like acquiescence to the judgment that the safest and most common assessment of any individual man as an unwelcome predator. That would be a defeat for both women and men. I certainly don’t think Rebecca meant it that way.
My God hasn’t enough time been wasted on this? Just skimming these comments it seems obvious that this is rapidly degrading into an old-fashioned battle of the sexes. Let’s just admit that the guy was wrong to do what he did, admit that many women and men have difficulty understanding each other’s opinions, leave it at that and stop wasting the day arguing over it.
But then again, that’s just a consequence of the digital age…
Also, please remember, if you are a young black man, you basically make all white people, and Jesse Jackson, uneasy just by your mere presence, so please be so kind as to not get on the elevator with a white person at all.
John duBois: Is there any way he can make an advance without creating a threatening situation or a “potential sexual assault”?
Asking her to lunch the next day would be better. You don’t ask a stranger back to your room right off the bat. *That’s* the creepy part, IMHO. Maybe also wait until one or both was leaving the elevator.
However calling this a “potential sexual assault” is just stupid. Sorry, Phil, but it is.
Phil said: since men rarely feel in danger of sexual assault
True dat, however we can most assuredly feel in danger of a multitude of other types of assault. Many, if not most, of us are not exactly trained in deadly martial arts or Jedi masters. Even a good fighter is hosed if someone scores a good sucker punch, or a gun is involved.
Ruth said; I think most men are honestly clueless about what it means to live as a woman.
And women are clueless as to what it means to be a man. What’s your point? You can compare any two major groups this way.
—
However all the hub bub and hyperbole from people who lay claim to being sophisticated and part of some upper crust intelligentsia is quite entertaining.
*Please* keep it up, folks. I still have a few particles of faith in humanity that need to be stamped out of existence.
@Cymraes – I’m dismissing her alleged experience as an act of social commentary on White Knights who swoop in automatically take the woman’s word as gospel. How about some of the women here who are constantly demanding that us typical, unsympathetic men see their point of view try seeing the other side of the argument for a change?
Has anyone female here considered that he might have been lonely? What was his name? Does he have children? Pets? Friends? He’s a person too, try remembering that.
@james –
What makes you think no one cares? What generates comments on blogs is disagreement, and there’s very little disagreement that horrible things happen to Muslim women around the world. Plenty of atheists have spoken out about, and plenty continue to do so. So do people from a variety of religious backgrounds. There have been petitions, there have been protests, there have been letters, there have been blog posts, people have even suggested that one reason we’re right to be dropping bombs in the Middle East is the way Islamic theocracies treat women.
So yes, it’s terrible. But what do you propose we do about it? Shall we bomb Saudi Arabia? Boycott Middle East oil? Write one more petition that will have no effect whatsoever? I’m all in favor of option two, but good luck getting that to take off.
The author of this is unbelievably retarded.
“Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.”
No it wasn’t, you moron. Not any more then the guy chewing gum is a potential terrorist attack. Yeah everything has the “potential” to be bad. The fact here is that it wasn’t. End of story. I feel uncomfortable in a lot of situations, you know who’s fault that is? Mine. No one else.
I’m amazed at how many people can drop all context like a hot potato when it interferes with their privilege. As I understand it,
1) RW had just spent time (while Elevator Dude was listening) explaining why she dislikes being sexualized by strangers.
2) ED followed RW out of the bar (away from other people) and into an elevator before talking to her.
3) ED asked RW back to his room (away from other people) “to have coffee”.
Anyone who doesn’t understand why this is creepy and would make someone uncomfortable should have to read “The Gift of Fear” followed by transcripts of all the rape trials in which the victim’s behavior is dissected and twisted into “leading him on”.
This whole situation is crazy. It is a complete non-issue, at worst a first-world-problem. Life isn’t all puppies and cupcakes, it can be (and often is) uncomfortable and sometimes downright cruel without anyone being at fault.
Ok, I see this from both sides CONDITIONALLY.
If this interaction happened at the hotel bar, or perhaps even outside of the elevator in a lobby or hallway, the impact of the conversation would probably be nothing or insignificant at worst based on what was said and how the reply was taken.
Since this situation happened in an enclosed space (regardless of the convenience of the escape buttons), this could very well be a threatening situation based on the mindset of the recipient and should have been avoided altogether or proposed at an earlier time.
This whole scenario boils to down to two potential trigger points: “intent versus impact” and situational awareness.
Well, I guess we just learned that Phil is prejudical and trying to justify it. Saying that ‘man + woman + lift = potential sexual assault’ is equal to saying ‘black kid + badly lit alley = potential mugging’ or ‘mexican man + construction site = illegal migrant’.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Phil is right about one thing. I don’t live in fear of sexual assault. I live in fear of being murdered instead, seeing as men my age are more likely than anyone to be the victims of assault and to die violently.
Still, doesn’t matter since we all know men are the expendable gender.
Once while shopping, I had a creepy woman blatantly hit on me.
It was the most terrifying moment of my life.
@211. Greg Fish
I think I get the point that you and many others are making: Be a nice guy, care for how others feel, try not to be creepy etc.
All very nice and well. Good Advice from Aunt Mary’s advice column in the local newspaper. But is this the job Mrs. Watson aspires too? If it all boils down to this triviality, isn’t this a bit much coverage for a small issue?
I suspect the intention of Richard Dawkin’s original post, was to set exactly this into perspective. It is not big violation of women’s rights abroad vs. small violation of women’s rights at home. I certainly agree that the big violation in no way justifies the small one, but this is big violation of women’s rights abroad vs. bad taste issue at home.
@Alex: “There is nothing trivial about the ridiculous, Victorian approach some women seem to think men should take.”
What? Getting to know them first? Actually chatting to them and finding out if there is a mutual attraction? Quelle horreur!!
“Has anyone female here considered that he might have been lonely? What was his name? Does he have children? Pets? Friends? He’s a person too, try remembering that.”
Yes, and it would have been nice if he had chatted to Rebecca first so she could have discovered this information, and (this is the last time I am saying this, I am DONE) **asking a stranger back to his room alone, at 4am, in an elevator**.
I’m done.
I’m so glad Dawkins appears to be one of the few people in this ATHEIST/SKEPTIC movement to see sense. The leaders of this movement have fallen off a cliff on this issue, they can’t understand that since these threads get thousands of comments that it’s NOT something everyone wants to have shoved down their throat about how we should all accept certain values. A lot of people, especially women are going around acting like a bunch of petulant children. I haven’t seen this much stupidity since the whole “is female a bad word”.
I am a feminist UP TO A POINT… because I like most other people in this movement am a big leftist. I get angry reading about actual female oppression and violations but THIS IS RETARDED.
I 100% agree with Richard Dawkins.
Phil Plait is a prude a la 19th century Victorian values.
Did the guy follow her to her hotel room and stalk her? No.
Did he try and grab her? No.
Did he verbally abuse her when she refused? No.
He asked, she said no, he left.
To talk of this as part of a slippery slop to rape is too way to far towards hysteria? That link is prudish and alarmist to the extreme as there is zero commonality with the present set of facts.
Should we instigate new hijab-style rules at Atheist conferences? NO MEN ALLOWED WITH UNCOVERED AND UNRELATED WOMEN IN ELEVATORS! Not unless you want to go to such a ‘male-privilege’ narrative extreme as to begin meeting up with the current regime of Saudi Arabia. Yet again, another reason why the so-called “atheist movement” is so unattractive to me.
Meet the new Mullah Plait, same as the old Mullah.
I’d like to bring up one point that, so far, I haven’t seen mentioned.
First off, I very much respect Rebecca and have no reason to seriously doubt her account of the situation. I think it’s very important to keep the skeptical thinking on at all times though and remember how flawed anecdotal evidence, personal accounts and eyewitness testimony is.
Rebecca was by her own admission exhausted and presumably at least slighty inebriated. These things must be factored into her retelling of the events, as well as her emotional reactions and the resulting perceived threat level of the situation.
Cretoro Says: It certainly is true that the majority of men would rape a woman if given the chance…
This is the sickest, most bigoted comment in the whole furor.
Cretoro, get thee to a psychologist. Seriously, if you really think this, you possess a level of misandry that requires professional help.
How said is it that misogyny is in Firefox’s spellchecker but not misandry? Says a lot about double standards.
Oh no, a man spoke to a woman in an elevator. Call the police. People who think it was “sexist” or “potential sexual assault” need to get their heads examined. If you are so afraid of men you clearly have a mental condition and the problems is your’s, not the man’s.
@Cymraes – No, you’re right, he should have led her up the garden path. Bought her some nice jewellery, impressed her with his expensive car and all of the rest of the gender role hoops men are supposed to jump through in order to get the single most natural thing in the world.
As others have pointed out, an invitation like this is so obvious that he could barely have been more direct. He chose not to patronise her and just ask her if she was interested. If more people were that honest about what they want the world might be a much less melodramatic place.
Sexism?
Let me tell you what sexism is.
Sexism people on a blog saying that a man cannot speak to a woman in an elevator without being pointed at as a “potential” sexual predator. If he said no words at all, it seems the author of this post would peg him has a potential sexual predator anyway, just for existing within the same elevator as a woman.
I’m a man and I’m a little bit offended. I understand the point you are trying to make that a woman may ‘feel’ a bit uncomfortable alone, but to assume that men are out to commit sexual assaults is ridiculous. Now next time I’m in an elevator with an interesting woman and want to open my mouth to simply compliment her speech, I have to wonder whether or not she’ll think I’m targeting her for sexual assault.
I’m really shocked at these reactions. Have you gone insane? Richard is absolutely right, you need to get a reality check.
But first, basic text understanding: Dawkins is NOT comparing chewing gum with sexual assault. He is comparing chewing gum with being in an uncomfortable situation. Fear of a potential assault is not the same as an assault actually happening, and anyone who doesn’t get the important difference between things in your mind and physical events should see a professional.
Can I understand a woman feeling uncomfortable if she’s invited for coffee and doesn’t want to and can’t immediately leave the situation? Yeah, I can understand some women may feel uncomfortable in that situation.
But let’s follow the causality, yes? Who is responsible for that feeling of discomfort? The man who asked, friendly and as far as I get it without being in the least pushy? You can not seriously mean that. Should we men stop talking to you women altogether, because it just might make you uncomfortable? Or is that limited to elevators, cars, busses, trains, crowded rooms and other circumstances where an immediate exit is impossible?
Dawkins is perfectly right. Being made uncomfortable by someone else is something that is part of life. Nobody asks you to like it, but if I were to whine on the Internet every time someone made me uncomfortable, I would be hard-pressed to find time for anything else.
If the guy had touched her, or become pushy, we MAY be entering a territory where it’s worth talking about. If he had grabbed her, or tried to coerce her verbally with threats etc., then we would be in that territory. But we aren’t. We were at an invitation for coffee. Heck, even that the invitation was made with sex in mind is nothing but an assumption with no evidence going for it.
Maybe I should be whining about how women have become so aggressive towards us males that you can’t put out a perfectly innocent invitation without being labeled a potential sex offender? How everything we do is seen as an attempt to get sex? How even if what you say and how you say it is perfectly ok, something like the context in which you said it will be constructed to make you look bad.
Girls, you need to get a life and worry about real problems. Dawkins is right. Get some perspective. Once you realize that women ARE being mutilated, raped, tortured and killed all over the planet for really crazy reasons, you may realize that being uncomfortable in an elevator really isn’t something worth writing about.
The obnoxious, overly loud people in front of my living room window, on the other hand…
If that was a “potential rape situation” then what isn’t? This is RIDICULOUS. If a woman can’t be safe unless she’s in a crowd then why do we let them leave their houses without a male to protect them? You are essentially trivialising the equal rights of women, how dare you skep”chick” and the author of this entry, you misogynists!
Put women in hijab and let them only out if shaperoned by a male relative Phil, that is really the best solution for, gulp, <i.potential assault scenarios.
Other things that atheist men shouldn’t do with women:
Look at the them, or have direct eye contact with them – potential assault scenarios
Speak to them alone – potential assault scenarios
Look at their hair, or exposed arms – potential assault scenarios
Ever date – only arranged marriages – potential assault scenarios
Work with them in the same building – potential assault scenarios
Allow them to attend sports events – potential assault scenarios
Allow them to go to the schools – potential assault scenarios
Hell, even allow them to go to any schools – potential assault scenarios
We also need to censor all porn and any images of uncovered women in the media because…
potential assault scenarios
Phil has dropped many levels in my opinion of him for this and his rather worthless “don’t be a dick” speech.
There’s no such thing as a ‘potential sexual assault’ – that is legislating on thought crime. You people (unquestionning fans of mr. Dawkins) got trolled by some dick who took a pseudonym, nevertheless his statement is correct.
As a man, I feel the need to point out to other men that this is the reality.
Are all men potentially going to be a rapist? No, the percentage is very low. I’m sure you’re with me so far.
now:
Should all women, in order to be safe, treat all men as potential rapists? I would say, unfortunately, yes.
Just as we warn all children about strangers, do we really think all strangers are dangerous? Or do we think the POTENTIAL risk is there, and since we value our children, we want them to be safe.
Begs the question: DO WE VALUE women and want them to be safe, as much as we value children?
If we do, then we must therefore easily understand the lack of comfort that woman felt in the elevator. If we do not, then we must understand that we value our ability to approach women as a higher value than their safety… right? and that we think adult women are LESS VALUABLE in society than children.
I see the crux of the issue as VALUE and SAFETY. If viewed that way, there should be no disagreement on whether its appropriate to proposition a stranger in a confined space.
Is sexual assault a branch of physics? Like can I convert potential sexual assault into kinetic sexual assault and back again?
@jsb16
” … 1) RW had just spent time (while Elevator Dude was listening) explaining why she dislikes being sexualized by strangers … ”
Perhaps a simple “No”, rather than a “no” followed by a lecture would have sufficed!
Everyone seems to be picking on this unknown guy! At the very worst reading, he asked to sleep with her (not a crime, not immoral and not even a social blunder, even at 4 in the morning in a lift)! She said no and he took it no further.
Perhaps his approach has even been succsessful before for him! People sleep with strangers all the time. How else do you think they meet?
sadly Richard Dawkins is a common, garden variety islamophobe.
i have no other explanation.
im a muslimah revert, and im banned from dawkins.net for using a “non-english” phrase.
i think i said, bi la kayfah, which means “it is understood.”
Should we rename this blog “Bad Philosophy” now instead?
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. Can I use that? I was toying with a Bad Ideology blog (easy for me since I consider *all* ideology to be Bad), but Bad Philosophy opens up the playing field even more.
When I was young and some over-eager testosterone-packer would NOT leave me alone in a bar, I would turn it around: stare at his crotch, pinch his butt, leer at him, make lewd comments. They do NOT handle this well. I’m lucky no one ever decked me.
Well don’t hate me because I’m beautiful but LOTS of guys have hit on me, gawd, since I was about 10. Seriously, walking home from school and cars would slow down and honk and guys would yell. I was 10.
Perhaps because of this, I instinctively learned how to send out the proper vibe with men a LONG time ago but the chickie in question is no child. Sure, she’s obviously had waaaaaay less male attention is utterly clueless in such a situation but hey, seriously, what’s she up to with this? We all intentionally and subconsciously give off vibes, body signals (posture, eye contact, hand placement) and others act upon them. If someone acts inappropriately with you, there are ways to stop it cold and in most cases, not allow it to happen in the first place. It’s all in how you present yourself to the world. Play a victim, get treated like a victim.
And I don’t think the nameless guy acted inappropriately at all. If anyone is, it’s her, making a spectacle of herself, I guess to prove to the world that yes, she really is desirable.
After nothing at all happened, she decided to feel…”uncomfortable,” because that’s more dramatic and makes a better story.
What this child needs is some severe training in social skills instead of showing pride in dramatizing a situation until it’s blossomed into this weirdo story of what-could-have-happened. I guess she grew up with too much Jerry Springer and reality tv.
Add the word “black” before “man” in this scenario and then tell me if her reaction ( and others) afterwards was justifiable.
A Case study in how not to make a friend. Guy has all evening to meet his intended, and does nothing.
She announces publically to all she is tired and going to bed. He decides to approach. He follows her to the elevator. Then he hits on her.
He was not listening to her.
He chose to approach her when they were alone.
She rebuffs him.
Personally I think it is imperative to listen to the women I’d like to have sex with. This guy ignored RW’s stated wishes and pressed on with his agenda.
Never ignore a woman’s wishes if you want her to like you. Never hit on someone in an isolated context, lest they think you’re a predator.
OK, it’s really scary how many men think the feminist position here is “men are not allowed to talk to women.” Because that suggests to me that all those men can’t even conceive of a middle ground between propositioning a woman one doesn’t know and avoiding all contact with women entirely.
Here’s a suggestion, guys. Presumably you know other men with whom you’ve established some rapport that didn’t involve casual sex. You probably just treated each other like normal, full-fledged human beings with rich internal lives, etc. Try treating women like that. Seriously, women appreciate being treated like human beings. Indicating that you think your only two options are locking yourself in your room for the rest of your life or propositioning any woman who has the misfortune of making incidental eye contact demonstrates that you don’t think of women as people but purely as sexual objects. Really, you couldn’t make it more clear.
This is coming from someone without a lot of self confidence in social situations and is hopelessly lost in any situation where flirting is called for. I’m “bad with women” I guess. But I don’t feel like I have to lock myself alone in my room or consign myself to a life of loneliness, because hey, I always have the option of connecting to women as fully-fledged and equal human beings instead of treating them like objects put on earth for my titillation and amusement. Guess which approach is more likely to lead to a rewarding long-term relationship.
@45. Jane: idem!
I can’t believe people are making such a big deal from
– Do you want coffee?
– No, thanks
– OK
To be honest, if she is uncomfortable being alone with a man in an elevator, the solution is pretty simple: DON’T BE ALONE WITH A MAN IN AN ELEVATOR! just don’t blame it on the guy as if it was his fault that you feel this way.
Also, if someone will sexually assault you the location is irrelevant, it can happen literally ANYWHERE, this does not depend on the place, it depends on the people, and being a guy that takes an elevator and asks someone out doesn’t make you a RAPIST, stop overreacting!
I’ve had men come up to me in a crowded bar with lots of people around, say something like “you look really pretty” I say thank you, and they unceremoniously stick a hand down my pants. Multiple times, actually. I’ve had a coworker tell me he appreciated seeing my legs and I should wear shorts more often (so that he could look at them). As a result, I’m a little nervous when a stranger comes up to me in bars or at parties or other places, really. I don’t assume I’m going to be assaulted all the time, but sometimes I feel uncomfortable or nervous.
It gets frustrating when men start claiming “oh, we must not be allowed to flirt ever or the feminists will be after us!” when all Rebecca said was that she was uncomfortable. I would have been uncomfortable too. For good reason; bad things happen. She didn’t say he was assaulting her, or he was raping her. She said she was uncomfortable. She has a right to feel uncomfortable as much as the elevator guy has a right to say stupid things. He doesn’t have a right to assault her, and he didn’t.
Not so confusing.
The same is the case if I get into a elevator and there is only a woman. I usually get so uncomfortable (under the implication of that I might be some kind of weirdo) that I’d rather take the stairs, which I then most often do.
I know guys, me included, who don’t like to be alone with children we don’t know lest someone add 2 and 2 and get 519, and I’m someone who is trusted enough to have my friends enlist me for babysitting now and then (my only rule is they be post-toilet training- I don’t do diaper changes). One person I know was on a cruise, and went to the sauna. It was a family cruise, so swimwear required in the sauna. He was alone until some young teens came in. He immediately left the sauna because he felt uncomfortable about what others might think. He even admits it was an irrational reaction, but this is the “stranger danger” culture we live in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_danger
Propositioning someone, while perhaps rude, is NOT sexual assault.
What about the fact that this unknown man – did he know who Rebecca was? Would that change anything? His intoxication level?
IOW, without more info, I side with Phil.
What about the fact that RD’s condition – wheelchair bound – would that mean he doesn’t understand the context? I would think so.
Myself, recognizing or not Rebecca, would not have propositioned in the elevator as such. Knowing who she was, I would have made positive comments on her talk, perhaps being a fan, then shut up.
Not recognizing who she was, I would have perhaps just smiled.
IOW, a normal man, having experienced dating, knows how to give the woman initiative. That’s respect.
Knowing how short elevator rides are, and that he got on alone with her, suggests to me, that he was stalking her, got on on purpose, not by random chance.
Most men have experienced following a woman a night, out of the subway or on a street, and know how to behave not to freak her out, like walking wide away.
RD’s condition might not have given him this “etiquette” life experience, since he compares to chewing gum as an irritant. However I don’t condone the verbal attacks he received.
IOW, even if I had been alone in Vegas, in an elevator ride at the Planet Hollywood with a showgirl that I recognize that late, I would *NOT* have invited/propositioned her.
For the same reason I don’t follow girls at night. Creepy guy was creepy.
I really really wish the guy that approached Rebecca, comes out and say: Hey, all I wanted was coffee, chill, I’m gay!
As a woman, I just can’t wrap my head about being so anti-male. Let me first say that, yes, many women have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by men. It’s an awful thing, and I can see that leading to being fearful of the opposite sex, or even people in general. That said, I have never once felt like being alone in an elevator with a man, regardless of the time of day, was inherently dangerous. I don’t view every man I see as a potential rapist. I simply see another person in an elevator.
Now, if I’m in an elevator late at night, and a strange man asks me if I want to have coffee in his room, my first reaction is not to start crying sexual harassment. You say no, and leave it alone. Had the man badgered her about it, tried to block her way out of the elevator, or followed her? Yes, that would absolutely be wrong. It wasn’t the slickest move in the world for the guy to pull, but he asked, accepted the refusal, and that was the end of it. Potential sexual assault? You could read that into almost anything. A cop pulls me over at night? He could potentially sexually assault me! My next door neighbor walks over into my yard and speaks to me? Watch out, potential sexual assault! Guy in a bar asks me how I am? Better get my tab and leave, I could potentially be sexually assaulted! Yes, yes, I know. He got her alone and asked her to go to his room for a cup of coffee. Again, that’s not Prince Charming moves, but someone is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I just don’t understand why it is that a man so much as glances at a woman, he runs the risk of being considered inappropriate. I think this entire issues is being blown out of proportion because someone made a good point, just in a bad way. The whole thing screams of being anti-male to me. As a female, I just don’t think the world should stop for me because a male might say something to me.
Hey! It seems there was a camera in the elevator. They have posted this picture of the guy!
http://images.wikia.com/masseffect/images/c/ce/Vorcha.png
Um…no. Let’s not, Quiet @ 289. Philosophy has it own strange conculsions (glares at Sam Harris) and it’s not science. And it’s hard enough to get trolls to stick with the science without having something to thrown around that muddies the waters further. So let’s not go there.
So do you cower every time a black person approaches you alone at night as well? I mean, that’s potentially a gang violence scenario, right? Because every black person who approaches someone alone in the dark is potentially a gang member looking to mug them, right? Just like every male who hits on a woman in an elevator is a potential rapist. The obvious solution here is for black men to avoid talking to white people alone at night, yes? Likening what happened here to a potential assault is bogus. It gets us nowhere to think about things in that way.
More importantly, what do you expect to be done about it? Socially awkward people aren’t going to wake up one day clued into these things. Should she have alerted the police that there was a potential rapist in the hotel? Maybe have him searched when he got back to his room? Where do you want to draw the arbitrary line here? Dealing with uncomfortable social situations is part of living in a society as big as the one we live in here. Women deal with more of those situations than men, but they also have periods and pee sitting down. No amount of complaining about sexism and rights is going to change any of that.
What’s important is that people aren’t hurting each other, and that’s Dawkin’s point. He’s not saying it’s ok to make women feel uncomfortable. He’s not demanding that she feel ok about it. He’s not apologizing for the guy being a social idiot. He’s simply saying that she wasn’t hurt by his awkward advances, so let’s go back to focusing on helping people (religiously oppressed and assaulted women in this case) who aren’t so lucky.
@Evolving Squid
(I’m sorry that I keep addressing my comments to a hypothetical “you” when discussing behavior. It’s not meant to sound like I’m suggesting that you, Evolving Squid, are anything like any of these illustrative rhetorical “you”s. Just to be clear.)
His personal technique is absolutely relevant. If you plan on propositioning someone, here’s some advice: don’t do it in a way that the other person will find creepy. That’s really all that Rebecca Watson’s video said.
As for all this argument about the “potential rape” image, I don’t think BA is using that to say that Elevator Guy was actually a potential rapist. It’s just meant to illustrate that whoever you’re propositioning is going to have to evaluate your actions, and even if she feels fairly safe that you won’t actually rape her, propositioning her in a way that looks like the actions of a creepy guy will…wait for it…MAKE YOU LOOK CREEPY.
Here’s an example: in my job, I have to deal with a customer who is a creepy person. Cognitively, having watched him for the last 4 years, I am fairly certain that he would never actually do anything harmful. However, he is socially inept to a pathological degree, and has some paranoid delusions. For the last year, those delusions have centered around me and around a female employee who he thinks loves him. She knows he won’t actually do anything to her, but he is incredibly creepy and doesn’t understand how to interact with other people. He is now not allowed to talk to her (much less bring her presents, creepy creepy presents) or wait for her after the store closes.
The story here goes on, but I’ll stop it there. It’s an extreme example, without involving a real potential rapist (at least, we’re pretty sure). However, it is a reasonable reaction to want to keep this guy at a distance. Elevator Guy, I’m sure, is nothing near this customer. However, like Creepy Customer, Elevator Guy behaved in a way that made another person uncomfortable.
It doesn’t matter one bit if the creepy factor was all in RW’s head. If you’re going to do anything socially, much less something as personal, intimate, and potentially intrusive as propositioning sex with someone, it is your responsibility to make every effort to present yourself in a way that doesn’t make the other person uncomfortable. You should look at your behavior and ask, “Is this a good way to do this, or might she possibly think I seem a bit creepy?” If you don’t, it’s your fault you came off so creepy. We live in a society, so we need to consider the effect of our actions on others. It doesn’t matter if we know in our own heads that what we’re doing has no creepy intent. She isn’t in your head. All she can do is evaluate your behavior, and if your behavior looks creepy, well you were the one behaving that way, not her.
Hanging out around a person in public, in a group, all night, then drunkenly cornering her in an elevator when she has declared her night over at 4 AM is creepy. I’m sorry, but it just is. We have social conventions for personal interactions, they are there for a reason, and that particular procedure is not on the list.
@296. Stephanie:
Well said! (Jose stands up and gives her an applause). I totally agree with you, especially on your examples, that’s exactly what I was thinking.
Phil, I can’t agree with you very much here. Fine, I can see how she could be creeped out at the propsition considering the enviroment in which she was asked (as a speaker at a meeting). And, yes it’s fine that she said no. But it’s more than over-the-top to go out thinking every man you meet that wants to take you out is going to assault you. It’s kinda sad. But, the fact that these sorts of sexual assaults happen regularly makes me sadder… So I kinda see it both ways… but it just leaves me uneasy to think that just as men and women objectify each other w/ sexy some women will objectify men as rapists.
@Thorsten:
“@211. Greg Fish I think I get the point that you and many others are making: Be a nice guy, care for how others feel, try not to be creepy etc. All very nice and well. Good Advice from Aunt Mary’s advice column in the local newspaper. But is this the job Mrs. Watson aspires too? If it all boils down to this triviality, isn’t this a bit much coverage for a small issue?”
And I refer you to my first comment asking the exact same question. My issue is the whole “women are just paranoid”/”men are all rapists in waiting” discussion taking place. Hell, I’m not even saying be nice. I’m just saying to pick your moment and don’t creep people out, man or woman.
When I was in college, a girl who decided to hit on me got my number and would call at the most awkward hours and leave the most bizarre and awkward messages. She also followed one of my friends home one night. Creepy, huh? And there are more stories from whence that came.
Again, my point in Google-speak: don’t be creepy. No need to start epic flame wars over it. That’s all.
Um…no. Let’s not, Quiet @ 289. Philosophy has it own strange conculsions (glares at Sam Harris) and it’s not science. And it’s hard enough to get trolls to stick with the science without having something to thrown around that muddies the waters further. So let’s not go there.
Well, heck, that just makes me want to do it more.
And if someone can point to the “science” in this issue, I’d sure enough be appreciative.
So every woman should now be offended or “creeped out” because a man is in the elevator with her. Additionally, her “terror alert” should be mauve. Increasing to perhaps fuchsia if he talks to her. Progressively approaching a red if the words might be interpreted as some thing “less noble”.
You are kidding, right?
A potential assault? You mean like if I am waiting at the bus stop at 5am and three men walk by? Or maybe I should give their skin some color other than white and that would increase the terror alert? Yes, it IS the same thing.
I am not saying you should never be “on alert” but being aware of your surroundings and blatant paranoia, yes I use that word as intended, is comparatively equivalent to scratching ones behind versus tearing a hole in it.
I suppose next time I am at a table and a few women are sitting across from me having a chuckle I should assume they are laughing at me as well.
Wow… Maybe women do not get it either? Or maybe, just maybe, we need male and female elevators.
Before subtly suggesting to have sex it would’ve been more polite from him to take into account her moral values. Then he might have realized that a Christian woman would be offended by such an immoral proposition.
Just to restate what’s been interspersed through much of these comments: The main issue revolves around Phil (and others) basically saying that all men are potential sexual assaulters, not in Rebecca’s feeling “creeped out” or “Elevator Dude’s” stupidity.
CJSF
In the future, if I get on an elevator and there’s only one other woman, I’m going to scream for help at the top of my lungs: “Potential fake rape accussssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssserrrrrrr!” and then run out. That way, any guys who get in after me will know they’re a welcome replacement.
Context is everything – the man invited Rebecca TO HIS ROOM for coffee LATE AT NIGHT, proffering said invitation in an enclosed space when there was no one else around. His intentions may have been pure, but surely anyone should understand how the invitation would have made her uneasy. There’s a reason why so many film and tv assault victims are approached in elevators, and it’s not because the slowly closing doors add drama.
“No, you’re right, he should have led her up the garden path. Bought her some nice jewellery, impressed her with his expensive car and all of the rest of the gender role hoops men are supposed to jump through in order to get the single most natural thing in the world.”
Alex, I don’t know what sort of women you’ve been dating but I really think it’s time to get out a little and broaden your horizons somehow. There are women who dig for gold but to say that anyone here is defending or promoting golddiggers seems misguided at best.
As a 6’5″ male, I can’t understand the feeling of being scared by being alone with someone in an elevator, but I can understand it’s a whole different ballgame and women need to be cautious. I get that.
The moral of the story however: Richard Dawkins is a nut job and people really need to stop listening to him.
Hell, I’m not even saying be nice. I’m just saying to pick your moment and don’t creep people out, man or woman.
I don’t think anyone really disagrees with that, but on the other hand, if someone *DARES* to be human and *DARES* to make a mistake in Ms. Watson’s precious presence, is it worth making a video and posting it on the web?
I showed this to a few female co-workers, and the derisive things they said about Rebecca are not repeatable here, and these are women who’d kick your a** if you mess with them. A couple were so angry at her for being such a “weak little bunny” I feel bad for showing it to them. :-
@Horseman – again, why should men spend their entire lives walking on eggshells to ensure that any woman they encounter doesn’t feel intimidated? I’m still waiting after 33 years on this planet for a sensible answer to that question that doesn’t infer that all men are potential rapists.
Like many less attractive men, good looking women intimidate me, so why shouldn’t they have plastic surgery to be less attractive? You’re not asking much less of me.
You’re asking me to spend my life taking the stairs, crossing the street, making sure I never have a one on one meeting with a female subordinate at work, going on the crowded Tube carriage instead of the one with the lone woman until I’m sure that no paranoid woman is ever afraid of me.
Oh, and I should chop my legs off so I’m not taller than 99.999999% of women.
@CJSF: Why is that the “main” issue? And how do you define “potential sexual assaulter” and from who’s point of view?
From the point-of-view of a woman alone in a foreign country late at night, the prudent thing to do might be to assume that someone who can overpower her and has opportunity to do it is a “potential sexual assaulter”. Note that this does not say anything about the actual motives of the man in question. It’s just a matter of risk-aversion. The risk of sexual assault in any instance, though slight, carries with it such a horrible consequent that one should treat it as a more likely possibility.
I’m not sure many of you are thinking critically and I think Phil has demonstrated poor reasoning skills. If a (from all accounts, polite) proposition in an elevator can be considered a potential sexual assault, then I’m worried that just about any scenario imaginable can likewise be considered an offense of one form or another. If anyone is being sexist here, it is Rebecca.
Yes, I get it. When a woman says “no” what she means is “no”. When a man says “would you like to come to my room for a cup of coffee” what he really means is “Would you like to come to my room so I can sexually assault you”. Because, you know, all men are potential homicidal sex maniacs instead of possibly socially inept, possibly non-native English speakers who don’t know of this “would you like some coffee, nudge nudge wink wink” etiquette. Nail the bastard to a tree I say. It’s the only way to be sure.
Oh, and also: is it now OK for me to assume that every black man I meet is going to rob me? Because I heard that’s what happened to other people, you know. I wouldn’t want to take any chances.
And no Stephanie @ 296, this is not being about anti-male. It never was. If it where I doubt PZ and BA (both men) would be posting anything about it, if not to scorn it. It’s instead about learning to be respectful about other peoples’ spaces and comfort zones. It’s seem others (glares at Richard Dawkins) have blown this way out of preportion by being stupid about it.
…but so you should know, it’s okay feel your way about men in elevators too. I too don’t pay any real atttention to what’s going on in a vator other than wondering when the bloody thing going to let me off at my intended floor. But not everyone is like that.
I wasn’t able to read all of the comments in this thread (it’s gone on for a long ways now) but of what I did read, I didn’t see anyone comment on what I thought was the most threatening part of this.
It’s not the elevator. I’ve been alone on elevators with men many times. I was rarely afraid. Some of those men even had conversations with me. But, and here’s the crucial part, none of those men asked me to come to their rooms alone.
Men, don’t be afraid to ask intelligent, attractive women out for coffee to get to know them better. Just remember the crucial word “out”, and not “in”. Remember that you are a complete stranger to her. It is way too early to ask her to come alone to your apartment, house, or hotel room, since that is frequently a prelude to sex — it’s also your territory, where you will have a strong advantage over her. A coffeehouse is fine. The hotel lounge is fine. That’s part of what they are for. It’s safe, neutral ground.
Asking a woman to come up to your hotel room alone at 4AM does not sound like nicely asking to get to know her better. It sounds like a veiled proposition for sex. Seriously. Thing is, women aren’t psychic. We can’t tell the difference between nice total strangers and total strangers who happen to be axe murderers. And at 4AM, honestly, there aren’t very many innocent reasons to ask a complete stranger to come up to your room alone.
“…but it looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum.”
This is where your argument came off the rails. “Potential Sexual Assault” doesn’t exist. Or it exists everywhere a woman is present at all times. If you are so paranoid of men that you feel any interaction that was not directly started by you is a “Potential Sexual Assault” then you are, quite frankly, insane.
This is possibly the stupidest damn argument I have ever heard in my life. A guy asks a woman to go to his room for coffee. She says no. It’s no different than several billion situations that occur on any normal day. The elevation of this past anything but some harmlessly creepy dude is just crazy.
@CJSF
I don’t think that the potential sexual assault idea means what you think it does. Phil isn’t, as far as I can tell, saying that all men are really potential rapists. He and I and others are saying that any man who is an unknown quantity in a potentially dangerous looking situation must be evaluated for the possibility of being a potential rapist. Even if the woman in question concludes that this guy probably isn’t actually going to rape her, she can still feel bothered by the situation.
Think of it another way: a job interview. You are the epitome of punctuality, efficiency, and responsibility, and your job record and references all back that up, but you show up in torn jeans and a stained t-shirt. You are a potential slacker, no matter what the reality of the situation may be, and it would be perfectly understandable if the manager cut the interview short and moved on to another applicant. It would also be perfectly understandable if he then put up a short post on the company website saying, “Yeah, applicants, don’t do that.”
Then some other employees comment that this was an unreasonable way to act. Then another manager says “Hey, there are a lot of slackers out there, and you should understand that this manager has to evaluate applicants based on that. Even if this guy might have been great, he looked like a slacker at his interview.”
Then a whole bunch of people start shouting, “Oh, so now you’re saying that all applicants are potential slackers?” Well, yeah, unless they present themselves otherwise. That doesn’t mean I actually think they all will all fail to show up at work on time given the chance. It just means that if you don’t present yourself in a way that looks responsible, you will probably come out looking like a slacker.
Mountains out of molehills, I tell ya. I can just imagine all the religious folks rubbing their hands in delight at this stage.
Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.
@312
Richard Dawkins responded in the comment thread of a PZ Myer’s post. Obviously PZ Myers brought it up. That’s what he does on anything that he can interpret as a feminist issue so he can chortle it up with his feminist brigade at the “menz” in the thread that have a modicum of sanity. This isn’t new for PZ.
Can’t say I’m surprised Phil Plait came down on this side of the “argument”.
I haven’t read all 300 comments but I haven’t read this argument:
Irrespective of whether or not someone is justified in feeling uncomfortable, wouldn’t a nice and compassionate person try to prevent or alleviate discomfort?
Seriously. I may disagree with your discomfort, but I’ll defend to the death your right to avoid it.
@258 Alex Yes, men would occasionally like some sexual intercourse. Ok maybe more than occasionally. However, I don’t think the time and place for requesting it is on an elevator at 4AM after a night of drinking. He was an idiot for doing so. No crime occured. Hell, his intent may have been just having coffee. If he wanted to meet Rebecca to discuss her talk, he should have approached her in a more public place.
@Greg Fish – I was making a different point here. Like it or not, men and women are expected to act a certain way during whatever courtship rituals are being used at the time. Every society has them, whether we notice them or not.
What’s happened here is that this man has apparently decided to bypass them and skip straight to what he wants.
And I don’t need to expand my dating horizons. I happen to think men put dating waaaaaay too high up on their priorities list. I prefer to remain single. It’s better for me financially (and that’s not a gold digging comment, there’s a reason why advertisers chase single men) and doesn’t come with the severe risk that divorce brings.
What is so hard for all you complainers to understand? All men are predators plain and simple. They must be segregated (or in the very least castrated!) from all woman for our protection. What Richard Dawkin’s clearly doesn’t understand is that being a woman, everyone single person is obviously going to rape you, and we have to actively and strategically avoid this 24/7.
For example, one time when I was 12 my grandfather asked me if I would like to go swimming at the local quarry. Immediately my natural feminine intuition kicked in and I recognized this as a potential sexual assault, or PSA as I call them. I was like, are you kidding me grampa? You want me to ‘go to the quarry’ so you can drive me to a secluded area and RAPE ME! So I ran down to the neighbours house as fast as I could and told them and the police when they arrived that old gramps attempted to rape me. Never saw that old pervert since!
This just goes to show, even our own grandfathers are trying to rape us! I’ve probably stopped about 12 guys from raping me through my natural intuition. That reminds me, this one time in college this PIG asked me after class if I would like to ‘get together at the library and study’. Haha, let’s just say he got what he deserved after I told the entire student body he was a RAPIST!
I didn’t read all the comment, but I believe I can contribute to this anyway. Matt #49 shares my point of view that maybe the elevator guy was a clueless nerd not knowing how to flirt and end up being creepy. We can only measure his intention with probabilities, drifting it from innocent to stupid according to information: he is a man, probably atheist/nerd/left-winged/libertarian, “take a cup of coffee” is a passphrase for sex in US, Rebecca is a pretty woman, he started his phrase with “don’t take it the wrong way”. Depending on your a priori probabilities, you’ll find different chances of it being a sex invitation or not: mine is 91.41%.
Does his intentions matter? Even a 5% chance seems too much to risk, we know that sex assaults happen and worse, word assaults happen all the time. Get used to it, women? As she says, just don’t do this. Sensible men do a lot of things not to make women uncomfortable, whether we understand or not. I never share the same seat at the bus/metro, avoid looking to a woman’s breasts, don’t generalize one’s hability to all gender (xkcd.com/385).
I understand why Dawkins thought what he thought at first place. I felt the same way, because I’m a clueless nerd who mangle it’s words even if I’m really just wanting a cup of coffee with an interesting person. But, if he was not able to see a woman’s side after potential leeeenghty discussion (as normally happen at PZ’s blog), he may just be stubborn and it disappoints me.
We are reasoning this out, Quiet @ 303,…well some of us are at any rate, instead of taking it at face value. I know it’s not exactly test tubes, measurements and maths…but there’s certainly pschological stuff going on here that we’ve likely inhereted from our ancestores as well from our socialization. So I can least give you that.
Assumptions are full of maybe, might and could. Nothing happened here, Richard Dawkins was 100% correct.
It’s a tough situation. We’d like to be able to invite women for “coffee” while in a confined space at 4 AM and not have it seem threatening, but in reality, there have probably been plenty of sexual assaults that have started just that way. Rebecca is somewhat famous among skeptics, and therefore I can imagine that she’s already had her share of creepy/stalker interactions, so she might feel more threatened than the average person (and rightly so). I don’t think it’s much of an overreaction, although I’d hate to be this guy who keeps getting referred to as a “potential sexual assailant”.
@MichaelL – 318
So what if he was an idiot? Did he sexually assault her? The controversy here is that Dawkins called it a non-issue in a world full of women *actually* being harmed.
I’m an American woman. I agree with Rebecca’s statement that it’s creepy to be invited into a private space by someone with whom I’d never spoken. The circumstances don’t matter; being alone together makes it worse but it can be awkward in a public space, as well.
However, I cannot agree with any side of the resulting debate.
It is not unreasonable to try to explain to men a situation one woman found uncomfortable.
It should be expected that some men will take offense at being corrected on something they may have never done or may have done but didn’t think was a problem.
Their offense really isn’t worth much, just as the fact that a woman was made uncomfortable isn’t worth much either. So what?
Reactions on both sides are overblown and bear a depressing similarity to Cre/Evo debates.
Enemy lines are clearly drawn and each side is viciously correct and superior.
Well, not really because the Evo side is appropriately correct and superior!
But the relations and understandings between men and women are not hard science. We’re arguing about FEELINGS and the unfortunate gap between them.
It would be nice if all men had finely tuned appropriateness meters and good intentions towards all.
It would be nice if some women weren’t so quick to accuse men of vicious and heinous (uncommitted) crimes.
The facts of the case appear to be:
Late night hotel elevator (implying a security presence) being travelled enough so two unconnected people may ride one together.
This is the setting in which a man invited a woman to a private encounter of vague intent.
Yes, coffee in a private room does suggest sex to most but not all people have keen awarenesses of how they are interpreted vs their intent. “Getting to know you better” also has a high-creep factor but is a literally “normal” phrase of the type which can get said automatically.
However, I fail to see it as a crime against women to invite one to a private encounter. She said no, he respected it. End of story.
It’s not a good move and it’s unlikely to be very successful on many women. It’s far from classy behavior. In fact, it’s quite boorish. It’s not a terrible thing to try to help men understand why it’s boorish and unlikely to be successful.
If the man wanted to get to know her better, there were better ways to approach the problem and his failure to do so was a lack of grace and understanding.
It wasn’t rape, pseudo rape, or possible rape. If his body actions were boxing her in a corner, then it could be considered possible imminent rape, at minimum it would be an attempt to intimidate and control.
If he asked again, whined or wheedled, pressed her, or aggressively positioned his body relative to hers and continued to talk, it could become harassment. If he followed her, she should be very alarmed and behave appropriately.
This isn’t about rape or sexual harassment. It isn’t about respect towards women, either.
It’s about manners, perception and the differences between what each person wants and the biases they carry into every human interaction.
Personally, I’ve encountered plenty of creeps.
One example: I was 22, coming home to my NYC apt and had to walk by commotion in the laundry room. On the ride up I was alone with an older guy I did not recognize; he told me a dryer had caught on fire. I didn’t greet him or ask him what had happened, he just told me unprompted. He chuckled and told me it must have been caused by someone’s hot pants while eyeing me up and down. Then he asked me if I was missing a pair.
Yuck!
He didn’t want to have sex, he just wanted to say a creepy comment to a young woman and laugh about it. I just rolled my eyes and ignored him. Not a problem.
I’m personally not interested in controlling human behavior so much that a creepy man couldn’t say a comment which would allow me to recognize a creep for who he is.
I didn’t feel afraid of this man. I wasn’t afraid he would touch me or follow me off of the elevator. And I was right.
So, men of creepy intent, continue saying creepy things!
Another example: a former boyfriend’s best friend was a mega-creep. The BF had a good track record with women and repeatedly tried setting up his pathetic friend. It took a few years before BF began to understand why the creep never finished a first date, let alone got a second (or laid).
The creep would walk behind his date (who he’d just met) and put his hand on the back of her neck and steer her. He would talk only about himself and never ask her any questions (not even, “how are you?”) at the beginning. At some point he would explain his entitlement to sex from her since he was paying. Unfailingly, women walked off before dinner was finished.
My personal encounters with this man were always awful but in the eye-rolling sort of way. They resulted in a stream of quiet “oh my gawd”s by his pathetic behavior. And while he was terrible with women, he was also awkward around men as well. This guy was not a rapist but he had no understanding of boundaries or appropriateness. He was devoid of social skills. Thankfully he offered his own best repellent: his words and social actions warned away women long before his failure to understand proper boundaries could be a threat to them.
As a woman, I’d PREFER the occasional awkward or creepy encounter, else false mannered behavior might trick me into not recognizing jerks until it’s to late to just walk away.
We can’t “fix” the behavior and attitudes of all men. We can simply try to explain what we each find creepy and that varies from one person to the next.
And we also cannot prevent women from feeling threatened, and each woman has her own understanding of what is threatening. It may be safer to perceive more threat than is really present.
However, it’s just so dang easy to get upset about how the other side just doesn’t understand.
And, Dawkins, your responses weren’t quite as rational as you’d like to pretend you are yet most of the so-called skeptic types reacting on this are in the same boat. Human, aren’t we?
You are the epitome of punctuality, efficiency, and responsibility, and your job record and references all back that up, but you show up in torn jeans and a stained t-shirt.
I go on interviews every now and then just to see what’s out there in engineering. It allows me to experiment. In the last one I just wore a polo shirt, nice jeans and running shoes. When the attire was mentioned, I said I was a good enough and experienced enough that I don’t have to play dress up like some green college grad noob, which I then demonstrated as they quizzed me about technical items. They later made me an offer good enough that I actually was tempted to take it.
So, yeah, I’d at least talk to the guy in the T-shirt to see what’s ticking there.
It also seems to me that a lot of folks here are upset because he was /disrespectful/, because he was implying that she might be /that sort of woman/.
You know, the sort of woman that has sex casually at conventions.
No, she’s a higher class of lady–well into the ‘virgin’ role of the whole virgin-whore dichotomy.
There’s nothing wrong with sex, including casual sex, if that’s what the people are interested in doing. The point here shouldn’t be to shepherd virtue at all.
Rebecca did nothing wrong here. I don’t think you can argue that. Context is everything, and, honestly, if it was 4am in a foreign country, and I was alone in an elevator with some girl who asked me to her room for coffee, I’d be pretty creeped out too. I won’t go so far as to guess Elevator Guy’s intentions, because that just seems too speculative, but pretty much everything he did in approaching Rebecca was wrong.
Does that mean every guy chatting up a girl should be considered a potential sexual assailant? No! But, again, context is everything. There are plenty of appropriate times and places for chatting somebody up, and they typically are public and non-threatening. An elevator is not one of these places. And the sad truth of the matter is that, even in public places like a bar or a party, women still need to be wary of sexual predators. This doesn’t mean one has to immediately assume every person you meet is a rapist, but you also should never completely put your guard down when meeting somebody new. It’s dangerous to assume anything when talking with a complete stranger, so an air of caution while you feel the other person out (not literally, I would hope) is simply a wise course of action, regardless of gender. Don’t assume the worst, but don’t assume the best either.
Yes, it’s unfortunate that the actions of an extreme few can color the impressions of the rest of us, but doesn’t it make more sense to get angry at the rapists than at Rebecca who quite correctly picked up on several warning signs and went into defensive mode? I would hope most of Phil’s readers are against misogyny, but I think the discussion here proves it to be a much subtler beast than most people realize.
I totally appreciate the concerns about attack; I’ve, numerous times, crossed the street to avoid passing a woman on a dark street just to make sure she didn’t feel threatened. When I end up in a situation – a bus stop comes to mind, but you can imagine others – where it’s just me and a woman alone, I try to make brief eye contact, and then give off “I’m not a threat” vibes (body language, move to the other end of the area, etc.).
In this case, the adult male made a quick pass on an elevator ride. He didn’t want to get to know her better, he didn’t want to have dinner with her, he didn’t want to know about her personality or her past. He wanted some NSA sex. She didn’t want that (at least then and/or with him) and said so.
She went to her room. He went to his room – or maybe he went out asking women for what he wanted (you know, straightforward communication) until he found a consenting partner – who knows.
If the dude had pushed it, asked again, or done anything other than back off at the “no”, sure, label him “creepy” or even a “threat”. But getting offended because one adult propositioned another adult simply perpetuates gender stereotypes, inequality and actually strips women of equal power.
Was the bad situation created by the man’s words or simply his presence and the lack of anyone else being there? What if he had said nothing and Rebecca caught him glancing at her? What if she thought he was checking her out? What if she thought he just seemed creepy? What then? What’s the man to do to counter this feeling? He could make a joke to break the tension, but then maybe she’d think he was trying to disarm her defenses in order to more easily strike. He move away from her, but maybe she’d think he was giving himself room to charge at her. He could move to push the button to get off and alleviate her discomfort but maybe she’s in between him and the button panel and she thinks he’s trying to grab her.
I will never marginalize what women go through on a day-to-day basis, mostly because I’m not a woman and can never fully understand. That does not enable them though to try and coerce men into walking on eggshells for fear of intimidating or otherwise offending them. Call it a potential assault all you want, but it was a potential assault the moment the doors closed and it was just a young woman and man who didn’t know each other. If women want to simply raise awareness of what’s going on in their heads in situations like that so men can be more informed the next time it comes up, I’m all for it. The second people start getting mad at those men for unwittingly walking into a minefield, I think they’ve gone too far.
@Alex
For a skeptical discussion, there are a lot of straw men in this room.
When you try to engage someone in polite conversation, you evaluate your behavior to make sure it doesn’t look rude. If you skip that step, you are more likely to come out looking rude. We all do this all the time without any real complaint (except the rude ones, of course). Behaving in a way that doesn’t look especially creepy is the exact same thing. Evaluate your behavior and ask yourself, “How might this look to the other party? Does this look like a guy who can interact socially and understands the conventions and limits of social intercourse and casual relationships, or does it look like a drunk guy on an elevator at 4 AM?”
I’m not asking you to cut off your legs or hide in a corner, so don’t put words in my mouth. I’m asking you to consider the other person in the conversation and how they might perceive your actions. You most likely hope that others act the same way toward you, so why does it seem like a draconian request when I put it in the specific context of a man talking to a woman?
Mountains out of molehills, I tell ya. I can just imagine all the religious folks rubbing their hands in delight at this stage.
Yes, they would have just burned Rebecca as a witch.
Oh, snap! He went there!
I’m stunned. If someone had simply told me Dawkins was spouting this clueless gibberish I wouldn’t have believed it.
Sadly, I am not at all surprised at the number of guys posting here who don’t get it. Skeptics, comics, sf, fantasy, gaming – oddly interrelated gatherings – featuring women vastly outnumbered (less so these days, fortunately) in areas where morons do actively hit on, maneuver, badger and attack women all the time. Female guests as well as attendees have found themselves accosted by other guests and attendees for decades.
It’s not that every guy is always on the prowl. In this instance, he didn’t ask her to go “somewhere” for coffee, or if they could “meet later” for coffee. Even if he genuinely had no ulterior motives and simply thought his hotel room would be a convenient place to have a conversation (unlikely at 4AM but possible), it put her in an uncomfortable position when she was otherwise alone in an enclosed space.
Let’s put another spin on the scenario to see if some of these guys can get it. You’re on an elevator with a guy. He pulls out a gun as he’s talking to you. He doesn’t point it at you, doesn’t threaten you, he’s just holding the gun. Does it really make you feel any safer around this stranger when someone tells you later that it probably wasn’t loaded? Within the context of this situation (woman alone on an elevator at 4AM with a stranger who asks her to come back to his room for any reason), the woman has no idea what his reaction will be to being rebuffed, however kindly she declines, however well he seems to take it.
In this instance, it worked out fine, he may (or not) have been horny, but he wasn’t an ogre. But it’s not a cheesy scene from a movie from the “free love” ’70s, and until they parted and the elevator doors securely closed between them again, she was understandably nervous.
In a perfect world, he could have posed this question (or even directly asked for sex), she could have said no, and that would be the end of it. We do not live in a perfect world. Or have you not gone through an airport screening recently? Knowing that, and knowing the physical power imbalance between most men and women, how can anyone not understand on some level that women can feel nervous – even when not overtly threatened – in certain situations?
@MichaelL – More than once a week? Sounds like deviant behaviour to me. Next you’ll be telling me you want it for physical pleasure rather than for the purposes of reproduction.
Which, by the way, if you aren’t doing you’re immature and need to ‘grow up’. The script for any man is school, university, work, wife, mortgage, kids, retirement, death with no gaps in-between!
You will live by the unrealistic image of male gender roles set by women’s magazines!!
Screw me sideways! A creepy proposition for consensual sex is misogynistic, offensive and incredibly tactless for sure, but ‘potential sexual assault’? Come on!
I had a whole lot more to say, but reading back through the posts that were written between when I started writing and when I submitted my comment, I noticed that 324. Kitty made the points I was trying to with far more eloquence than I could manage right now, so I’d just like to highlight that post.
With the addition of this:
When you try to cast a debate about how certain behaviors are disrespectful and offensive to women as one about how certain behaviors are predatory and threatening to women, it makes it seem as though it is not important to avoid being disrespectful and offensive towards women as long as you avoid seeming threatening and predatory.
I know in this case at least, that isn’t the intent nor is it a view held by those who seem to be promoting it, but it highlights the importance of considering the implications of your arguments in a debate as complex and highly charged as this one.
Remember also the terrible and yet subtle threat of (a href=http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/06/alt-text-internet-argument/>Alien Space Squids in arguments such as this.
Well, from what I’ve gathered, a lady got offered sex by some dude in a elevator 4’o clock in the morning, she said no, and they went separate ways. What exactly is the issue here? Sure it is pretty creepy to offer sex to some random women, but is this necessary to blow this out of propotion into some sort of women’s rights/patriarchy society issue? But still, the lady has every right to be concerned about her wellbeing, and RD’s ‘you shouldn’t complain about your issues because third world people are having it WAY WORSE’ is at best callous and patronizing and at worst dickish.
This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and now my head hurts.
Ok, men, don’t talk to women in elevators unless you know them.
Ladies, carry pepper spray and learn self defense techniques! Nice men do exist in the world but you just never know.
Now, lets all get on with our lives.
I’m asking you to consider the other person in the conversation and how they might perceive your actions.
And some of us are saying that if a person *does* make a mistake that it does not deserve International Incident status. These days if someone says *one* thing considered inappropriate, even if they are quoted entirely out of context and what they said *in* context is harmless, their entire career can be destroyed and their lives irreversibly disrupted.
This is why we only have sociopaths in charge of everything anymore. You don’t need a thick shin- you need absolutely nothing inside that can be affected when the media and the activists get you in their sights for whatever scary sequence of words you chose to utter. But that’s a different thread.
It would be interesting to see a true statistic, probably hard to come by, on the number of women asked about having a drink in ones room or similar scenario which morphs into an actual assault. While I have no hard statistics, and I would be very critical of anything I did see, my suspicion is the percentage is approximately infinitesimal in measure versus the total number of pick up attempts. Or at least less likely than say, dying in an airplane crash.
It is far more likely someone with nefarious intentions is not going to provide the opportunity to think the situation through let alone attempt some thing in such a publicly confined and controlled space likely with a security camera.
Then again, you know all us men. We are just animals waiting to take advantage of all those frail women out there. We have no control over ourselves and the only thing on our minds all the time is sex. Or I suppose in this scenario, potential assault. As opposed to being a human being just like the other person in the elevator and perhaps not always using the most appropriate words at the most appropriate times. The nerve!
I’m at a loss as to your point Phil.
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”
If a white fellow and a black fellow are alone on an elevator, and the white fellow feels threatened, no matter what the black fellow does, is this somehow the fault of the black fellow, Does the existence of the white fellows fears somehow make it a “potential assault scenario”??
As far as I can see the only solution to the situation is a public ban on men getting onto elevators if there’s a woman on or getting on. So it looks like you either don’t have a solution or that you’re proposing some form of segregation.
I’m with Rebecca up to and including the point that all-in-all his line was clumsy.
But the whole potential rapist thing is ridiculous. When you look at it that way, the guy who came to fix my central heating was a potential rapist. As was everyone else with whom I’ve ever been alone. There is no such thing as potential crime; thinking otherwise leads to madness. Fortunately I’ll be dead before the buses are segregated, even it that were where all this is going.
Furthermore, calling out Stef like that in a public forum was a very low thing to do. It’s like punching a tied-up person. Rebecca knew that Stef would never be able to defend herself from her towards an equivalent audience.
As for you girls and boys out there… if you’re ever alone with someone you’ve got a crush on, don’t hesitate to ask, or you might end up alone for the rest of your life. Getting turned down isn’t that big of a deal, even if it does kick up a sandstorm on the internet.
I have to agree with Dawkins on this. It was 4AM, they had been at a bar, he asked her back for coffee, she declined, and they parted ways. Maybe he wanted her to go back to his room for some sex, or maybe he just found her interesting. This type of situation happens all the time, all over the world. Was the guy a creeper? Yeah. Was his behavior inexcusable? No. He was just being a man following through on his attraction to a woman in a polite manner.
It get the feeling that many believe there is never an appropriate situation in which a man should approach a woman with sexual intentions. That for a man to look at a woman as someone he would like to have sex with is inappropriate.
Humans are sexual creatures. A man being aroused by a woman is not inherently misogynistic; it is how he follows through on that arousal that can be deemed misogynistic. In the case of this man he was very polite in his approach, did not persist after his rejections, and it seems he was aroused by the woman’s intelligence. It seems to me that he was being a very progressive man with the exception of approaching her in the elevator. Of course the alternative would have been approaching her at the bar, which would have been awkward, or follow her off the elevator, which would have been even creepier.
Before I ramble anymore, I find it odd that it is in the midst of Atheists that I find the suggestion that men should repress their sexual urges. Seems more suited to Catholics.
Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.
This just in- Homeland Security has raised the Terror level to magenta, and referenced “chatter” about threats involving elevators.
Members of the media and community leaders were heard to comment “WTF does magenta mean?”
This is about a guy alone on an elevator propositioning a woman who doesn’t know him. Or innocently offering her coffee at 4 AM, because for all we know he had this AWESOME arabica and even though she had said she was going to be, he KNEW she just had to try a french press of this awesome coffee.
Treating women like people =/= walking on eggshells.
So asking you to treat women like real human beings is ethically equivalent to asking women to mutilate their faces? I don’t think there’s a punctuation mark to express my reaction at how weird a thing this is to say.
No. People are asking you to treat women like real human beings. This really isn’t that hard.
This is so disgusting. I can’t stand the fact that so many guys take “treat women like human beings” to mean “you’re not allowed to talk to women.” Again, troubling that so many men can’t seem to find a middle ground between treating women like objects and avoiding them entirely.
The only thing that matters is her feelings. If someone feels that someone else committed a crime against them, that person is a criminal, PERIOD, END OF STORY. He should be locked up, sent to the gulags, off with his head. This is true justice. Intention does not matter. That is true feminist empowerment.
All women are insecure shrinking violets who must be protected at all costs, and never made to feel bad in any way. If anyone makes any women have any inkling of negative emotions of any kind, they should be convicted of psychological rape. That is true feminist empowerment.
The real problem here, I think, is men are simply ignorant of how women feel. Sigh, it’s so typical of men to be so unempathetic and insensitive, isn’t it? It’s time for them to realize it doesn’t matter what men feel themselves, we are past such patriarchal neanderthal tendencies as a modern progressive feminist society. The only opinions and feelings that matter is that of a women. Any time a man holds his opinion or feelings over a women, he is a misogynist. That is true feminist empowerment.
Watch this video, men, to learn how women like Rebecca want you to act and think at all times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw
We will only have true equality when all men are just as utterly petrified of women as all women are of men. That is true feminist empowerment.
I can’t stand the fact that so many guys take “treat women like human beings” to mean “you’re not allowed to talk to women.”
*cough*strawman*cough*
Again, troubling that so many men can’t seem to find a middle ground between treating women like objects and avoiding them entirely.
Maybe the problem is on *your* end and you need to get out more. Most of us men do just fine, actually.
@Evolving Squid,
as you may have noticed, the quote refers to the male-female dynamic pertinent to the situation in question.
I.e., what @Keith Bowden said.
@283. Third Brother of the Peach Orchard Says:
“I 100% agree with Richard Dawkins.
Phil Plait is a prude a la 19th century Victorian values. …”
…………………………………………………….
You’re missing the point about setting — the elevator come on at 4am made Rebecca feel very uncomfortable.
If you really think it’s no big deal then how about trying that with a co-worker in your company’s elevator in the middle of the afternoon in a building full of (generally) sober people. You know what – you just don’t do it because you know that your corporation has an anti-sexual harassment policy and it will fire your !@#! ass if you tried it and she makes a complaint.
But then you probably think that an elevator at 4am in a building full of drunks is different, it’s acceptable. Why is that? Oh, well, because you know that you’ll generally get away with it. Well, think again — this guy was called out. It’s not alright. Context and setting ARE important and the women are right to be upset.
Listen to the women — they know.
Come on, dude, how is propositioning a woman, as inapropriate as it might be, not treating them like human beings and objectifying them? It’s not like the dude persisted and stalked her or something. He respected her refusal and went about his business.
I am a woman and I would have been scared in Rebecca’s position. I consider myself quite average and have been sexually assaulted more times than I care to remember, from being flashed at to almost (I managed to get away) raped at knife point. I’m guessing there are very, very, very few women out there who have never been sexually assaulted by a man. So all you good guys out there, think that through.
Also almost all sexual assaults start with an aggressive advance, the aggressor is testing the waters, give himself space to back out if the woman isn’t an easy enough target. Rebecca’s firm and confident no probably put him off. He may have been innocent, but I think the chances of that are just too low for it to be taken seriously, and certainly saying that this was a potential sexual assault is not an exaggeration. I’d call it an aborted sexual assault – good job Rebecca.
Richard Dawkins is a pompous self-righteous idiot. I suspected that before this, but now I am sure!
I completely understand what you are saying and how you feel. I feel the same way every time I have to get on an airplane with a person closely resembling a Muslim. I know they may not be a terrorist, but how dare they confine me to a space I have no ability to react in the event the Muslim-look-alike is actually a terrorist and wants to blow up the plane. Every since 911 I live in fear every time I see an Muslim man with a beard. When will we get some compassion in this world, and have Arabs fly on their OWN planes instead of our non-terrorist planes.
Of course I’m being sarcastic because this womans argument is baseless. If you live your life scared of being raped, maybe you should see a psychologist. Or at the least, go to a self defense class. I’m pretty sure a knee to the boys will stop most would-be attackers. FYI I am a 33 year old white male, and I assure you I have never raped any woman in my life. I may be the only one out there, but I’m pretty sure your message is misguided.
@Horseman – The only people here who have been at all skeptical are the people like me who have questioned the reliability of the woman’s side of this story.
Everyone else has assumed she her statements were entirely true. Was he drunk? Tired?
He may have come off as rude, it happens. People are rude to me every day. It’s called travelling on the London Underground. That’s also the place where I’m expected to allow able-bodied women to take the last available seat.
The more I see discussions like this the lower wasting my time with dating falls down my list of priorities because all I see is women expecting me, including complete strangers, to put their needs first. Men are becoming subservient, spineless and incapable of expressing their own wants and needs in their pursuit of women and I want no part of that.
“So asking you to treat women like real human beings is ethically equivalent to asking women to mutilate their faces? I don’t think there’s a punctuation mark to express my reaction at how weird a thing this is to say.”
I’m confused. How is propositioning a woman and then politely accepting the denial not treating her as a person?
I feel like there were two events that need to be separated.
1. The guy gets on the elevator at 4am with a lone woman from a foreign country.
If we’re going to discuss danger/trepidation, then it started here. This is the point at which the whole ‘unknown intentions’ thing beings. A reasonable argument could be made that entering enclosed spaces with lone women should be avoided at 4am.
2. Guy invites woman to coffee
This is a problem of etiquette. We can discuss if it’s rude or not. And reasonable points can be made about correct times to flirt. But I’m not seeing how a coffee-invitation increases or mitigates any sense of danger. A reasonable argument could be made that 4am flirting is undesirable.
But I don’t think we can mix the two. That seems bizarre to take away a message of, “The woman was safe in the elevator with the man until he politely (but unwelcomely) asked her for coffee then she was in danger.”
As I understand it, the original comments were about objectification and the etiquette of point 2. In this context, RD’s position makes more sense; the invitation doesn’t raise a safety issue one way or another (even if the ‘getting on an elevator at 4am’ does)
@Dan L – I already treat women like human beings. I ask the same in return and do not receive.
I made the purposefully ridiculous suggestion that women make themselves less attractive in order to show you how ridiculous the arguments I’ve heard here have been.
Propositioning her might have been a dumb thing to do, but it’s a flawed human thing to do as well. Part of my treatment of women as human beings is acknowledging that they do flawed human things too. You all seem to be talking about women like they’re a race of flawless Mary Sues out of someone’s bad Star Trek fan fiction.
How about, instead, you think about the man accused here? What are his hobbies? Does he have any pets? Had he had a bad day? Was he drunk? Was he tired? Does he love his mother? Does he have children?
You don’t know the answer to any of these questions because he’s a faceless man who some random person on the internet told a story about.
@Stephanie:
” … As a woman, I just can’t wrap my head about being so anti-male. Let me first say that, yes, many women have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by men. It’s an awful thing, and I can see that leading to being fearful of the opposite sex, or even people in general. That said, I have never once felt like being alone in an elevator with a man, regardless of the time of day, was inherently dangerous. I don’t view every man I see as a potential rapist. I simply see another person in an elevator … ”
Thank you for not making the guy feel like a creep.He had plucked up the courage to chat up a fairly well known woman. It sounds like he was probably a little awkward around women (Lets face it, most guys (like me) at these kind of conferences are :-)). To have been brave enough to take the plunge took a lot of guts.
This kind of reaction is only going to serve to make the guy even more awkward and embarrassed about chatting up women.
And what’s so wrong if he did want sex? He accepted “No” as her answer.
@ 334. Andrew W Says:
“I’m at a loss as to your point Phil. … As far as I can see the only solution to the situation is a public ban on men getting onto elevators if there’s a woman on or getting on. ”
…………………………………………………
Andrew, that’s exactly how I work it. Late at night I won’t enter an elevator if there is a woman in it by herself — I politely tell her I’ll wait for the next one because I know that my being there will make her uncomfortable.
This is basic male/female etiquette that my wife and daughters drilled into my head a long time ago.
Let me get this straight…
RW has a problem with the way some people act in some situations. She elects to inform people about why this is a problem. In this particular case I agree with the decision to bring it up and agree why it’s “creepy” – specifically, the act of asking a stranger of the opposite gender for a private meeting to your own private room while, possibly unintentionally, using a colloquialism for sex, is “creepy”.
Note that RW is not telling people “you can’t flirt anymore, it might make someone uncomfortable.” No, she’s saying “hey, this happened to me, here’s why it’s creepy”.
So exactly what do people need to get all self-righteous over? I don’t see careful, thought out reasons why RW is outright wrong, or even merely overreacting. I see self-righteous b******t, chock full of fallacy.
Like all this “well guys are more likely to be assaulted or killed” or “women in Muslim societies have it worse”. If you posted something along these lines then congratulations, you so-called skeptic. You chose to disagree with someone using a non-argument, through deflection, instead of addressing the point at hand. Exactly the sort of thing that so-called skeptics despise.
@308 Alex,
You’re asking me to spend my life taking the stairs, crossing the street, making sure I never have a one on one meeting with a female subordinate at work, going on the crowded Tube carriage instead of the one with the lone woman until I’m sure that no paranoid woman is ever afraid of me.
No, I believe what’s being suggested is that if you don’t want to be viewed as a creepy lecher, you probably shouldn’t proposition women who don’t know you when you’re both alone in an enclosed space at 4am. There’s nothing really morally wrong with what he did, and it was probably just a clumsy and misguided attempt that came off as creepy, but my guard is up against potential threats when I’m in a foreign country at 4am (even more so if I’m on an elevator, which I can be prevented from leaving and there are no other people around), so it’s reasonable that someone might feel uncomfortable in that scenario.
It’s highly context specific. If he’d approached her with the same request at 2pm in a crowded hotel lobby, it’d still be a little creepy, but it would be less potentially threatening.
Which seems to be all Rebecca’s comment tried to express. “This makes people uncomfortable because you’re acting like a creep, so you should stop acting like a creep for your own benefit and the benefit of everyone around you.”
I haven’t read through all of the comments and I don’t want to get into the philosophical discussion as many good points have already been made. I did want to point out however that the writing style of this Richard is not at all similar to his published works and that as an Brit, he would have said “whingeing” not “whining” in his first post. How certain are we that this is indeed Richard Dawkins, author of “The Greatest Show on Earth”?
Here is why the point of this article is wrong and Richard Dawkins is not. It is simply because no one seems to be able to differentiate between possibility and and reality. The possibility never took the turn for the worse, so any ill feelings are the propriety of the woman alone and the man is not at fault at all. It is ridiculously reactionary and stupid to claim that there was anything wrong done in that elevator. Being a large male myself I can tend to be intimidating to people. I have been in similar situations as the one being discussed, and would like to ask why I am in the wrong for being genetically ordered as not only a man but also large. Speaking as the person on the other side of this story, knowing that there is no danger, yet still feeling the tension and not being able to do anything about the pother persons ridiculous and unnecessary. If you feel fear in a situation as innocuous as this it is your problem and not the other person’s.
Remember, guys, do not ever talk to a woman! You’d potentially sexually assaulting her! What a paranoid culture we live in.
He accepted her “No” and that was it. He invited her for a coffee. He was polite all the time. In my opinion, she overreacted.
This could get confusing. There’s an Andrew W and Andrew Wilson(me) posting!
Just to clarify – under what conditions, exactly, are males allowed to ask girls to their room for a cup of coffee, so that we can be sure it is not making them uncomfortable?
Let me put this in an extremely nerdy way:
Person A is interested in Person B.
Person A expresses his/her interest in Person B in a way that makes Person B uncomfortable.
Person B expresses this discomfort.
You would assume that if Person A is truly interested in and truly cares about Person B, he/she would care about the way his/her behaviour affects Person B, and would be willing to adjust his/her behaviour to minimize this discomfort (in fact youwould expect Person A to be grateful for Person B’s helpful feedback)
You would also expect the same of people who identify with / take the point of view of Person A.
However, this does not seem to be the case…. AT ALL…
Why not?
OMG He asked her for COFFEE!? OUTRAGEOUS!
Leon@340:
Do you frequently introduce yourself to new people by propositioning them for sex?
Treating her as a person would involve maybe introducing yourself, trying to strike up a conversation…maybe waiting to see if she’s exhibiting the tiniest signal that maybe she might be interested in an amorous fling before suggesting such a thing. Or being the least bit self-aware — 4 AM, man and woman alone in an elevator is not the sort of situation that would make most women feel comfortable with being propositioned.
Alex@339:
No, that would be believing whatever is convenient for your side of an argument. That’s essentially the opposite of skepticism.
Skepticism is asking whether you, yourself might on the wrong side of the argument.
“Which seems to be all Rebecca’s comment tried to express. ‘This makes people uncomfortable because you’re acting like a creep, so you should stop acting like a creep for your own benefit and the benefit of everyone around you.'”
I think that’s exactly what that guy did? He respected the lady’s refusal and as far as I know never persisted in his attempt. Come on.
Guys, go read Phil’s post again.
He’s not saying that every man is a potential rapist, or that every encounter is potential rape.
He’s pointing out that the situation had the potential to be far more serious than Dawkins made it ou to be. Period.
Anyone who reads anything more in his comments is being ridiculous.
[deleteme]
@Alex
This isn’t a claim about ghosts or Bigfoot. “This guy behaved in a way that made me uncomfortable,” is not an extraordinary claim. It doesn’t matter if he was sober, wearing a suit and tie, and smelled of fresh flowers. If she felt uncomfortable because of the way this guy was behaving, then she felt uncomfortable. Done.
If you want to dismiss her feelings in the guise of “being skeptical” then you have obviously missed the point. The point is that you should try not to make people uncomfortable, especially if you want to be friendly with them. If you’re making them uncomfortable, you’re doing that wrong, and playing games with skepticism isn’t helping. You complain about difficulty dealing with women, yet you see no problem in dismissing their feelings. Think about that a little.
@Roni1
Then what do you want? Special sharia rules that don’t allow men and women in the same elevator? Or gender segregated elevators?
Its utterly preposterous in a Western society where men and women are supposed to be equals.
There are big red alarm buttons in about 99% of modern elevators.
I once had to work in Pakistan and even with all their Muslim anti-woman bullsh$#, I could still ride the same elevator as woman in my office building. Wow, this is real authoritarian women-are-so-fragile and need special dispensation stuff your throwing out here.
The lesson we should all learn is that if you’re not talking to people solely on women’s terms, you’re an insensitive misogynist, and don’t treat women like human beings. The only thing that matters is how the women feels. Her feelings trump everything, always, all the time. End of story. If you ever make any women feel uncomfortable in any way, you’re a horrible person and should be ashamed of ever showing your face in public again.
@342 Andrew Wilson
This kind of reaction is only going to serve to make the guy even more awkward and embarrassed about chatting up women.
Potentially. It also might make him think more about ways to chat up women so that he doesn’t come off as a creep and a potential threat which would, incidentally, increase his chances of successfully picking someone up.
There’s nothing wrong with flirting, but flirting in the wrong context can make you seem like a creep and will not be appreciated, which is (it seems) all that RW’s post was saying.
@323 Leon_Ateo
“So what if he was an idiot? Did he sexually assault her? The controversy here is that Dawkins called it a non-issue in a world full of women *actually* being harmed.”
So, just because the almighty atheist Dawkins declares this a non-issue, should we just ignore the fact that Rebecca was uncomfortable in the situation and may have felt an ulterior motive? To be honest, none of us – Dawkins or the rest of us were there. There were two people, alone, on an elevator at 4AM – Rebecca and the guy asking her to his room. I don’t want to put words in Rebecca’s mouth, but maybe it was a sense of intuition that made her feel something was not quite right with this guy. Who knows. For Dawkins to trivialize it and call it a non issue was plain stupid, and in this case, he would have been better to just keep his mouth shut.
@342 Andrew Wilson.
So, just because this may make the guy feel more awkward chatting up women in the future, I guess Rebecca should have accepted the guy’s proposition? Are you insane? That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Maybe the guy needs to learn how to meet women if he’s awkward asking them out. There are 101 ways he could have gone about talking to Rebecca without making her feel uncomfortable. I have stated before, if all he wanted was to chat about her topic at the conference, he should have approached her in a more public place. Even in the elevator, he could have stated that he would like to meet over coffee in the hotel cafe to discuss it. Inviting her back to his room in many cases is an invitation for sex.
@Dan L – Nope. I am just as willing to hear both sides of the story, but only one has been presented. Therefore we all have less than all the facts.
You ask that men treat women as human beings. Well, human beings are known for being very good liars. Sorry she ended up tarred with the same brush as the rest of humanity.
@murphspot
Why is it wrong to ask a woman if she wants to have sex and accept her “No” as an answer?
He wasn’t acting like a creep (despite her perception of it). He was asking to have sex (at the most extreme reading of the situation), which is the most natural thing in the world. She said no and he didn’t pursue the matter any further.
Had he not accepted her answer or tried to stop her leaving the lift that would have been creepy.
What if she had said yes? would it still be creepy?
Perhaps women had said yes, in the past, in similar circumstances! Would that have been creepy?
He did her the honour of being as up front about it as he felt comfortable with. He could have met her in the lobby and pretend to befriend her and get her into bed that way. That however, would have been dishonest!
Ron1,
That’s good of you, but there are certainly situations in which men riding on elevators in other company also feel intimidated by the mere presence of certain other passengers, should those other passengers wait for the next ride? or should the fearful man wait? If a woman is fearful it’s her problem, it’s only if the man acts in ways that are intimidating that she has a genuine complaint in my view.
In the example given the man acted badly, but his mere presence is not grounds for grievance.
(I’m betting he was gay and didn’t realize his offer was threatening)
@discount diety
What is so ‘serious’ about a man riding in an elevator with a woman in a public space? If that is all your facts you should join hezbollah.
If the facts extended to real aggression, or threats, then I’m all in and would agree. However, simple presence in a public space is still o.k. in our free society. Until then, egg shell feelings will have to live with it. If women want to be equal, they have to accept equality and not request special treatment like gender segregation. I think that we can do far more productive actions to prevent rape then instigate your Saudi mullah copy cat ideas.
I completely agree with Dawkins and yes, I am a woman. A woman was asked out, she declined, plain and simple. Sorry she felt awkward, as most women do when they reject someone, but the fact that SHE wanted to escape that very awkward feeling is getting twisted into something else entirely.
@330 Keith Bowden
So being male is equivalent to waving a weapon around?
Isn’t that exactly what happened? He asked the question, she said “no”, and that was the end of it.
Disclaimer – I’m new to the blog and am only vaguely familiar with Richard Dawkins.
Is it possible he does get it but wants the attention?
I still getting how this was “This was a potential sexual assault”. Or maybe I commit a “potential sexual assault” everytime i make any come on.
Not to forget “mental rapes” every time I get naughty thought. This whole deal is EXTREMALLY american, where you can get sued for everything.
While sarcasm may not be nicest way to put things I 100% support Dawkins, for getting angry because she made such fuzz out of polite proposal from potentional sexual predator every male is.
I’m confused about what Richard Dawkins is arguing. He says that Rebecca Watson experienced “zero bad,” but if we take him at his word, and if we allow that Watson’s report of her own feelings is accurate, then the “zero bad” proposition is immediately refuted by her report of her mental state after being asked to coffee (for surely Dawkins isn’t arguing that her mental state was a coincidence rather than a result). The invitation made her feel uncomfortable, and feeling uncomfortable is a bad thing. End of story.
Is Dawkins saying that the man in the elevator could not have reasonably anticipated the bad result of his action, so that, as a general proposition, actions such as his are not bad? So that Watson’s advice “Don’t do that” is actually bad advice, and one is likely, on average, to end up with equally bad (or worse) outcomes by attempting to follow that advice than by ignoring it? So that the man’s action wasn’t even a faux pas and does not reflect negatively on his social skills (or his sobriety, his capacity for empathy, or whatever)? If that’s what Dawkins is saying, he needs to clarify it, and he needs to realize that most reasonable people will regard it as being obviously wrong, so that he needs to make a better case if his argument is going to be accepted.
Is Dawkins saying that the man’s action, though it could reasonably be anticipated to have a bad result, was nonetheless not a bad action? If this is what Dawkins is saying, then he needs to provide a better articulated moral theory to argue the non-consequentialist basis for what he regards as good and bad actions.
Or is he merely saying that this is not a moral issue, that the man committed nothing more that a faux pas? If that’s what Dawkins is saying, then he needs to clarify it, and perhaps most people will agree with him. Indeed, Watson might well agree with him, and we can stamp “paid” to this whole argument.
All in all, it seems Dawkins would have done better to stick by his guns rather than implicitly conceding the point that the existence of greater evils is irrelevant to the need to oppose smaller ones. It is not irrelevant, because we have limited resources. As an abstract proposition, it’s quite possible that the existence of a greater evil can render it inefficient to devote any resources to fighting a smaller one. Of course it depends on the marginal relative resource-effectiveness of the struggles against the greater and the lesser evil, but at least the point is arguable.
Alex@341:
Oh, so it was a different Alex who said the following?
What is it you think that’s being expected of you? If you don’t want to get out of your seat on the subway, don’t. It’s not creepy. I wouldn’t even call it rude.
I’m pretty sure treating women like people involves talking to them as if they weren’t waiting to be sexually conquered by you. I assume when you first meet a man you don’t proposition him for sex. Instead, you treat him like a human being with agency on par with your own. You can treat women the same way — talk to them like they’re people with internal lives just like you. In some cases, this leads to flirting and various other amorous behaviors, and that’s wonderful. In other cases it doesn’t, and in those cases the woman is probably not interested in having sex with you and you can (maybe?) keep yourself constrained to pleasant conversation instead of unwanted sexual advances.
Or you can dismiss her from your sight as soon as it’s clear she’s not interested in having sex with you. Which will make it entirely clear what a staunch feminist you are, because you respected her desires, right?
@Horseman – No, it isn’t like ghosts or Bigfoot. People at least gave us video of those.
I am not saying she is lying, I’m saying the man may have a very different side of the story which must be heard. Hence the Babylon 5 three edged sword quote above.
I left a comment earlier but it appears to have vanished into the ether.
I submit that by calling the elevator incident a “potential sexual assault” Phil has removed himself from at least this conversation. Maybe he is not as ridiculous on other topics but on this one, he clearly has left the realm of the rational.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRfjLfyXYlA
Presumably, the woman in that video (albeit in characature) would be considered racist for reacting this way because the guy was black. In the case of woman acting like this because the guy was….well a guy, thats not sexist or anything, thats just good sense.
You might argue, and there is some truth in the claim, that in the case of woman and man, that women have some good reasons for wariness. (Incidentally, I’m sure many a purse has been snatched by black men over the years, that hardly makes an unprompted generalisation ok.)
What is not ok, is not only expecting men to make accomodations for the feelings of another person, who is at least considering him a threat for no reason other than his involuntary membership in a particular gender but to make matters worse, any man who is unaware of the situation is characterised as a sexist. What a completely skewed perspective.
393. DiscountDeity Says:
July 5th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Guys, go read Phil’s post again.
He’s not saying that every man is a potential rapist
Phil’s phrase “potential assault scenario” means that every man is a potential assailant, the context strongly implies an assault of a sexual nature.
Guys, do not ever talk to a woman! You’d be potentially sexually assaulting her! What a paranoid culture we live in.
He invited her for a coffee. He accepted her “No”. Imagine how would be the reaction if he hadn’t been polite.
Alex@352:
That’s your argument? Really? Some people lie, this woman is a person, therefore this woman is a liar?
That and you’re an unrepentant chauvinist, no wonder the girls are knocking each other down to get at you.
I, as a woman, agree with RD.
I don’t agree with PP and others that this should be interpreted as a potential attack scenario. If it was, then every elevator, or room with a closed door, or subway car or any other of a billion scenarios would be a “potential sexual assault.”
I for one, won’t spend every second of my life worrying about every potential assault that comes along. That’s the makings of an agoraphobe (ooh, but be sure to never let a man into your house-sanctuary! Potential attack scenario!).
I know no one will probably see my comment, down here at the bottom on 375 other people’s opinions, but I feel better having that out.
Andrew Wilson @ 401
Why is it wrong to ask a woman if she wants to have sex and accept her “No” as an answer?
It’s not, potentially. But if you do it in the wrong way (say, alone, with no one else in earshot at 4am in a country you know she’s foreign to in an elevator without establishing any prior conversation before leaping into the proposition), it might come across as creepy and potentially threatening.
Which is all she was saying. That it was creepy. Which it was.
It’s clear that he wasn’t going to assault her (because he didn’t), but it’s still uncomfortable. If he wanted to chat her up, he picked a very inappropriate venue.
He was asking to have sex (at the most extreme reading of the situation), which is the most natural thing in the world.
Which was also the first thing he said to her. It’s not as though they had some sort of discussion at the bar prior to getting into the elevator. He propositioned a strange woman at an inappropriate time.
Again, nothing morally wrong, but it’s creepy and if he wants to have any success in the future, he should probably take the lesson to not be so creepy away from this.
He did her the honour of being as up front about it as he felt comfortable with.
And he wound up creeping her out by skipping over the part where he demonstrates that he’s a decent guy who wouldn’t take advantage of her. He probably was a decent guy who wouldn’t take advantage of her or trap her in an elevator, but if he wanted her to know that, he should have, you know, done the groundwork establishing that he’s an okay fellow.
He could have met her in the lobby and pretend to befriend her and get her into bed that way. That however, would have been dishonest!
Oddly, I sort of presume that he actually had some interest in her as a person and would gladly have made her acquaintance, rather than simply viewing her as something he could screw.
But then it seems that I’ve got a more sunny opinion of him than you do. He was probably a misguided fan who didn’t realize his offer could be taken the wrong way nor that he was presenting it in a really, really inappropriate setting.
Dawkins vs Dworkin, who will the feminists back?
The answer seems clear.
Thank you, Phil! One of the better outcomes of this debacle is the number of male allies who have stepped up to the plate. Well done!
Thank you, Phil! One of the better outcomes of this debacle is the number of male allies who have stepped up to the plate. Well done!
If you don’t “get it” please read this post.
Americans, like Phil and Rebecca, are very uptight when it comes to sexuality. On top of this, they’ve added this weird layer of critical studies dogma where everything a white male does is bad and due to something called “privilege”. If you are unfortunate enough to be both white and a male, like Phil, you have to engage in a lot of self abnegation and guilty rhetoric to absolve yourself. He won’t admit it, but this is cultural inheritance of christianity still resident in his world view. One thing you can never do, is ever question Rebecca, as a member of a victim group, how she is privileged enough to have so much time and money to constantly blog, podcast and travel to atheist conventions in Dublin. As a brown man, I spend all my time working and afraid of being fired, along with all the white and asian men in our company. This is a part of our male privilege. Of course, all our female co-workers who are victims like Rebecca but don’t have her means and are forced to work in cubicles are also afraid of losing their jobs.
All in all, we enjoy be lectured by Rebecca whose victim status provides her with unlimited time to blog, vlog, podcast, travel and do other victimhood activities like being asked out in an elevator.
One last comment. Rebecca Watson was suggesting that if males want to be respected by females instead of being thought of as repellant then males shouldn’t proposition women who don’t know them alone in an elevator at 4 AM.
What part of that is unreasonable? Seriously. If you can’t answer that one simple question then you’re refusing to examine your own motives for engaging in this argument.
@Dan L – What makes you think I’ve done anything like what you describe?
For the record, I don’t date. It has been a long time since I’ve even asked a woman if she wanted a cup of coffee. I happen to believe that if men put half the effort in to more productive pursuits that we put in to our sex lives we’d have colonies on Mars by now.
It’s extremely insulting that you think my defence of this man has anything to do with wanting to dominate anyone.
If only he had followed correct legal procedures and submitted his official resume detailing his exact intentions and proof of good moral character before even thinking of actually having the audacity to speak to a woman, all of this could have been avoided. Why are men so insensitive?
Hey don’t take this the wrong way but do you want to go get a cup of coffee? Oh its 4 in the morning and there aren’t any cafes open. I have coffee in my hotel room? I think you we’re interesting at the conference and I would like to get to know you more.
Hey don’t take this the wrong way but do you want to go get a cup of sex in my hotel room? I thought you were pretty and sex please?
Which one of these we’re his motive? Does she know which one? No. Does he know that she doesn’t? No. Who has the right of way in this situation? She does. Does the dude’s request make him a “bad male”? No. Did he not take no for an answer? No.
@296. Stephanie
Thank you. Well said.
In my opinion, the guy was out of line in asking what he asked, where and when he asked it. But in the end, Rebecca declined an offer from someone who was impolite/cloddish (and may have had one too many — not that this excuses ill-behavior) and that was the end of it. That Rebecca might have felt uncomfortable is completely understandable. That she has a generally useful point to make to guys is fine with me. That Dr. Dawkins makes a valid point, but maybe, just maybe could be a bit more empathetic, and make more effective arguments — yep. But from what evidence I have before me — to say that “this was a potential sexual assault” is out of line.
@Dan L (again) – And yet more insults. I treat women like human beings by assuming they are capable of the same flaws as men. I am NOT calling her a liar, I am pointing out that she, as a human being, is CAPABLE OF LYING. We all are.
I have no reason to disbelieve her story, but I want to hear the other side too. Why do you continue to fail to understand that?
I think Kitty’s comment #348 nails it, but I’m left wondering if it had been another woman who had offered coffee in her room if it would have also been threatening to some women? Or how about two men?
Ok. So, I’m open to the possibility that I’m just clueless, here — so please help me out if that’s the case.
I don’t in any way blame Rebecca for her discomfort. We live in a society where sexual assault is real, and sadly all too common. On top of that, our society actively teaches women to treat all men as potential rapists. So, woman alone with a “strange” man asking her to coffee — I can see why she might be creeped out and feel really uncomfortable. And I applaud her for handling it with grace, and being willing to talk about it in public. Neither of those things can be easy.
But. I just can’t bring myself to blame the man in question either. I’m struggling to see what he did wrong, here. From *his* point of view, he had an opportunity he might never have again — to ask something of a celebrity to have coffee with him in a context where his embarrassment at a possible rejection would be confined to she and he alone.
It seems that the opinion is that the man *should have known* that women in general — or at least one woman in particular — would perceive an request for coffee in an elevator as a “potential sexual assault.” I’m struggling to understand why he should have known that. I’m struggling to understand why anyone would ask for prior restraint on a perfectly reasonable and innocent request on the grounds that it might be taken as too aggressive given the context.
Again, I want to point out that I feel for Rebecca here — if I had my way, no woman would ever have to feel that sort of threat. It’s just that it seems to me the blame lies with a culture of assault and fear, not with the actions of the man in the elevator.
So what am I missing?
@DiscountedDeity:
You might want to read again too, because you missed the part where he preaches about your duty to proselytize until “all men” understand “the” woman’s point of view.
Not only are you obliged to think and speak a certain way, but you should enforce that way of thinking and speaking in others. It is a shockingly sexist comment, but perhaps it escapes scrutiny because the rest of the paragraph condemns sexism.
I’ve heard it said that “feminism isn’t about dogma”, but here Phil says (in a post tagged “feminism”) that there is something we all must believe and promulgate.
Given how vague it is, I’m inclined to chalk it up to sloppy writing/editing. But I can see why so many take offense.
@murphspot
He may well have just wanted to get to know her. It doesn’t matter.
Even if he WAS only interested in sex, there is nothing wrong or creepy about asking her if she wants to have sex, even if it is the first thing he says, even it is 4AM and even if it is in a lift. He accepted her no answer. That is NOT creepy.
Not asking would be the creepy thing to do!
I only see one thing in this argument : a cultural difference.
Americans have to rethink their social life and political life (like preventive wars) … Hé ! NOTHING HAPPENED ! NOTHING HAPPENED ! NOTHING HAPPENED ! NOTHING HAPPENED !
STOP YOUR FEARS, AMERICAN PEOPLE ! I had once an american supplier (Texas) who told me that he would have liked to visit Paris again but FEARED a terrorist move. COM’ON he has far far far more chance in dying in his car than by a bomb…
FEAR IS AMERICA’S BEST FRIEND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipujWRYUjS4
Women can be scared anywhere, anytime, even in their own home but when nothing happens like it is the case here, just a polite invitation, there is no meaning of making a fuss about a talk, even if she could not “escape”. Escape what … her imagination ?
MAN = potential rape / pedophilia nowadays. So, we hear cases where people don’t help young kids in a difficult situation on purpose, so as their help is not misinterpreted ! Com’on wake up ! This is becoming crazy.
By the way, the elevator social space is a well known topic in social sciences. Everyone feels “strange” in a small elevator with an unknown person. If people understand French, they can have fun with this humourous sequence of the “Elevator situation” (with direct contact ! ) from Desproges. That’s a far better story than this one !
http://www.funnyhumorclips.net/v/pierre-desproges-lascenseur_2076.html
@Ron1 #343
——-
Andrew, that’s exactly how I work it. Late at night I won’t enter an elevator if there is a woman in it by herself — I politely tell her I’ll wait for the next one because I know that my being there will make her uncomfortable.
This is basic male/female etiquette that my wife and daughters drilled into my head a long time ago.
———
I cant believe what Im reading. Someone actually advocating this form of extreme hypersensitivity, where every movement is questioned because it might offend someone. Are you going to lobby congress to make it illegal? Write letters to the President? No thanks. Be it about atheism or sexuality Im not going to police my thoughts and actions just because it might make someone uncomfortable. Lets get real here.
Phil Plait is wrong and Richard Dawkins is right. This is not evidence of mysognism or sexism, just some clueless dude who struck out in a clumsy and stupid attempt to get laid. In the dating world awkward things WILL happen and people WILL be uncomfortable, and this does not apply only to women. Just because RW was made uncomfortable does not justify the ridiculous hysteria this has generated, and I frankly cant believe Im reading something else about it on Discoverblogs. The notion that “any unwelcome sexual advance is always inappropiate” is flat out ludicrous on its face. This is the real world, where some people want sex and others don’t – as long as no is taken for an answer there is nothing wrong.
Im not surprised to hear this useless diatribe from Phil Plait – his “Dont be a dick” speech was lacking in substance just like this article. Get your heads out of the sand- the rational ones will be waiting in the real world.
As someone said about 3,oo0 comments ago about making an advance without being creepy, it would come in the form of, “I really enjoyed your talk and hope we can talk tomorrow, perhaps at lunchtime.”
A man getting onto an elevator with a lone woman is not doing harm but police safety advice is to step out of the elevator and take another one. He would be polite to say, “I’ll take the next one.” Because if she gets raped, she will be blamed for not getting off.
My mother taught me that “there is a time and a place for everything”, but apparently some people didn’t get that lesson. Nighttime in a bar? Perfectly appropriate time to chat up a woman. If she tells you she’s not interested and you move on, then no harm no foul. Four hours later in the elevator? Seriously creepy, therefore you shouldn’t do it. This isn’t rocket science.
So… you are claiming it is sexist for a man to enter an elevator with a woman — or not immediately leave an elevator should the woman follow him inside? Is that your claim? I am asking because if that is your view then you are a sexist idiot. But it sure looks like its what you think.
quote:
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman”
quote:
“to a woman, being alone on that elevator with that man was a potential threat, and a serious one”
This doesn’t seem to be the point of the woman in the video by the way. But her point seems equally sexist and idiotic. Her point appears t to be that men should never talk to women ever, because it is sexist.
Spaceman Spiff @ 424
But from what evidence I have before me — to say that “this was a potential sexual assault” is out of line.
I was in Athens last month. I’m a large-ish guy and (while I’ve never been anywhere close to getting into a fight) am reasonably confident in my ability to handle myself.
That said, when I got on the metro shortly after midnight (and walking around the neighborhood around the hotel at 2am), I made sure that I knew where my wallet was at every single moment (which was in my front pocket; a departure from how I usually walk around) and I was suspicious as hell of everyone. I’m certain that nearly everyone I came into contact with was just living their lives and most of them were really, really friendly. Everyone I talked to was awesome. But I was somewhere I wasn’t familiar with and in situations where the potential to be pickpocketed was significantly higher than it is in other situations. And I have no way to tell a potential pickpocket from someone who’s just going home from the bar, particularly in a country I’d never been to before.
So I was on my guard.
Rebecca didn’t even say she felt threatened, but she was in a situation where the possibility that she could be assaulted was increased (in an enclosed space that can be stopped and which you could potentially be restrained in, without the comfort of other people being in earshot and being propositioned by someone she’d never met), so it would be totally reasonable for red flags to be raised.
“The problem isn’t so much that the man made her feel uncomfortable, but that the man put Rebecca in a position where she could not tell if he posed a danger or not. ”
I would put Rebecca in that same position if I simply walked into the elevator with her at 4am! The problem here is conflating his boorish (?) behavior with sexual assault.
I don’t understand the comments that say “Why can’t you see he acted inconsiderately?”
OK, so let’s grant (without knowing) that he acted inappropriately. That IS laughably meaningless next to the plight of oppressed women.
Sometimes I get panhandled. Even as a guy, I sometimes get nervous about the remote possibility that the panhandler will stab me or do something insane. IMHO, my “problem” with that is close to nil next to the problems of oppressed women in third world countries.
@Adam
There are actually crazypants in here that want us to never ride alone with women in elevators!
I live in a 20 story apartment building in SF, how the hell am I going to get home about 50% of the time if I followed that rule.
Its like there are Saudi agents pretending to be skeptics in here trying to socially engineer us into a Wahabi cultural norm.
Andrew Wilson @ 430
Even if he WAS only interested in sex, there is nothing wrong or creepy about asking her if she wants to have sex, even if it is the first thing he says, even it is 4AM and even if it is in a lift. He accepted her no answer. That is NOT creepy.
To each their own, I suppose. That seems creepy to me. It seems like it would be potentially perceived as creepy, which would make me not do that as it seems like it would dramatically decrease the chances that the offer would be accepted, even if completely innocent.
I also don’t as women whether they’d like to sleep with me after they help me load some furniture into a windowless van. I know that I’d never hurt anyone, but people I’ve never met might not know that and I’m not about to just assume that they’ll think that.
I’m with Richard. We are most likely dealing with a male whose brain is lagging behind his hormones. In other words, verbally he was clumsy. I’ve been there myself. This does NOT mean a sexual assault was about to happen. This does NOT mean a sexual assault is about to happen. This does NOT mean a sexual assault will happen.
I think I figured out what bothers me about this situation. Every man is automatically assumed to be a sexual predator and treated as such, because some men are. There is a word for that: stereotyping. “I/someone I know/I heard someone was mugged by a black guy and now I treat all black guys as if they are going to mug me whenever I am alone with them.” How is that any different than how she treated the man in the elevator? Why is everyone justifying and defender her and berating the sort of behavior in the fictional situation?
Wow, I want to buy that unknown guy a drink. Here he is being denigrated all across the interwebtubes as a creep and boor, he has become some sort of posterchild for potential elevator rapists…
and all he did was make the mistake of thinking that his time might be enjoyable to a woman…
as if that were possible.
Adam @ 434
OK, so let’s grant (without knowing) that he acted inappropriately. That IS laughably meaningless next to the plight of oppressed women.
Which is irrelevant, as her comments did not compare it to the plight of oppressed women. She said it made it uncomfortable, explained why, and appealed men to act in a way that wouldn’t come off as creepy and unnerving.
There’s nothing unreasonable.
Sometimes I get panhandled. Even as a guy, I sometimes get nervous about the remote possibility that the panhandler will stab me or do something insane.
So, let’s say a guy followed you down an alleyway to ask you for a few dollars to get some gas because they’d run out and had left their wallet at home. You’d politely decline and view that as the end of it, and wouldn’t later, when discussing the incident, say that it made you uncomfortable and that you wished that people wouldn’t do that?
Because that’s all RW did here.
I’m sad because I read this blog for the astronomy. But instead today I am reminded once again that just for being male I am a potential sexual predator. THIS is why I do not even look at women anymore. Talk? In an elevator!!?? This man shall hang!
Women, and men who understand them, please forgive me for being a clueless, ignorant male, who like many other males does not magically know exactly when my attempts to socialize with a woman will be well received. I am clearly just another one of those guys who “just doesn’t get it”. Since it would be unforgivable to risk causing any female to be even the slightest bit uncomfortable, I will refrain from speaking to and standing in close proximity with females until all you enlightened women and men get together and publish the complete, highly detailed, and case specific guide to acceptable social interactions that a young man such as myself is permitted to have with a female. I am sure that there will be no disagreement among enlightened individuals, or ambiguity whatsoever in this guide, because all women have exactly the same comfort zone. And of course, any male who disagrees just simply “doesn’t get it!”
@ 302. Greg Fish
“Again, my point in Google-speak: don’t be creepy.”
That’s fine but not the point. Anyway we probably never will know what really happend. Pro and contra-creepy hypotheses have been stated. With the facts given, even if I assume them for the moment, which seems ultimately unfair, I can’t decide which to favour.
“No need to start epic flame wars over it.”
That’s more to it, but – flames aside – the “war” has been started, but (in this case) not by Richard Dawkins.
“That’s all.”
Contrary, from here it starts. But why? One of the two persons did choose, not to resolve this among them, but bring it to a greater audience. With Dawkins I agree that this is hardly justified.
I’ve read Watson’s explanation on this. As far as I understand, I fail feminism 101, and that’s that. No further explanation required. And she’s right in a way. I fail on purpose on her “feminism 101”. I don’t buy into the objectification vs. attraction dogma, after all I’m a materialist and women are objects as are men.
Falling in love with each overs mind? Fine with me.
Hot and steemy sex? Fine with me.
Love and sex? Fine with me.
One but not the other? Fine with me.
Trading love for sex or sex for love? Fine with me.
etc.
Telling lies about these things is the nono.
You see me as an object to satisify your urge? Fine with me. Just don’t lie to me about it. I’ll decide if I go along with it as your object.
Greg Fish said “My issue is the whole “women are just paranoid”/”men are all rapists in waiting” discussion taking place.”
I can only speak for myself but I would not be surprised if many others share my viewpoint that women have to calculate risk. If we were to use a 1 – 10 scale, for me, most men, most of the time are a 1 (I don’t think you are a threat but the bad guys look just like the good guys so I’ll just keep the potential in mind). If we are in a secluded area, such as an elevator alone, you go up to maybe a 3 solely because of the circumstances (at this point, I am making note of the location of the alarm button although I don’t expect I will need to use it). Most of the time, casual conversation is fine but if a woman doesn’t repond or gives one-word answers, leave her alone. If you ask me to go to your place/your room you’ve maybe gone up to a 5 (if you are actually a threat, this situation just got worse and I need to be prepared to think and move quickly). At that point, if you move closer or get loud or appear physically agitated, you shoot up to about an 8 or a 9 and I am genuinely afraid for my safety (and probably trying to get to my cell phone without you seeing while also considering what I might use as a weapon). I do not think all men are rapists but they are a potential danger (note – potential danger does not mean assumed or likely danger, rather, it means there is a need for caution in light of not knowing a particular man’s temperament and history). My perception of the level of threat you pose depends largely on your behavior.
At this point, I’m starting to wonder whether Dawkins himself is Creepy Elevator Guy. It’s the only thing I can think of that explains his defence of the idiot.
I’ve only read about half the comments, so this may have been beaten to death in the other half already, but I really wanted to emphasize what Paul said:
“I know it’s a stretch, but what if the person in the elevator was a white man being asked for spare change by a black man? Would they be justified in sending a message to all black men asking them to refrain from this, due to fear of mugging?”
That’s the first thing I thought, as well. There’s a slightly higher percentage of black people convicted of violent felonies than white people. Surely this means we should treat them like this, too?
Like Dawkins, I’m a white male, but I still think there are some major logical flaws in the original ‘potential assault’ comments as well as Phil’s post. While I can certainly sympathize with the woman in the elevator, that does not necessarily mean that Dawkins was wrong. It’s an unfortunate feature of our society that she is afraid; nonetheless, the man has every right to be there and does not deserve this reaction, nor should all women be treated as if they are continually in need of protection and gentleness. It demeans both sexes. The situation that arose is indicative of societal problems indeed, but the criticism is being directed in all the wrong directions.
Elevator-man might not have been the most tactful guy in the world. If this was only about giving a etiquette tip, it’d be fine, but it isn’t.
@murphspot
I think the thing that I find a bit depressing, to be honest is that people still have this 1950’s false notion that women aren’t as interested in sex as men. They are! Even anonymous sex in strange hotels.
I’m not saying that all women will want sex, if only you could get the right chat up line. However, some women are interested in that kind of sex, but he would never have known unless he asked.
I still think that asking was the only real honest thing he could do. At least his intentions were made known rather than him leering at her from the corner of the lift and probably creeping her out even more!
I’m sort of with you but the way you KEEP repeating that it’s a POTENTIAL ASSAULT SCENARIO strikes me as overblown. Every situation in life where a man and a woman (or really any two people) is a potential something. Dawkins wasn’t there, but you weren’t either. This is getting too much ink.
Sorry Phil but you are off base on this one. You say ” a potential sexual assault” Hold on there cowboy. This wasn’t an “a potential sexual assault”. No where near.
If society has gotten to the point where a man asking a women for coffee is ” a potential sexual assault” than things are pretty messed up.
He asked, she said no, he left. End of story. She talked about how it made her feel and she should be able to without people attacking her. But to attack people who disagree is wrong.
People ask other people for dates all the time. There is nothing wrong with that. If men can’t ask women on dates how should it be done? Or do we need to carry around flow charts?
It makes me sad and tired to see my fellow guys weeping and wailing that they can never talk to women again because someone has pointed out that it’s creepy and threatening to proposition someone when you’re alone in an elevator at 4AM.
Come on guys! Did your fathers never tell you how to behave like a gentleman and not a creep?
I’m sorry, was hitting on someone in an elevator socially awkward? Did it show a lack of planning and knowledge of western social protocol? Yes and Yes.
But potential rape? I’m sorry, but if thats the measuring stick we are using then any human communication is potential rape. Hide your kids, hide yours wives, I guess.
Yes, bad things happen and rape is inhuman and atrocious but pretending every man in existence is a barely caged rape machine is just as offensive as objectifying every woman as a sex object. And it is done far too often.
That being said, who ask a woman out alone on an elevator? Seriously. Bad form.
A man spoke to a woman in an elevator. THAT IS ALL. We males are not the violent, souless monsters some would make of us.
We get it. Men are all predators. Women are all victims. *yawn* Asking a woman over for coffee means sex is if that is how you take it, or if that’s what a particular man “means.” It gets tiring listening to certain people who feel ‘entitled’ spew their victim crap. Without man-woman interaction the human race would just cease to exist.
@Andy Beaton:
” … Come on guys! Did your fathers never tell you how to behave like a gentleman and not a creep? … ”
Yes, which is why he asked her, accepted her no answer and left it at that!
I agree with Rebecca that the situation was really creepy and potentially dangerous. The guy was either totally clueless or totally sexist. If he had said something like “I liked your speech or can we get together tomorrow?”, it would have been fine. Asking her for sex without any prior conversation, in an enclosed area, late at night is creepy. There was also probably an element of sexism there although he might just just be clueless with everyone. I don’t think there is enough evidence to prove that he hates women. I feel that it was very reasonable for Rebecca to feel threatened.
I think there are two questions here, perception of danger and where do we draw the line?
I think about the bar scene in Animal House where the black guys say “Do you mind if we dance with your dates? ” They didn’t say anything wrong but the guys perceived they were being threatened. Was it reasonable for them to feel threatened in this situation?
Another thing I think about is the story about Michele Bachman. After she gave a speech, she was confronted by two middle aged lesbian women in the ladies room. They didn’t say anything threatening but because she was in an enclosed place with women that she considered threatening, she screamed for the police. Most of the comments I read about the incident laughed at her. She perceived that she was being threatened but most of the comments I’ve read about the situation feel that she was silly . (This question isn’t about her politics, which I hate, but her perception of danger.)
Where is the line? Where it is reasonable to feel threatened to where it is unreasonable to feel threatened?
Behavior that might be acceptable, if unwelcome, in a hotel bar becomes threatening when it’s in an elevator from which there is only one exit and there are no witnesses and no place to go where the other person can’t get to you.
The utter failure by some to concede that Setting Matters is disheartening.
Was the guy a potential predator? Almost certainly not. I’d say the odds are very high that he simply saw a chance, figured he wasn’t likely to get another, and made his pitch. Clueless, not malicious. That doesn’t mean that Rebecca’s reaction is any less valid, however — because there’s no way she can tell the clueless dweeb from the predator just based on the opening salvo in an elevator.
@Andy Beaton – you used the G-word. It’s my belief that the entire concept of gentlemanliness is holding men back from being happy and looking after our own needs while simultaneously treating women like delicate flowers with no minds of their own.
I’m not actually advocating propositioning women at 4am in an elevator, only that the assumption that he was going to assault her speaks very loudly of how our society views men.
Both people here are human beings, not just the woman.
A “potential” rape scenario?
Gee, and here I thought this was a country where you’re innocent until proven guilty.
By this logic, every time I get in the car I’m a potential vehicular homicide waiting to happen. Better take my license now before I hurt someone.
Point 1, the guy was a cad asking for a date in an elevator late at night. It’s better if you get to know someone first before inviting them into your room.
Point 2, Dawkins still has a point – who has the bigger “cross to bear” here? Many women around the world suffer greatly still. Being a cad is not a crime.
One final point to consider – had he asked the same question to a Muslim woman in an elevator, he probably would have had his testicles removed by one of her male family members. Life is different in the desert.
@Alex #457 – No one has said or even assumed that the guy was going to assault her only the he could assault her. You are making this into something it’s not.
Phil, some of us aren’t as clueless and feminists paint us. Some of us aren’t abusing our privilege.
Some of us are wondering how an uncomfortable situation talked briefly about exploded into a feminist rage-fest about everything that was wrong about atheist and skeptical men.
And there are three parts to this story. The first part is the man I would hate to be from the elevator. The second part is the response from a student blogger. The third part is the unfair public shaming of that blogger for daring to have an opinion that differed from Rebecca’s.
Really at this point the elevator incident is the past. What is current is the amount of rage from feminists and allies pointed at men and women who dare not agree. It’s a double standard when those same feminists and allies tell men to stop whining about their circumcision because there’s women somewhere in the world getting their genitals mutilated.
But what do I know, that’s just the privileged white guy talking, so all the feminists can ignore any arguments that don’t agree with your own. It’s funny that when a privileged white guy bears the feminist standard he’s held up as a saint.
…and now I’m probably going to be kicked off this blog as well.
@Andrew Wilson: “Yes, which is why he asked her, accepted her no answer and left it at that!”
Where I come from, a proposition from a stranger at 4AM, alone in an elevator has crossed the line into creepy. It was the wrong time and place to ask.
I don’t think Dawkins was being sexist. I am woman and I always tell men that they can’t imagine how hard it is to walk on the streets at night or at desert place without the fear of being raped. I hate sexism. I think people overreacted too much on this elevator situation. It’s obvious the guy was searching for sex, I would feel pretty disgusted by this kind of invite (4am at the elevator) too , but not to the point of the idea “all men are sexual predators”. Anyway, Rebecca showed a lesson on how not to treat a woman, we hope some guys learn it.
@ Christopher Amber #458
“A “potential” rape scenario?
Gee, and here I thought this was a country where you’re innocent until proven guilty.
By this logic, every time I get in the car I’m a potential vehicular homicide waiting to happen. Better take my license now before I hurt someone.”
You are a potential perpetrator of vehicular homicide. That is why people wear seat belts and look both ways. We don’t take your license away, we just take steps to reduce the risk and/or damage.
If you are driving erratically, you become a higher risk and I would slow down or pull over to avoid you.
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”
And you know this is true for every women … how?
“There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. ”
You said it yourself he could’ve had noble intentions. You can’t assume he was a predator just because he invited her for coffee. In fact I’d go as far as to say that naturally assuming that men are predators is pretty sexist. He could’ve been an insomniac for all we know.
My wife has made it very clear that saying she is very tired and going to bed does not mean she doesn’t want to have sex. And I have made it very clear that grabbing her ass in bed does mean I do want to have sex. And yet, we neither have sex every time she goes to bed, nor every time I grab her ass in bed. And for some reason when we have sex she never screams, “Oh god I love your mind!!!”
Obviously I am very confused about how this is supposed to work.
@Shawmutt
“It’s a double standard when those same feminists and allies tell men to stop whining about their circumcision because there’s women somewhere in the world getting their genitals mutilated.”
Who does that??? I want an example, I think it’s very interesting if it’s true. + Good post.
The problem here is that this is not a conversation. It’s one person crying foul and a host of others crying foul on anyone who disagrees with that person no matter what the nature of the disagreement is.
If you seriously think that there can be a conversation about a relationship when one party is forcibly excluded from the conversation because they’re instantly shouted down as “mansplainers” (or whatever the latest put-down is) no matter what they try to contribute, then you’re delusional, period.
You cannot fix the problem of a pendulum having been too far, for too long, in one direction by demanding that it be forced in the other direction and kept there no matter what. The only rational solution is to center the pendulum and keep it there.
It seems to me that this is what Dawkins was trying to do. His comment was entirely in keeping with his rational approach to life and I don’t doubt that it was posted in an attempt to inject some rationality into what’s lamentably become a completely irrational response.
If we’re going to cry “Rape!” when someone merely asks someone else back for coffee *and nothing else happens* then what are we going to call actual rape? Murder? So then what are we going to call actual murder?
Are we now insisting that boys be restrained at all times, but girls need show no restraint in how they subsequently portray events?
The shameless devaluation of those who actually are raped, by this Hollywood blockbuster approach to what happened, is disgusting. It would seem obvious that that’s the point Dawkins was making. The fact that it’s not obvious to all-too-many others is an issue that’s being conveniently swept under the rug whilst we continue to get as much mileage as we can out of discomfort masquerading as tragedy.
Yes, it was an awful situation which should never have happened, but over-reaction, misrepresentation, and shouting down those who have the temerity to disagree with what’s all-too-rapidly becoming the new status quo is not going to fix it. It’s not going to fix anything. It’s going to make things worse.
Sadly, I see little hope of rationally approaching a solution which will benefit both sides when we’re so myopically focused on what will make one person’s hurt feelings go away.
Rest assured that angrily telling one party that they’re hopelessly wrong no matter what they do, say, think, or feel isn’t going to solve anything.
“Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.”
So being alone in the room with any man is a potential sexual assault?
By that logic being alone with ANYONE is a potential murder or a potential robbery, or hell a potential rape.
So there are 336 comments above me, and I’m not sure whether any of them address something that is really important here – which is that people grow and learn from experience. Yes, men start out callow and clueless in the ways of the world (I’m a man and in retrospect, I know that I said and did things in my late teens that probably were completely creepy to women around me), but we learn, as do all human beings, from engaging with the world and being open and understanding of other people’s experiences. For me the real question is not “was the dude in the elevator really a potential rapist” – which is beside the point – but rather “how can everybody learn to better appreciate what it means to live a life that is deeply respectful of other people, all the time”, and hence “how can boys and young men (for I was one once, after all) be educated to truly respect and appreciate the points of view of those who are different from them?”
The thing that ought to truly embarass Prof Dawkins, and which he probably cannot bring himself to admit, is that he reached the age of 70 without achieving enough worldly experience to understand that propositioning strangers after midnight in elevators is a little creepy.
Peace out
im still unable to parse that.
umm. im an amerimuslimah and i don’t get all the shariah law references Dawkins worked into his rebuttals.
I would have just told the guy to step on.
is Rebecca Watson a closet muslimah perhaps?
In a majority muslim nation a single young female would probably not be alone in an elevator with a creeper in the first place. And in america, like i said, we would just tell the creep to step on.
I think Rebecca’s viewpoint is useful for guys that want to hit on high IQ sensitive types in elevators, but other than that, not so much. Not 400+ comments much.
But what exactly is Dawkins saying? Because muslim women have no rights american women can’t complain?
Is it possible that Dawkins is just cuckoo-bananas about al-Islam like most westerners?
I need a translation.
In a fashion similar to above, can a white male please outline what ways of communication are acceptable for me, a black male, to speak to him such that he is not made uncomfortable? I really don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings and surely don’t want my mere presence in an elevator or me walking down the street to cause unpleasantry.
@Andy Beaton:
” … Where I come from, a proposition from a stranger at 4AM, alone in an elevator has crossed the line into creepy. It was the wrong time and place to ask. … ”
Where you come from, how do people proposition each other for anonymous, meaningless sex then?
I suspect, even where you come from, a tipsy, 4am proposition in a lift, away from home, at a conference, in a foreign country is probably the usual way.
The dichotomy I’m seeing is between empathy for feelings and intolerance for physical abuse.
Dawkins certainly has the latter but not so much for the former.
BA is hitting the points of both.
Dawkins’ perspective, intolerance for physical abuse, is the minimum standard. To the degree there is empathy for feelings, and thus a different behavior in the elevator by the gentleman, is well above this minimum.
@twirlgrl – Again, that’s not how this article reads.
@shawnmutt – I have heard that argument from feminists in various forums many times. Ritual circumcision only matters when it’s happening to girls. It’s too messed up a viewpoint to even talk to the people who hold it.
“You don’t have people constantly explaining that you’re subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal.”
Are you kidding? I can’t count the number of times men are protrayed as unthinking brutes who only care about sex and have no real intellect otherwise.
“You don’t live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road.”
Is she saying that men are never raped? What an incredibly ignorant statement.
Perhaps she should wear a burka, that would stop men talking to her.
@ 461 shawmutt:
You can climb that cross if you want but begging for nails is just tacky.
444 Andy said:
“I’m sad because I read this blog for the astronomy. But instead today I am reminded once again that just for being male I am a potential sexual predator.”
Really, this reminded you of yourself, of your social identity? Why, because you’re the kind of guy that propositions strangers for sex in hotel elevators @ 4 AM?
Bomb throwing time: why is it that men get to be labeled as potential rapists if they even go out the same door as a woman… or get on the elevator? Why do women get to avoid registering with Selective Service (draft board) when they turn 18? Double standards exist and go both ways.
Dawkins is right on the money. I’m sorry, but equating an unwanted advance to sexism is colossally stupid. Claiming that this was “a potential sexual assault” is colossally stupid. I thought atheists and skeptics were more rational than this. This kind of black and white thinking is absolutely absurd.
A man asked her to get coffee. She declined. End of story. There is nothing sexist about politely asking a woman to get coffee. You can view it as being creepy given the circumstances, but sexist? Potential sexual assault? Are you serious? If there’s any sexism at all in this situation, you’ve clearly got it backwards.
Here’s something that occurred to me (a heterosexual white man) around 15 years ago:
I was coming back home after a fairly lenghty trip and the taxi driver was fairly chatty guy. I’m generally not much of a person for small talk but chatted away nonetheless.
When we almost got home, the driver told me: “Don’t take this the wrong way… but you’re the nicest looking person I’ve picked up all day.”
I replied: “Thanks” while thinking: “Okay, that was a little strange. Hopefully he’s just looking for a good tip? Is this some cultural misunderstanding?”.
We arrived at my house. I paid the driver. As I was removing my seat belt, I heard the click of the car doors locking… at which point my mind started racing….
The driver sighed, turned around, and placed his hand on my inner thigh and started to lightly stroke it. At this point, I’m wondering if I’d be able to fight my way out of this considering the driver did have a size advantage over me. (Let’s not forget that at this point, he also knows where I live).
He asked me a question but it didn’t register as I was frantically thinking of an escape route… I replied: “No” as flatly as possible.
The driver turned away, unlocked the door, I gathered my things and went home in a daze…
I blurted out what happened to my roommate, who I had to stop from trying to confront the guy (the cab was long gone anyway). I debated calling the taxi company to report this incident. I contacted my numerous acquaintances to ask them if I am somehow sending out false signals.
It took me a couple of weeks or so before I would get into another cab, even then it might have taken me another several months before I felt comfortable enough to hop into a cab without looking at who was driving (alone or with my girlfriend).
I don’t like revisiting that memory, but it does help me empathize with this scenario.
I reasoned that the driver was probably honest in his intentions (or maybe wanted to offer some sort of premium services). Had the proposition occured in another context (i.e. while I was safely out of the cab with my luggage), it might have been a fun little anecdote. Switch the context to being trapped inside the back seat of a car with the child proof locks and it takes on a whole new meaning.
I’m certain that Elevator Guy probably had honest intentions, hell, maybe he was just offering coffee, maybe he was nervous and said the first thing that popped into his head. I can sympathize with that.
However, I also empathize with Rebecca and for her to say: “Guys. Don’t approach a woman in an elevator at 4am and ask to go to your room. It’s creepy”.
A general rule of thumb for me is:
Would I appreciate being approached in the same way by a person twice my size with the same level of relantionship in this context?
Even with all of the above, I might still need a reminder from time to time as, being happily married, my interactions with other women are generally innocent so I might not always see how they might be misinterpreted.
In 1996, I was a naiive college student who accepted the seemingly innocent invitation from a young man who invited me back to his room because he had book related to his field of study. I had to fight my way out as his room locked with a key on both sides.
When I talked about that experience later, both men and women (including the school officials to whom I reported the incident) criticized me for not knowing that OBVIOUSLY men don’t invite women back to their rooms for innocent purposes, and by accepting the invitation I was giving him a tacit invitation to do whatever he wanted.
It’s therefor painful to me to see people are now criticizing Skepchick for drawing the very conclusion that I was criticized for failing to draw–nevermind the closed environment in which the invitation was offered (I’ve since been taught in rape prevention classes just how dangerous elevators are–and that women should always stand next to the button panel in order to remain in “control” in that otherwise closed and vulnerable environment).
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this–it *is* a serious issue – and understanding what led to her discomfort will help the dialogue and perhaps (though I may be naiive in believing so) lead to fewer such instances in the future.
I must be out of the loop. When I’ve invited women up for a drink, I’ve always meant it literally. (This man stated “don’t take this the wrong way” and yet many people are insisting on taking it the “wrong” way. It’s not up to passers-by to evaluate and second-guess what happened to Watson, it’s up to her. Nobody else has all the facts).
I appreciate hearing Watson’s POV and there’s some take-away learning available in the anecdote. That’s what I can do with the info she presented.
sidenote re: The amount of people who believe that some humans do not engage in and enjoy random sex with strangers (at conferences or wherever) – I find that oddly naive. Almost as odd as the woman/man who self-elects to speak for all women/men on the planet.
Oh hell, Dawkins. That’s so disappointing.
One step forward, so many steps back. It’s sad to even read.
@#436. murphspot
I don’t disagree with anything you said. So I am unsure of the point you’re trying to make. Human reactions to situations (like being on one’s guard, having red flags raised, etc) are natural — and individual. Ineffective verbal communication by a clumsy clod shouldn’t lead to the conclusion regarding “potential” sexual assault, at least not from the facts thus far presented. Sexual assault is a felony.
And I will also second #348. Kitty. Spot on.
I have been thinking about this squeamishness amongst the athesit/skeptic crowd over sex.
I suppose most atheists/skeptics (myself included) have originally come from a fairly religious background and religion’s squeamishness about sex is the last thing to disappear from the brainwashed mind.
Nonsense, Phil. Pure nonsense. Don’t cloak your argument in gallingly condescending terms. Say what you mean. Don’t pretend that there’s some magical “it” that you and other ever-so-enlightened men “get”, some “it” that other men (and some women, myself included) are supposedly too “privileged” or “clueless” to “get”. There’s not. This isn’t about that at all. This is about attempting to silence anyone who dares to dissent. This is about bullying those who disagree with your take on this issue. Many of us, Dawkins included, happen to disagree with your take. We dissent. And attempting to silence dissenters, to bully them into silence for fear that they’ll be labelled a misogynist (or worse) if they speak their mind, is a completely dickish thing to do. This entire episode is going to make dissenters even more reluctant to speak their minds in the future, as we’ve now seen the condescending and vicious invective that is heaped upon those who do dare to dissent. And anyone who wants a skeptic/atheist movement that promotes reasonable, rational, mature, respectful, and productive discourse and that encourages dissent, disagreement, and a variety of viewpoints should find that very troubling indeed.
CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE! there are rapists behind every bush. in fact, women are terrified to the point of urinating even in an empty elevator. who knows when that hatch at the top could be pulled off and a crazy rapist leaps down and crazily rapes away.
did you know 6 out of 6 women will be brutally raped to death at some point in their lives? five women are raped every nanosecond. by the time you finish reading this post, all the women in the world were raped at knifepoint. tsk. bet your patriarchy blinded you to those simple facts didn’t it.
It is quite apparent that Dr. Dawkins does not understand where she is coming from because he is a privileged white male. Therefore, his opinions on feminism dont matter because he is a male. I actually agree with this in a Sam Harris-esque way, some people’s opinions simply do not matter. However this makes me wonder why we listen to a young lady talk about science and skepticism when she graduated with a communications degree? Dr. Dawkins should stick to science and Miss Watson should stick to communications. The world would be a much better place.
Hmmm, how to say this without sounding like too much of a creep myself…
The potential for sexual assault did not change because the man opened his mouth and made the invitation to diddle back at his place. What did change was that Rebecca was reminded that she was indeed on an elevator @ 4am alone with a strange man who may or may not be a threat.
We can argue back an fourth about proper etiquette, and perceived creepiness vs liberated honesty in the age of Aquarius, yadda yadda… but those would be arguments about perceptions.
I thought the folks here would be more concerned about root facts in this situation to inform all sides. Yes, I do understand RW’s discomfort as a fact of the situation to be honored and recognized, but not a fact regarding level of threat.
If words matter…
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3827127/Skepchick
Also, Miss Watson is a white female, why on earth does she think that she has the qualifications to judge a privileged white male? She is doing the exact same thing Dr. Dawkins did, making sweeping generalizations about something that she isn’t and will never be able to understand (unless she gets a Y chromosome somehow, of course).
I think the issue with Dawkins is a matter of perspective.
He might not see what Rebecca went through as anything signifigent, others will see the potential for harm.
Perhaps religon’s effect on women seems trivial to an event in an elevator to him.
I’m just guessing.
I do see the potential for harm that might have happened, though I see it as “no harm, no foul” in Rebecca’s case.
Had it escalated, that would be a different story.
466 Andrew Wilson said:
“Where you come from, how do people proposition each other for anonymous, meaningless sex then?”
If you were to ask a stranger this, without any context or understanding of this issue, I wonder how many places they would list BEFORE a hotel elevator @ 4 AM with no one else around …
benji, the thread is on Pharyngula, the least abrasive of these comments is:
“It is still not the same, dimwit. Boys get the procedure only days after birth; most girls are older and fully conscious of what’s happening to them. Outside of the Jewish tradition, most boys circumcised in the West have the procedure in a hospital, with highly trained staff, and state of the art equipment and procedures. Most FGMs occur on the likes of a kitchen table with questionable instruments and folk practitioners who aren’t licensed, with training that is abysmal at best.
But go ahead and keep whining about how terrible you boys have it and how nobody cares about poor widdle boy diddums, when most people on here have expressed their opposition to the procedure right here.
It doesn’t have to be about you all the time, anyway, you know.”
Ironically this comment was made by the same person who was VERY vocal in other threads about Mr. Dawkin’s supposed gaffe. I repeat, this was the more family friendly one I could find, it gets worse but if you want to read it all you can Google some of the phrases in the quote.
I’d say that _either_ Dawkins “has a long way to go” _or_ he’s actually gone way ahead of us. I’d say it’s more likely the latter.
Yes, he was insensitive in this specific case, and yes, in our current age and culture it wasn’t exactly nice of that guy to make such an offer in an elevator. But let’s ask ourselves a question: what we, as rational moral beings, would rather prefer: World No 1 where it is prohibited, by law or tradition or whatever, for males to make such “elevator offers” to females; or World No 2 where such offers are totally fine because it would not even occur to anyone that things like rape, violence, aggression are possible – thinkable?
I don’t know about you but I would take World No 2 any minute. And I sincerely hope that our poor world, in 200 or 2000 or 20000 years, will evolve to that state. So why would I be mad at a 70-year old biologist whose knowledge of current societal practices might be limited and who might not be the most compassionate being, but who evidently made his remark due to mistaking our world for World No 2?
Spaceman Spiff @472
I don’t disagree with anything you said. So I am unsure of the point you’re trying to make.
My point was more generally aimed at those who seem astonished at the fact that this situation could potentially be viewed as threatening, and are defending this as “a simple question that was refused, and the refusal accepted” rather than “incredibly clumsy and pretty certain to be viewed as creepy.”
It’s only a “potential assault” in the same sense that I viewed everyone I didn’t know as a potential pickpocket. It’s exceedingly unlikely, but to completely turn off the little alarm in the back of my head would have probably been a stupid thing to do. Likewise, this guy should have realized that while he might have been making an innocent request (to get some coffee), the context made the request inappropriate.
Can I assume that all the men(!) thinking that Rebecca Wattson and Phil Plait are stupid on this subject, would act exactly like the guy in that elevator?
Well two things:
A) Phil’s “potential sexual assault” statement refers to the fact that any women (without a black belt in karate) would have to interpret that sitation as a “potential sexual assault” – for their own safety. This is a point I myself, only realized about seven years ago, and I was shocked when I found out. This is not to be taken lightly and for Rebecca to bring it up is highly commendable – some of the comments here, are pretty scary, though – Dawkin’s too…
B) The point many commenters make about violence against males being more common – well, that might be. But first of all, much violence against women (often by relatives!) goes unreported. More importantly, you can most often avoid male-male violence by avoiding bad neighborhoods and by not flipping off huge, mean-looking guys.
Something most sensible people wouldn’t do for that same reason. Women don’t have the luxury to easily avoid their main threat.
C) For those of you trivializing the incident as “man meets women in elevator”,
try to read the account again and please improve a bit on your reading comprehension.
Eric B @ 284: Come on. It was a simple situation that should have set off alarm bells in any women (Please see my point C). For you to question her account, and to pull out the “women are so emotional” trump card is beyond pathetic. If you read her account, and believed her as you would believe your male friends, then you would see nothing particularely emotional about her response – it seems rather rational to me.
Cheers, Regner
@Andrew Wilson:”Where you come from, how do people proposition each other for anonymous, meaningless sex then?
I suspect, even where you come from, a tipsy, 4am proposition in a lift, away from home, at a conference, in a foreign country is probably the usual way.”
You ask her in the bar three hours earlier, long before she says she wants to go to sleep and leaves to go to her room. Somewhere where she can get away from you if you inadvertently drool while speaking. Maybe after you’ve put some effort into conversing with her. Maybe after she’s given a few subtle signals (smiling at you? hair-twirling? touching? erotic moaning?) that would indicate your advances would not be unwelcome. Something, perhaps, a bit more suave and sophisticated than the corner lurk, the stalk and the 4AM pounce and cold proposition when she’s alone in an enclosed space.
@JJ (the other one)
People don’t decide where or when to have anonymous, meaningless sex. That’s kind of the point of it!
From Dawkins I didn’t expect anything else. From you, Phil, I expected a lot more. Minority Report.
One word that stands out in this debacle is “potential” – a *potential* sexual assault. Pretty much any situation could be a *potential* assault. What’s next, I can’t help my elderly neighbor with her shopping because it could be a potential assault? That’s sad.
I understand if she felt uncomfortable about the situation, that’s fair enough. Explaining to guys how to avoid making women feel uncomfortable, also fine. But getting all up in arms about how it could have potentially been a lot worse?
@ 356. Keith Bowden
So let me get this right. In a perfect world, one could directly ask for sex without being considered creepy. But this isn’t, so I can’t. Let’s assume elevator dude did this with his remarks. So maybe he was of the wrong opinion, that this is the perfect world, or close. After all was’nt this at a party of selfproclaimed rationalists? So he is now a sort of a hero? Breaker of the last taboo at the rationalist conference? “He spoke truth to the opressive power of social convention! Let’s crucify him!”
Maybe 350. Varsil has a point.
@Andrew Wilson, the more of your posts I read, the more I am convinced you are a troll. If you are not, you are seriously misguided. Do you honestly believe, that just because we are atheists/skeptics, that that gives us the right to approach another person and ask for anonymous, meaningless sex anywhere at any time? You cannot be that deluded? If I were to proposition someone for anonymous sex, I would at least have the courtesy of buying them a drink first, and at least five minutes of conversation!
If we’re going to start creating different elevator rules for men and women, perhaps we should create them based upon race as well?
After all, many White people are intimidated by Black men. Should we tell Black men to wait until all of the White folks have left the elevator before using it? Maybe we should just create different elevators for White men, White women, Black men, Black women, etc.?
This is such an easy bandwagon to jump on when it’s couched in such a spooky way. If Rebecca felt intimidated, I’ll take her at her word. After all, I wasn’t there. But, as Dawkins pointed out, she could have easily gotten off at the next floor (only moments away). And we have no way of knowing whether she was actually in any danger (apparently she wasn’t), so how about we all calm down and stop using terms like “potential sexual assault”? That’s like saying “all men are potential rapists,” as some early Feminist sociologists were fond of saying.
By the way, I took exception to the statement, “I can understand that it’s hard for men to truly grasp the woman’s point of view here, since men rarely feel in danger of sexual assault.” Need I remind you that there are, in fact, gay men in the world? And they DO sometimes feel in danger of sexual assault. It may have been more accurate to say that men rarely feel in danger of sexual assault FROM WOMEN.
Oh well, hopefully two good things will come out of this incident. First, it might dissuade some of you from continuing to pray at the alter of the Almighty Dawkins. (I love his books, but he has quite a “holier than thou” attitude at these conventions.) And second, maybe some of you will think twice about your “boobquake” talk and “sexy Skeptic posters”? If you continue to sexualize these conventions and the movement in general, don’t be surprised if people start feeling intimidated by each other and see sexual assault everywhere they look.
My reaction to all this is :
Oh Richard Dawkins! Don’t be such a stubborn, wilfully ignorant fool .
Please. You’re better than that. Much smarter. Usually. Nobody’s perfect, we’re all fallible human apes and, heck, I’ve messed things up often enough that I can understand where you’re coming from but, please Richard Dawkins, think a bit more and, please, have the decency to apologise to Rebecca Watson. You are in the wrong here and pointing out other, admittedly *far* worse, wrongs by others doesn’t make you any righter or better.
As for the original Elevator Guy (EG) incident – Just one word folks :
As in show some to others along with some basic respect and manners.
Dude, if you wanna get with a girl just try for a second to think – to consider – how she might feel and what she might want.
An elevator at 4 a.m. is NOT the place especially when she doesn’t know you very, *very* well and has already said she’s sleepy and wants to go to bed. Alone. To sleep. Only sleep. Not metaphorically.
Women *do* get raped in elevators and there *is* good reason for them to call males out on being creepy and to be worried by people who act as EG did – and to say “Now hang on a minute!” to those who defend EG’s conduct as Dawkins did. Period.
Could it be EG was just a socially clueless and totally thoughtless but utterly harmless drunk /overtired putz who wasn’t thinking and blurted out the wrong thing at the wrong time in the wrong place out of good feelings? Could it have been that his intentions were not sexual and he really only wanted a chat and coffee – well, at that hour that’s *really* implausible but theoretically possible. Equally, for all RW knew could he have been a potential rapist? Yes. Duh!
Dudes you do NOT do what that guy did.
It’s bad form, it is a sexist way of thinking because you are ignoring and thus disrespecting the thoughts and feelings of the person you’re trying to woo, selfishly putting your own sexual desires above their wishes and sensitivities. It’s creepy and bad manners and just a bad approach.
Is that really so hard and such a horrible thing to say? How is that a controversial thing for Rebecca Watson to calmly and reasonably point out?
Has our culture fallen that low and got that sexist where this is even an issue? Obviously it must have and that like RD’s digginghimself ever deeper disappoints and saddens me.
Rebecca Watson has the right to express how she sees things and to put her viewpoint across. Her doing so is, I think, entirely legitimate and fair enough. We need to listen to her and respect what she says and how she feels.
He was wrong, Dawkin’s was wrong, you need to respect women and NOT do things that will inevitably make them feel threatened or uncomfortable.
Moreover, when women tell us stuff about how their lives are different to ours in ways we cannot experience (well NOT with the very serious surgical procedure of gender reassignment and even then that’s just not the same!) how things make them feel listen and respect what they say as legitimate as they see it! That’s being considerate, being a gentleman, being a worthwhile human being.
For pity’s sake, how the blazes is any of that difficult to comprehend or do?
Oh & I’m a bloke – and I consider myself a feminist of sorts too.
***
Whoah! Over 480 comments on this topic here already! Yegods! 😮
Jeffersonian @ 471
sidenote re: The amount of people who believe that some humans do not engage in and enjoy random sex with strangers (at conferences or wherever) – I find that oddly naive.
They do indeed, and more power to them. One of the risks of doing that, though, is that you might proposition someone who won’t appreciate your advances and you’ll come off as creepy. And that person might post a video about the experience asking other guys not to do that.
It’s a risk.
Well said Phil.
I think the point here is not that she shouldn’t have been afraid, it’s what some people have historically done to “solve” this problem in the past. The Muslim segregation of women is one extreme example.
Expecting that we’re ever going to live in a fantasy world where men don’t ask women for sex and pontificating that they shouldn’t isn’t doing anything at all real about the problem, such as it is. Any real “solution” to that “problem” is going to be far, far worse than the disease itself.
If we ever want to get to a world where women are equal to men, we’re can only get there by treating them equally. There’s really no way around that. Perhaps that’s not a worthwhile goal, but again, the alternatives aren’t pleasant.
Even as a guy, I sometimes get nervous about the remote possibility that the panhandler will stab me or do something insane.
Oh, I went off on a guy like that once. Never once even thought about safety.
He asked for my change when I left a 7-11, and I honestly didn’t have any. I had a penny because the Big Gulp was 99 cents, but I put it in the “spare penny” bowl you see by a lot of registers. So he said something like “oh, thanks, go and drive in your fancy car now, must be nice” really sarcastically. I got right up in his face and told him I have a nice car because I worked hard in school, stayed away from (most) drugs, went to college, lived within my means, and gave up a lot of fun in order to be a productive and prosperous person. Then I took a $20 from my wallet, tossed it at him, and told him to have a good drunken bender on me. It was quite a controlled and articulate outburst as such things go.
Yeah, I was already in a bad mood that day, and my elderly mother had just been put in the hospital for the third time in as many months. I felt bad about it later, but not all that much because he made $20 from the deal.
Don’t be blinded by your heteronormativity. A man can sexually assault another man. Given this, any elevator situation involving men is a potential sexual assault. Don’t be so dismissive of the possibility that a man becomes a victim of sexual assault. Male victims of sexual assault are probably less recognized and not taken as seriously.
supposing that being alone on an elevator with a man is an inherently uncomfortable situation (“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”), and further supposing that the man on the elevator, being a feminist, is cognizant of this, what is the proper course of action for the man? a) be himself uncomfortable about unintentionally making the woman uncomfortable?; b) stop and get off of the elevator and take another elevator or the stairs?; c) apologize to the woman for inadvertently creating an uncomfortable situation?; d) feign obliviousness and fiddle with his cell phone?
Where you come from, how do people proposition each other for anonymous, meaningless sex then?
You used to call an agency or, if you like playing Russian roulette with viruses, cruised certain streets in certain towns. The independents would gather clients via word of mouth.
Now they have web sites (eros.com) and some states/countries even have legal businesses that cater to such things. Penn & Teller do an episode where they totally support it.
How is it done in your universe?
I try to understand male friends when they talk about how it feels to be the one who “has to make the move” according to our culture. If they say it feels demeaning if women avoid eye contact or whatever when turning them down, I’d try not to do that to men. I wouldn’t lecture them about how that’s completely ridiculous. And I surely wouldn’t tell them how they should feel.
So in that vein, unless you are in a pick up bar or a brothel, do not approach a total stranger and in 30 seconds or less ask them to have sex with you. Why is this so controversial?
If you don’t understand that women generally don’t like that, but still think it’s your right to go around asking for sexual encounters at random (for the woman) moments, then get lost. Creeping out 99 women on the off chance the 100th will say “oh, yes, I’d rather have sex with you than finish grocery shopping” makes you a jerk.
*This applies to straightforward close-the-deal-NOW-honey propositions. Not “gee, nice hair” or clumsy attempts to start a conversation.
This entire “creepgate” affair amazes me and yet it doesn’t amaze me, after all, we all have our inner ape, Trevor, inside. This issue also has the yuk factor and that is if you try to discuss one side of some issues rationally you will be jumped on. Is it an issue of the statistics of personal safety or how no one deserves to have their feelings hurt? Extremely educated people are suddenly taking a black and white approach to this.
@469. JJ
Yes, JJ, that is my intention, to crucify myself in the name of men’s rights. A regular e-martyr to the cause.
@478. Regner Trampedach More importantly, you can most often avoid male-male violence by avoiding bad neighborhoods and by not flipping off huge, mean-looking guys.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you’re joking, because this is a rather silly statement. For example, what about the honest folks that live in bad neighborhoods? What about…
You know, I really don’t want to get into this all night again, I wasted my whole weekend on those PZ threads and I’m not going to do it again. I’m not gonna make it, go ahead without me…..
eta: you know, I usually despise ____gate references, but “creepgate” made me laugh out loud.
OK, now I’m really out, carry on, hopefully Phil will have some cool anti-woo or astronomy to talk about soon.
Sheldon 483 “maybe some of you will think twice about your “boobquake” talk and “sexy Skeptic posters”? If you continue to sexualize these conventions and the movement in general, don’t be surprised if people start feeling intimidated by each other and see sexual assault everywhere they look.” Excellent point
Yikes… nearly 500 comments already. It’s like a horror show you just can’t ignore in here.
For the sake of a mental exercise to those deep in the debate, allow me to present a very real, actual situation which happened a while ago in my town and ask you two questions. And yes, I know it happened. I saw the whole thing.
A guy and a girl in their early to mid-twenties walk into a pool hall and start playing. She seems a little stiff and nervous. He seems a bit tense and quiet. Both of them are drinking and he walks up to the bar to get both their drinks. After a few hours, he invites her for coffee and sweets over at his place. She takes a minute and agrees.
Now, choose one of the ways the story ends.
1) The girl is never heard from again and her picture shows up on missing ads you get in the mail. Police suspect that the guy raped and killed her but they have no real leads and leave the case cold.
2) The duo is actually on a date and it was the girl who first suggested that it would be a good idea for them to get out sometime. She had a fun evening, the two really hit it off and ended up happily living together.
Now the questions: which ending did you reflexively choose? Why?
Think about it for a second and decide what it says about how you view the world. Then consider how that colors your view of Rebecca’s story.
Oh and by the way, ending 2 is what actually happened. Bonus points if you can figure out who the guy was.
I’ve no doubt the woman had rape on the mind before he even opened his mouth. Him opening his mouth just gave her an excuse to blame him for her feeling helpless. He certainly did nothing wrong. Crass, yes, but the description doesn’t provide any indication that he was overly aggressive or threatening in any way.
Potential sexual assault for talking to a woman? I think you need to rethink what you are saying. Seems like one of my fave scientists is missing a big point when it comes to evidence. Also saying that a man is creeping a girl out just by standing in an elevator is also a huge stretch and anyone who thinks so should be presumed sexist.
…and it doesn’t help matters to use the word “creepy” along with the assumption that your particular usage is universally defined.
OK, one more comment, and then I’m really gone…
…does this mean no more Skepchick calendars?
@Andy Beaton:
” … maybe after you’ve put some effort into conversing with her … ”
Hardly anonymous, meaningless sex then!
I’m not saying that was what he was looking for, or that she looks for that kind of sex either.
What I am saying is that this whole thing has been blown so far out of proportion. He propositioned her, in a lift at 4AM.
So what?
She said no and he accepted that.
Sounds pretty much textbook human interaction to me.
Someone being sexually interested in another person is not objectifying them, it’s wanting to sleep with them and explore there physicality (and wanting to give yourself to them as well, of course).
Why do some people perceive sex as a creepy thing?
“Can I assume that all the men(!) thinking that Rebecca Wattson and Phil Plait are stupid on this subject, would act exactly like the guy in that elevator?”
I wouldn’t act like the guy on the elevator.
In a typical situation, I would just be silent and try not to look at her, especially given that she’s married. I’d also assume she would want to be left alone.
I am gonna have to side with Dawkins on this too. One of the most liberating things, to me, was getting rid of the old sexual hangups instilled in me due to my judeo-christian upbringing. I am sad to see those have been rebranded for the atheist community in the name of feminism. yes, the guy probably wanted sex, but so what? Most guys want to have sex – I hear they enjoy it (as well as being driven by instinctual drives). The most powerful weapon a woman has is to say no, which ScepChick was right in employing – assuming that was her wish. For example, last year I was at a conference for work, and met someone in one of the lounges. A few drinks later, we were in bed. He asked, I said yes. That was my right, just as it was his right to ask. Now for the judgemental part – if you are in a crowded, well lit hotel in a high traffic area (yes, despite that an elevator is “enclosed”, those doors open at least every minute or so) and you feel threatened by a lone man asking you for coffee (code word or not), then the problem is YOU being weak and scared. Which, incidentally, is exactly how the “patriarchy” wants you to feel. Being a feminist is more than going to meetings and reading books – it’s living your life, unburdened by the archaic idea of women as the “weaker sex”. All ScepChick did was reinforce that idea.
Just because the whole thing is so surreal, I ran it by my friend involved in a rape crisis center and my attorney wife. They both agree with Dawkins. It’s zero bad. Maybe we missed the part where Dawkins did something wrong. I certainly don’t think RW did anything wrong.
There’s plenty of worthwhile discussions to be had about women and assault. Not sure what in the world it has to do with this clumsy pickup line.
@#477. murphspot
“incredibly clumsy and pretty certain to be viewed as creepy.”
No disagreement, there, either. I can imagine that many, perhaps most, women would feel similarly in a similar situation. And during that brief moment after he asked his question, and also awaiting the guy’s reaction to her decline, I can imagine some anxiety on her part. But as far as the facts stated, that was it. He asked (whatever you think of the guy’s manners, given the situation). She declined. There was no mention of him invading her space, blocking, or touching, etc.
My question (not to you, but in general), and that of a few female commentors above, is, where does the felony and all the acrimony come in? And just because Dr. Dawkins could have made his points more effectively (and with a bit of empathy), doesn’t invalidate everything he had to say.
Wow this really blew up. Interestingly enough I saw Rebecca’s video yesterday, visited YouTube to take a look at the videos of the Conference in Dublin and saw how Dawkins reacted while Rebecca talked.
And all day long today I thought about how I would now talk to Rebecca without creeping her out.
It’s the mindset Dawkins represents here that basically ruins my life on a daily basis. People who behave like inconsiderate (expletive omitted) because they don’t think twice about how the other person might feel about what they say. Because of that I (have to) overthink everything I say every single minute of the day. And on top of that I keep thinking about what I in the end DID say to women and minorities around me long afterwards. Could they have interpreted my words wrong? Did I say something offensive?
And the kicker to all of it is that really do feel like women are my equal. Foreigners are my equal. People with different skin color are my equal. I don’t care who you are and what you do as long as you treat me right.
But because so many people in the world still have this mindset… this… not getting it. This feeling better than others, demanding more from themselves and expecting people to put in effort…
Frankly I think Dawkins was pissed off that Rebecca first said she didn’t know what she wanted to talk about before coming to the panel (e.g. being unprepared) and then focusing on something he thought of as being ridiculously unimportant compared to other things in life he thinks are more important. I get that. If I were him, author of many books, accomplished, it might piss me off as well to sit on a panel with someone who’s been nobody years ago and because of “some podcast” and “some website” is now the up and comer.
But the problem there AGAIN is that he doesn’t GET IT that before HE wrote his first book he was nothing either. Doing Podcasts in an enjoyable way and writing blog posts isn’t easy and even though Rebecca doesn’t have a doctorate, she worked for what the has now.
The annoying thing about this is, again, that I would love to criticize Rebecca for some of the things she said on the show but because she gets E-Mails from complete and utter a**hats I can’t. I can’t even make compliments for the stuff I like either, because they ruined that too. Not a single line she hasn’t heard before, and even worse, most likely even the most innocent line might have been uttered before just as a lead-in to a real pickup line and a derogatory remark after a witty “thanks but no thanks” line from her.
Basically what Rebecca talked about was not being able to handle being a celebrity Atheist in a world dominated by Atheist men. I think a lot of the things she experiences are “simply” fan reactions that are creepy but because of the male dominent fanbase these creepy fans are interpreted as misogynists (which of course they are but most likely them being fans exaggerates the misogyny even more).
Not being able to live your life because of this is creepy and because this most likely happens to a lot of female Atheist activists, this IS a problem. And you can’t deny these women their right to complain about the creepiness of the fanbase because other people in Africa suffer more than they do. This IS a problem. There are enough stars who could not handle their daily lives anymore who later on died because of prescription drug overdoses. Just because YOU can handle it doesn’t mean that others might be afraid to go outside.
And it’s a horrible thing to not support her in her plight just because women in Saudi-Arabia suffer more than her. OF COURSE it’s a first world problem, yet it’s still a problem.
And what do we take away from all this? People suck. *sigh*
“……Oh my. I have tried and tried to see some other way to interpret this, but it looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum….”
WTF!!! Stop overblowing this! There was NO ‘potential sexual assault’. There never was a suggestion of any coercion, force, refusal to take no for an answer – nothing!
That has to be the most ludicrous, twisted take on the facts I have ever read. How about you get a little perspective here? Watch this video and compare the two situations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRfjLfyXYlA
Does the woman in this video have the right to feel threatened? So then, why does the woman in this issue feel the same ‘right’? Do people have the ‘right’ to feel threatened by the presence of muslims on aeroplanes?
Dawkins is right, this guy is wrong.
What bothers me greatly are three points. First, the assumption of ill will on the man’s side. He’s male, he must have some evil motive in there! I find that dangerous. you can say “well maybe he should have waited for a better time to ask”, but when was he supposed to ask? Just hope he randomly runs into her again? He asked her for coffee, not to go have sex. Would down to a cafe for Coffee have been better? Was he not allowed to try and talk to her in an elevator?
The second is this idea that all men must know at all times what every woman will find creepy and actively avoid it. That’s just not possible. And for an Atheist community to expect the impossible is frankly insulting and rude.
Third, how she “perceived” the comments is irrelevant. I’m sorry my female friends, but it is completely irrelevant. A Christian could say “I see Jesus in the trees and a baby’s smile, and…” and it would be equally as irrelevant. How someone perceives something has no basis in what is really going on. The only thing that matters is what happened, and what happened is one of the most innocent things I’ve ever read which the only complaint to be made is the location. Would this have been OK had he asked in the lobby instead of the elevator?
@ # 467. Carl Says:
“The dichotomy I’m seeing is between empathy for feelings and intolerance for physical abuse.
…
Dawkins’ perspective, intolerance for physical abuse, is the minimum standard.”
What I think is important here, and the issues of Dawkin’s example is, that there should be a right to go no further than that minimum standard.
This is where religious feelings come in. They are the best example. For them it is most clearly that you can have deep feelings about, well, everthing you want to conjure up. But if it’s feeling, nothing more than feeling, other people should not be bound to cater to them. They can be nicely asked to do so though. Or creepely asked for that matter.
Extremely educated people are suddenly taking a black and white approach to this.
*snort* You think that’s unusual? “Extremely educated” people (read: people who have a degree in something and think that it’s an inoculation against unreason) act like this all the time.
Can I assume that all the men(!) thinking that Rebecca Wattson and Phil Plait are stupid on this subject, would act exactly like the guy in that elevator?
If you are incapable of seeing people as individuals, and unable to think beyond very shallow levels, then please do.
488 Comments? Holy Crow! I’ve got one too. Inviting someone you’re interested in to a hotel room from an elevator is not at all smooth. You should expect rejection if you try that. The gentleman showed bad form, but from what I can tell, accepted ‘no’ for an answer. Some of us simply suck at asking a woman out – and that may leed to the perception of creepiness, though it may not be deserved. Bottom line – I can understand her being spooked, creaped out, etc., but nothing awful happened to her.
Thank you, Phil. You constantly inspire me with your take on things. I cannot believe that anyone would see this situation as harmless or non-threatening, and while it’s very disappointing that RD has taken the stance he has, it’s very good to see that some do not see it the way he clearly does.
Since he has never in his life been in a situation where he’s had to worry about a woman or group of women forcing themselves on him, he clearly doesn’t get it. A little humanity from such a humanist would go a long way.
Thank you again.
“it looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum.”
“#460. twirlgrl Says:
@Alex #457 – No one has said or even assumed that the guy was going to assault her only the he could assault her. You are making this into something it’s not.”
Rape is a serious crime. Women taking prudent steps to avoid rape is very important. Creating drama like this does not help prevent rape. What it does is create a climate of fear in which women are treated like children. As an adult I would never be in a room alone with a child. There is power imbalance there, and much room for misunderstanding. There should not be such an imbalance between adults.
As sometimes happens on the Bad Astronomy blog emotions tend to overcome skepticism. This could have a been a wonderful teachable moment to talk about how when discussing things emotions and bigotry cloud the facts. In this case because of the way the man approached the woman he is labeled as a potential rapists. Because many men can see themselves in the situation, in an elevator, perhaps drunk, with a hot women, many men are going to identify with man and feel they are being called rapists. We can see how the way we communicate an idea prevents the discussion of the idea. Perhaps we can remember this when we talk about other subjects.
Of course those of us who are skeptical and capable of rational thought do not see rape at att. What we see is a clumsy man in search of consensual sex. A rapist would have gotten off some floors below, used the stairs to run up to her floor, and then rushed her as she entered her room. This is how we prevent crime. By suggested meaningful threat models, not by thinking some man who is caught on camera is a criminal.
I know many women who are perfectly capable of dealing with even the most aggressive of men on a one-to-one situation. We should be raising girls to be such women, seeing themselves as equal. We should also be raising our boys to see women as equal, rather then funding their sports, their career electives, at disproportionately higher rates. We should be against gender segregated schools where boys are not forced to interact and compete equally with girls, and where the administration does not let boys get away with victimizing girls because ‘boys will be boys’, or let girls remain uneducated because there main purpose in life is to please the boys.
And may I add one thing? The chance of being raped by someone who is a stranger is about 4%. The chance of being murdered is about 0.2%, or one order of magnitude less. Still it is only one order of magnitude. Why is that nobody calls this man a potential murderer?
480 Andrew Wilson said:
“People don’t decide where or when to have anonymous, meaningless sex. That’s kind of the point of it!”
To quote a well known image macro..
Dude, wait, what?
If people don’t decide to have “anonymous, meaningless sex” then how can they ever have it?
Someone has to decide to proposition someone else for it. That was the whole point you were trying to make, wasn’t it? That there are relatively few opportunities but still enough demand and that this particular random encounter was an understandable, if not ideal, choice?
@490 shawmutt:
Whatever floats your ark. I just have to wonder why what you perceive as inconsistencies among others regarding genital mutilation has to do with, well, anything. Yes, you can find people on the Internet with inconsistent positions. Good work.
IMO, “creepergate” rolls off the tongue better than “creepgate”.
It still blows my mind that there’s people in this saying “I agree 100% with Richard Dawkins” in this.
Sorry, you can’t do that and be right. His remarks are so off topic and out of proportion to anything that Watson said he’s flat out preposterously wrong and so is anyone who backs him up.
Second point: some people need to get it through their thick skulls that the situation itself was not sexual assault and if you pay attention no one said it was (at least none of the main players). But by way of explanation the discomfort from it can be rooted in fears of sexual assault. This is not controversial! This is not hard to understand!
Get some damn nuance in your thinking, people. A good percentage of this debate across dozens of blogs and thousands of comments is twits saying “You radical feminists compared a pass in a lift to rape!!”. And they say women are the hysterical ones.
I walk around all day with a bit of inherent potential sexual assault in me. I was born with it. I can’t get rid of it. I can’t talk to anyone without it there. it’s always there. And everybody’s got it. Maybe someday I’ll want to have a relationship with someone I find interesting. Too bad it may come off as creepy if I show any interest in someone. It’s a rough life since you think I’m a predator by default.
I’m glad the world isn’t filled with paranoid women playing the victims in their own fantasies.
@JJ (the other one):
” … If people don’t decide to have “anonymous, meaningless sex” then how can they ever have it? … ”
Actually, there isn’t usually much asking/deciding involved in anonymous, random sex. It kind of just happens when the two people get together in a confined space with no-one else around. (sound familar?). And I AM talking about consensual sex here.
Oh & another thing I find majorly disappointing and sad about this :
Richard Dawkins insulting Rebecca Watson’s intelligence and insulting our intelligence by insulting her intelligence and thus ours too.
Women in Islamic countries have things far worse than Western women, elevators have buttons? Really RD?
You really think this is news to her or us or that those facts are relevant at all here?
You know better – surely to flipping goodness – and we know you must know better.
I think boys tend to over-intellectualize in these kinds of discussions because they are not relating emotionally to the situation presented. (Which is not to say that R. Watson’s reaction is irrationally emotional and her detractors’ hyper-reasonable.)
But, again, for those guys who had experiences being labeled as nerds/weaklings in middle-school or high school (and maybe being intimidated, roughed up, or beaten up a little or a lot) it’s helpful in this case to think about how sensitive is your bully-dar. You can likely sense that specific brand of male peacocking faux-innocuous aggression better than anyone on the planet. You can *smell* it coming from a mile away. You know what the pre-aggressive behavior looks like. You can probably instantly size guys up as “threat” or “no threat” in this regard, even though you have had little use for this instinct since high school. You can tell when you’re a target, because you remember what it’s like to be a target, and figuring this out sooner than later has saved your butt on more than one occasion.
In other words, your bully-dar is so sensitive that you can likely feel yourself knotted-up with anger, frustration, and humiliation in the presence of certain company even when the people around you haven’t the slightest clue about the situation.
Now imagine posting about experiences like this and getting 100 or more comments from women telling you that what you’re feeling is not what you’re feeling–or is not justified based on this here argument.
Grow up, boys.
The elevator incident was no more “potential sexual assault” than a stranger walking by you on a dark street late at night is a “potential kidnapping”.
I’m sorry that Ms. Watson felt threatened and vulnerable in the situation. Obviously, the man was not a threat, as he passed up all opportunity to “prey” on her. He invited her to his room. She declined. This should be the end of the story. Why couldn’t she be flattered that he potentially was attracted to her? Even if he did want to hook up, he did nothing inappropriate, really. If he would have stayed silent, that would have been creepy. if he would have exited the elevator the moment a lone woman got on the elevator, that would have been creepy.
The man in the elevator story did not create the situation (where they were alone together in an elevator) but once the situation presented itself, he saw a member of the opposite sex who had just given (I assume) an intellectually impressive speech. He invited her to his room. She declined. They parted ways. There is no victim here.
There are circumstances, situations and places in this world where women are mistreated severly. Saudi Arabia, Syria, there are many examples. These situations present a much more clear and immediate danger to women’s rights. The elevator story belittles real victims struggles and tribulations. I believe Mr. Dawkins comments were meant to say that and nothing more. Reading more into it is paranoid and just plain silly. I’ve unsubscribing to scienceblogs & skepchick.org due to this childishness. I expected better from all of you.
This story belongs in a tabloid, but if they put it on the frontpage that would give it too much credit.
Rape is horrible, disgusting and the world would be a better place if we could stamp it out completely, but let’s be careful not to automatically assume any man is a sexual predator. THAT is bigotry and sexism. To assume someone is something just because of their gender is the definition of sexism.
Watson has every right to express her point of view. So does Dawkins. So do we. Did the elevator man deserve to be demonized for offering a cup of coffee to Watson? Obviously not, but no harm no foul right?
If one claims to be both a skeptic and to agree with the concept of “privilege”, I offer this challenge:
Please provide the standards by which the concept of “privilege” can be falsified.
If it can’t be falsified, it’s no better to claim that Dawkins’ remarks are because of privilege than because of some astrological sign.
I’m gay. Am I allowed to talk to women in elevators?
And this is stupid, I’m sorry but it is.
Acknowledging the existence of strangers is only considered threatening in socially repressed cultures, the London underground train network being a very good example. Eyeball tennis is such fun on the circle line.
And saying that men should not instigate a conversation with a female stranger when alone with them seems like something out of the laws of chivalry, which are only there to keep women as ‘the other’.
Surely the only actual rule that makes sense is to try and not intimidate those individuals of whom you are actually aware of being a bit skittish, or have good reason to suspect of being so from clues in their behaviour, whether they are women, men, kids, cats or badgers.
If you just apply a blanket rule for all women and assume that they are all scared of unsolicited social interaction then you are merely reinforcing stereotypes and adding another layer of social exclusion to a majority who are already massively socially excluded.
oh and yes, Dawkins was a complete tactless arse in this, but it is sort of his job, so I am not entirely surprised. However he was no more of a tactless arse in this respect than he is when discussing religion, is just that we don’t generally think of those we agree with as being tactless.
Clearly, men do not understand. After centuries of keeping us under their thumb, they now expect us to smile and laugh and blush every time they approach us with their hypocritical “kindness?” Give me a f***ing break!!!
I know that it promotes sexism from both sides, but come on! She had the right to be scared. While men do not care where or when they us their “privates,” for women rape actually causes mental and physical trauma. We can’t just forgive and forget.
Also, most men are just blatantly inconsiderate. If a woman, any woman, hits on them and they feel uncomfortable, she’s “just a crazy bitch.” But if they hit on us, we don’t have the right to feel creeped out?! It clearly shows how held back the view on women in countries that called themselves “civilized” is. We criticize countries in Africa and the Middle East for being misogynistic, but we are no better. If we really want to fix the problem, we should start at home.
Hmmmmn, creepergate, crackergate? Sounds like some sort of conspiracy
@512. harry tuttle
You make some good points. But consider the context of this particular case. He didn’t ask her about the weather or astrophysics. He also asked her in an elevator, with no one else present. I would have to guess, not being a woman, that different women would react differently to that situation. Some might feel creeped out, others not, and a spectrum between I suspect.
“This man may have had nothing but noble intentions, but that doesn’t matter. Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”
This really is just a case of hyper-sensitivity on the part of women, not male privilege or sexism.
Just being alone in a lift with a man makes women uncomfortable?!!! Jeeesus. So men have to adjust there behaviour to accommodate women’s irrational fears? Sexual assault is much rarer than it is common, yet all the burden is on men to ensure women never feel bad?
Had this man been black, we would have blasted this women for being racist and perpetuating stereotypes. But he isn’t black, which is why we have to hear all this crap about male privilege, sexism and misogyny.
Perhaps on this theme, we should teach black men how to behave in public so white people don’t feel uncomfortable they’re about to mug us. Perhaps it can be held in the same classroom that we’re teaching men how to behave in lifts so women don’t feel like they’re about to be raped by a man just being there?
Also, what about men in all this? Gender roles make us have to ask out women and gender-roles make it so women never have to feel uncomfortable/self-conscious/undesirable. Women always get to do the rejecting, whilst never getting rejected. This is a frequent reality, as opposed to the much rarer (but more serious) case of sexual assault of women by strangers.
What really bothers me about this debate is that what women feel on this matter is considered important. What men feel on this matter is rejected out of hand, belittled and trivialised. Women’s feelings > Men’s feelings, in essence. Dawkins gives a male perspective and “he just doesn’t get it”, some woman gives her mere opinion and we’re holding her up to be some kind of learned elder of the tribe, just because she has a vagina and an opinion.
“I’m gay. Am I allowed to talk to women in elevators?”
No. Not at 4AM when you’ve followed her on to the elevator after lurking silently all night, when you’re the only people there, you’ve never spoken before and your feeble attempts at conversation could be misinterpreted as a request to have sex. Then you either shut up, or get labelled as a creep. I know that most women can see straight into your soul and tell that you really are gay and not a threat, but I’m sure there are women out there who can’t tell just by looking at you.
How about showing a bit of empathy for people who might be uncomfortable in that situation? What do you have to say that’s too important to wait until morning?
@MichaelL
In some ways, you are right, I am a bit of a troll. I have never personally propositioned a woman anonymously in a lift.
However, I will never judge someone who does.
The guy was attracted to her and propositioned her for sex (if that is your reading of the situation). So what?
Men cannot be made to feel they are in the wrong for asking a woman for sex.
Had he sneeked op on her, grabbed her tits and said “how about it love”, that would have been creepy.
He was actually extremely polite about it. And made no complaint when she said no. From the information we have, he didn’t even try and discuss it with her or convince her otherwise.
We all have to deal with unwanted advances in our life. There are always going to be people attracted to you that you are not attracted to.
I have been chatted up by a guy before (I’m not attracted to men). I just said I’m flattered, but I’m not interested and he accepted it.
I suspect most men are like that and this idea that all want want to have sex with an unwilling woman is pretty close to 100% wrong. We need to stop believing the scary news stories about men and stop stereotyping them.
Anyway, I’m off to bed now. I’m tired. Proposition me if you like. I’ll say no and, like most men do, you’ll accept that answer.
Context is all. Asking a woman who just gave a talk about sexualizing women to come back to your hotel room at 4am in a confined elevator when you do not know her and have never spoken a single word to her before is “just polite conversation”.
And going to a playground and saying “Hey little girl, do you want some candy?” is just being friendly.
Context, dude, context.
@ 510. Joshua Fisher Says:
“I think boys tend to over-intellectualize in these kinds of discussions because they are not relating emotionally to the situation presented.”
Who can you relate to a situation ipso facto instead of to how someone feels about it? But whom shall we relate to? The woman? The man?
This is a storm in a tea cup. Prof. Dawkins isn’t trivialising anything. I also presume that the gentleman hitting on the woman was UNATTRACTIVE to her. Had he have been attractive, I bet she’d feel differently.
Women – if you are afraid of a man talking to you except in bars, perhaps you need to take control of your psychology to stop being afraid, or to manage it. Most men are actually good. Most aren’t rapists. The “stranger danger” you were taught in school demonised any random man on the street as a “bad man” and it’s simply not true, so perhaps it’s time to stop generalising about men and consider each situation on its own risks – e.g. a drunk man stumbling at you in a dark street is probably not good. A man asking you out in an elevator – perhaps awkward for a second or two until one of you gets out. Most men who talk to you might be being polite, they might be lonely, or shock, they might like you. All of these are ok, and you can accept or politely decline their conversation whenever you like.
It is also very unlikely you will be raped. Studies show a correlation between alcohol and rape, so don’t get wasted in public. Otherwise, people are mostly nice. If you don’t trust yourself to handle someone hitting on you in public, learn a martial art.
There is no such thing as Potential Sexual Assault, Phil, who won’t be reading any of his comments I’m sure.
Can I walk into a store, stand in a corner where security cameras can’t see me and be accused of “potential shoplifting”?
Can I walk down the street with a piece of paper in my hand and be accused of “potential littering”?
Are these crimes as horrid and scary as sexual assault? Of course not, but I’m simply stating that there is no such thing as “potential” sexual assault. Be a skeptic, Phil, and start looking at things from both sides of the story instead of saying skeptical means “as long as you agree with what I’m saying”.
I think Richard Dawkins is way out of line.
I think Rebecca Watson is being perfectly reasonable, in this context.
I think Phil is the one who has gone too far and still isn’t getting it. He’s bent too far the other way in his attempt to do what’s right, and is the real over-reactor here (though not by a large margin).
“I know that most women can see straight into your soul and tell that you really are gay and not a threat, but I’m sure there are women out there who can’t tell just by looking at you.”
oh yeah, cos us gays have glowing lights in our arse that only other gays and women can see, no doubt due to our mystical ‘feminine intuition’. give me a break.
Also, I have no idea why it is considered bad to proposition people for sex at 4am. To quote the late Bill Hicks, since when did sex become wrong? did I miss a vote?
The thing about this situation is, if things had gone south and he had assaulted her, many of the same people who don’t understand why she was so uncomfortable would be saying things like, “Why did she get into an elevator with a strange man? I think she needs to take a little responsibility for her actions.”
Women can’t win at this. If we try to act like men and not toss protective barriers up at every direction, we should have been more cautious and it’s our fault for tempting the poor impulsive male. If we do try our best to protect ourselves and treat every man like Schrodinger’s Rapist we’re frigid and have unreasonable expectations. It’s like there’s this whole parallel reality men live in where they mysteriously fail to realize that even quite young girls have a whole code of conduct drilled into their heads about how vulnerable they are and how every man is a possible threat. You, personally, may not be a threat. You, personally, might never touch a woman without her consent. But I, personally, am not a freaking psychic, and I, personally, am of a gender that is still significantly socially disadvantaged.
For men who are genuinely curious how to make romantic overtures towards a woman without being a creep about it: choose neutral or favorable-to-her grounds where she has friends and can easily get away from you if she wants to. Pay attention to her physical and verbal cues. Don’t touch her drink if she has one, don’t touch HER unless she invites you to do so, don’t go for drunk girls if you’re sober, wait for an enthusiastic ‘Yes!’ rather than an uncertain one. The running theme here is that the least skeevy way to make a pass is to do it in a context where the pursued has the power to reject you.
“I think boys tend to over-intellectualize in these kinds of discussions because they are not relating emotionally to the situation presented.”
Let’s get real here. Boys don’t intellectualize anything more than girls. This nonsense that men are the logical ones needs to stop.
It’s actually the opposite. It’s women who have to constantly intellectualize situations and then explain it to the men. Men are the one who get too emotional to be able to think clearly.
Wow, this is some really bad astronomy… 😉
@560. Thorsten Says:
“Who can you relate to a situation ipso facto instead of to how someone feels about it? But whom shall we relate to? The woman? The man?”
I guess the only response to this that I have is this:
@ 510. Joshua Fisher Says:
“I think boys tend to over-intellectualize in these kinds of discussions because they are not relating emotionally to the situation presented.”
558 Andrew Wilson said:
“Men cannot be made to feel they are in the wrong for asking a woman for sex.”
…huh?
From now I’m going to begin every conversation with a woman with “As a potential rapist…” Thank you feminists for opening my eyes to my status as a walking potential sexual assault.
@ 559. Keith Bowden
“And going to a playground and saying “Hey little girl, do you want some candy?” is just being friendly.”
Actually I’m not convinced that everybody who offers a child candy in a playground is a child molester.
@DE
don’t presume to know what we’d do in a different situation. You’re not psychic.
I understand why she’d be creeped out but this “potential sexual assault” angle is what I’m objecting to.
I am disappointed in this blog for the first time. This is utterly ridiculous. He hit on her.
*sarcastic shudder*
Oh well, one bad entry for all the good ones…guess it happens to everyone.
I agree with Dawkins. It’s silly hyperbole to describe the situation as a “potential sexual assault”. Any time two people are within lunging distance of one another, it’s a potential sexual assault. The guy was committing “potential sexual assault” just by being there. In fact, just by existing.
Being alone in an elevator with a guy I don’t know well makes me uncomfortable too. Especially late at night. He could be a lunatic, or a robber, or he might want to rape me. (Men get raped too.) So I empathize with Rebecca’s fear and discomfort. Doesn’t mean the guy actually did anything wrong.
I do not feel sorry for Rebecca that she was propositioned by a man.
She said ‘no’ and that was that.
It was an awkward and uncomfortable social situation. But we aren’t born with the right to always have everything be ‘comfortable’. Sometimes an uncomfortable social situation arises. The man asked her in the elevator because he was probably also ‘uncomfortable’ doing it where people might be listening.
Potential Sexual Assault…. THE HEIGHT OF ABSURDITY
That denigrates real victims of sexual assault by treating this as something remotely comparable.
“He didn’t ask her about the weather or astrophysics. He also asked her in an elevator, with no one else present.”
If he had explicitly said that he fancied her and would she like a shag, then it would have been very socially rude and extremely forward, but still not a potential assault. Casual sex is very common among both men and women. Especially in Dublin at 4am whilst drunk. Also, he would have probably had a better chance of getting laid than with his coffee gambit.
“Do you frequently introduce yourself to new people by propositioning them for sex?
Treating her as a person would involve maybe introducing yourself, trying to strike up a conversation…maybe waiting to see if she’s exhibiting the tiniest signal that maybe she might be interested in an amorous fling before suggesting such a thing. Or being the least bit self-aware — 4 AM, man and woman alone in an elevator is not the sort of situation that would make most women feel comfortable with being propositioned.”
Are you suggesting that we should be against casual consensual encounters between adult strangers? Or are you insinuating that he was trying to rape her or make her feel like he wanted to rape her by propositioning a consensual encounter between adults and then politely accepting the denial?
“So, just because the almighty atheist Dawkins declares this a non-issue, should we just ignore the fact that Rebecca was uncomfortable in the situation and may have felt an ulterior motive? To be honest, none of us – Dawkins or the rest of us were there. There were two people, alone, on an elevator at 4AM – Rebecca and the guy asking her to his room. I don’t want to put words in Rebecca’s mouth, but maybe it was a sense of intuition that made her feel something was not quite right with this guy. Who knows. For Dawkins to trivialize it and call it a non issue was plain stupid, and in this case, he would have been better to just keep his mouth shut.”
*Never, ever, will making someone uncomfortable be construed as causing harm.* That was Dawkins’ point and it’s sound. Dawkins didn’t trivialize it; there was nothing to trivialize. Help me get past my privilege and help me understand how having to turn down an admittedly feeble advance and then not fight off further unwanted advances was somehow harmful. RW doesn’t even say she was harmed or threatened with harm. (Oh but she can show you the hateful and misogynistic e-mail she gets….meaning what exactly?)
It trivializes real problems that women face in this world and makes the feminist movement (and now the skeptic and atheist movements as well) look hypersensitive and unable to think reasonably. Not good especially for movements that pride themselves on reason.
@484
What should Richard Dawkins apologize for? Hurting someone’s feelings? Honestly? Or is he somehow enabling ‘propositions for consenual encounters between adults’ I mean rape?
Do you honestly expect a person to know exactly another person will react before interacting with them? The best you can do is interact and then politely accept the reaction, which is exactly what Elevator Guy did.
“He was wrong, Dawkin’s was wrong, you need to respect women and NOT do things that will inevitably make them feel threatened or uncomfortable.”
Threatened yes. Uncomfortable no. I don’t want to live in your Mickey Mouse world where we have to care whether someone will be made uncomfortable by what we say and do.
561 Daniel said:
“I also presume that the gentleman hitting on the woman was UNATTRACTIVE to her. Had he have been attractive, I bet she’d feel differently.”
Your presumption says much, much, MUCH more about you than it does about her.
Really sad to see Phil jumping in with the over reactionary crowd. Dawkins is absolutely correct when he points out that he didn’t physically come onto her, nor did he continually pressure her. He had even verbally persisted, I would agree that he crossed the line. He asked her out while they were alone in a short ride elevator. She said no. The end.
It should have been, anyway until she decided to dramatize it up. Where does nonsense like this end? Men/Women elevators? Chaperonages? All women given the right to taze/mace any man at any time they feel “threatened” (which is, of course, however they choose to define it?) Men constantly afraid to say anything to women for fear of being labeled as creeper rapists?
Could the guy had been more tactful and aware? Sure. But this by no mean deserves the amount of attention it’s been getting and under no circumstances is she a “victim” in any way, shape, or form.
@Regner:
“… C) For those of you trivializing the incident as “man meets women in elevator”,
try to read the account again and please improve a bit on your reading comprehension. …”
May I suggest you do the same?
” . . .Here’s what happened, boiled down from a video post Skepchick Rebecca Watson made about this (she tells this story starting at 4m30s into the video at that link). Rebecca was a speaker at a conference recently. After her talk and a late evening of socializing with attendees at the bar, she got on an elevator to go to her room. She found herself alone on the elevator with a man presumably also an attendee. He said he “found her very interesting”, and would she like to get some coffee in his hotel room? Rebecca turned him down, and in her video talks about how uncomfortable that made her feel. . . ”
He asked her back to his room for Coffee, she said no, THE STORY ENDS. Except in the minds of some who insist that men are all potential abusers and rapists. We are not.
One key point that I find people are missing is that Rebecca had just delivered a talk and spent much of the event explaining that in order to have more women engage in the atheist movement, men simply need afford them the respect due to any peer: a) listen to women and give their ideas the same consideration and weight as they’d give a man and b) not harass women for sex.
And the elevator guy demonstrated that he had not done “a)” by doing “b)”. I appreciate the irony, and I appreciate the gentle way that Rebecca related it as an example of the precise problem she’s trying to raise awareness of.
So many people are questioning whether Rebecca “overreacted” without considering this context. I think it makes more sense when instead of posing it as “he hit on her under dubious circumstances” it is posed as “he hit on her under dubious circumstances after she had spent the preceding twelve hours saying “don’t do that”.
@566. Janice Says:
“Let’s get real here. Boys don’t intellectualize anything more than girls. This nonsense that men are the logical ones needs to stop.”
I agree. And I’m confident you’re misreading me. I added this note, if you’ll recall:
“(Which is not to say that R. Watson’s reaction is irrationally emotional and her detractors’ hyper-reasonable.)”
Over-intellectualizing means–to me–treating this very real situation (R. Watson’s situation) which happened to a real person as though it were written down on an index card during a debate tournament or handed out as an essay assignment in an ethics class.
I was waiting on a punchline that never came. Over react much?
575 Leon_Ateo said:
“*Never, ever, will making someone uncomfortable be construed as causing harm.*”
As most absolute statements go this one is absolutely wrong, mostly because it’s stated as an absolute. Uncomfortable and Threatened are two points on a continuum.
Oh well, one bad entry for all the good ones…guess it happens to everyone.
It’s no tornadovideos.net, but it has its moments. 😉 I’ve disagreed a lot of times with Phil, but he’s still in the set of things I consider cool.
@Father Time – You’re free to object to it, but I’m telling you, flat-out, that this is how most societies train women to think about men, Western societies definitely included. Skeevy man who hits on a woman in a situation where she cannot easily escape him = potential sexual assault situation.
This isn’t something personal. Men as a CLASS are what women are taught to be afraid of, not any particular man as an individual human being.
@ 568. Joshua Fisher
You got me here. As direct inspiration from the Absolut Being of Beings in Itself and of Itself of The Higher Spheric Realms unfortunately doesn’t work to well for me, I need to be instructed. And told. And explained. Yep, that’s rationalistic little me.
Men may only ask women out for coffee in well lit public places, between the hours of 9am to 9pm.
This smacks a little of “Stranger Danger”, I mean, many many men can be interested in talking with a woman, privately, w/o getting in her pants. Yet these days, its all women seem to worry about in social situation, especially when most assaults are committed by someone the woman already knows.
And finally, there is a element of bravado in asking a complete stranger out for coffee at his room, because of what it implies. But its a trope as old as the hollywood movies. Some women like the bravado, some don’t. Usually the reply in the film is “No, but I’d be happy to grab a coffee with you at a restaurant”. Maybe the guy is a creep, maybe he just likes the bravado and understands the metagame.
And finally, most women would simply talk about the time someone possibly hit on her in a elevator, not post it on the web, and describe it as the time they barely avoided ended up in Buffalo Bill’s pit, or the subject of a new Lifetime Original movie.
I mean, she is much more likely to be raped by a coworker, boyfriend, or drinking buddy than joe random elevator rider.
558 Andrew Wilson,
I guess there is a place for propositioning someone for anonymous sex. I don’t think an elevator at 4AM with just him and the woman was it. Maybe Rebecca would have not felt uneasy if the guy had come on to her at the bar. I’m not saying she would have accepted, but, to me, that seems like a more reasonable place for it.
Uhh….is Richard the “man in the elevator” in this story?
It’s funny. In the same way that everyone here is saying that all men are potential rapists, all I can think about is how much I want to avoid elevators with women in them for fear of becoming the next subject of some lunatics hate-blog.
The majority of posts on this blog are the equivalent of women shaming ALL men for being potential aggressors. Over what? Making an invitation to a woman? Sexual or not, the man DID NOTHING WRONG, HERE. The woman felt uncomfortable, that’s fine. Women make men uncomfortable all the time. Everyone is just saying how close this was to a woman being raped. Why? Did she get raped? Oh, that’s right, because it involved a man. Obviously that means a rape was inevitable.
Except nobody was raped. Nobody was even touched. The woman who this happened to had less of a fearful response to this than 95% of the women (and men) commenting on it. She said that men should be more knowledgeable with what might cause discomfort.
You people are practically accusing this man of raping her.
We all have to deal with unwanted advances in our life. There are always going to be people attracted to you…
Yeah, well, some of us don’t have that particular problem, really.
(kicks pebble)
Anyway, you’re all missing the real question.
WTF does Dawkins have against gum?
I don’t chew it myself, so I’m not sure what the issue would be.
He might like Singapore: http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/9/9/67699_v1.jpg
@583 Thorsten Said:
“You got me here. As direct inspiration from the Absolut Being of Beings in Itself and of Itself of The Higher Spheric Realms unfortunately doesn’t work to well for me, I need to be instructed. And told. And explained. Yep, that’s rationalistic little me.”
Cute. Grow up.
Really, the only thing I see here is one big disappointing skeptical community FAIL. I see a lot of dogmatic rhetoric, logical fallacies, and ad hominem attacks coming from both “sides” of a false dichotomy. What I don’t see, with the exception of a very few thoughtful women and men, is much critical thinking, rational discussion, or willingness to examine one’s own indoctrinated beliefs. There’s a lot of lost credibility here, from a lot of people that should know better. Blah to the whole thing.
@ QD’s “WTF does Dawkins have against gum?”
He was once in a very sticky situation that left an oily residue behind..
I am 100% behind Dawkins here. It’s a completely stupid double-standard to assume that a man is dangerous just because he’s a man. It’s sexist and misandrist. Jumping on a man for asking a woman for coffee (or even … gasp … a date!) in an elevator because he could have potentially been a rapist is preemptively prosecuting him and punishing him for a crime he didn’t commit and which probably never crossed his mind. Making males second-class citizens with their freedom of speech curtailed merely because of their gender is bigoted.
Is this a joke? I don’t see how you can seriously call this a potential sexual assault. Not only is this offensive and sexist, it makes light of actual oppression. The tone of Dawkins is spot on. Phil and Rebecca should both be ashamed
Meanwhile in a parallel universe: Brad Pitt and Rebecca were sharing a chance elevator ride together. Brad Pitt tells Rebecca he finds her interesting and would love it if she joined him for coffee in his room. Rebecca politely declines then tweets and blogs about how Brad Pitt made a pass at her and how incredibly flattered she was.
Wow……..after years of reading Phil’s blog, I finally have found a reason to lose most of my respect for him. Dawkins has this right, Phil has let his political correctness get out of control here. Why is it necessary to repeat “this is a potential sexual abuse” over and over again? Are we not allowed to strike up casual conversations anymore? Give me a break.
Yes, women need to be wary when they are in vulnerable situations, but this man did nothing wrong, and Dawkins was completely right in his characterization of this girl as a whiner.
Phil- the world is not black and white, please grow up.
“I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” – Richard P. Feynman
That goes both to you, Phil, and Richard Dawkins. Sorry if it feels rude.
i think Richard Dawkins is senile.
Btw, PZ Meyers is one of the creepier dudes I’ve ever been around.
He gave a talk at our school on evodevo and the local atheist club invited him out for drinks (at the time I had no idea he was an icon in the atheist community), after he got a few drinks in him, he spent most of the evening making uncomfortable levels of eye contact with most of the girls in the group. Phew
“Potential sexual assault”? Give me a break. A guy in an elevator said he liked her and invited her back to his room for coffee. If that is the threshold for “potential sexual assault” 99% of a female’s interactions with males is potential sexual assault. The male cashier smiled at me today while I was at the grocery store. Going by the logic of some of these women, and Phil here, I may as well been raped on the conveyor belt.
This article/situation is one of the biggest overreactions I have ever seen. A man attempts to court a women on an elevator, and the women feels “uncomfortable”. BIG DEAL! The women declined, and then they went they’re separate ways. How is this any different from a normal form of interaction between men and women? It’s not.
I’m with Dawkins on this one. Too many people are reading WAY too much into a comment from the guy in the elevator.
It reminds me very much of the story by Lenore Skenazy “Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone”
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/why-i-let-my-9-year-old-ride-the-subway-alone/
“OMG He could have been kidnapped by child molesters!” was a common refrain at the time. Nothing happened. Period.
Rebbeca Watson is insane.
As a skeptic I keep asking the question:
Is a fear of sexual assault in this situation a reasonable fear?
Unfortunately I can’t find the answer. I have been unable to find any statistics or crime reports of rapes in elevators. I did find that most victims of rape or attempted rape are minors, and that the vast majority of perpetrators are family or close friends.
So statistically speaking, a woman in her 30s in a hotel elevator is unlikely to be raped.
Yet many seem terrified of it. Are these irrational fears? Should men modify what to us may seem reasonable behavior to accommodate for the irrational fears of people we don’t know?
Food for thought.
I for one will be relieved if the Pharyngula “if you disagree with me, you’re pro-elevator-rape” approach to gender politics never becomes associated with skepticism or atheism.
“As most absolute statements go this one is absolutely wrong, mostly because it’s stated as an absolute. Uncomfortable and Threatened are two points on a continuum.”
And somewhere along that continuum, between Uncomfortable and Threatened, it ceases to be reasonably called harmful. What is your point?
@ 565. De Says:
“The thing about this situation is, if things had gone south and he had assaulted her, many of the same people who don’t understand why she was so uncomfortable would be saying things like, “Why did she get into an elevator with a strange man? I think she needs to take a little responsibility for her actions.””
Well I’m not.
“it’s our fault for tempting the poor impulsive male.”
I don’t deny that there are idiots out there who blame rape victims in this or similar way. As long as these idiots have no power (which is a real danger) this amounts to idiots having idiotic opinions.
“It’s like there’s this whole parallel reality men live in where they mysteriously fail to realize that even quite young girls have a whole code of conduct drilled into their heads about how vulnerable they are and how every man is a possible threat.”
That is very much to the point. Of course there are people with crazy ideas drilled into their head. One word: Religion.
But does this justfiy that someone has to be the puppet on a string to the feelings created by such bad ideas forced upon girls?
“For men who are genuinely curious how to make romantic overtures towards a woman without being a creep about it”
That’s kind of you, but this aside i also want to protect the right of the creep who wants sex too blatantly offer sex.
“The running theme here is that the least skeevy way to make a pass is to do it in a context where the pursued has the power to reject you.”
She had and she did. The complaint is, that she had to have the feeling, that maybe she couldn’t get away.
@589 Rick:
So, Rebecca and countless other women should be ashamed of feeling vulnerable and possibly uneasy and fearful when a complete stranger approaches them in a confined area, with no one else around them, and propositions them for sex?
You, like Dawkins and many others here are part of the problem. Until you people get your own houses in order you have no right to criticize religious faiths that denegrate womens feelings. I am actually shocked to be reading some of these comments. They are, in some ways worse than anything I ever heard in my Evangelical days. I expected better.
Potential sexual assault? Our community has gone to pieces if someone talking politely to someone else is seen as a potential sexual assault. As a girl, I’ve met many perfectly nice people, including men, in public areas. There was absolutely no evidence to indicate that Rebecca was actually in any type of danger – maybe the man was lonely and simply wanted to talk, who knows. Men are still humans. Comparing Rebecca’s encounter to other things that women have to endure in other countries is absurd. Richard Dawkins’ comment is in every way reasonable.
I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment of Richard’s comment. The enormity of this over reaction cannot be understated.
Phil,
I am leaning towards Richard’s side on this one. You keep saying that Dawkins fails to see that this was a potential sexual assault, which cannot be reasonably compared to chewing gum. From my perspective, the term ‘potential sexual assault’ is a meaningless term.
If I walk past a female stranger on the street, would you say that was a potential sexual assault, because I could have potentially escalated my behaviour from walking to grabbing and physically assaulting? No, that would be drawing a rather long bow, regardless of my intentions or desires.
Similarly, this man spoke to Rebecca, politely indicating his desire to interact with her in the private setting of his hotel room. Put clearly, it is fairly obvious that this man was probably hoping the evening would proceed to intimacy. However, he was being clear, honest and upfront with his desire and voiced it as a request. Let’s remember, we are all sexual animals. It is only arbitrary social norms that remind gentlemen to not offend married ladies.
As repugnant as that may have seemed to Rebecca, and as trapped as she may have felt in the elevator, he certainly didn’t seem to menace or assault her or show any indication that he would assault her. In my opinion, it is a similarly long bow to draw to assume that he would escalate his behaviour to assault.
To paraphrase Dawkins, the facts are that he spoke to her and she spoke back to him. That’s it. I doubt this fits the definition of ‘sexual assault’, however it may fit your custom-made definition of ‘potential sexual assault’ if you choose to define it that way.
The next time you decide to create and define a phrase such as ‘potential sexual assault’ perhaps you should let Richard Dawkins know so he can use it in its proper context. Perhaps a Bad Astronomer Dictionary can be your next best-seller!
Dawkins made a perfect response here. Calm, reasonable, but not compromised. The man asked her to coffee, nothing more. It is wrong to assume that the majority of men are potential rapists.
I think tarring the man with “potential sexual assault” is putting him in a *really* “uncomfortable situation”.
In fact Phil, you must be a “potential pedophile” (you do presentations at schools and such), or a “potential killer” (you’ve probably been left alone with someone for a short while) or a “potential robber” (probably been in a situation where you could steal that iPad and no-one would know), no ?
Hell, me too. Lock us up and throw away the keys.
Take the “potential sexual assault” silliness out of your argument, its foolish.
Dr. Plait: [UPDATE: Rebecca herself has posted at Skephick about this, and it’s very much worth your time to read.]
Obviously a typo worth correcting. But the link works.
>>>The thing about this situation is, if things had gone south and he had assaulted her, many of the same people who don’t understand why she was so uncomfortable would be saying things like, “Why did she get into an elevator with a strange man? I think she needs to take a little responsibility for her actions.”
De is right, just read the newspaper. When a woman is assaulted, there is a very vocal chorus, “Well what was she doing in in that situation in the first place?”
I just talked to my husband, and he feels that the Rebecca was completely justified in feeling uncomfortable in that situation. It’s perfectly OK to talk to a woman in an elevator, it’s not OK to hit on her on in an elevator with no one around. Here’s hoping some of you guys who are acting like hysterical little girls by declaring you can’t ever talk to women again learn the difference. If you are reading this blog, you are probably a smart guy, you can figure this out if you really try.
And Dawkins needs to learn that while Muslim women have a sucky life, it does not mean that bad or uncomfortable things do not happen to those of us who are walking around in burqas. We need to get over the idea that because someone may have it worse, we get to downplay bad or uncomfortable things that happen to someone who didn’t win that particular race to the bottom.
Guys , (not all of you) RW offered you dating advice, and you’re calling her a man hater. What’s up with that?
@587. Joshua Fisher
Tough growing up in these days without a little help from da homies especially if you are 61. Word man.
Dawkins said nothing unreasonable nor offensive in my opinion. He raises balanced, well posed arguments, which is more than I can say about Phil’s post. I wouldn’t have expected a scientist and skeptic such as Phil to defend a one-sided, irrational argument. Let’s take a couple steps back, breath deeply, count to 10, and look at the big picture.
IF MEN ARE CREEPS WHEN WOMEN SAY SO….
Are women sluts when men say so?
There’s such a double standard here, it’s disgusting.
PZ and Phil outright preclude the scenario whereby the woman is wrong in her assumption of creep. Creep-shaming & slut-shaming are one in the same thing, only one is gendered to me whilst the other is gendered toward women.
Has anyone considered the chance that the guy may have been a bit shy and not liked the idea of risking a public rejection?
If this is the case, and it seems as reasonable an assumption as any, especially compared to most of the stupid infesting this thread, now that he has had such a globally public rejection I bet his confidence is pretty destroyed.
But hey, at least Rebecca had something to post on a slow news day.
Never mind male privilege, media privilege is the real power imbalance in this story.
From a young age women and girls are warned by our parents, teachers, the police, safety educators and the media to maintain constant vigilance when out alone or at night, when walking to our cars after work, when travelling in taxis or public transport, when jogging in the park, when riding in elevators etc. etc. ad nauseum, lest we ‘put ourselves in danger’ of sexual assault or worse. I would say for most women this vigilance is second nature, even if we’re not consciously aware of it.
Despite this, some men (and sadly some women) can’t seem to comprehend how it might be unnerving at the very least for a woman to be propositioned by a man while she’s alone with him in an elevator late at night? It should be obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills that propositioning a woman in this circumstance is thoughtless and will very likely be perceived as threatening.
Also, I suspect that if a woman *was* assaulted by a man in that circumstance, many of the people saying “no big deal” here would be the same people asking, “What was she doing in an elevator with a strange man late at night? She should have known better!” It seems to me that some people want to have it both ways and women just can’t win.
I’m with RD here. I do not relate at all to “chit-chat in an elevator” being considered a potential sexual assault. I wasn’t there in the elevator but if it really stuck to just an offer for coffee, I’m offended by the idea that it could be called a potential sexual assault.
What… if the guy had kept his mouth shut, there would have been ZERO potential for a sexual assault? I think the potentials of both situations are just as insignificant for one as the other.
I understand some women fear rape on a regular basis, and am saddened by the single thought of the crime. I don’t think it helps society one bit to ostracize single males in elevators though… Right sentiment, wrong action.
If you don’t make any calls, you won’t get any sales. Maybe the unfortunate gentleman was just playing the averages. He was an utter cad obviously- unless she thought that he was cute.
I don’t have time to read all of the posts, got to the 204 th, but I didn’t see anywhere it said that the woman RW being in a foreign country, was perhaps lax in being out so late alone (and regardless that she was with others, they were not friends but acquaintances); it is not safe; she put herself in the position in the elevator; the result was predictable;
that said, I do believe that men and women do need to learn to understand each others lines of sensitivities better; this is not just a skeptics question, but does involve all people; I do regret the passing of the personal card; if he had handed her his card on exiting, with the request that at her convenience, they get together to discuss her work, that would have been more appropriate;
He was once in a very sticky situation that left an oily residue behind..
Hmm. YouTube video or it didn’t happen. 😉
To everyone who balks at “potential sexual assault” feel free to carry a stranger’s package through security for them as a favor – it’s only a “potential package of drugs”. Or as Greg Laden says, a random dog who comes into your yard is only a “potential” bite.
We socialize little girls growing up to be polite to men even in situations that make them nervous. That’s nuts. Would you tell anyone you cared about to ignore alarm bells going off in their head?
You want to blame someone for the sad state of suspicion, blame the rapists out there.
@Alex “I am not saying she is lying, I’m saying the man may have a very different side of the story which must be heard. Hence the Babylon 5 three edged sword quote above.”
Again, missing the point. How can I make this any clearer? His side of the story is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what his intentions were. He acted in a way that was creepy and should have recognized WHY it would seem creepy. It doesn’t matter if he meant to be creepy, he still was. Moreover, he was creepy in a way that he could have avoided. RW wasn’t claiming any sort of victim status or accusing him of doing anything extraordinary or wrong. She asked people to look at their behavior and try to avoid doing things that will make other people feel uncomfortable.
Why is this so controversial and hard for people to understand? Hey everyone, try not to make other people feel uncomfortable. Especially if your goal is to make them like you. They will like you more if you don’t make them feel uncomfortable.
Did you not all learn this lesson in kindergarten?
Richard Dawkins…The God of New Atheism, got to a feel a little pity for a person whose breakthrough work is pseudo-science.
It seems to have escaped the hundreds of clueless male commenters here that Rebecca Watson had been talking, until 4 am, about the sort of behavior that made her and other women feel uncomfortable at events of that sort, and that she had made it quite clear that she was not interested in sexual engagement with random individuals. If you want to put yourself into Elevator Guy’s shoes you might want to take that into account.
Really, guys. Random sexual invitations from strangers in enclosed spaces at late hours in a foreign country are no big thing? Nothing to worry about? What if this sort of thing happened to you regularly as an attractive young woman? Nothing to complain about?
Too many of you are thinking about yourselves as poor, rejected Elevator Guy. Try putting yourselves in the shoes of the woman who has to deal with unwanted solicitation all the time.
Congratulations to Phil for this post and to Messier Tidy Upper for yet another sane and eloquent comment.
@518. GeezGuys Says:
“So in that vein, unless you are in a pick up bar or a brothel, do not approach a total stranger and in 30 seconds or less ask them to have sex with you.”
This is a lecture isn’t it?
“Why is this so controversial?”
As dating advice it is not. But are we here talking dating advice?
“If you don’t understand that women generally don’t like that, but still think it’s your right to go around asking for sexual encounters at random (for the woman) moments, then get lost.”
That’s fine. That’s what she did. Told him to get lost. He did get lost.
“Creeping out 99 women on the off chance the 100th will say “oh, yes, I’d rather have sex with you than finish grocery shopping” makes you a jerk.”
Social incompetence is not a crime. Especially because no one knows for sure, into which situation one might get oneself someday.
I’m also with RD here.
It seems that everyone is becoming extremely stereotypical of men.
The bottom line, as RD stated many times, is that nothing happened. That is all that matters. Men are allowed to hit on women. Women are allowed to turn them down. If it ends at that, there is no reason to complain and no problem.
Are you going to start saying you don’t like interacting with black people in the city because they might rob you?
Are you going to assume any men near an area with young children meet is a pedophile?
Are you going to assume that any Muslim man is a terrorist and is about to blow himself up?
You must give people the benefit of the doubt until they have actually done something wrong. You can’t be scared about the what *could* happen when it didn’t. This all seems a tad ridiculous.
Further question: Is there any value to the concept of ‘privilege’ beyond ad hominem arguments and poisoning the well?
@599. Thorsten Said:
“@587. Joshua Fisher
Tough growing up in these days without a little help from da homies especially if you are 61. Word man.”
Not even the slightest clue what you’re talkin’ ’bout, brah. And I doubt you do either. Word.
Thanks Phil, for licking PZ’s Marxist Fembot ass on this issue.
#137
Daffy, I think we’re pretty much in agreement here. Neither of us were there, but based on the description given, I might have been nervous, and exited the elevator in a public area (I was attacked once, and tend to err on the side of caution). I might also have made the call that Rebecca did, and just said “no” and left on my floor, hoping that he would be civil about the rejection. In any case, the guy isn’t guilty of sexual assault of any kind, and the vast majority of women know that the vast majority of men aren’t potential rapists.
You ask, very reasonably, “how is a man supposed to know where the line is?” I’m going to deflate this question a bit, because so many of the responses above make a slippery slope argument: [paraphrasing] “If this is a potential assault situation, then every situation is a potential assault! Men can never talk to women ever again!!!” This is a bit silly. Most of us manage to make it through our lives without constantly jumping at shadows (or being mistaken for them).
To answer your question: there is no line. Figuring out whether you might be scaring someone requires contextual understanding, situational reasoning, empathy (does she *look* nervous?) etc. – basically, the full toolkit of the human brain. Luckily, the human brain is astoundingly good at this, and the vast majority of the time, between two humans of the same culture operating normally (e.g. not under the influence of alcohol), there is no ambiguity whatsoever.
There are some very specific situations (e.g. late at night in an elevator, possibly after some booze) where this system doesn’t work so well. This is why this discussion is useful – it clarifies some of the relatively few ambiguous situations. Again, the guy just made a mistake, which made him seem skeevy – no actual harm done. Obviously, the guidance Rebecca gave was aimed at the good guys, who are well-intentioned but might accidentally come across badly – the nasty rapists aren’t going to listen in any case!
Wow. 606 comments. I’m not sure if it’s been said (606 comments, so come on!) but I gather she clearly said “Don’t hit on me” and it sounds like he didn’t just “happen” to be in the elevator. It sounds like he followed her. From my point of view if I ask a girl at a hotel, anywhere in a hotel back to my room for coffee, a drink, to look at my pictures of babies dressed up like adults, what I’m really saying is “can I get you through the threshold of my room”. Once in all bets are off because a guy is going to see it as she came to my room she know’s why she’s here. Some girls are more trusting than others and sometimes it ends badly (I think that’s what happened in Mike Tyson and Kobe Bryant’s cases).
For the record I would never do anything like that I just know the thinking.
I’m gonna go tell my mom and girlfriend I love them now.
@mlr
1. Thank you for the response.
2. I get what you are saying. Historically and sadly even today, women have obvious reasons to fear men. Of course they are uncomfortable, and I get why that was creepy, although I’ve had weird one night stands in vaguely similar circumstances without any problem. I’m not an idiot, I know when I creep a girl out. I’m not trying to say that what he did was necessarily socially appropriate in this particular context: it all depends on the other person’s demeaner and if you’re socially apt, you’ll obviously see that in that case, Rebecca didn’t want anything of the sort. She said no.
My essential point is this: at some point in history, you agree that this will have to stop? This nagging insecurity that women have? That’s the goal right? Granted they have this fear today, but isn’t the goal that it stops? Tell me how we are going to ever achieve that if all women see around them is men to be afraid of? If they never see examples of men they can trust? That’s what I want to know, and I seriously don’t see it. That’s really what bugs me: I’m supposed to treat women as equals, and yet not really. Not really, because they fear me. It’s saddening and depressing to me.
I’m 23 years old, I’ve been raised among people respecting, as far as I’m aware, a perfect equality between men and women in both my families. I had fulfilling relationships, both long and short. I guess I was too lucky for the real world.
Thank you again for your response, I understand that you have a totally different perspective on this, you made me think, and I’ll definitely think again.
Are you bloody kidding me? This guy hit on a girl and then left her alone and he is a potential attacker?! And your excuse is “What if he had a gun!” well what if he had a gun ANYWHERE?! Every situation just about is a potential attack for women so men should just never talk to them ever again?
Good on RD for calling out the stupidity.
Taking a rational point of view, perhaps it might be worthwhile for Richard Dawkins to investigate whether womens’ apparent heightened sensitivity to potentially harassing situations like this – and/or mens’ apparent insensitivity – could be an evolutionary byproduct.
(no I’m not being sarcastic or attacking RD… I’d actually like to see results and recommendations of a study such as this conducted by a reasonist like RD)
I showed this to my wife and my mother and then called all three of my sisters. All of them agree with what Dawkins had to say. I suppose some women are leary of pick up lines, rude or not and will take offense to not just the words but the possible intentions of what might occur if you allow your mind to run wild. Sure, you can provide some marginalized example of some woman that was attacked in a similar enviroment but what does that show anyone? I also think that nobody, women included should be laying claim to some special privilege that nobody else is afforded, least of all the right to not be offended in the slightest.
It would have been better if he invited her out for coffee at a public location rather than his room as it seems like an invitation to sex. The ‘his room’ made it uncomfortable. It’s always potentially threatening sharing an alone space with another of the same gender regardless if you’re male or female since there are female predators too.
One such way to explain it to a man would be if the man is uncomfortable with homosexuality and you chuck him in an alone room with a physically more powerful homosexual. Or anyone with a sexuality that will physically affect him that he is not used to/uncomfortable with.
It’s like the time my ex used to stay outside of my bedroom window (I live in an apartment and my only windows are out to the shared corridor where ANYONE can walk by) for hours without my knowledge because he thought it was romantic to try and find out what I like and what I was doing. But I broke up with him when I found out and he still didn’t get it that I felt stalked with my privacy invaded.
In the same context to Dawkins, my ex didn’t physically hurt me. Why, he didn’t even use words to make me uncomfortable! Why should I feel uncomfortable and bitch about it?!
I’d like to see him say the same thing if his girlfriend hung outside of his window without his knowing for the whole day.
Does nobody else think that perchance this fellow was taking the piss? It sounds as though he had heard her speak about exactly this kind of sexism, after all. He probably thought it would be hilarious.
However let’s assume that he was making an earnest sexual advance.
Rebecca was well within her rights to feel in danger.
The man was well within his rights to test the waters as to the likelihood of his enaging in casual sexual relations with her. Some people find such behaviour morally repugnant; others do not.
Rebecca was well within her rights to shoot him down.
Rebecca was well within her rights to feel uncomfortable, and even further in danger, after shooting him down.
Rebecca was well within her rights to suggest that men watching her video not proposition women for sex at 4.30 am in an elevator.
Men in general are well within their rights to ignore this advice.
Nobody’s rights are being violated here. I therefore don’t know why Richard Dawkins was comparing this to women’s rights issues in the Middle East. Nor do I know why Phil has become so over-zealous on this issue. If I had to read between the lines, I would guess maybe Richard has been shot down a little too many times when attempting to pick up women, and I would guess that Phil may know a woman who has been sexually assaulted. The resulting biases would be understandable.
There was no ill intent here, just a creepy guy. Creepy guys don’t realise they’re creepy. They are going to continue to be creepy. Hopefully evolution will weed them out, because as this evidence shows, their efforts to mate with women seem to get shot down more often than not.
But until then, there are a lot of people in the world that do a lot of things that I wish they didn’t. But if it’s not against the law, there is not much chance of them stopping.
@Bad Jim 607
[Really, guys. Random sexual invitations from strangers in enclosed spaces at late hours in a foreign country are no big thing? Nothing to worry about? What if this sort of thing happened to you regularly as an attractive young woman? Nothing to complain about?]
What is there to complain about? What harm befell her?
What if regularly men respected my denial of their attempts for definitely conversational and possibly sexual encounters with me? Why I’d be living in a world where men are respectful and polite and not always trying to rape me. I wouldn’t need to be fearful of every man in an elevator or feel like a victim when I’m not really one. Sounds terrible.
So women should never be alone with strange men? If a man finds a woman in an elevator, should he wait and take the next one?
This kind of PC thinking has gone way over the top. The comments were rather crude (typical of Dawkins) but the overall thrust was correct. The idea that asking a woman out is suddenly some form of abuse or even the slightest bit of a threat is quite a leap. I suppose men should never talk to women again? Or perhaps only when a male relative or guardian is around? Treating women like they are weak and helpless is in many ways a small step towards treating them like they should not drive, show skin, or be in public without a male guardian.
Equality means women and men are treated the same. Women cannot demand that we walk on eggshells around them and treat them as some kind of flower always on the verge of wilting away.
If women are afraid to be alone with men in an elevator, they should purchase a handgun or learn self defense.
Men are often creepy, we all know this. But in this case, it does not even sound that bad to begin with!
I would take a moment to consider how this guy feels after all this nonsense. Being accused of some form of proto-assault is probably rather hurtful.
This will sound mean, but Phil why do I get the feeling that you got feedback from the Mrs. bad astronomer before posting this?
-R2K
@616
[ I therefore don’t know why Richard Dawkins was comparing this to women’s rights issues in the Middle East.]
He isn’t. At all. He’s saying that it isn’t an issue, in a world filled with actual issues.
“Further question: Is there any value to the concept of ‘privilege’ beyond ad hominem arguments and poisoning the well?”
Yes. ‘male privilege’ is a real issue in society, along with ‘white privilege’, ‘straight privilege’ and class or financial privilege, and it is important to try and be aware of how the inequalities in society affect your default standing within it and your relationships with others.
However I really do not think that asking a stranger in an elevator for coffee because you fancy them even comes close to qualifying as a newsworthy example of male privilege. Also, she could have raised exactly the same issue if she wanted to without making someone’s awkward attempts at flirting the subject of so much public discussion.
No-one comes out of this smelling of roses (especially me, but that’s mainly cos I’m overdue a bath).
This whole issue makes me kinda sad. Rebeccas video blog is fine. Its good advice. She doesnt single anyone out by name, she says his actions made her feel uncomfortable and creepy and explains why. Fine. Good for her and good advice for guys everywhere. Guys, listen to it and take note
RD’s posts are throughless and rude and that seems to be fairly normal for his off-topic opinions I have read.
Unfortunately, Phil’s comment about Potential Assult is just as thoughtless and rude for reasons many others have said in the comments here. To his credit, he hasnt tried to explain it away and dug himself a deeper hole.
This is a sensitive topic on all sides and it really doesnt need borish, overbearing and unnecessary statements from anyone, especially people who have a large following and a large impact. All it seems ot have done is polarised people on either side of the issue and somehow has caused the original, good message to be lost.
Harry: If it’s real, can you prove for me that it exists, or point me to such a proof?
I think that if something bad had happened in the elevator or she had actually went to his hotel room, a lot of people would be questioning Ms. Watson on her decision to get into the elevator or go to the room. It’s almost a no win situation for her. Most likely the person was admiring someone he looked up to and probably made an awkward proposition. But she was alone, and this is true for men too, she HAD to look out for herself. Would Richard feel comfortable in the same situation? Would he join the man in his room for coffee? Or would he, as basically a certified celebrity, decline for reasons of safety?
I read and recommend the book “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin DeBecker. It’s a very good book about recognizing situations that may become violent and some some basics on what to do to avoid those situations.
It’s too bad that Richard feels the way he does, but we all know from his books and others, that smart people do not have a monopoly on common sense.
I agree with RD that RW didn’t encounter a shred of privileged, ingrained, societal sexism being propositioned by a complete stranger alone on an elevator at 4:00 a.m., but I’m surprised RW did such a poor job of explaining himself.
What I think he meant to say was that he truly believes that women may not have some of the necessities to be objective about, let’s say, misogyny, or perhaps, the possibility of being raped. As sharp as he is with the pen, I’m surprised that RD didn’t ask rhetorically why there aren’t any women quarterbacks, or note how their over-buoyancy makes them poor swimmers. (To be fair to RD, it could be because he doesn’t follow American football and competitive swimming.)
Guess I will weigh in on the matter, though I don’t feel I have a huge amount to add. If I read you correctly, Phil, you’re suggesting that a respectful guy in a hotel, waiting for an elevator late at night, when confronted with an elevator car containing a woman alone should opt for the stairs in order to not frighten said woman. I do not deny that women weigh situations differently than men, but in my opinion, that’s an extreme response. For the most part, men and women should just ride elevators. Granted that the guy asking her for coffee in his room was perhaps creepy (I wasn’t there to read the guy), but I think there’s a slightly deeper problem in the skeptical movement: there’s a gender imbalance. The entire combination of having too many men with too few women makes for a situation where there are going to be misunderstandings… in large part because of how our culture defines the roles of men and women in interaction. In my opinion, if people are subjected to a gender imbalanced situation long enough, it tends to bring out the worst aspects of both sexes.
To let you know, I for one am a very nice guy who spent too long a time in one of these imbalanced situations as my main social outlet and I vowed I would never go back to anything similar because it made me utterly miserable. As long as there is such an imbalance in the Skeptical movement, you can count on my attendance only by internet.
Richard Dawkins is 100% a complete human being. If you want to weigh him by how vile his foibles are, you should weigh yourself too. Don’t reach for a standard that doesn’t exist. I think I can understand Rebecca’s feelings to an extent, but I can’t help but feel that she would probably have had an entirely different outlook on the situation if she weren’t already hypersensitized to look for it. I’m not saying feminism is wrong, I’m just saying that the anatomy of the situation is going to invite problems just by people being people.
Can anyone send me a link to a dictionary of these “code phrases”? You see, in the 80s, I got told there weren’t these “code words” – “no means no”, and all that stuff. I’ve spent a number of years working on my telepathy, but I’m just not getting it.
I mean, this poor guy who got on the elevator with her – *HE’S* certainly found out that it was a dangerous thing to do. He innocently gets on an elevator, makes small talk, and now *HE* is wondering when the process server is going to show up with the papers for the sexual harassment lawsuit.
[ Would Richard feel comfortable in the same situation? ]
Who cares? Why is everyone’s comfort such an importance? Whether something will make you uncomfortable is entirely subjective and attempting to adjudicate only comforting actions is tantamount to thoughtcrime.
I prefer the country where you can say and do what you want as long as you’re not harming nor threatening anyone else. Just saying something that makes someone uncomfortable is a non-issue.
I’m quite certain if you were to start telling people that there was no god in a public place you’d make people uncomfortable too. Is that Rationalist Privilege?
what’s next Phil? being accused of potentially sexually assaulting a woman just because you looked at her? you really have your head up your arse about this one, Phil … stick to science
@606. Horseman Says:
“His side of the story is irrelevant.”
What if he has to correct some facts?
“It doesn’t matter what his intentions were. He acted in a way that was creepy and should have recognized WHY it would seem creepy.”
Maybe not in his opinion. A slight differnce in wording, a slightly differnt tone can go a long way. Even if we take it at face value, without knowledge of the background we can not be sure, that he was creepy an an objective way.
“Why is this so controversial and hard for people to understand? Hey everyone, try not to make other people feel uncomfortable.”
Not especially newsworth though. I still think that this was part of Dawkin’s point: There is not even a slight violation of women’s rights here, it’s just a bad taste issue, and even this is doubtful.
“Did you not all learn this lesson in kindergarten?”
I also learned to tolerate the odd kid.
@Varsil’s “Harry: If it’s real, can you prove for me that it exists”
No, as proving things to be true is not how things are generally done outside of maths. I can give you a very good example however. I used to work for the video streaming company A-Stream run by a guy called Alex Wolf. He refused to hire women for technical production roles because he said that they are not mentally equipped for stressful environments and was fully supported in this by all the other directors.
Prove to me that men are not privileged. Good luck with that one. In my home town women aren’t even supposed to go to funerals.
It baffles me that people are so incredibly clueless about this issue. The issue here is boundaries. If you really can’t understand why 4am elevator propositions to women are socially inappropriate, then you don’t have a reasonable respect for boundaries. Which means…No, you shouldn’t talk to a woman ever again. Seriously. If you really can’t get this, then you don’t have respect for other people’s boundaries, and you don’t belong in polite society. Too bad. Tough to be you.
It’s nice to know that Phil and the male allies here get it.
As for the rest of you, how can we ever thank you men for telling us silly women with our unrational lady brains what sexism is. It’s so comforting to know, because we would never be able to recognize it unless we have men to tell us how to think and feel.
Here, have a sarcasm sandwich.
I would like to commend the people (on both sides) who have posted messages here for their civilized behavior and respect for the opinions of others. What a pleasant contrast to the cesspool that PZ (in whom I am disappointed) allowed his boards to degenerate into over the last couple of days. There is a faction over there that has led me – for the first time in my life and to my horror – to think that Rush Limbaugh, who I utterly despise, might actually have a point about “feminazis”. I have strongly advocated among my more conservative friends for the rights of homosexuals, including marriage, and for women to have control over their reproductive systems and equality in the workplace. But for daring to politely suggest that a failed pass in an elevator does not amount to “sexism” I was called “troll” and “stupid” and “misogynist” and a bunch of more juvenile terms by a few individuals.
As some other have stated above many of guys who are not the most skilled in the world at talking to women find ourselves, when we meet a woman that we like, waiting for the chance to approach them. This is not easy for some of us to do when there are a lot of other people around, for a number of reasons – conversation seems to come more easily for everybody else for one, we don’t have loud voices that carry well in loud bars, etc. I am just saying this to explain why a guy might seek to talk to you in a private location when he’s interested in asking you out. Without remembering the specifics I think I can say that I have almost always done it that way, for I can hardly imagine doing so in front of a bunch of people.
On the other hand it is the year 2011, and if the guy just wanted to get laid I don’t think that’s something terrible. Not exactly classy or polite, maybe not even smart, but he had no way of knowing what the answer would be without asking. Believe it or not, some women would have said yes in the same situation – casual hook-ups happen all the time. In my opinion casual sex is not some ugly thing that you’re going to go to hell for, and perhaps I am naive for thinking that most atheists viewed it the same way and had a healthy, positive attitude about sex. Isn’t that part of what women’s liberation was all about, the right of women to enjoy sex outside of marriage? And yes, I understand that if you are asked all the time by people who don’t interest you it probably does become tiresome.
As others have said, if we take the view that a stranger in an elevator in the middle of the night is a “potential rapist” then a stranger in the elevator at noon is also a potential rapist, and so is the stranger in the parking deck, the stranger on the beach, every stranger anywhere. The “danger level” is a continuum, not a sequence of discrete steps. The young lady was probably almost 100% safe from not being sexually assaulted while she was giving a speech in front of a bunch of people in a conference room. She would probably be in high danger of being assaulted if she walking down the street alone in a bad part of say, Detroit (I’m just naming a city with high crime rates), while dressed in a French maid outfit (and for pete’s sake I am not saying that women who dress in certain ways are “asking for it”) at 2:00 am. Nearly all other situations would fall between these extremes. I think I speak on behalf of most of us in the Dawkinsian faction (and I do not agree with all of Dawkins’ statements) when we say that the danger level on that elevator was probably FAR closer to that of the conference room than it would be to the street in Detroit at 2:00 am. While a sexual assault is entirely possible the probability would seem to be extremely low, since she presumably knew the identity of the other person, since the elevator will be stopped in a few seconds and the hallway could be full of people when the door opens, and since the guy had extended a verbal invitation to her (wouldn’t a rapist just do his thing without asking?)
Also:
http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/wp-content/doodles/sexism-all.jpg
Harry: It’s impossible to prove a negative. That’s why the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.
Proving things to be true is the scientific method. It’s the way things are done in math, science, and pretty much anything that can really claim to provide truths.
You sure you’re a skeptic?
I’m a man who was raped by a woman when I was 10 years old. I don’t start freaking out when I’m alone with a woman, though.
The “it might happen” argument is completely ridiculous, because anything might happen. A meteor might slam into your head if you walk outside. Are people afraid of that, though? You might as well argue that everyone should be frightened all the time. There are literally millions of things that can kill you.
”Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.”
@ Alex. Elevator Guy has had plenty of opportunity to tell his “side” of the story. That he hasn’t yet done so suggests to me that his version of events would not exculpate him.
Mrs BA is not trivializing the male perspective. You are doing that to the female.
Yes, many women want to have sex with men. Just not at all times or with all men.
Women have ways of making their sexual interest known to any man with half a brain and half a clue. Randomly hitting on women without prior interaction, or hitting on women who haven’t given a positive signal is a douche move.
Bottom line: most women don’t want to have sex with you, even if you are 6′ 4″. Get over it.
@ Varsil’s “Proving things to be true is the scientific method.”
LOL
u sure about this? you might want to go check before answering.
I’m so incredibly insulted by some of the clueless attitudes on here… how can you men be so clueless???
Talk about over-reacting. The point of Phil’s blog is this:
-if you aren’t a woman, you don’t know what it’s like to be a woman, but you CAN try to understand.
-there ARE the few, rare times where circumstances align to put a woman in a threatening situation. (It’s like being bullied in school… it can be fine for the longest time, and then, one day, someone looks at you in a threatening way, or says something threatening to you, and all you know is you better walk home with your friends. Didn’t we all feel that way at some point?? Not all the time, but at least once or twice?)
-making light of how one woman feels in a situation when you have no idea how it feels- which is what Dawkins did- is unacceptable. Not just for what he said towards Rebecca, but a note to a hypothetical Muslim woman? Are you kidding? As if he or any of us that haven’t been there have any idea what it’s like for those women.
-give Rebecca a freaking break, already. She would NOT have brought up the elevator incident if she hadn’t felt threatened! That ONE TIME! ONE TIME, PEOPLE!
As a parting note, remember this when you claim it’s just words and women shouldn’t over-react: A large percentage of communication is body language and chemical notes. So this wasn’t ‘just words’. It was an intention that she picked up on. As humans, even if we don’t realize it, we recognize the intention behind people’s words, that’s how we know when someone is attracted to us, or whether or not our kids are lying.
Oh, and Phil, thanks for posting this.
@ 653. Leon_Ateo
Looks the same to me.
Dawkin’s actual wrongdoing is:
“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.”
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/
I’m not sure if there is special weight to the adjective “atheist” in this context. I also don’t know why suddenly all experiences are at stack instead of the one we are talking about here. Finally we are talking experience not feeling. And part of the experience – and a practically very important part, if you assume that woman despise of actual assault more than of the fear of possible assault – is that guys, maybe even creepy guys can be shut down with a simply “No”. Just like this.
@ Michael “Elevator Guy has had plenty of opportunity to tell his “side” of the story. That he hasn’t yet done so suggests to me that his version of events would not exculpate him.”
or that he doesn’t want to talk about being rejected.
@ 665. Michael5MacKay
“Elevator Guy has had plenty of opportunity to tell his “side” of the story. That he hasn’t yet done so suggests to me that his version of events would not exculpate him.”
Or that he doesn’t like to be drawn into this for a thousend bucks. Aliquid semper haeret.
I’m going to pretend I read all 660+ comments.
Does anyone remember the controversy over the remarks of Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard, that of course women couldn’t be expected to be world-class physicists or mathematicians? Fellow liberals fell all over themselves to defend him. This is drearily reminiscent.
It’s disturbing to find that fellow skeptics and science enthusiasts are as allergic to feminism as right-wingers are to environmentalism and as unwilling to re-evaluate their thinking in the light of new information.
If you aren’t familiar with the history of elevator rape, remedy your ignorance. If none of the women you know have any experience with rape, you most likely either are very young, know fairly few women, or the women you know aren’t comfortable being open with you.
Ignorance isn’t persuasive. Neither is lack of empathy.
Here are Phil’s own words, replacing the context with race & robbery instead of sex. See how this sounds.
“Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.”
Ergo, black people had better take special care to be less black, because black people are scary.
Men are the new nigger, women are the new KKK, and Phil is an Uncle Tom.
So flibbertigibbet, the reason men are dismissing the female point of view in this situation is that it is essentially the same as the KKK. Now you just need to start wearing pink pointed hoods with the Venus symbol on it.
@ 667. flibbertigibbet
“-give Rebecca a freaking break, already. She would NOT have brought up the elevator incident if she hadn’t felt threatened! That ONE TIME! ONE TIME, PEOPLE!”
On does not need to doubt her honesty about her feelings when doubting her sense for perspective or objectivity in describing the situation.
“As a parting note, remember this when you claim it’s just words and women shouldn’t over-react: A large percentage of communication is body language and chemical notes. So this wasn’t ‘just words’. It was an intention that she picked up on.”
Which is one of the reasons why we should cur the elevetor dude som slack.
Ridiculous! Potential sexual assault my arse. The guy merely propositioned her. Rebecca is being waaaaaaay precious, and if she can’t deal with a situation like that then she should be accompanied by someone.
Should I have to wait for the next elevator if a woman happens to be riding in one, just because she may feel intimidated because she’s by herself? When I’m on my way to the train station after uni, should I have to dive into the nearest bush or hide if, god forbid, a woman also happens to be walking that way too and my going about my daily routine spooks her? It’d be a long bloody trip home each day for me, I assure you. Should I only ask a girl out if all safety conditions are favourably met – we’re in public, surrounded by people, and she has a can of mace aimed at my eyeballs and a taser aimed at my balls, lest I lose control of myself? Outrageous you say? In my opinion, no more outrageous than avoiding polite banter with someone in a lift, or even avoiding getting in that lift at all because the other person in there can’t handle interacting with other people on a one-to-one basis.
I have just asked my wife, my sister, and three separate female coworkers for their opinion on this without venturing my own first. They are in almost complete agreement in all major points! If a woman feels uncomfortable in a situation like this, if she actually feels threatened or even fear from a guy asking her if she’d like a coffee in an elevator, then she should either not be out by herself or should have asked for a chaperone back to her room.
The onus for one’s personal security lies with one’s self. It is your right, male female or otherwise, to go about your business in safety. It is not your right to demand that other’s magically read your mind and cater to your particular whims in regards to which situations you feel safe in and which you do not, so long as they are complying with the law. It is not my job to make sure every one of the thousands of people that I come into contact with on a daily basis fully understand that I won’t assault them, male or female.
I’m pretty sure you said a man speaking to a woman is a potential sexual assault. That’s about as much of a stretch as saying a gum-chewing man is about to attack someone.
Was approaching the woman in an elevator perhaps ill advised? Probably. Does it make the man a potential rapist? No. More than likely just a socially oblivious dude trying to talk to a woman he had interest in.
It’s not like she said no and then he raped her. From what I can tell, she said no thanks, and they moved on.
How the hell is this man a potential rapist, any more than Dawkins’ fictional gum chewer is a potential attacker?
As a woman I feel insulted by this particular article and TOTALLY side with RD on this one.
The man in the elevator asked, she said no. End of story. He didn’t suddenly hold her down and rape her.
Seriously ladies, what does it make us look like if we can’t handle a simple freaking scenario like that? Moving backwards… moving backwards.
“Oh heavens! Where are my smelling salts. That big burly man smiled at me!”
Could you imagine if she was white and he was black! OH THE HUMANITY!
Grow a pair, ladies… literally. All of you pissing and moaning about how, “men don’t know what it’s like to be us…” need to quit relying on your ovaries as excuses.
I feel like turning in my card after reading this.
Phil, thank you so much for being an ally.
Your daughter is lucky to have an advocate like you.
“It’s disturbing to find that fellow skeptics and science enthusiasts are as allergic to feminism”
Not really. I don’t expect logical people to accept hate movements so easily.
Amfortas, it looks like you misplaced the spear again.
There is a difference between race and sex. Compare the 15th amendment, ratified in 1870, allowing black men to vote, to the 19th amendment, ratified 1920, giving the same right to the average adult. Consider that blacks, still subject to widespread discrimination, constitute around 10% of the population, while women, still subject to widespread discrimination, are 50% or so. You might possibly have a parent with African ancestry, but you certainly had a female parent.
612 Leon_Ateo said:
“And somewhere along that continuum, between Uncomfortable and Threatened, it ceases to be reasonably called harmful. What is your point?”
Just that we’re so *very* lucky to have you here to make all these very absolute statements based on what you’ve now acknowledged as a spectrum.
You are absolutely right to say that this is sexism but the exact opposite of the type you seem to think it is. If this had happened in reverse NOONE would accept the argument that this was unacceptable behavior. Why is that? Because this was a man. So you are applying a insane standard of public behavior to one sex and not the other. You are suggesting that because this was a man, he is automatically a threat. Should all children feel immediately threatened when alone with religious leaders? Should all people interacting with police believe that they are going to be brutalized? This is truly appalling gender discrimination, but not against women.
Phil,
Richard is right, and you and “skepchick” are wrong. Get over yourselves.
-jcr
I didn’t know Phil was a bigot until today. I’m saddened by this news.
And now if you’ll all excuse me, I have to get in my car and go commit potential vehicular homicide, on my way to the grocery store, where I will commit potential petty larceny, potentially write some bad checks, potentially cause grievous bodily harm to the clerk and any fellow shoppers I encounter, and maybe even think some forbidden thoughts.
-jcr
We have bred a generation of people living in fear of their own insecurity. If Rebecca felt uncomfortable, even threatened, by such an incident, she needs to get a new therapist. Better yet, learn self-defense – it might instill her with some sense of confidence. What an inane premise and article.
I’m going to pretend I read all 660+ comments.
Go for it, dude. Hey, I’m pretending to actually care about the issue. 😛 Seriously, can a person first become sociopathic in their 40s? Maybe I should run for office.
@Thorsten
“What you just said made me uncomfortable.”
“Um, no, I think if you look at it objectively from my point of view, it didn’t make you feel uncomfortable.”
“…”
I’m running out of ways to explain this to people.
Prove to me that men are not privileged.
Some men do have privilege. The rest of us work for our crap just like everyone else.
In my home town women aren’t even supposed to go to funerals.
Where’s that, if you don’t mind me asking? You don’t have to be exact. Is it a rule that’s followed or one of those old laws on the books like “you must only sex your chickens between full moon and waning gibbous.”
Harry: “@ Varsil’s “Proving things to be true is the scientific method.”
LOL
u sure about this? you might want to go check before answering.”
Harry: The scientific method is fundamentally about gathering evidence. You can’t prove something absolutely, but you can provide evidence to show that it is true. The onus to do so is on the claimant. Usually evidence is gathered by testing the premise–each test that fails to falsify it is a bit of evidence to suggest that it is, in fact, true. Note that this requires a falsifiable statement. As I noted far earlier, I haven’t seen any way that the notion of privilege can be falsified, which puts it into the same category as astrology and religious beliefs generally.
But if you’re claiming it exists, show me the evidence.
Elevator Guy has had plenty of opportunity to tell his “side” of the story. That he hasn’t yet done so suggests to me that his version of events would not exculpate him.
Then you need to widen your powers of suggestion. Maybe he’s not even aware of the controversy. This isn’t exactly the stuff that makes CNN. Or he’s seen it, realizes he’s been tried and convicted by some in the court of public opinions, and does not want to get involved any further. Maybe he’s even consulting a lawyer to see if he’s been slandered and dragged through the mud to an actionable amount. Trust me, there’s lawyer *somewhere* who will think about taking the case.
[Just that we’re so *very* lucky to have you here to make all these very absolute statements based on what you’ve now acknowledged as a spectrum.]
Useful, insightful, and helpful to the conversation. If you’re done making declarations of uncertainty and want to prove that RW was actually harmed by the elevator incident, I’d be happy to hear it.
I’m still waiting on this actually. All I heard from RW was “that guy was creepy.” and then 8000 other people talk about the struggles that women go through in a world full of potential rapists. Was Elevator Guy threatening her with rape or was he not? Here’s a quote from her comment thread on skepchick:
[First, unless you have been in a situation in which you have been harassed, intimidated, threatened, and/or otherwise forced into a range of passive responses that continually place you in the role of appeaser or victim, you cannot possibly understand what Rebecca or any other woman feels in that situation.]
What did she feel saying ‘No’ to an unwanted solicitation and then having her response politely respected? I’m not sure, but I don’t know how you get to ‘reasonably threatened with rape’ from here.
I also learned to tolerate the odd kid.
And I thank you for that.
I declare this commentary thread dead, because, as per usual, the privileged toss their toys when they’re asked to examine their privilege and digest a female’s lived existence (yes, that includes you too ladies professing “I’m female and I don’t see the problem!”). The dogpiling, the dismissiveness, the HATE towards a women is the usual derail. To completely deny and misconstrue the tenets of feminism (a “hate group”, geeezus, pass me my bingo card) and how this intersects with skepticism reinforces AGAIN why women are not welcome there.
You misogynist dogpilers disgust me.
I think these long comment arguments can only happen when the topic is one on which most of the audience will completely miss the point.
@z3ddicus:
” . . . You are absolutely right to say that this is sexism but the exact opposite of the type you seem to think it is . . . ”
got it in one!
I apologize, but I didn’t manage to read everything people have posted here, I need to go to bed at some point tonight! I find it odd that this is the very first time I’ve ever responded to a post on BA, but here it goes.
I’m a man, I’m probably even a bit of a dope when it comes to the broad topics of gender relations, sexism and misogyny. I read this a couple hours ago and I was left scratching my head. When I read the quotes that Phil chose and even when I followed the links and read through the original articles, my initial inclination was that there seemed to be A LOT of overreacting going on here. In fact, if the source of the article had been almost anybody else I would have blown the the whole thing off, but something about it bugged me and I didn’t feel right letting go.
Somehow I’d immediately personalized the problem and decided that I was being accused of some horrible latent predatory behaviour that was about to bubble to the surface any moment and turn me into a gun toting zombie rapist. I felt defensive enough that I wanted to write some sort of reaction here, despite the fact that the people here, and elsewhere, who “don’t get it” (as an aside, I think that’s a really poor way of explaining a point of view that somebody doesn’t fully follow) are being flamed in true Internet style. The only remaining question for me was whether to join the side of the people who “don’t get it” in public or keep it internal.
Then I did something that was truly visionary on my part… I decided to watch the actual video that Phil linked in paragraph 4. Although I’m missing some context because I didn’t actually attend or view the event in question, I understand much better what Ms. Watson was trying to say. She’s not overstating the situation, she’s simply commenting on the utter ignorance of the fellow in question who made a pass at her in the elevator at 4AM. That’s what it was, there’s no way of honestly interpreting the situation any differently than that, though it sounds to me like the whole situation may have been somewhat alcohol fuelled so who knows how serious the intention was. This is the part that’s subjective, and given that she seems to be pretty even keeled about the whole thing I really can’t think of a reason to doubt her or ascribe any motives other than that which she has explained.
My point is that people should wind it down a bit. Personally I wouldn’t have interpreted the situation in exactly the same manner that Rebecca Watson did, but given that I am a man that hardly comes as a surprise. She’s not hysterical about it, in fact when you hear her describe the situation to me it comes across almost as exasperated by the lack of awareness the individual in question displayed, not to downplay the fact that *she* felt at least some degree of intimidation in the situation.
Other than as a bit of personal catharsis so I can get to bed, I’m really writing this because I would self describe as somebody who is pretty big on equality but who also has a bit of a tin ear for people who *I* perceive to be crying wolf. I might even be a bit harsh on this account. This isn’t one of those situations. I’m not 100% certain all of the 2nd hand commentary by various bloggers (let alone the commenting) has been particularly productive, but Watson herself is/was quite reasonable and that’s actually what matters, so watch the damn video if you haven’t already.
As far as Dawkins goes… I think the man is a great intellect, but that doesn’t mean I’d invite him over for a visit… in fact something makes me think he probably wouldn’t deign to accept such an indignity in any case. He’s an expert on the philosophy of science and evolutionary biology, not human interaction, gender relations or basic civility. Hopefully he and Watson will sort out whatever part of this has become personal (if this is, in fact, the case), but I don’t think there’s much point in the rest of us trying to psychoanalyze or correct him… If you think he’s gone beyond the pale, don’t buy his books and leave it at that.
Insert $0.02 here and thanks for listening!
@CerebralMagpie
“I declare this commentary thread dead, because, as per usual, the privileged toss their toys when they’re asked to examine their privilege and digest a female’s lived existence (yes, that includes you too ladies professing “I’m female and I don’t see the problem!”).”
Do you dislike this because comments presenting alternative views from female peers causes you to self examine?
Magpie, what’s the privilege that people are tossing around? The privilege of not assuming any man is a criminal lying in wait? The privilege of not being a bigot?
And yes feminism is a hate movement. When you support legislation that is anti-male, while also spreading lies that dehumanize men, that makes you a hate movement.
Agreed: it’s totally hypocritical to give women a pass for being worried about being sexually assaulted by a man in an elevator, but if a white person feels threatened by a black person on that same elevator, much less a man feeling threatened by a woman, it’s racism and sexism, respectively.
And, being the scientific, evidence-based community that we are, I have no doubt that statistics are that each fear is equally probable (or improbable), such that:
(a) % of women who are sexually assaulted = % of whites who are mugged = % of men who are sexually assaulted; and
(b) % of female sexual assault victims whose perpetrator was a man = % of white mugging victims whose perpetrator was black = % of male sexual assault victims whose perpetrator was a woman.
Phil, are you joining the boycott of Richard Dawkins and his works that Rebecca is starting?
Will you be featuring it on your blog?
If not, why not?
First, unless you have been in a situation in which you have been harassed, intimidated, threatened, and/or otherwise forced into a range of passive responses that continually place you in the role of appeaser or victim, you cannot possibly understand what Rebecca or any other woman feels in that situation.
25 years ago, back in college I worked in a really nice liquor store in a really nice area. This was high end. We had Everclear and EKU-28 and all sorts of weird brews. The locals bought their Dom there.
One evening a guy walks in and points a gun at my head. Try it some time. The hole in the barrel looks like a freaking train tunnel. The world collapses to just you and him and the gun. I think it was a Beretta 9mm- way too nice a gun for this sack of crap. And this guy was tweaking something serious- he needed a fix. I remember that detail. I opened the register and let him have at it, managing to signal my friend in the back **NOT** to come out with the store shotgun. Jebus Cripes the last thing the situation needed was another amateur with a firearm.
Guy left, police were called, report given, end of story. I went back to work to work the next day. Heck, that job paid seriously well for what it was. Owner actually gave me a pay boost because of the incident.
They caught the guy, BTW. On parole at the time (Yay!! California parole boards!!) so he went away for a long time. Might still be there.
So I’ve stared death right in the face. Do I win? Can I comment of stuff now?
@ Horseman
Heiferdust!
I declare this commentary thread dead
Um… thanks? Or something?
Its depressing how many clueless socially inept men have chosen to display their nerd/boorish/loutish point of view on a pretty simple subject, starting with Richard Dawkins himself.
Let’s break it down into simple pieces.
1. Approaching women you dont know and out of the blue asking them for sex is pretty sketchy behavior. Disguising it as asking for coffee in a hotel room late at night doesn’t change anything, nor make you suave.
2. Elevators are always a little awkward – ever notice how people typically are rather quiet and still riding in an elevator? Cause everyone is violating normal personal space boundaries and is therefore adopting a calming attitude. So picking that location to start you gauche pickup routine is really stupid.
3. Any strange man who approaches a woman in a confined place with no one else around and asks for sex is going to create fear. Gee, I wonder why?
4. As men, get used to the fact that women who do not know you are going to be careful and circumspect in situations that are potentially vulnerable to them. Like in an elevator alone late at night. Be respectful and dont do things to heighten their concern.
______
The common response above ignores a few simple facts. This is about men who are strangers approaching women for sex in an uncomfortable and threatening environment. This is not about how you have to be on eggshells around all women all the time (although if you have the instincts of a lout, maybe you should have that attitude and therefore avoid trouble, since you are clueless). This is not about how it is not possible to flirt and engage in the romantic dance of exploring mutual interest, including mutual sexual interest. The fact that there are limitations on what is acceptable, and what ends up being creepy and threatening, does not mean that anything is now forbidden – get a clue.
As for the parallel to a black person entering the elevator, that is a false parallel. This is not about any man entering an elevator and the woman feeling threatened. This is about a man entering the elevator and then exhibiting creepy behavior, which makes her feel threatened. The more appropriate analogy is someone of any race entering the elevator, and then flashing gang signs at you, and asking to see your wallet. Gee, maybe that might make you scared even though its “just words.”
“Magpie, what’s the privilege that people are tossing around?”
Oh Jesus H. MALE Privilege. Look it up some time.
“I’m taking my comment thread and I’m going home. You’re all poo poo heads!”
Seems like you’re the one throwing toys around to me Cerebral M.
One doesn’t have to hate females to call a spade a spade. Nobody is disputing her perception of her ‘lived existence’ – just whether it is reasonable to out a guy for being a creep merely for riding in an elevator and asking a girl in it is she’d like to have a coffee, then dropping the issue when she said no.
If that makes someone a bad guy, well then slap my arse and string me up.
[As for the parallel to a black person entering the elevator, that is a false parallel. This is not about any man entering an elevator and the woman feeling threatened. This is about a man entering the elevator and then exhibiting creepy behavior, which makes her feel threatened. The more appropriate analogy is someone of any race entering the elevator, and then flashing gang signs at you, and asking to see your wallet. Gee, maybe that might make you scared even though its “just words.”]
Did you honestly just compare someone soliciting a casual certainly conversational possibly sexual encounter and then politely accepting the denial of said solicitation to “flashing gang signs and asking to see your wallet?”
This situation and this thread are the death of personal responsibility and reasonable expectation of harm.
Astrofiend, what makes you a bad guy is simply being born as the male sex.
Male Privilege?
You mean how we are heavily over represented in the following groups: suicides, homeless, violent crime victims and prisoners? Some feminists, like Paglia and DeCrow, don’t even buy into that. Males are ultimately disposable in our current culture.
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309929368&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001O9CFEU/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=010MJ7W6003FFEGW04WM&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Men-American-Tuning-Flipping/dp/B0046LUE9G/ref=pd_sim_b_3
Oh, crap! I posted these links from California. Did I just activate the amazon tax again? 😛
If that makes someone a bad guy, well then slap my arse and string me up.
Some people pay good money for that, although usually in the opposite order.
Or, well, so I’ve heard. *cough*
O V E R R E A C T I O N.
Plain and simple.
On to the next thing.
“That your purse? That’s a nice purse.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0IDjx3hkw0
@127. Chris :
Fine. Ask a girl out – but put some thought into how you do it and ask her out in a way that isn’t creepy and likely to turn her off. There’s ways of doing this and common sense and a lot of websites will advise you on where, when, how and who.
Asking a woman out who you’ve met and talked with for a bit, during the day or evening in relaxed circumstances where she doesn’t feel threatened and isn’t at all likely to feel threatened. Good.
Asking a woman you don’t know who has just given a lecture on how she doesn’t want to be a sex object, when she’s already tired and going to bed, when its 4 am, and you appear to have stalked her into sharing a lift – just the two of you? Not good.
There are good times and places and bad times and places for doing this.
If you behave like a weirdo or behave thoughtlessly and without showing some consideration to how she’s feeling then you’ll quite possibly be seen as somebody who’s a wirdo, a thoughtless or selfish and clumsy person. So just try to think in advance : Is she likely to feel this off-putting / weird / inconsiderate / menacing? If the answer is yes then don’t do it. Wait for another opportunity.
Only if you make a huge thing of doing so in a memorably dumb way. Most people’s social and private lives are their own business. How often do you discuss with *your* mates who’s going out with who,and how long do you remember what they tell you? In a fairly short space of time a failed pass will be forgotten by everyone I’d expect. If you really messed up bigtime publicly and people remember you for it, you can always, I dunno, make a joke of it, learn from it, apologise for it and move on. Can’t you?
Get a catflap! That way your pet can escape and come and go as it pleases, before and after is eaten your lonely corpse. 😉
Perhaps its because most men behave better than the Elevator Dude did?
Most women will have male partners reproduce because Elevator Dude was one atypically appalling instance of a reproductive failure caused by poor technique and poorly chosen partner. He may learn to behave better and improve his chances with women from the experience? Maybe ED is usually better but was just drunk and unthinking that particular night?
PS. I’m not usually one to offer dating advice to folks but if you want to get a lady in your life – self -pitying rants : “Woe is me! Teh nastie Wimmen hate me so much! No fair!” are NOT attractive to most women.
O V E R R E A C T I O N.
You mean Watson or Dawkins?
Or is that an acronym? 😉
“Oh my. I have tried and tried to see some other way to interpret this, but it looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum.”
Yeah, that was a potential sexual assault. Just how every time I talk to the bank teller it is a potential bank robbery. Totally doubleplusungood.
Since the comments have become a broken record, I would like to point out something a little more obvious that has yet to be stated:
This post to me is exactly the sort of thing BA normally bemoans.
What was originally posted was one person’s account of a specific situation – the veracity of which (to my knowledge at least) has yet to be confirmed. HOWEVER, many ‘skeptics’ have jumped on the bandwagon to join the rallying cry against this sort of behavior.
When the recent asteroid passed very near the Earth and doomsday theories abounded, which side was BA on? Did he also jump on that bandwagon like he has done here? NO. A detailed mathematical calculation of the probability of likely scenarios was presented. In other words, a ‘skeptical’ article about likely outcomes. Was there an exceedingly slim possibility of an impact? YES. Did BA belittle people for believing it could happen? YES.
But now, we are confronted with a single sided argument of another person’s behavior/intent. Much harder to quantify, but, no attempt at all is given to statistically determine a probability of an actual assault. Isn’t that the point of ‘skepticism’? To take all data and information into account and come to a logically, scientifically and mathematically based conclusion? What we have from the BA is more of a religious fervor based on a small sample of biased data than an objective presentation and discussion of the facts. If one tries to estimate the ratio of the number of times a sexual assault happens in such a situation to the number of times it doesn’t, I’m sure you would come up with an exceedingly small value. Is it higher in the specific situation given (4am, drinking, etc) than in others? Absolutely. Is it still statistically insignificant? I would assume so.
This blog has become increasingly dogmatic. We are now getting a full dose of BS from the BA. Just throwing out a guess here, but I would imagine the percentage of sexual assaults in the given scenario is likely somewhere in the range of (or likely lower than) the percentage of children who have complications with vaccines. A topic which has been beaten to death on this blog, and which the BA belittles people who are part of a movement to not vaccinate their children. However, who jumps on the crazy train to join in the dogmatic chant when a fellow member of his ‘club’ has been made to feel uncomfortable, therefore meaning that otherwise benign situations are now ‘potential sexual assaults’? Why none other than the (supposedly) analytical and skeptical BA. He can be a ‘skeptic’ so long as it is self serving.
Well Mr. BA, let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle, I think you have something to say to him…
I can’t believe the number of comments that this topic has garnered.
I can’t believe so many of your commenters are so unable to see the risks of being female in our male dominant society.
I can’t believe that after reading Rebecca Watson’s blog, there are actually people that can support Dawkin’s comments
gravespinner Says: I can’t believe… I can’t believe… I can’t believe…
Wow. Talk about your deniers.
So is it Elevator Guy or Elevator Dude? I think we need to get this worked out before healing can begin.
@683. Seriously? :
I’m pretty sure the BA and for that matter Rebecca Watson herself said nothing of the kind. Re-read their posts. Let’s see :
I’ve added bold to aid in your reading comprehension.
So we have :
– “when a man hits on” a woman
– esp. in this context one who has made it clear she doesn’t seek any intimate encounters.
– in a given situation where previous events have led to rapes
– and women know this and know they have good reason to worry
– then, yeah, it’s NOT appropriate.
NOT “a man speaking to a woman is a potential sexual assault.”
Rather a man cornering a women he doesn’t know in an elevator at 4 a.m. and crudely asking her to go with him for (implied) sex is a potential sexual assualt esp. in a culture where women have been/ are treated as nothing more than sexual objects and where rape is frighteningly common – and I may add usually goes unreported.
Women have reason to fear rape. They have reason to be concerned about the potential for rape. Most men aren’t rapists – Elevator Guy probably wasn’t though we’ll never know – but women do have to be careful of those who are and situations where rape may happen.
Fear of rape isn’t nothing. Isn’t zero-bad. Putting people in fear of violence and violation – NOT cool.
That’s what Richard Dawkin’s dismissed and why he needs to apologise for belittling, insulting, trivialising and treating with arrogant contempt Rebecca Watson’s perspective here.
This doesn’t mean normal conversations, doesn’t mean blokes can’t talk to girls but it does mean as Rebecca Watson urged us that we should try to be considerate rather than creepy.
Asking is the opposite of forcing. I have, at times, felt uncomfortable when women have hit on me. That’s my problem; they did nothing wrong by asking. I’ve been hit on by superiors in the military; people in a position to have me sent to military prison for such difficult to defend against things as “insubordination.” But again, they asked me, they didn’t force themself on me and didn’t threaten me, and it wasn’t sexism for them to ask me. Might I have felt threatened at the time? Maybe, but there was no use of any kind of force, so any feelings of threat I had were just that, my feelings. I have a right to not be threatened, but I have no right to never feel threatened.
Oh, crap! I posted these links from California. Did I just activate the amazon tax again?
Knowing our government, yeah, probably. Thanks.
Arguing that someone asking a person of the opposite sex up to their room for coffee is potentially a sexual assault is the same thing as saying because I have a gun in my home, I am potentially a bank robber or going to go on a killing spree. Someone asked her to have coffee, maybe there were undercurrents of something more romantic in his mind, but she said no and that was the end of it. I’d argue that the man may very well have had upstanding intentions, even he was worried that his invitation would be taken the wrong way, which it apparently was.
Adding the threat of danger and assault to a situation that didn’t have any real danger is just fanning the flame and fabricating a scary event that never actually happened. It’s fiction. Do assaults happen in innocuous situations? Sure, sometimes, but they don’t happen in EVERY innocent situation, or even MOST innocent situations. Acting on irrational fear is dangerous and ultimately won’t do anyone any good aside from inviting fear into even more aspect of their lives.
The worst experience I ever had in an elevator was in a big hotel where the rooms ringed a vast interior expanse and the elevator cars were glass on three sides so that you could see and be seen. A young man, morbidly obese, rode all the way down facing outwards and sobbing.
Empathy has some adaptive value, insofar as it helps you avoid harming your fellow humans unintentionally, but being aware of your fellow beings’ pain can leave scars on your memory.
It’s charming to learn that so many lack such a vulnerability.
Actually, it’s telling that so many said they’ve actually asked other humans of the opposite sexuality for their opinion. If you don’t actually know anyone who has been raped or threatened with rape you probably don’t know that many women, which would only be surprising if you’re young. If you aren’t a kid, consider the possibility that you are clueless.
@Michael5MacKay – He hasn’t had his chance to tell his side of the story. He probably isn’t even aware of what’s been said about him.
As for the rest of your argument, it reads like the standard “All male-initiated sex is rape” garbage I’ve heard a million times before.
@Horseman – At this point it doesn’t matter who is accusing who of what. The problem is that the woman in question felt intimated at all. That’s a result of continually reinforced conditioning, constantly being told to be on her guard at all times. While yes, some men are dangerous and violent, most of us aren’t.
I consider myself a feminist but find it a little offensive to the man concerned to describe him as a ‘potential sexual assault-committer’. I don’t like the way that we are made to feel that every situation is a potential rape threat, and feel that this argument only restricts women more by using fear as an oppressor, as opposed to actual violence.
Boycott anyone? Who’s with Rebecca?
I know I’m just a man so my opinion will have little value here (sarcasm much?) but I will put forth that the man could have been completely honest in his offer of coffee. They were both intellectuals, is it really so impossible?
Women can rant and rave about how men will never know how it feels to always be one wrong move away from rape, but seriously, get over yourselves. You’re not one wrong move away from rape, you’re just isolating yourselves in your own horrible little fantasy world where the threat is essentially illusory. And if you truely believe that the threat is real, then why are you not moving away, or calling the police or hiring a body guard?
You may say that I am being callous by not being considerate of your feelings on the issue, but that’s really the crux of the issue. The only thing that was offended by this man was the woman’s feelings, nothing more! If we as a society were to try to police speech and feelings and thoughts, as you are (perhaps unwittingly) advocating then our society would be no more free than Saudi Arabia.
So, in Dawkin’s own memorable words, grow a thicker skin. And in my words, grow the eff up princess.
@712. Astrofiend :
But she did NOT name the Elevator Dude / Guy hence we’re still calling him that. Sheesh.
ED / EG is still anonymous. Rebecca Watson OTOH has had to bear the brunt of this internet firestorm.
When all she said was the quite reasonable “Don’t approach me (or other women) this way it’s creepy and here’s why I don’t like it!” As she has every right to do.
Fixed that for you.
Why do I get the horrible sinking feeling in my guts that if this thread was Rebecca Watson’s obituary, that if she had been found raped and murdered by EG rather than this being about her advice for men “not to be creeps” then we wouldn’t have had anywhere near so much discussion and far less than 730~ odd comments?
@ 695. Horseman Says:
“What you just said made me uncomfortable.”
“Um, no, I think if you look at it objectively from my point of view, it didn’t make you feel uncomfortable.”
I’m afraid, I don’t get, what you want to tell me.
“I’m running out of ways to explain this to people.”
I understood, that your point was, that his intentions away, he acted objectively creepy. I’m still not convinced of this.
[Rather a man cornering a women he doesn’t know in an elevator at 4 a.m. and crudely asking her to go with him for (implied) sex is a potential sexual assualt esp. ina culture where women have been treated as sexual objects and where rape is frighteningly common -and I may add usually unreported.]
So if he more tactfully solicited an encounter, and was better looking, and the woman decides to not reject the offer, it’s suddenly less potential for sexual assault? I’m missing the part where politely accepting the denial of solicitation of a consensual conversational (possibly sexual) encounter is threatening rape. I don’t understand this demonizing of a consensual encounter. She said no, end of story.
Maybe in Briton “come in for a coffee” doesnt have the same connotations?
To be truly safe in an elevator, you really need a 3rd person in there too. That way, you can pass gas without anyone knowing it was you.
I went into an elevator eaarlier this evening. A little asteroid followed me in. I must say, I was uncomfortable with the way his little craters seemed like they were staring at me. I just kept saying to myself, “It’s ok, he’s just a little space rock. He’s probably lonely. Just don’t let him see you are nervous, and whatever you do – do not kick him. That’ll just make him fall apart.” He got off on the 13th floor, but I can’t get those two little craters, beady little craters out of my head…
Parts of the atheist movement have come to resemble a cult with Dawkins as its high priest.
In the shell of what once was an insightful biologist lives a grumpy old man harping on about things he does not understand. Such as philosophy, religion, and now, apparently, women.
“You might say that some of [Dawkins’] forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores” – Alvin Plantinga
Bravo, Phil. Thank you so much for posting this. As a younger woman I didn’t want to believe that inequality still existed. But the longer I’ve lived the more sexism I’ve seen, and the more gropes I’ve had to fend off from ‘nice,’ educated men – some of them even in elevators. I have been hearing variations on Dawkins’ initial misdirection – to paraphrase, ‘stop complaining (Rebecca) because it could be worse’ – ever since my childhood. This sort of resignation/apathy is death to progress, no matter what your cause.
But Dawkins then helpfully explained that his position was actually worse! He says that there is a new standard for proving sexism in the West: ‘physical’ harm. By this new measure, Rebecca was to be ridiculed for ever telling her story! Silly girl, how dare you suggest that a man who had been sitting within earshot of you at the bar for hours, and who deliberately followed you to an elevator, should have been listening to you while at the bar! Merely voicing her discomfort, in the mildest of language (“Guys, don’t do that”), exercised Dawkins to the point of comment. Lawman Dawkins, to the rescue. (Tell me, Lawman, if the next guy who pinches my breast doesn’t leave a bruise, is it ‘physical’ harm or not?) Who is Dawkins to decide harm? Wasn’t that Rebecca’s point – that some men don’t understand, or don’t care to, what it’s like out there?
To all of the men and women who are offended by the ‘every man is a potential threat’ argument: please read the Schrodinger’s Rapist article. http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ It is NOT a personal attack on every individual man. It is an succinct phrase describing the mental calculation that many women are habituated into making, precisely because of the realities of our society, some of which are definitely sexist. It is not, I think, a judgment that most women, or even most feminists, want to make. But it is rational, especially given the social penalties that await the woman unlucky enough to be assaulted.
Sorry, but this time I have to agree with Dawkins and not Phil. In fact, Phil, your reasoning is incredibly inane: potential sexual assault? Seriously? Does that mean we should treat every aircraft taking off as a potential disaster simply because it happens? This is just living in fear.
I watched the video Rebecca Watson made, speaking about her experience in the elevator, and nothing in what she says indicates to me anything that should have made her uneasy. In fact, at one point it seems she adopts an accent when mimicking the man, leading me to believe the man himself may have been foreign. Here’s news, people: Not everyone has the same hang-ups as Americans, and almost no culture is exactly like ours (or even close, what with all our cultural taboos). I can only wonder what this guy might think if he ever sees this video and realizes Watson is speaking about him. At no point in this conversation in the elevator are we led to believe he was sexualizing Watson (despite her assertions), and I know for a FACT many other cultures see no harm in inviting people, alone or in groups, back to where they are staying for coffee and conversation.
Watson brought her own baggage with her and now she wants sympathy. Sorry, no. I am not saying sexualizing women is a good thing; quite the contrary. Any kind of objectification is degrading. I am also not saying sexualization and objectification never occur—they do. However, Dawkins is correct in pointing out that objectification that occurs purely in the mind of the “victim”, in this case Watson, hardly rises to the level of handwringing we should be experiencing when it comes to actual violence against women. “Potential” simply does not measure up, and to live each encounter as a “potential” for some form of violence is insane.
Long ago I learned people are going to filter everything they experience through confirmation bias and I refuse to cater to these individuals, trying to figure out what that bias is. I treat people with respect and dignity—simple enough. However, not even that is fool-proof as I have learned, especially when it comes to the terminally thin-skinned. If you don’t think this is an issue, I would direct you to the example here, where it seems impossible to avoid some sort of condemnation no matter what you do. And honestly, it is rather too easy to see the confirmation bias apparent in Watson’s video.
I have no idea if all (or even any) of this has been covered—there is simply no way I can read 720 comments and get my head around all the points made. These are my thoughts, opinions, and observations. I cannot help but say if you wish to live your life in fear, don’t put yourself into a situation that will exacerbate that fear. If being on an elevator alone with a strange man makes you uncomfortable, travel with trusted friends or family. Don’t imagine horrible, potential scenarios and try to play on our sympathies, because all I am going to do is ask, “Why did you put yourself in that situation? What could you have done to ameliorate it?” Sometimes there is nothing that can be done and something horrible does happen. When that happens, then the victim has every bit of my sympathy and my hopes they (or, sadly, their loved ones) will recover.
But not for imagined horrors.
A typical screeching overreaction– hyperbolic stupidity of a depth only possible only by modern feminism.
@ 722. Messier Tidy Upper
“- in a given situation where previous events have led to rapes”
If we want to go beyond the “A No is a No” we really need the dictionary 660. Jamey suggested of code phrases and code situations. “A No is a No” has the advantages of
1. being easy to understand, even by blockheads
2. protecting women from rape
The disadvantage is, that it doesn’t protect them from discomfort.
“Women have reason to fear rape. They have reason to be concerned about the potential for rape. Most men aren’t rapists – Elevator Guy probably wasn’t though we’ll never know – but women do have to be careful of those who are and situations where rape may happen.”
How exactly was she careful here? By later complaining you can’t change the situation, whether it is a justified complaint or not.
“Fear of rape isn’t nothing. Isn’t zero-bad. Putting people in fear of violence and violation – NOT cool.”
The amount of fear is however no measure for the size of a problem.
“This doesn’t mean normal conversations, doesn’t mean blokes can’t talk to girls but it does mean as Rebecca Watson urged us that we should try to be considerate rather than creepy.”
This ist still nice advice, but as has been explained here by many: Creepyness punishes itself. So what action is needed, apart from building the dictionary so that even the lesser light can be tought?
This may not be the appropriate place to announce this, but here goes.
This may or may not make Rebecca Watson feel any better.
I have in my past been convicted of a crime that fell under the umbrella of “sex crimes” in the US. I did my time in a government facility, as well as my mandated time on the sex offender registry.
If I am ever at a conference with Rebecca, and find myself alone on an elevator with her at 4 AM, I promise that I will immediately leave the elevator at the next floor. I would certainly not be telling her that I find her interesting and invite her back to my room for coffee.
I have a learned a lot about perceived threat, my responsibilities as a man with a criminal record, etc, etc. But! Reassuring Rebecca, or any attempt to assuage any potential creeped out feelings to her will not be my motive, nor will protecting myself from any potential accusations of a sexual nature.
There is no reason Rebecca should or would know any of my past. Since I am no longer on the sex offender registry, I am no longer required to wear my shiny scarlet “S O” around my neck any longer.
I do know about Rebecca, her beliefs, feelings and her public persona.
I’d leave the elevator immediately, because I find Rebecca Watson to be annoying! I simply would prefer to walk the stairs or wait for another elevator than to spend more than a few seconds in her presence. She might actually say something to me, or worse yet – laugh!
i am more with Richard… people familiarized with strong cases have a natural tendency to be trivial about low (very low) profile cases. on the other can, your post makes me feel i can not open my mouth in an elevator (i am male), or better, run away if i find myself with a woman on the elevator alone for fear of being misunderstood by whatever gesture… on the other hand is true women are under high pressure daily, males looking at their tits and asses all the time, instead to their eyes… it will take a long time to correct this… but i would have prefered a humourous response to the guy in the elevator than to open an almost rape case… nor do i see why Richard Dawkins had to get into this mess, or the pressure you phil are putting on him for that matter
“I don’t know if it was sexism on Dawkins’ part or just plain obtuseness”
I think this is a false distinction, but I get you’re trying to give him some credit.
Lot of comments so far, and I haven’t read them yet, but I agree with Richard Dawkins completely.
You are making far too much of this. More than once you say it was a ‘potential sexual assault’. Anywhere you go where there are other humans, there is the potential for sexual assault. There are varying degrees. One might feel safer standing next to a man on a bus than in an elevator. One might feel standing next to a man in an elevator than if a guy climbs through your hotel window and jumps into bed with you. Any situation is a potential sexual assault. BUT there was nothing in the elevator to create any bad atmosphere or fear of sexual assault.
Many people have phobias. Some people don’t like small spaces. Some people don’t like to be alone with men in small spaces. Just who is being sexist in that situation?
If I’m in an elevator and a big, muscular guy gets in, is he suddenly wrong because I fear getting beaten up? The potential is there.
If I get called into the boss’ office alone, is the boss wrong because I fear losing my job? No.
This is a fact: a woman riding in a hotel elevator alone at 4am is a dangerous situation.
Preventing attacks requires some vigilance, and most people have a tendency to “do the normal thing” and unknowingly increase their likelihood of being a victim. At that time of the night, if I were a woman, I would definitely consider going to the front desk and asking for an escort up to my floor. (I should do it anyhow, but my macho idiocy prevents me from admitting to myself that I’m vulnerable. ) I certainly wouldn’t get into an elevator with a guy that was waiting for an elevator with me in the lobby. It’s just asking for trouble.
This doesn’t change a thing about the idiotic behavior the man displayed, but if Rebecca wants to make tools available for women to prevent tragic events, she should consider putting ‘street smarts” into the tool bag.
Tim
Right, Tim, it’s always the victim’s fault.
Here are some tips conveniently provided (like the elevator buttons) for all the men whose feelings were hurt by this blog entry:
1. It’s not about YOUR feelings. It’s about how Rebecca and thousands of other women feel when they are put in a situation that seems potentially threatening by a man who may think he’s being suave and charming, but is really just being clueless and insensitive.
2. Get over the phrase potential assault – to a woman alone late at night any isolated situation with a strange man carries the potential for violence or sexual assault. Again, it’s not about you, so please try to use some objectivity and stop being personally offended by this. For decades, police departments, predominantly run by men, have been telling us to be alert and cautious in such situations, and we are following their advice.
3. Really read what Dawkins said. If you agree with him that Rebecca overreacted, I can understand and accept that. What no one should accept is the increasingly insulting and derisive tone of his comments. Whether or not you think a woman in Rebecca’s situation had cause to feel threatened, is it really fair to compare her apprehension or fear to the annoyance of having someone chew gum near you?
This is what we mean when we say women’s issues are trivialized. Worrying that the man on the elevator with you could decide to follow you to your room and rape you is NOT trivial. Dawkins referred to the plight of Muslim women having to endure legally sanctioned demeanings, yet demeaning is exactly what he has done to Rebecca and many other women who were shocked and terribly disappointed by the insensitivity of his comments.
@ 726. Messier Tidy Upper Says
“ED / EG is still anonymous.”
Assume for the moment that he comments on the issue and that his comment is: “She gave me a suggestive sign. She put her hand in the back of her neck, slowly tilting while making a moaning sound. So I got into the elevator with her, to ask her. To my surprise she didn’t react positively, so I dropped it.”
Rebecca Watson OTOH says she can’t remenber for sure, because she can’t remember her every movement, maybe she did this, but if so, that was just, because she was tired. No sign inteded therefore no sign given.
Who’s sign-dictionary is going to count?
Hey nerds, no one is saying that you have to constantly walk on eggshells around women lest you be taken for a potential rapist. What happened in the elevator — you just don’t do that. Sack up, show a little class, and approach and get to know a woman like an adult. Otherwise she’s got every right to feel threatened by you. Oh, how unreasonable of the women to recoil at our 4am-dimly-lit-elevator-one-on-one-“coffee” propositions! Something tells me a lot of males in the community need their empathy chips reseated.
The lack of basic social knowledge displayed in these comments is astounding.
I don’t get it really. Asking her made him a potential sexual threat? I figure that if you want to rape someone in an elevator, *asking politely first* is the last thing on your mind.
Right, Tim, it’s always the victim’s fault.
Haven’t you read the previous comments, or decades worth of discussion on this point?
The point isn’t that all men are potential rapists, nor that all men are not potential rapists. The point is that a wise, careful, considerate man would not proposition a single woman in an elevator in the middle of the night in a foreign country. It’s as simple as that, and maddening that so many guys don’t get the simple point that behavior they excuse as normal degrades the life of half the humans on the planet.
The action that started this debate was not the elevator man’s pass at Rebecca, but her decision to disclose it to others. Women are supposed to keep quiet about these things and are seen as unsporting if they don’t it. It’s private, it’s betweeen him and her, right?
Wrong. She had every right to speak out about how creepy she found their encounter. If he didn’t want to be thought creepy, he shouldn’t have asked her back to his room in an elevator at 4am. She might be unsporting enough to actually TALK about what a jerk he looked!
I consider myself neither skeptical nor politically correct but how anyone can support a man asking a woman for coffee * in his room* while alone in a lift is beyond even my unreconstructed sense of humour. There are ways of hitting on people that give both sides the opportunity to show their assent or distaste publicly but this overture was geekiness of a very high order if not sexual bullying.
Richard Dawkins has lost the plot by parodying the woman’s position and misrepresenting the man’s.
….“A study in the failure of effective human communication and its consequences”
I agree with Brendan. Men never talk to me in the way described by Rebecca unless I am alone, and in a situation removed from other people. I always am highly aware of scenarios like this, and avoid them or get away from them as quickly as possible It is definitely “predator vs prey” in elevators, deserted streets, etc, even in the daytime!
I really think that your lecture in taste and ethics is disagreeable. I don’t want to share an elevator with you if you honestly think that you cannot communicate with me without making me fear sexual assault. Either you put way too little faith in your skills in communication – which is pretty absurd given what you’ve done with BadAstronomy – or you’re imposing limits on the social interaction between men and ME. On my behalf. Contrary to my wishes and without understanding that you’re hurting me. Please stop.
Wish I had time to read more of this, but I wanted to ask, how would women feel if a man did not get into a lift with them in order to avoid making them uncomfortable? Please take this question at face value.
Oh my. Now simply hitting on women is “a potential sexual assault”. WTF.
I’m a pretty normal guy and I never do anything like elevator guy did. Because it makes me feel very uncomfortable myself, out of empathy.
Thus making myself the benchmark, I suppose guys acting like this simply suffer from a lack of empathy. It’s one thing to be able to imagine how someone might feel: it’s something you might be able to learn and remember and you might even consciously step over that line. But if you’re empathic by nature, you’re simply emotionally incapable (not taking substance abuse in to account) of this type of bluntness.
The lack of empathy needed for this type of behaviour might actually be pathological and could point to some or another type of (mild) autism-spectrum disorder. Which we all know is evolutionary viable.
Now the flip side of the coin. In our rather masculine culture, guys like this all but often gain respect from their peers. Reinforcing their behaviour. When I was about 16 years old, I remember also looking up to blunt macho guys. It seemed they could get anything done and they seemed to never feel any type of pain or sorrow. Myself being sensitive and insecure, that sounded like a goal I needed to attain. (Unfortunately this is often being reinforced by our education system, especially in the anglo-saxon world.) Especially since these were the guys whom always had all the girls and I was a healthy young man in need.
I took me another 10 years to discover that my entirely different emotional structure was just part of a different – and I truly believe more ‘modern’ – evolutionary viable strategy.
‘Don’t suppose RD might say ‘Sorry, I was wrong’?
Seriously? Obviously that guy should have been killed for making eye contact and talking to her. /sarcasm
I feel there is a very important detail left out here: was the guy in the elevator charming and hot?
My money is on “no, he was mostly dorky, not confident and not very attractive”.
And therein lies the rub. If Rebecca had felt the least bit attracted to the guy, I think her reaction would have been a lot different.
Learn to recognize your own shallowness, will you? Yeah, I’m creeped out when a fat ugly chick does the same to me in an elevator, however, I recognize that it is my perception of her that is causing the reaction, not what she actually did.
>Get over the phrase potential assault – to a woman alone late at night any isolated situation with a strange man carries the potential for violence or sexual assault. Again, it’s not about you, so please try to use some objectivity and stop being personally offended by this. For decades, police departments, predominantly run by men, have been telling us to be alert and cautious in such situations, and we are following their advice.
Cool. So you acknowledge your bigotry and partly recognize the source of your learned behavior. The question now is what are you going to do about it? Will you continue thinking men are threats simply for being men?
Police departments being predominantly run by men doesn’t excuse your prejudice by the way. That’s akin to saying “I’m not racist! Lots of my friends are black!”
>Worrying that the man on the elevator with you could decide to follow you to your room and rape you is NOT trivial.
What type of penalty do you suggest for men who cause women to worry?
742. Cap Says:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:38 am
“It is definitely “predator vs prey” in elevators, deserted streets, etc, even in the daytime!”
Really? REALLY? Any time you are alone bar some random guy walking about, this is how you feel? Jesus – life must suck. Guess Phil was right in saying “An important point that came up multiple times is that many men do not truly understand what women go through in such situations.”
Lemme guess. Unattractive non-alpha males are creepy and perverts. If a Brad Pitt type had asked her to get coffee, she would have said “hell yes!” and ran to her room to clean up and put on her lipstick for the inevitable BJ. And even if he kicks her out the next morning and doesn’t call her for days, she will still pretend she is in a relationship and constantly trying to reach him.
Alert! We have a psychic on the scene!
You are of course aware that Ms. Watson had spent hours explaining to her audience that advances of that sort were unwelcome and one of the reasons so few women attend such events?
Next time keep both hands on the keyboard when you’re typing.
This was a potential sexual assault in the same way as every car journey is a potential fatal accident, every peeling of an apple is a potential loss of finger, every child with scissors is a potential eye loss candidate and every blogger is a potential Pulitzer prize winner.
Dawkins did not compare a potential sexual assault with chewing gum, he compared asking a question that was unwelcome with chewing gum.
Mole hill, worry not about your diminutive size; with the help of liberal outrage I shall make you a mountain.
“This man may have had nothing but noble intentions, but that doesn’t matter. Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent. But when he hits on her? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to sexual assault; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most women are all-too painfully aware of it.
Rebecca, apparently, handled this situation with aplomb, and I’m glad. She turned it into a useful lesson for men on how not to treat women.”
This
“I can understand that it’s hard for men to truly grasp the woman’s point of view here, since men rarely feel in danger of sexual assault. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a woman, being alone on that elevator with that man was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps he has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most men don’t understand this, so women are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.
Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.
So you may not think anything bad happened to Rebecca on that elevator, but something bad did indeed happen. He didn’t have to physically assault her for the situation to be bad. The atmosphere in there was enough to make it bad. And Rebecca was absolutely right to talk about it and raise awareness of it.
The discussion ongoing in the blogs is in general aimed at the skeptical and atheist movements. But this is far, far larger than that. This is a societal issue; sexism (conscious or otherwise) is still a strong force in our society, and a lot of men will dismiss claims of sexism from women. As has been made very clear here, we all need to make sure that all men understand the woman’s point of view, or else this type of thing will continue to happen… and people will continue to dismiss it as no big deal.”
and this is incredibly sexist towards men.
I don’t care who you are, the fact that a man can’t honestly invite a woman for a conversation and coffee without being labled a predator and a “potential sexual harass[er]” is unnacceptable. Rebecca had no idea of this guys intentions, what was it about this man that made him so misogynistic? He began by saying “Don’t take this the wrong way..” sounds like he was implying the idea that his intentions were pure, how did he react when he was rejected. HE DID NOTHING. He stopped, he accepted the rejection, he did not touch her or do anything remotely harmful to her. The idea that you could consider this ‘potential sexual harassment’ is fear mongering at it’s worst.
Here is something I found on Reddit: It is a quote from this article with the context changed so that instead of gender and sexual harassment we have race and robbery.
“Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.”
How does this sound to you? Racist? I’d hope it does.
Sorry, but I think that you americans “overthink” and “overreact” over the matter. Sexual play and flirting is natural, healthy and moral as long as the equality and dignity for both sexes is kept. I side with Richard Dawkins…
@bad Jim:
Was the guy in the elevator in attendance of that talk? If so, it might have been a misguided attempt at humor. If not, then how on earth is that in any way relevant?
Also, I lost one of my hands in a freak accident involving a flying shark and an airplane, but thanks for bringing that up, jerk.
“Seems like you’re the one throwing toys around to me Cerebral M.”
Also: Tone Argument. Look it up. http://www.derailingfordummies.com is a good start.
You don’t think I haven’t argued this thousands of times before? That I may be a leeetle more learned about feminist academia than you? This is offensive derailing of a woman’s concerns about an historically male dominated movement (wow, the parrallels between religion and movement atheism are quite startling). We’re way beyond you, but all Dawkins fanboys want to do is yank it back to 101 discussions like it’s 1970 all over again.
Marcello Mastroianni once asked a hotel maid to come back to his hotel room later.
Was that
a) creepy?
b) potential sexual assault?
c) an entertaining anecdote to tell one’s children?
Guys: you cannot at the same time say that guy behavior Y is just the way it is and that behavior X is asking for trouble. Is that asking for too much introspection?
Perhaps; it seems to have been part of his come-on. Would it have been better had he no idea who she was?
Is the idea under defense here that any man at any hour is entitled to proposition every woman he encounters in any possible situation? How desperate are you guys?
What’s the issue? That anything short of outright violence is okay? No blood was spilled, so why complain? Nothing short of a gun being drawn is objectionable?
A friend of mine was raped at knife-point. Perhaps you’ll insist that had she been packing heat it wouldn’t have happened. I’m disinclined to agree.
Wow! 752 comments (and counting)!
OK, I have not read the comments yet (in fact, it is unlikely I’ll get through them all before the thread dies), but I’ll share my thoughts anyhow.
First, thank-you, Phil, for bringing this to our attention in a reasonable and calm manner.
Second, I am disappointed in Dawkins. He clearly does not understand what the problem is (that emotional distress can be as tough to deal with as physical distress – in fact, IIUC, the most damaging aspect of any assault is the emotional one – and that significant emotional distress can be generated in any situation that has the potential to turn nasty). I think the only thing anyone can say in his defence is that he is a product of his upbringing, but that in no way excuses his dismissal of the issue.
Oy frakking vey.
He made an advance, she said no, he didn’t argue and everyone got on with their day.
WHERE WAS SHE WRONGED IN ANY WAY?
I’m so sorry princess that it was not worthy to speak to you in such a manner. Hopefully it remembers its place next time. For someone so empowered she sure is fragile that some guy in an elevator scares her so much.
What do you want from us men honestly? We can’t know if an advance is unwanted until you tell us. You sure aren’t going to approach us anytime soon.
@bad Jim – The idea under defence here is that women who apply this arbitrary “creepiness” factor to male behaviour are propagating the subtle misandry that they’ve been taught from an early age.
In fact, as you state yourself, she already spent HOURS propagating it earlier on in the day – “You are of course aware that Ms. Watson had spent hours explaining to her audience that advances of that sort were unwelcome and one of the reasons so few women attend such events?”
753 comments later and still nobody gets the fact that teaching women to fear men is wrong. It doesn’t matter how she has addressed it, she felt scared by actions that were not scary because it was a man making them.
So many comments have asked us men to empathise with her, well try empathising with the vast majority of men who would never hurt anyone, male or female, who women have been taught to be afraid of. Do you all think it’s feels good knowing that people might be afraid of you?
Phil said:
“This was a potential sexual assault.”
Phil, get a grip. I don’t know if you were raised in house full of paranoids or what exactly your problem is, but this puts you way out on the same limb as nutcases like Andrea Dworkin.
-jcr
Over at http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
I read this:
Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?”
That seems sensible to me as a test a man can go through in his head. The catch is that cute guys seem to get away with it. Perhaps that’s why some (many?) men can’t really grok it as a deal-breaker?
@jcr
Spot on. The idea here is absolutely preposterous; that all men should tip-toe around women because some men are rapists.
I pity all men, because you are equipped with the rape genitals. You will always be judged.
Two (true) stories spring to mind:
First is about how a woman wrote to a local newspaper how she was “almost raped” while walking her dog in the evening. The street had no lights and a MAN jogged down the same street and past her. This made her imagine all sorts of things that COULD have happened and request the city install lights on the street immediately to prevent them from happening.
The other one was told by a female radio host. One evening she got off the train on her way home with only one other person leaving on the same platform. This was a guy of a different ethnic background. They both walked towards the same direction, the guy in front, and soon she noticed that the he seemed somewhat nervous and walking faster than normal. This of course made HER nervous in return, imagining every sort of scary scenarios he might be up to. Until suddently she realized it’s the guy who is afraid of HER, because of all the recent events of rasism his ethnic group had been victim of. So she slowed down a bit and let the scared dude get some distance between them.
It’s sad to hear so many people live in constant fear of their fellow human beings.
@Mike – It’s just plain disturbing that a woman was that frightened by a man walking away from her.
That’s exactly the kind of learned misandry I’m talking about.
Please read this folks :
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/07/women_in_elevators_a_man_to_ma.php
Well written and I second it.
@ 757. Mike : It’s sad to hear so many people live in constant fear of their fellow human beings.
Sad but true so what do we do about it?
Well for starters we , I, try to keep it in mind and not make people any more scared or anxious than can possibly be avoided. If you defuse the “natural” / socially conditioned tension by crossing the road, walking ahead of the person, being polite and doing what you can to show you are NOT a threat then you are (hopefully) doing the right thing. Y’know making other peoples lives better rather than worse. If you do the opposite or just don’t care then what does that say about your character and who you are?
Women worry about things like that.
We know – or should know – that they do.
How we respond is our choice.
I try to put folks minds at ease if I can. To non-verbally (& sometimes verbally too) signal “friend / harmless” not “potential foe – or potential rapist.” What do you do?
Yes, its sad.
Yes the world should NOT be like this.
I hate that it is.
But it *is.*
@755. Alex :
Because from their perspective it is true – its how they feel. They know how they feel.
We don’t.
If a woman tells you your advances are unwelcome. They are.
If a woman says “word to the wise guys, don’t do that.” DONT DO IT.
If a woman tells you she is creeped out by you are doing or signalling then whether you meant to creep her out or not *you did.*
How she says she feels is how she feels. You cannot call a woman a liar when it comes to her own emotions. (Well, actually I ‘spose you can – but you’d be wrong to do so and a douchebaggy thing to do.)
Yeah, because there aren’t really any misogynists and rapists out there are there? Oh wait, yes there are.
As RW explained on her first video if you look at the comments that follow her earlier videoclip some A-holes will say and do some appalling things. You might not think they should be frightened by A-Holes that do.
But *you* aren’t *them.*
Listen to what the woman says because she knows her experiences in a way we men don’t and can’t. Are you going to disagree with that? Really?
All too many women have been raped. Chances are some that *you* know have been. Maybe they won’t tell you. It sucks. The whole stinking situation here sucks. Don’t tell them they shouldn’t worry about it because when it comes to it, you know jack all about it.
Scariness is subjective. If she said it scared her then it *did.*
Or are you going to call her a liar?
This is really disappointing as a young woman who enjoys Dawkins’ work. Regardless of whether or not Rebecca reacted too strongly, it wasn’t the right thing for him to say on the matter. His comments not only trivialized both Muslim and Western womens’ different experiences with sexism, but erases the very real and very harmful sexism Western women face. As if Muslim women are the only ones who are raped, sexually harassed, shouted at for having the audacity to walk outside the house(and woman in an American metropolitan area will attest to street harassment being pretty rampant and scary), etc.
May as well enter the maelstrom. Nothing against Rebecca, but if being in an elevator late at night with a guy is reason to suspect assault, either she shouldn’t be out alone late at night or she shouldn’t be in an elevator alone with a guy. And if she was fine with the guy until he asked her out, then as soon as she turned him down she could’ve gotten off the elevator and waited for the next car. And I also have to wonder where this leaves me as a guy: if I’m riding an elevator late at night, and a woman gets on, should I remain silent? Is politely saying “hey, how’s it going” going to make me a rape suspect? Is silently staring at the wall in front of me any better? Does instantly suspecting assault make the female sexist towards innocent males? I guess here’s my point: it’s fine to be vigilant and be aware of your surroundings, but not to the point of suspecting every single thing. What sort of life is that to lead?
Surely everyone knows that you are not meant to speak to anyone in elevators?
Isn’t the correct protocol to stand in uncomfortable silence staring at your shoes until your floor is reached?
“Potential sexual assault”?
So when a man approaches me in a dark alley to ask for directions he should be punished for “potential robbery”?
Dawkins was making the point, that it is laughable (hence the sarcastic tone of his initial post) that some women believe it is not ok to speak to them in an elevator. Is that the world we want to live in, a world in which a man is forbidden to talk to a women in an elevator?
Get a grip on reality, this is not an issue of sexism, but a lot of people overreacting to a situation that should not only be acceptable, but normal… a man talking to a women in an elevator.
I’m a woman, and I fully understand how frightening it is to be sexually threatened by men (I was raped at age 17). I get mildly panicky walking past groups of men on the street when I’m on my own, because of my history I’m more likely to feel threatened sexually than the average woman.
However, I don’t think anything bad happened to Rebecca in the elevator. I don’t. She was asked, politely, to coffee. When she declined, it was politely accepted. This is not a potential sexual assualt! It’s a slightly uncomfortable situation (turning someone down is always uncomfortable) but as Rebecca has never at any point said the man in question behaved in anything other than a polite way, I can only conclude that this is complete and utter overreaction.
I don’t think RD’s point about Muslim women undergoing greater suffering compared to this elevator situation is valid. Suppose a restaurant charges you hefty money and delivers bad food, when you complain about it, would it be OK for them to say ” do u know millions are starving in Africa?!! you are lucky to have something to eat so stop complaining.” !
My take on it is just that I HATE being hit on like this, it is weird, creepy and horrible. I don’t have to feel any threat of rape or assault to get this reaction.
So Rebecca’s comment is pretty damned true: People, this is an example of behaviour that makes others uncomfortable. And if you didn’t realise that this was true, then this is a chance to learn something. Bonus!
(Not to get dragged into minutiae, but being hit on is different from mutual flirting. Sex and flings are great fun. And I’m perfectly happing chatting to men I don’t know in lifts, or walking down the street near a stranger etc etc etc etc etc etc. If you have a weird equivalence “Well, if this isn’t OK, then nor is interacting with men AT ALL!!!!”, put it into the etc above).
Its probably been said many times, but I really feel the need to weigh in on this. Wow, has the point been missed by so many, men and women. Rebecca did not demonise elevator guy, she did not call him a rapist and she did not call for an uprising of flames and pitch forks to hunt down all men. She said she found been approached late at night in a confined space by a strange man creepy. I would too. Im sure this was not elevator guy’s intention, most likely he had no clue that his behavior would cause that response, many men probably wouldn’t. But the thing is, it does, and now you know that it does. In a rational, logical community, that the atheists and skeptics apparently tout them selves as being, this sort of communication should be welcomed as a chance to learn and grow. Instead we see whining about how its not as bad as being raped and how poor men are once again been victamised in the name of equality by nasty femnazis. GUYS, there are thousands of ways to approach your potential love interest, we just want you to know that late at night in an elevator is not one of them. Is that really so hard to understand? The fact that you dont get that is the problem, that you are not willing to even consider Rebecca’s side. That’s the real point that has come out of all this.
If Watson wants to compare levels of threat, I’m sure she and Dawkins could compare threatening email/letters. I’d bet everything I own that she gets <<1% of the hate mail/death threats/general threats Dawkins gets. If anyone has the right to belittle her "fear" it would be the man hated internationally by every church under the sun.
I can’t believe the amount of knee-jerk, politically correct reactions going on around here and elsewhere around this issue.
Just because a guy does something to a girl DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT SEXIST!!!
Any arguments against Jennifer’s position are being automatically dismissed because everyone is so afraid of being called sexist or misogynous themselves, without actually listening to the arguments and thinking it through. It’s very disappointing to see Phil fall for it and try to prove how sensitive he is to women’s issues as opposed to all those billions of men who “just don’t get it”…
Yes, elevator guy made a dumb move. He was stupid (for ignoring her earlier remarks), and displayed bad judgement (for speaking to her alone in an elevator carriage). It was creepy and he shouldn’t have done it, but there’s no evidence that it was anything else than a temporary lapse of judgement.
THAT DOESN’T MAKE HIM A MISOGYNOUS SWINE! Sexism and misogyny are *structural*, and there is no evidence whatsoever that elevator guy did what he did because he was a sexist or misogynist. And saying that he was is to call every man who might ever have a similar lapse of judgement (which is every man in the world), without actually hurting anyone, a misogynous swine. It’s incredibly insulting, not to mention sexist, which is why I (and I suspect many more men) react so strongly.
Yes, what happened to Rebecca was wrong, and she was right to speak up about it. No, it was not sexist or misogynous. Calling it that is to devalue the word and demean the experiences of women who are the victims of ACTUAL misogyny. That is Richard’s point, and he is 100% right.
One angle I didn’t see here is, what happens in the case where the woman says yes? Is it still creepy? Maybe some people do want that 4am random fling, and there’s nothing wrong with that. No is always a valid and acceptable answer and everyone should respect when another person says no immediately. But some people want to and do say yes and it’s every bit as valid an answer in response. We all need to stop being so uptight and afraid of our sexuality that everyone becomes a potential threat in our minds. Also, if someone doesn’t respect your right to say no, please disable them, permanently. Stabbing them in the throat probably would work thought it’s a bit messy.
@Messier Tidy Upper
Again, there is a difference between a rapist and a man. One is someone it’s okay to be scared of, the other it is not.
I do not doubt that she was scared at all. She was scared because she has been taught to be afraid of men like most women are. Teaching people to fear men, just like she was doing earlier that day, is wrong.
Right, let’s try this one more time.
I am a man, Phil is a man, PZ is a man, none of us seem to have a hard time understanding this, what is so difficult?
Nobody is saying that men are not allowed to talk to women, (even in an elevator) nobody is saying that all men are rapists, what people are saying is that making a sexual proposition to a woman you’ve not even made any effort to speak to beforehand is a Bad Idea.
(I strongly suspect that people are being disingenuous in their denial that “come back to my room for coffee” is a sexual proposition, but if you do honestly deny this, well, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.)
“Creepy Elevator Guy” made no effort to approach Watson in the bar, he waited until he was alone in the lift with her. If you do not understand why this is creepy and threatening, maybe you are part of the problem.
(Again, I strongly suspect that denials that what CEG did was creepy and threatening, are disingenuous.)
All Watson said is that she found the encounter creepy and threatening, and suggested to men that perhaps creepy and threatening behaviours are not a good idea.
This has prompted a ****storm in which a load of men have piled on with all sorts of defences of the creepy and threatening behaviour. This is what I mean about “defence of male privilege”; all these people have been telling Watson that she should “get over it” and not feel threatened in a creepy and threatening situation.
Forget that.
By belittling what Watson felt in this situation, Dawkins (and the rest of the defenders) are being sexist. And that is the problem.
@MarkW – I am not belittling what she felt. I am criticising her reasons for feeling it. Those reasons are most likely not her fault, they’re the fault of the people who have taught her to be afraid of men. She had just spent hours teaching other people the same thing!
Do you want people to be afraid of you because of something someone else did? Why should men just accept that they frighten people? Most of us do not value being frightening.
If she had not been taught to be afraid of men, she would not have been frightened or intimidated here. Without fear she would have been able to say “No, I’m not interested” with confidence.
Surely it is better that we teach women not to be frightened all the time?
“Potential” sexual assault? Are you freaking kidding me?! Even by Rebecca’s own description she was annoyed rather than scared. Now it’s borderline sexual assault??! Talk about an unwarranted ratcheting up of the bleeping hysteria. This whole ordeal is about the worst mountain I’ve ever seen made of a molehill. Shame on Plait AND Watson.
A “potential assault scenario”? That’s absurd. No man has prior knowledge of what each and every woman would consider a “potential assault scenario” in each and every possible location/circumstance.
We only have one side of the story here, and I’m sure if he knows about this kerfuffle the man in question regrets asking. But that’s all he did, and he probably didn’t want to ask in a room full of other people. She said no and he left her alone. Now she’s rubbing his nose in it.
I sense a feminist credibility bandwagon being jumped on here, with the torches and pitchforks close behind. There’s nothing virtuous in this.
The story, as I’ve heard it, leads me to side with Dr Dawkins. Two people are in an elevator and one propositions the other. I can see where it might be uncomfortable but I don’t see the problem. Now if the story was that she got in and he slipped in, or ran in, after seeing that she was alone then we’ve got a completely different situation. As it is, it is just as likely that he was in there first and she joined him. If that is the case then she put herself in a potentially bad situation and is then blaming the man for making her feel uncomfortable.
I’m not saying that women are at fault when they get raped, only that situational awareness isn’t just for the military. I’m also not trying to minimize the danger that women face every day, but to assume that every man is a rapist just waiting for the right situation is demeaning to men. And if you are that concerned about the possibility then you need to have a “battle buddy” with you.
@736. Mrs. BA : Well said & seconded by me.
@683. Seriously? [Again] :
I’m pretty sure the BA and, for that matter, Rebecca Watson herself said nothing of the kind. Re-read their posts.
Let’s see* this is what the video that launched ten thousand blog comments actually said in Rebecca Watson’s own original words (source : first link provided in the OP here) from the 4 minute mark to the 6 and half minute mark approx. :
[A mere 417 words if anyone’s counting! 😉 ]
Did she say anywhere there men can’t talk to women? No.
Did she even mention sexual assault or fear of rape? No.
What she did say (once more with added emphasis now) – in a calm, cool voice if I may add – was :
Or if we distill that down :
Don’t be sleazy jerks. Don’t do what Elevator Dude did, it makes me feel uncomfortable – especially after me whole talk was about sexism and misogny and all that.
Sheesh. Is that really such a controversial, objectionable thing for her to observe?
_______________________________________________________________
* I’ve gone through what the BA said at #722 already.
Want that original video link again right here :
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-mythbusters-robot-eyes-feminism-and-jokes/
so y’all can check and verify for yourselves? (Yeah, my hearing ain’t so good.) There you are.
I am truly shocked by the argumentation of Phil. It’s the kind of irrational, emotional argumentation that lead to racial profiling. “Every Arabic male on an airplane is a potential terrorist so let’s give them the double reach around in security so everyone else can feel safe”.
It’s a shame that Rebecca felt unsafe in that elevator. But the problem lies not within the guy that ask her in the elevator nor the male population of this planet. It’s also not an issue of equality or sexism. It’s an issue of sex, sexual crimes and the way we deal with those problems as a society! Nonetheless these are real issues we need to deal with, but calling out that guy or men in general is not going to help at all.
Alex:
By saying that Rebecca Watson should not have been frightened, you are belittling the fact that she did feel frightened. Can you not see that?
Boardin1:
You can’t have it both ways. “Situational awareness” for women requires them to assume that every man could be a potential rapist.
The worst-case scenario for the creepy elevator guy is that he gets his feelings hurt. The worst-case scenario for Watson is that she gets raped. And then [expletive redacted]s like you would turn up and blame her because “she put herself in a potentially bad situation”.
I despair.
MTU (759) said:
I’m starting to see a certain bias in the comments (yours is just one example among many, MTU), and it’s making me think that Alex (758 etc.) may have a point.
I think it would be truer to say that people worry about things like that.
When I was an undergrad, the Students’ Union ran a minibus service between campus and various halls of residence (or digs) in the evenings that was free, but only available to female students. That’s not entirely true – male students could use it, but they had to sign up and obtain a pass card (during office hours) first. The assumption on which this set-up was founded was that female students were intrinsically in more danger than the males.
Well, that may be true of sexual assault, but I doubt it was true of assault in general. Is the fear of being raped more serious than the fear of getting beaten up? I don’t know. What I do know is that students at that time were far more likely to get beaten up than they were to get raped, simply because assault is a far more common crime than rape.
By the time I was a postgrad student (at the same university), the SU had started calling the same service a “Safety Bus” and did not require male students who wished to use it to obtain written permission beforehand. I assume that someone had pointed out to them that the “Women’s Minibus” was intrinsically discriminatory. The SU was pretty keen on avoiding discrimination on the basis of such traits as nationality, ethnic background, gender, sexual preference, age and so on.
I haven’t read all the posts yet, and I doubt if I have the stamina to go through 764 post, but….I just had to comment.
According to Rebeccas’ video this is what the guy actually said:
“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?”
Now, it’s very possible that the guy had some sexual desires and plans as well. For the record, I don’t think there’s anything – ANYTHING – wrong with that. NOTHING MORE HAPPENED. Please educate me to understand what was wrong in his approach?
How would you express your sincere interest in an elevator? Why should that be a bad or wrong thing to do? Why should we wait for the girl to make the first step?
I understand that very bad things have happened when things have started out like this, meaning that her possible fears are based on reality, but I happen to think that we should communicate more openly among other people and strangers in the first place. I just don’t get what was wrong with what the guy did or why Rebecca says that:
“…just a word to the wise here, guys, don’t do that.”
You can hear her comments more precisely in the video that Phil linked to at around 4:40 onwards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk&feature=player_embedded#at=284
I should have stayed oblivious with my little telescope out in the desert. But no, I HAD to find out why everyone seemed so upset…..
Thank you for an excellent post summing up the issue (and I read Rebecca’s as well.) Now I won’t be completely in the dark at TAM…
@MarkW – First, I have never blamed a rape victim for her assault in my life. Do not put words in my mouth, especially those. Rapists rape, not victims.
I am criticising the system that created her fear, not the fear itself. Where do you draw the line? Surely a higher percentage of people are muggers than rapists, so should I assume anyone I see in the street might be carrying a knife ready to steal all my money?
Don’t try to paint me as someone who defends rapists or thinks women “deserved it”. I am just trying to make it clear that men in general should not be something women are told they need to be kept safe from.
@ 772. MarkW :
Actually the worst case scenatrio is that Rebecca Watson would get rape dand then murdered too.
That instead of the flamefest over “shock horror! She rejected the world’s clumisest sexual advances evah! How could she! The poor guys’ feelings! How dare she worry that someone who did what ED did *could* just possibly perhaps be a rapist & how dare she suggest that blokes don’t do things that would obviously make women uncomfortable! we could be commenting on her obituary today and that some low-lifes would spew bile like : “Yeah sad she got raped and murdered and all but what was she doing in bar at 4 am? What was she wearing at the time? Did she lead her killer on or be too naive, etc ..” Yegods! I wish that weren’t the case but how often we know it turns out like that.
@773. Nigel Depledge :
Um .. perhaps so. {shrugs.]
I think that’s how it is. I don’t like it, I don’t like a lot of things that *are* the case but that’s how I think it is.
Most rape victims are female, very few o/s of prisons are male. Reality sucks and isn’t PC.
Feminism exists because women do face – do live in – a different world than men.
I wish no people ever got raped and it wasn’t aproblem for women or children or men. But statistically or so I gather it is mostly something that women *will* experience and men won’t.
@777. Alex : “Nobody here is blaming women for being assaulted.”
Yet people do seem very happy to be saying as Dawkins did that there’s no problem, that she couldn’t and shouldn’t have been uncomfortable and worried about the *possibility* she could be raped. Hmm …
Actually, I’ve being trying hard to keep this *to* the specifics and stress that this is one incident where Rebecca Watson is just saying ,“Guys don’t do this one thing that ED did. That’s not a good approach and makes women unconmfortable.” This isn’t about either gender hating the other.
@Messier Tidy Upper – To steal a line (and flip it around) from Wonder Woman: Why must a belief in men automatically mean a hatred of women?
Nobody here is blaming women for being assaulted. Stop making such ridiculous generalisations to support your points.
MTU (759) said:
IIUC, Alex’s point was not whether or not she was creeped out, but that the creeping out itself is a response that women are still being taught, without necessarily there being any basis for it. Why should we not teach girls and women instead to have some sympathy for the man’s social ineptitude?
Sure, in an ideal world when riding in a lift with a stranger (man or woman) in the wee small hours of the morning, we would all either keep silent or strike up a reasonably neutral and normal conversation. But are there any guys here over the age of 25 who have never said something as an opening line to a woman they found attractive and then immediately thought “oh, FSM, I wish I hadn’t said that”? Social skills are not innate.
Be that as it may, I think the BA’s point still stands – that Dawkins was being a bit of a dick over this issue.
@ MarkW
No, the worst case scenario for the creepy elevator guy would be that Rebecca pulls out a gun and shoots him in the face.
Hey, if we can go around generalizing every man to be a potential rapist, then surely we can also consider everyone a potential murderer, right?
Worst-case scenario thinking is what caused this whole incident in the first place. It’s one of the worst manifestations of irrationality.
Alex: I apologise, I didn’t intend to put those words into your mouth. The first paragraph only was directed at you, the rest was to Boardin1.
Messier Tidy Upper: Yes, you are right. I have understated the worst-case. I’ll try again…
Nigel Depledge:
Again, the worst-case scenario for the creepy elevator guy is that he gets his feelings hurt. The worst-case scenario for Watson is that she gets raped and murdered. The asymmetry of the power-relationship is too great for the woman in this situation to risk sympathy for hurt feelings.
Women may be born physically weaker than men but that does not mean they have to feel vulnerable. Anyone of the proper age can purchase and carry a concealed weapon (in the freer states). I have a young (and very beautiful) daughter. While I would unhesitatingly give my life to protect her I know that if she is attacked it will likely happen when I am not around. Violence is part of life on earth. It cannot be legislated away or swept under the rug. IT IS A HUMAN CONDITION. Knowing this I taught my daughter Jujitsu at a young age. When she is old enough I will teach her how to handle a gun and even Dim Mak if she has enough interest. I would feel like a bad father if I sent her out there unarmed and I truly believe that an armed society is a polite society. The only way an 80 pound woman can easily overcome a 250 pound man is with a gun. You don’t honestly think there are any rapists that read your website do you?
slw:
One in six American women are raped in their lifetime. I think the fear of being raped is therefore a little more rational than the fear of being shot in the face. Particurlarly in Dublin, where gun control laws are a little more sane than they are in the US.
I find it hilarious that all of you feminists who sides with the “potential rape victim” in this story can’t even see that you’re exposing the freedom of women as a failure, apparently, women can’t handle reality without having a male protect them. I can’t say I’m surprised, I always knew that it somehow made sense that women were treated like property – it was for societies own good apparently. Lest we want a society with uncomfortable, scared and psychologically damaged individuals like you so obviously points out. There really is only two options, you’re “oppressed” or you’re put through all the things you describe that men do to you when you apparently don’t have the power to avert it. You even make it really, really obvious that women cannot possibly be free, unless all males are in shackles – that is the reality as you paint it. Be it so, all right – we accept that reality, then what option do you prefer? Now take a pick and stick with it.
@767. Alex :
3 Questions to consider here :
1.) Have you actually seen /read what she said at that talk she gave earlier?
(BTW. I haven’t seen that myseelf yet & would like to.)
2.) Is Rebecca Watson actually afraid of men – or just made uncomfortable in certain specific situations where she is being sexually propositioned in an elevator at 4 a.m. at a conference after giving a talk against just that idea?
3) Is it reasonable, true or fair to say that fear of being raped in certain contexts really equals fear of men generally?
@ 779. slw :
Worst case scenario for both of them is that a helicopter carrying a hippotamous accidentally drops the beast and it crashes through the roof onto them both or an asteroid hits right near them condeming them both to a horrible death from the skies! 😉
But that’s highly unlikely.
Very slightly less improbable is the idea of her shooting him in the face – and much more plausible is her possible fear of being raped.
Not all worst case scenarios are likely. Some are so unlikely that worrying about them isn’t reasonable – others while still unlikely might be worth keeping in mind and being aware of.
Glad now I couldn’t get clear for TAM this year…it’s going to be like Thanksgiving dinner during a family fight…landlines everywhere and no way to tell who’s on what side, mad at who, or what comment might set off an argument. Yech! I’m finding the whole movement less and less palatable to be around.
To the other blokes whining that we men can’t ‘look women in the eye’, or ‘talk to women openly anymore’ and all that cr*p. Yes we can. Just be sensitive about where, when and how you do it. The confined space of an elevator is not a good place to do it. A dark street, should your paths cross, is probably not the place to start up a to-the-point, sex proposing chat.
Not really tricky. Not even for us men.
So, instead of teaching men not to be creepy (which was the whole point of Rebecca Watson’s anecdote), we have to make women responsible for their reactions? We have to make them play some sort of game whereby the judge the odds of assault in any given situation before reacting? Somebody simply finding a situation uncomfortable and unpleasant isn’t reason enough for us guys to moderate our own behaviour?
Why are so many people defending as though it was a right, men being able to approach women in an inappropriate manner?
I wonder how many people would like to defend my right to distribute candy to school children and offer to show them my pet rabbits? Statistically, I’m very unlikely to do anything untoward.
Really? Dawkins is pretty ostracised and called a dick for pointing out, essentially, that not all men are predatory murderers and rapists? That the atmosphere of fear for women in the West is incomparable to that experienced by women in other cultures? That this was a non-event being completely blown out of proportion?
There’s no indication whatsoever that this was a potential assault situation, and it’s nonsensical to argue that it was.
I would suspect, given the time of day and location, immoderate use of alcohol was involved. Here’s my opinion, the guy in the elevator was not demonstrating the use of live brain cells, probably alcohol impaired. Yes, under the circumstances very creepy and not gonna get him laid. I fully understand why Rebecca felt somewhat threatened under those conditions and it was not a problem to point that out. Others trying to minimize it who’ve never been in such a situation is downright stupid. Dawkins responses are nothing less than dimissive and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding regarding the real world in the so-called liberal west. It would have been a nonevent had the EG made his proposition in the bar or the lobby, but in a closed elevator was at best clueless and socially inept. Far too often such situation escallate into actual assaults, occassionally worse. Given many of the responses to this I’ve seen I’m glad I remain a lone skeptic and don’t belong to your “community”.
[Disclaimer: English is not my first language.]
Why is everybody so caught up on gender? If you absolutely must divide people into exactly two groups then why not “good”/”bad” — makes more sense to me.
I’m often offended by people generalising something to genders; especially if it’s my gender. It’s not very pleasant being (implicitly) compared to a “bad” person just because you happen to share gender. And it’s even worse when people have prejudices against you because of your gender.
There are “bad” women and there are “good” women, and there are “bad” men and there are “good” men. And sometimes it’s not even that simple.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
No wonder the “skeptic movement” attracts so few women when this is how we treat them.
@MarkW
A little more rational? Certainly. Still doesn’t make it very much rational at all.
Mind you, nowhere did Rebecca say she was actually considering the worst case, she just felt creeped out, is all. Nothing wrong with that, being cautious in such a situation is a perfectly rational response. Expecting to be raped? Not so much.
So, to recap: the guy was socially inept/just a jerk, Rebecca told to guys “hey, don’t do that to me, it’s a bit creepy” and then Dawkins was his usual self. Then the internet took the non-scandal, non-issue and ran with it, creating hyperboles so large I am surprised they haven’t collapsed under their own gravity.
Yeah, there are real issues hidden here somewhere, however nobody is really focusing on those any more, are we?
slw obviously couldn’t recognize a rhetorical device if it… heh… shot him in the face.
If all the “potential rape situation” people truly have the moral high-ground here like they makes no effort to hide, then surely all women are in grave danger for even leaving their homes. Actually, you are the sexist ones. Stating that criticising the way the woman handled herself following the event is misogyny, makes you sexists – you victimise the female sex.
@782. Dude :
In fact Rebecca handled it very well – according to the BA’s Opening Post here :
Or look at how she presents it in that video. She’s hardly a quivering traumatised mess, she’s just calmly saying : “Guys, that’s uncool, don’t do that please.”
Handling an uncomfortable situation well and requesting that blokes don’t *cause* that uncomfortable situation to happen in the first place are two very different things.
Also :
What we have here is a failure of imagination and the zero-sum false dichotomy fallacy. There are *plenty* of options.
I say let’s pick one where we listen to what Rebecca Watson said and agree that, duh, its not a wise or good thing for blokes to make passes like ED’s so we won’t do them ourselves and will advise other blokes NOT to do them and think of how the women might feel. We win, the women win. Everyone’s happy and gradually if enough men get raised thinking that way there won’t be such a need for women to fear rape. Even ED if he’s smart enough (or remembers /realises the next day) will work out, “yeah I did wrong” and will learn from that.
I do NOT believe a feminist culture means that the men are oppressed – just that, for once, the women aren’t.
Bernard Bumner at #783:
EXACTLY!
offering someone coffee is now sexual assault.
I’m glad none of the women in my life are this insane.
@Messier Tidy Upper
I’m talking to the people who call this a potential rape situation that they’re in an elevator together, not the ones who claim he handled himself wrong.
Dude #789
Hahaha, you chickened out of actually naming me then? I saw that comment before your edit.
No I didn’t “chicken out” I realised I might have named the wrong person and couldn’t be bothered to find out who I then thought of when I wrote the comment.
But if you are one of the “potential rape situation” people, feel free to actually respond.
Stop accusing this man of being a rapist. As has been said a million times this might have possibly been a potential sexual assault scenario. It wasn’t. The guy didn’t do anything. He didn’t even say another word after he was rejected. The only thing Rebecca got from this situation was a creepy vibe. Nothing happened.
I’m reminded of what Robert Trivers once said: when a member of the out-group makes a mistake, we generalise, we say “he’s clueless” and when they do us a service, we particularise, we say “he held the door open for me”. And the situation is reversed when we talk about a member of the in-group, we generalise about their positive behaviour and particularise about their negative.
Now that you have been primed with that idea, read this sentence:
“It started with a fairly straightforward story about a clueless man putting a woman in an uncomfortable situation. ”
That’s the generalisation, right there in the word “clueless”. The Dawkins side might write the same sentence but take out the “clueless” and put a “paranoid” just before “woman”.
Dude:
Do you deny that women have been raped in elevators?
Do you deny that a common reaction to a woman being raped in an elevator is “she was stupid to get in an elevator alone with the guy”?
Do you deny that a clumsy pass could ever be a way to initiate rape?
I think this is Dawkins first public foray into senile dementia.
What does Islam have to do with anything?
Dawkins is a barking islamophobe. That is why his letter to “Muslima” was the first thing he wrote.
Its not incidental– its central and primary.
Essentially what i got from this was that muslim women have no rights so american women can’t complain.
Since when was “the other guys are worse” a valid argument?
Potential threat, potential threat, potential threat… You potentially had a chance at going to the moon! You potentially had the chance at winning the lotto by buying a ticket! Potentially means, it didn’t happen. Didn’t happen, didn’t happen. I can repeat myself here but I potentially maybe wasting my time.
Women are potentially a threat to men all the time. Why? Lets take this situation in the article. She walks out, not being touched, he goes to his room, and an hour later the police show up. She claims he sexually assaulted her… He goes through the system, his name is trashed and potentially let off. She walks and he is ruined, she lied. This is a threat that happens, women lie about rape and being assaulted.
At the end of the day, women should think about these things, but what she is doing is she is going to make it illegal for men and women to be in the same area without supervision. Is that a world you want to live in? Potentially had a gun, a knife, a toy bear, an extra pair of socks. Wow, you could potentially be hit by a car tomorrow, but do you really think about that?
@MarkW – Thanks for the apology. I also owe you one for assuming your comment was directed at me.
In general, one other point – for those of you who have done so, please stop using the word “dick” as an insult. I understand that women don’t like people using the C word as an insult, and I agree with them, I don’t think it’s unfair that male genitalia gets the same treatment.
@Alex: You’re welcome, and thank you too.
I do think I bear some of the responsibility; I obviously didn’t make it sufficiently clear that the whole comment wasn’t directed at you.
FWIW I agree about the “dick” thing.
@MarkW
Looking at the statistics, it is less likely to get raped in an elevator than to be seriously injured by the elevator itself.
Do you deny that elevators can kill or seriously injure people?
Do you deny that a common reaction to someone being injured in an elevator accident is “(s)he should have taken the stairs”?
Do you deny that by using the elevator incorrectly you are putting yourself at risk of injury?
Can it happen? Sure, but being considering it a viable scenario every time you are in an elevator with a stranger is just nonsense.
This whole issue reminds me very much of Tucker & Dale vs Evil ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465522/ )
I haven’t read all the comments here and on the other blogs, but enough so that I have a good idea of the discussion. First, just a general comment: When travelling abroad, it is good to keep in mind that social mores differ and what could be considered threatening or perhaps is even forbidden in one country might be obligatory in another. Second, I’m surprised that no-one has pointed out that this is a classic example of differences in male and female behaviour which are due to evolutionary biology, though they receive more attention in “pop” books; the only “serious” writer who seems to get it is Steven Pinker (I realise that with respect to linguistics he is something of a maverick—though he might be right—but I don’t think so with respect to evolutionary psychology). This demonstrates why feminists whose goal is not to differentiate at all between the sexes probably wouldn’t be happy in a society which actually doesn’t differentiate between the sexes. Finally, a few quotations and links which are relevant, but perhaps provide a bit of humour as well:
http://www.snopes.com/racial/mistaken/hitfloor.asp
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1659772,00.html (read the whole excerpt or, better, read the whole book)
There is more to fear from the cultural imperialism of the USA. Now a Swedish
tourist is accused of being a pedophile because he had his teenage daughter in
her nightgown on his knee. An American sister-in-law reported them to the
Californian authorities. The Swedish embassy says it may be a case of culture
clash. [from usenet group soc.culture.nordic]
I’m going to say this again, because it is something that few of the male commenters have mentioned; Rebbecca had just delivered a talk on the creepy fan / hate male she had been receiving, some of which included rape threats. Is it any wonder she was anxious in this context? Dawkins himself ignores this for some reason, even though he was literally sitting next to her when she said it.
As much as I am dismayed as some guys here coming across as sexists (or at least extremely inconsiderate), I am also noting with dismay the misandrists wheeling out their own extremist rhetoric, such as the woman above who claims “It certainly is true that the majority of men would rape a woman if given the chance”. Excuse me? If this is not the female equivalent of “all women are asking for it anyway.” I’m not sure what is.
This whole argument is some men saying we can’t talk to women??
MAybe a man can relate to the following, you are walking in your sunday suit from a diner and you see a man in a thick coat approaching you in a hurry…. initial reaction is??
Right, you go accross the street not because you think that any man at night is going to rob you but you take your precautions.
You do not approach anybody in a dark alley, unless you have very very pressing reasons, like someone deing around the corner.
Do not proposition a woman in an enclosed area unless you really see no other way, wait till the doors of the elevator open (wait outside before the elevator arrives on the ground floor is even better) and SAY YOU DIDN’T KNOW HOW ELSE TO APPROACH, apologise, and keep your distance.
#751 to your question on Marcello Mastroianni
All of the above
@ 778. MarkW
“Again, the worst-case scenario for the creepy elevator guy is that he gets his feelings hurt.”
As others have pointed out, that’s not strictly true.
“The asymmetry of the power-relationship is too great for the woman in this situation to risk sympathy for hurt feelings.”
Feelings per se do not change a situation, only actions based on feelings can do this.
Also feelings one has after the fact can’t change a thing in the past. The situation ist over, no rape happened. I fail to see that having sympathy for the inept dude now can in any way increase the risk of rape in the past. I also fail to see that sympathy now would increase the risk of rape for women in the future in similar situations.
I agree that in principle someone can endanger law and order by behaving like a threat which in fact he is not. For example we would not want people to run around with dummy-bombs alertinging the cops for no good reason. But here is a line to draw. Real bombers don’t want to rise suspicion, so the signs for a real bomber are rarely obvious, so the cops have to look for subtile signs, so inocent behaviour can be misunderstood. But we would not simply blame anyone, who at first glance raised suspicion, but turned out to be harmless, for raising suspicion. However as with any line, inapropriate behaviour can happen on both sides. The dummy-bomber is as real a possibilty as the cop who goes for a raid with no really justifying reason.
Therfore if lines are to draw, I lean towards clear lines. I still stand to my challenge, that we are at a loss, if elevator dude simple claims to have noticed some behaviour, which seems to him to have invite him to a question in private. He doesn’t have to claim invitation to rape, because he didn’t rape. Like the cops who go after an innocent guy, he may have erred, but we still have to see, if he had erred reasonably. To do this we have to research and analyse the situation.
If we demand social aptitude from everybody, we also demand it from women. By this we are in effect reopening the whole can of worms of “suggestive behaviour” that can be brought up against women. The “A No is a No” line is sharp and follows the KISS-(Keep it simple, stupid)-principle.
Any sign language-dictionary aproach is difficult and requires, if in doubt what really happend and how to interprete it, a whole judicary to decide whether any given behaviour was ok – and I’m not even talking about the difficulties of how to prove how somone talked, moved, looked etc. if the other party denies it. One can doubt, if this is really worth what we are getting here at best: more comfort for woman for a few minutes, maybe a few times a year.
@795. Themos Tsikas Says: “It started with a fairly straightforward story about a clueless man putting a woman in an uncomfortable situation. That’s the generalisation, right there in the word “clueless”. The Dawkins side might write the same sentence but take out the “clueless” and put a “paranoid” just before “woman”.
and
@785. Mike Says: ” Given many of the responses to this I’ve seen I’m glad I remain a lone skeptic and don’t belong to your “community”.
…………………………
Amen, brothers.
The last few days have been an absolute disaster for the skeptical/atheist community, a community that prides itself for rationality – Bull@#!&! The comments here, on PZ’s site and now a range of other blogs depict a bunch of (mostly) males making comments that clearly show they are clueless about the basic security concerns of women.
They are emotional rants about self, rather than about other. There very few comments that demonstrates any empathy for women — these guys are the ultimate, tribal, self absorbed, BELIEVERS, and they don’t have a clue that the’re acting that way.
Any member of the fundie religious, or general wingnut community that makes even a token effort to wade through any of these threads will find a goldmine of potential propaganda to use against the community. A bunch of smart guys acting like clueless fifteen year olds.
I’ve read a lot of comments on P Z’s posts and on this one. I haven’t written anything because English is not my native language and there are enough misunderstandings among English native speakers, I feared i would be even more misunderstood. But now I felt compelled to write, because there’s one issue about which I think both sides fail to address in a completely clear way.
This is not about rights, OK. the whole thing is not about rights. the man had the right to do what he did and, in a way, if you think of liberty of expressing himself he did no wrong. He is not a criminal, as Pz did no wrong when he flushed the crcker or offended the Catholics.
But the thing Dawkins and the ones that agree with him don’t grasp is that this is about social etiquette in a skeptic conference. Tehre has been a lot of discussion on how to ampliate the skeptics movement and have more people in it that are not white middle to high class men. if a lot of women feel threatened by the way those men treat them, then let’s change the approach, shall we? Let’s listen to what women say about her feelings and how they can feel comfortable.
This is also it is about educating men that want to be agreeble to women. PZ didn’t want to be agreeble to Catholics, so comparing the situations is simply daft. But this man presumably wanted to in a way seduce RW, hoped her would wish to have sex with him. Well, if those were his intentions, the way he acted was certainly very wrong and self defeating. There are a lot of women who wouldn’t bother, and the comments have proved so. But there are even more women that would, and the comments also proved that. So, as he didn’t know RW and as her speeches prove her to be a feminist, the probability that his approach worked was not a promising one. As a tactics to become friends with her, it was completely obtuse.
But there’s another important point, and I believe that Phil’s way of telling the story missed this last point. The guy had been listening to her for hours and had not tried to make his thought known, had not tried to engage in intelligent conversation when there were a lot of people around them. When RW left the group she said she was tired and wanted to sleep. The guy didn’t take her professed needs in consideration and didn’t try to show her that there was a reason for her to want to be with him. He just treated her as a sexual object, with no intentions and thoughts. And it seems to me that this is something difficult for men to grasp.
Have you ever noticed that women usually don’t buy nude men magazines? That those are mainly directed to the gay market? The reason is that sexual attractiveness for women is a whole different matter than for men. I don’t know much about research on this isssue, but basing on what I feel and what I have talked to my female friends and what I see about porn consumption (I read a lot of porn stories, 90% of them written by women), I would say that beauty and physical attributes are much less important for women than for men. What engages a female, particularly an intelligent female, is intelligence, sensitivity, sweetness. Most men like when an attractive woman has a direct approach to them (if they have no reason to think she is with a further agenda), even if they didn’t have a very engaging meeting before. Most women don’t like that. They prefer to know more of the man beforehand, and i’s not only a rational thing, it’s also the way their feeling of attraction works. Even if they are physically attracted, this first attraction is not enough, it must be supplemented with phantasy, and phantasy must be fueled with more stuff.
An invitation to his hotel room for coffee was where he went wrong – essentially an invitation to sex from a complete stranger.
The appropriate thing would have been to ask her for coffee in a public area of the hotel, where they could perhaps get to know each other in a safe setting. Being asked to a hotel room by someone you don’t know is extremely offputting and would make most women uncomfortable.
An invitation to his hotel room for coffee was where he went wrong – essentially an invitation to sex from a complete stranger.
The appropriate thing would have been to ask her for coffee in a public area of the hotel, where they could perhaps get to know each other in a safe setting. Being asked to a hotel room by someone you don’t know is extremely offputting and would make most women uncomfortable.
Thanks, Phil, for being wonderful as always.
@Ron1:
Exactly. And trying to argue against them just over the last few days has exhausted me. I can only begin to imagine what a constant stream of this s**t must do to a woman.
I’ll stand up and say I’m a man and I object to the whole ‘potential sexual assault’ argument.
The guy in the elevator was an utterly insensitive clot for not realising that the confined space of the elevator was an inappropriate space to proposition a lone woman – particularly one who had just given a talk about inappropriate sexual advances – but he wasn’t a predator.
He asked.
She said no.
He didn’t push it any further.
Other than the location, he displayed exactly the sort of acceptable behaviour that we expect of a reasonable man, yet he’s being villified.
I fully accept that, being a man, I have to be aware that my advances might make a woman feel justifiably threatened in certain circumstances (such as alone in an elevator). I also understand that women genuinely are at more risk of certain assaults, and so benefit from taking certain safety precautions that men generally don’t need to take.
But what I do object to is the language of how that’s being described (the ‘potential sexual assault’ issue). It seems to peg all men as guilty before they even start, and I can’t help but feel that a less combative phrasing would get the message across in a way that doesn’t victimise the men who really are trying, just because they make mistakes.
I think that language like this detracts from having a reasonable discussion about the issues women face. I think it’s counterproductive, and that it actually fosters the idea that it’s ALWAYS inappropriate to approach a lone woman for ANY reason, for fear of it being misinterpreted.
On a related note, Richard Dawkins is an ass. I’ve always assumed that he was one of the main people BA was talking about in that speech where he told people not to be dicks.
@MarkW
I deny neither, but you only help my point for pointing it out. If the mere act of getting into an elevator with a man can be devastating for a woman, then why are they allowed out of their homes without male protection? I already made this clear, there are two options.
I don’t see anybody making real suggestions, all you do is dissect this issue instead of arguing what the course of events for helping it might be. If this was such a crime then why do we allow it? Apparently it needs to be a punishable offence for a man to enter an elevator with a woman in it and then talk to her, he should be labelled a sexual offender right then and there, no?
Dude, you are either a very poor troll, or else you are unable to follow a very simple narrative. Which is it?
Back in the real world, there are things like context, things like details, which render your question overly simplistic. The only reason to strip the scenario bare, as you have done, is to try to present Hobson’s Choice.
@Nigel Depledge
The assumption on which this set-up was founded was that female students were intrinsically in more danger than the males.
I remember using one of those Women’s Night Buses in the early 80s in Leeds University. They (or at least the Leeds one) was set up in response to Peter Sutcliffe murdering women and a female student of the university. He’d been caught before I went to Leeds, but there was still the echo of fear on the streets. I don’t think the men felt it quite the same way as the women did, though.
Hey Phil — Dr. Dawkins asked for someone to politely explain it to him. Some portions of your post here could serve to do just that.
I cannot imagine just how much of an arse the man in the elevator feels like, right about now.
@Bernard Bummer
Then what do you suggest? If this scenario so obviously exposes women to rape, then we must surely need to prevent it?
@808 Dude.
Like I said, ” guys acting like clueless fifteen year olds.”
………………………..
All you have to do is try to empathize. Recognize that the situation is probably uncomfortable for the woman and then don’t do anything to make it worse. The end.
“I cannot imagine just how much of an arse the man in the elevator feels like, right about now.”
Indeed…this has put an end to any hope the skeptical movement had of growing. I personally know 2 women who have sold their TAM tickets because they have learned in the past few days what the atmosphere is like for women…one said “I’ve been to SF conventions, and gotten pawed and mobbed and will never go again…and apparently TAM is the same demographic…no thanks”.
Sad.
“Much ado about nothing”
There are two things here;
So now are his words from what we judge this guy for, what will be next thoughts?
And second, does anyone care about the so called “creepy” guy, what do you think his feelings might be, to be compared to a potential sexual predator.
Sorry, this is blow out of proportions.
Mark W #766: “By belittling what Watson felt in this situation, Dawkins (and the rest of the defenders) are being sexist. And that is the problem.”
Right on, brother! By belittling women’s reality, or trying to ‘reason’ it away, defenders of male privilege struggle valiantly to maintain the status quo. Guys and gals, such a firestorm of criticism of the woman, who *very mildly* said simply that she deserves to be treated like a full human being (“Guys, don’t do that”), is the problem.
Phil Plait is a misandrist.
Yes, the woman could have been restrained, yes the man could have had a weapon, and yes the situation could have escalated into violence.
Nobody seems to be mentioning that nothing like this even came close to happening.
Literally any situation imaginable could carry the potential for danger, and the logic of this article dictates that we must therefore constantly fear for our lives everywhere we go, and that all men should be viewed as potential rapists.
“Hi, my name is Bob, can I buy you a coffee?”
RAPIST!!!!!
You Phil are too frightened of…something…to be able to make a rational argument.
Was your father an abuser? Did you get beaten up by some school bully? Why do you hate and fear men like this?
[By saying that Rebecca Watson should not have been frightened, you are belittling the fact that she did feel frightened. Can you not see that?]
Yes. That’s kind of the point. She wasn’t justified in being frightened, because he wasn’t trying to rape her or set up a situation where she would be raped. He was trying to get her to agree to a consensual encounter, not even explicitly sexual, and then politely accepted her denial.
‘Man making a pass at woman in elevator and then politely accepting rejection of pass’ doesn’t mean ‘potential rape’ or ‘legitimate threat of rape.’ It’s delusional and paranoid.
[Rebbecca had just delivered a talk on the creepy fan / hate male she had been receiving, some of which included rape threats. Is it any wonder she was anxious in this context? ]
So she was anxious? So what? If I read racist literature about black people being evil am I justified in feeling threatened by the presence or social interaction of black people?
More aptly, If I get racist e-mail threatening me because of my race, am I justified in feeling threatened by a black person asking me back to their room for coffee on an elevator at 4 in the morning?
@Dude,
Teach men not to rape. Teach men who aren’t rapists not to act like potential rapists. Teach men not to act like sexual predators. Teach men not to intimidate women. Teach men not to make inappropriate advances to strangers in elevators.
The answer is to change the attitudes of men. Not to attack women who fear rape and violence. Not to ridicule women who express discomfort at the fact that many men feel righteously entitled to proposition them.
The answer is for men to listen to and attempt to understand the concerns and experiences of women, rather than attempting to dismiss them.
Dude, you need to be educated because you are relying on your own opinion of what is right and wrong for women, and that is a serious error.
@Leo
a) Do you carry out a risk assessment after the event? Or do you use your psychic powers to determine what is safe?
b) Why are people so utterly obsessed with the fact that a rape didn’t take place?
c) What makes you qualified to assess the legitimacy of the fear of rape?
Yet another in the infinity of examples of men belittling women’s experiences. Are men like Dawkins simply so unimaginative that they can’t put themselves in the place of someone else, someone who might be uncomfortable in a situation they themselves wouldn’t be bothered by?
@810 Wallace
So true.
Similarly, last night I was wading through the comments on the Skepchick blog and was saddened to see a host of demands that Dawkins be boycotted. Wow!
A lot of smart women are really pissed.
I would like to start off this comment by reminding to some commenters that, at least once in your life, you *will* be disappointed by someone you look up too or respect. They are, after-all, human. What makes them valuable is not that, for you, they stand over other mere mortals in every possible way, but that enrich you or your life in some way. In the past, I have been disappointed at least once by *every* skeptical/atheist hero of mine.
Unfortunately, this time, everyone linked to this has failed. Richard, for posting an extremely insensitive and useless remark, even if it wasn’t technically wrong. Phil, for projecting his own view of the event over what Richard actually meant and then being scandalized by it. And finally, Rebecca, for blowing things totally out of proportion with a big giant flaming strawman.
First: Richard Dawkins. I can see where he was going with his comment: “So it’s annoying… Live with it! Some women have really it worst”. Remember, the whole sexual assault, angle didn’t exist at this point: Rebecca had simply pointed this event as something annoying and inappropriate which guys shouldn’t do. Unfortunately, Richard’s tone is extremely insensitive and his point about some women suffering worth atrocities is simply out of place (although he does later concede that later point). Besides: what was the point of the comment? Rebecca can’t complain about stuff like that as much as she wants! Oh well…
Now for Phil: His fail is a bit simpler, but longer to explain, and can be found in this sentence:
“Oh my. I have tried and tried to see some other way to interpret this, but it looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum.”
When I first read this my thoughts where: “Sexual assault!? Where the hell did anyone talk about sexual assault?”. And that’s the point! No one had. Not Rebecca nor Richard (maybe some commenters had, but who said Richard was responding to their comments?). Richard was comparing someone chewing gum to the way Rebecca had presented the event: as something annoying she wishes men wouldn’t do. The idea of potential sexual assault, was simply *not* what Richard has in mind when he wrote his comment and projecting that idea over his actual thoughts is wrong.
Here’s a little metaphor for those who don’t get it:
Rebecca: “Timmy fell down in the park and hurt himself.”
Richard: “Bah! He can just walk it off!”
Rebecca: “What the hell? His head hit a rock on the way down! He has a skull fracture!”
Phil: “Did you seriously suggest that he could walk off a skull fracture!?”
Sounds silly right?
Finally, Rebecca: I’m mostly disappointed in her. She basically transformed: “I think your complaint about being hit on in an elevator is whining” to “I’m a privileged old white man and I don’t care if women are raped here, because some women are mutilated elsewhere”. And I’m not exaggerating here:
“So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.”
No Rebecca, he was dismissing *your complaints about being hit upon* to the plight of women who are mutilated. It’s wrong, but far from scandalous. But that is not the worst, she then implicitly recommends that people should no longer what Richard has to say about *other subjects* because of that comment:
“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.”
I honestly find this to be a extremely childish reaction, even if her reactions had been completely justified.
Personally, I’ll take a higher road: all these people (including Rebecca) will receive my money, praise and attention because they all make this world a better place in their own way, even if sometimes, they fail miserably.
@Bernard Bumner
“Teach men not to rape. Teach men who aren’t rapists not to act like potential rapists. Teach men not to act like sexual predators. Teach men not to intimidate women. Teach men not to make inappropriate advances to strangers in elevators.
The answer is to change the attitudes of men. Not to attack women who fear rape and violence. Not to ridicule women who express discomfort at the fact that many men feel righteously entitled to proposition them.
The answer is for men to listen to and attempt to understand the concerns and experiences of women, rather than attempting to dismiss them.”
When you find a way to effectively negate human behaviour (without religion that is, lol), please let me know.
“Dude, you need to be educated because you are relying on your own opinion of what is right and wrong for women, and that is a serious error.”
I’m not relying on anything but reality. Are you telling me women want to be raped and that it is good for society?
“Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.”
That’s absolute nonsense, basically what you’re trying to say is that to make this situation a non threatening one, the male should have waited for the next lift. I’ve asked just about every female I know ranging from my mother to my girlfriend to read this and tell me what they think. The answer? No this was no-where near a ‘potential sexual assault’.
You even go further to state that “being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.” Well if you think so, then take the stairs or hire a bodyguard. You make it out that ALL men are sex crazed psychopaths with nothing on their mind other than forcing themselves upon you.
I’m sorry, but you need to see that you’ve got an over-inflated sense of self worth if you think situations like this are ‘potential sexual assaults’ waiting to happen. Put it this way, if it was me and you in the lift at 4am in a different country the last thing on my mind would be wanting to have sex with you, what would be on my mind is “Food, spot of TV, a big dump and a few glasses of water to help with the headache next morning.” Not “RAPE HER, RAPE HER, RAPE HER. In Dublin city centre in a crowded hotel.”
Reality people, come back to it.
Mark W (778) said:
Why?
Why is it not that he gets an unprovoked faceful of mace; or stabbed; or shot?
The asymmetry is in your perception.
Sure, statistically, more assaults are carried out by men than by women, but the proportion of all “western” men that are rapists is very, very tiny, so you are extrapolating from a statistically-insignificant outlier to the whole male population.
You are assuming that, because he made an advance, he is capable of rape (or at least sexual assault of some kind). And that such an outcome is perhaps likely to be on his mind.
OTOH, you are also assuming that his advance would never be met with anything other than words. I know nothing about Watson personally, but let’s extrapolate the situation to suppose that any woman in an elevator was propositioned by this guy. How can we know what response he would encounter? We cannot know, all we can do is guess.
I’m really not trying to diminish the significance of Watson’s experience, and I really think that Dawkins’s response is out of order. But Mark W does seem to make a reasonable point. If our societal structure had not taught Watson to fear men, would she have felt at all creeped out by this guy in the elevator?
I’d like to apologize to all the women. I am sorry that all men are potential rapists. Please start a campaign to have us all castrated with a rust dull razor and our mouths sewn shut to prevent even the faintest imagined belief of possible potential sexual assault or any other slight. I also feel sorry for the woman in the elevator, the guy must have been very ugly for the woman to have felt so threatened.
Imagine what that bloke who hit on her must be thinking right now, if he’s reading all this. 😛
On a more serious note, it could have been an early warning sign of imminent assault, but if he was a predator or something, he could as well have done whatever he wanted to without warning her.
Dawkins must have seen it that way, and that’s why he wrote what he wrote.
I mean, why ask for sex if you are determined to rape her anyway?
Oah and, he may have been a slightly drunk geek who just didn’t know how to start up conversation.
I mean, I’ve done it too (albeit in less uncomfortable scenarios, but still…)
What the hell, people?
I’ve read in this godforsaken wasteland of a thread some of the most grotesque failures of the skeptical community that I’ve seen in recent memory. Someone up there (and I’m not going to go bother fishing for the post number to name ‘n’ blame) suggested that maybe 2% of men are rapists. Really? There are a little over 300 million people in the US. About half are men. If you believe that there are THREE MILLION rapists or would-be rapists in the US, then you have a different problem.
I also read an awful lot of people saying how men should “get to know women” first or to learn some empathy or whatever. Awesome. I’m very certain that people who are socially avoidant or simply inexperienced appreciate your measured compassion. After all, it’s entirely possible that was this guy’s misguided goal. You don’t know. End result, was he creepy? Yeah, sure. That’s why RW tried to give a public service message: this isn’t the best approach, people. Of course, since this is the skeptical community, everyone from Dawkins to the nearly thousand people here took a reasonable and measured response in kind, right? No? Well, crap.
And, actually, that goes doubly true in the context of an atheist/skeptical convention. I’m a regular attendee of a convention for a very different subculture, and one that I’ll decline to name here, because it’s more than a bit socially awkward. It’s also highly, highly male-dominated. I, on the other hand, really can’t in any way be mistaken for a guy. I’ve learned a lot from serial convention attendance. For example, men in socially marginalized subcultures have terrible social skills. I’ve been asked questions like this at conventions, sometimes in even worse contexts, dozens of times. I’d say it’s about 50-50 whether the people asking were really after coffee and conversation (and just have no freaking clue what that sort of phrase means in the rest of the world) or wanted sex. Either way, if I decline, and they don’t press, there’s no problem. Unless I manufacture one.
But look. Not all men are the sleek bar-cruising model. There are men — a lot of men, actually — who don’t frequently interact with women in any social context. Really, they don’t interact with ANYONE in a social context. Because society, in general, is very exclusive, and people who don’t fit in are made to feel that they don’t fit in. And our education system sure as hell doesn’t do a competent job at developing these skills. Does someone with unlearned and unpracticed social skills have a high risk of being creepy? Absolutely. Does that mean they’re a coiled rapist, waiting for the moment to strike? Please. Just like I do when I attend a different sort of convention, I would go to an atheist convention assuming that I was going to interact with a lot of men who probably aren’t at the pinnacle of inter-gender communication prowess, because atheism is just as fast a ticket to exclusion from society as a whole as any number of other subcultural foibles.
Frankly, I’m less threatened by those people than by the slick guy at the bar who knows exactly what to say.
So, what have we learned?
Well, Dawkins is an intemperate jerk and an Islamophobe. None of which is news.
Rebecca had a valid point on this one, although she’s no stranger to the bully pulpit herself. None of which is really news.
Elevator guy, who was probably just an awkward socially inept guy, if he ever reads any of this, is probably going to be mortified. Good job on the Internet, there, I’m sure.
A vocal, and probably substantial, amount of the skeptical community is freaking terrible at actual skepticism when it comes to anything regarding sexual assault, social avoidance, or gender issues. I, for one, am deeply surprised.
This is the problem, and I think the reason that this argument is falling along gender lines. A woman goes to a conference to share her expertise, her experience, the benefit of her education and her political views with likeminded people. The guy admires her views. His response to that is a hard on. What that says to a serious minded woman is that she hasn’t been taken remotely seriously. She’s still tits and arse.
Now, add to that the totally creepy offer of some alone time with someone that you’ve never met. Really, this is ok? That’s the point. She is still meat and if you guys think that we shouldnt be afraid of being seen as meat then yes, that’s you all not recognising your privilege.
Actually MarkW, if the societal structure is at fault here, would the preferred course of action not be to change it?
@815. Dude said, “I’m not relying on anything but reality. Are you telling me women want to be raped and that it is good for society?”
………………………………..
Whose reality are you relying on? Who would ever think rape is good for society?
If you think you’re being clever, a brilliant debater, you’re not. You’ve got the abilities of a leaky brick wall, Dude. If you really think you’re relying on reality to justify your positions then I really suggest you spend some time with a shrink.
Really, think about what you’ve been saying and what your last sentence says about you.
While I do not condone the mistreatment of women in any way, and I can see both sides of the story here… I can’t help but agree with the point RD is making here.
These days, a man has to be careful of *everything* he says or does because it *may* come across offensive or threatening to a woman around him. Even if it’s meant in the most harmless of ways. Hell, I have a friend of mine who flew off the handle because some guy at a restaurant happened to make eye contact with her while licking bbq sauce off his fingers. Like really?
I should also add that I find that good looking men seem to get away with alot more than those who are not so attractive. I wonder what this guy looked like?
To say that he was a potential threat because he *may* have had a weapon… no more of a threat than walking around in the United States where people can carry firearms wherever they go. And recently in Ohio… even in a bar! Where they serve alcohol! Whats stopping me, as a man, from getting robbed @ gunpoint in an elevator in a shopping mall in the same situation. I’m not quite 6′ tall… there are plenty of American guys who can be carrying a weapon… or overpower me.
Should I react just the same?
@ 801. Jamie
“I’m going to say this again, because it is something that few of the male commenters have mentioned; Rebbecca had just delivered a talk on the creepy fan / hate male she had been receiving, some of which included rape threats. Is it any wonder she was anxious in this context?”
No, its not. If there is talk about swine flue, people will exhibit symptoms of swine flue, whether they actually are at risk of being infected is another question. Usually talk about things however neither makes them happen nor go away.
“Dawkins himself ignores this for some reason, even though he was literally sitting next to her when she said it.”
Maybe he isn’t overly courteous, on the other hand maybe he is too courteous to comment about it in the way I have done above, which would be factually ok, but might in itself raise unwanted feelings: “You are accusing me of being hysterical. Even if you don’t mean to do so, you should consider that in this society women are/were accused of being hysterical and their concerns their shrugged of. If you would be considerate, you would take into account that in this context your remark – whatever you intended – may be constructed to be offensive and therefore may give raise to negative feelings on my side.”
That’s there subtext get’s you.
Is there an objective increase in danger of rape by giving a talk about threats of rape? I don’t know. Of course it can e.g. be possible that a raper longs for the symbolic moment. On the other hand, if a guy is into planing this for a long time and observes the victim, he might very well go for a moment when she is least, not most alerted.
We are doing so and so to protect us from the terrorist/rapist. But what if this is exactly what the t/r wants to achieve? But wait, what if what the t/r wants to achieve is that we think he wants to achieve we do so and so? On the other hand … down the rabit hole we go.
@Dude
I call it education.
It isn’t going to keep people entirely safe from violence, inappropriate behaviour, sexual assault and rape, but it will help to educate the vast majority of well-intentioned men who would like to behave well towards women. It will help men to avoid causing discomfort, and to be aware of other men causing discomfort to women. It will help men to avoid being unintentionally threatening and intimidating. It will help to address the power imbalances which currently systematically undermine women in social and sexual relationships.
I have no idea why you’ve asked that question. The very, very obvious answer is “no, I’m not telling you either of those things”.
What I’m telling you is that generally a Dude’s opinion on what is right and wrong for women – yours or mine – is not worth an iota of a women’s opinion on the matter.
“Teach men not to act like sexual predators.”
This relies on the fallacy that there is no conflict between men and women and no conflict between men and men and no conflict between women and women. If such conflict did not exist, we wouldn’t have developed the complicated socio-sexual behaviours we have.
I would replace it with “teach men and women what forces shape their behaviour”.
@Themos #821,
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at there. I mean, I would support educating men and women to be more aware of the pernicious effects on their own behaviour of cultural conditioning. I’m simply not sure that there is anything very controversial about teaching men not to act in the sexually predatory and entitled manner which can be so commonly observed.
I’m not sure that those things are mutually exclusive.
If, on the other hand, you’re trying to introduce the idea of biological sexual imperatives into this, then that is an entirely separate matter, and not one that I agree is particularly relevant to the behaviour of the average person.
Bernard Bumner (783) said:
No, and I think you missed the entire point of my comment.
The concept of “creepy” is a taught concept. It stems – in this case – from a bloke being hopelessly inept in interacting with a woman who (I assume) he found attractive. His ineptitude is a failing, but should it really be scary or discomfiting?
I think the point that Mark W made – which I feel deserves at least some consideration – is that we (as a society) are teaching women to have that response in that kind of scenario.
As I have pointed out in a previous, we should expect better of anyone who strikes up a conversation in that kind of situation. But we’re all human, and we all get things wrong sometimes.
Men and women both do this all the time already, in any situation where they are alone late at night (or in the small hours of the morning). It’s not a game. I’ve been there, albeit in a different situation from the one Watson encountered.
Yes it is, but why do you expect perfection? Are you perfect in all your social interactions?
I’m not, the guy made a mistake. But I’m not yet convinced that he deserves the level of vilification that he seems to be receiving.
You raise an important point about prevention. Obviously, it is better by far to prevent any kind of assault from occurring than to have it occur and then punish the perpetrator. However, it is a founding principle of justice that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You seem prepared to punish someone for something that they haven’t yet done (and might not do ever). Surely people who are innocent have the right to be treated as such? In this case, the guy in the elevator was being an idiot, and he made Watson feel uncomfortable as a result. I just think that this situation highlights the need for accepting and understanding subtlety and nuance rather than simply painting the situation black-and-white.
We all make mistakes. It must be harder when you’re a public figure, especially in the critical thinking community. My biggest problem with “critical thinking”, is that it’s not maintainable under scrutiny, for every waking moment of the day. Sometimes you’re head is in a different space, and you miss something which might seem obvious to others. In hindsight, I’m sure he has some regrets.
I think you’re overreacting. Nothing wrong with asking someone out, for heaven’s sake. I agree with mr.Dawkins here – and I’m a woman, btw.
Ron1 (803) said:
Hey, that’s in my dictionary under “geek”. 😉
[just kidding, folks!]
Rebecca’s actual comments in the video are entirely reasonable. I totally get why she felt the way she felt. It was tactless to approach a woman under those circumstances.
I don’t agree with either Dawkins OR Plait. Dawkins for being completely insensitive and dismissive of her very reasonable reaction, and Plait for pulling the hyperbolic “potential sexual assault” card and further inflating the issue. I started the article, and thought “what the hell is wrong with Dawkins?” But as I kept reading, I thought “what the hell is wrong with Plait?” Creepy and utterly inappropriate? Absolutely. “Potential sexual assault?” Technically, sure, and Rebecca was within her right to be cautious and just plain old turned off by the exchanged, but I’m not comfortable with invoking the potential for violence in this argument and then painting it such hugely broad strokes. I think there was a better way to argue what Dawkins said. It’s just rubbing me the wrong way.
I’m seeing extreme over reaction to what seems to amount to an awkward moment from both sides of this argument, in big heaping dollops.
That said, I still think Dawkins is coming off as the larger douche.
@ 803. Ron1 Says:
“The comments here, on PZ’s site and now a range of other blogs depict a bunch of (mostly) males making comments that clearly show they are clueless about the basic security concerns of women.”
Well, so give the clues. We will listen. And then we will discuss.
“They are emotional rants about self, rather than about other.”
The issue started with a woman to whom nothing happened, but maybe minutes of emotional distress, telling her story. In your words: “An emotional rant about herself”
“and they don’t have a clue that the’re acting that way”
We are listening.
Just don’t expect us to stop there. We will look into the clues, test anything and keep only the good – just as scripture demands from the believer, you are right on that one (St. Paul in 1Thess 5:19-21)
I have to say I agree with Richard Dawkins here, despite his flippant tone. All the man did to the woman was ask her to his room for coffee, she said no, he accepted that, he didn’t try to pressurise her or assault her in any way. The fact that it made her feel uncomfortable was unfortunate, but hardly a cause for complaint, all for all this hysterical over-reaction!
Wallace (810) said:
Man, that sucks.
FWIW, the European convention scene is substantially smaller (I mean the conventions are smaller in Europe, and I just realised I was assuming that the woman you refer to went to a US-based SF con), and I know women who have thoroughly enjoyed (for example) games conventions in the UK.
Bernard Bumner (812) said:
OK.
How?
I’d love to know (actually, I’d really love to have known when I was 16) how not to act like a potential rapist / sexual predator and how not to intimidate women. And how to get to know a stranger who happens to be a woman I find attractive. I’m … rather older than 16 now, and I still don’t know for sure if any of my behaviour makes women uncomfortable, along those lines.
@816. Nigel Depledge Said: ” If our societal structure had not taught Watson to fear men, would she have felt at all creeped out by this guy in the elevator?”
………………………..
Good afternoon.
I’m not really sure that our society has taught Watson to fear men. Rather, I think it more likely that our society has taught her to fear men under certain circumstances. My guess is that sharing an enclosed elevator with an unknown male at 4am in a foreign city is one of those situations (bearing in mind that Rebecca never said she was afraid, she was creeped out, uncomfortable).
As has been previously mentioned by others, she’d just spent the day and evening with a whole bunch of men and there is no indication that she was feeling any fear. She probably doesn’t feel any fear around most men in most day to day situations.
I don’t think the issue is black and white (ie. women fear men) although there are certainly some women who fear all men all the time. I think most women have a healthy regard for the harm that men are capable of doing to them and their children. Hell, most men have a healthy regard for what other guys can do to them.
Regardless, human behaviour is a complex area of study. Interesting too.
Cheers.
I am absolutely disgusted that there was such an uproar over a man asking a woman to coffee.
A male asking a female if she wants to go back to his room and ONLY that is deemed a ‘disgusting’ and ‘scary’ situation from women.
But think of it from a normal, everyday male’s perspective. It’s scary knowing that women think you’re a potential attacker. Do you think I feel safe knowing that I might be thought of as creepy if I just simply talk to a woman?
It’s outrageous that you feminazis think that every male is a potential predator. It’s an sickening mentality that you all should feel horrible for having.
@Thorsten (819) –
OK, now I’m just confused again.
@Nigel 823,
Yes. Because at the very least, it caused discomfort because he propositioned someone who had just very specifically made it clear that such propositions caused that person distress.
That very much makes it seem that Elevator Guy either chose to ignore or failed to understand a very simple request not to do what he did. That makes him creepy, and probably also scary.
Anyway, you cannot strip the thing of context. That being that the proposition was made in a confined, isolated space, and by a man who was a stranger to the female recipient.
Nobody argues that this is not the case. Rebecca Watson acknowledged this. She offered the anecdote as a learning opportunity, an example of poor behaviour. She wasn’t really punishing the ofending individual.
I don’t and I’m not. However, I will take it on the chin when I make a mistake. I’d hope not to see a lot of apologetics on my behalf. I’d hope to be able to own my mistakes as much as my glories.
Too many people are excusing bad behaviour in the mistaken belief that Elevator Guy requires or deserves to be defended. I’m not sure that many people are really assuming malice on his part, rather the hypothetical sexually agressive male/potential rapist is invoked to explain the legitimate fears of women who are subjected to such behaviour.
Many people are offering excuses for Elevator Guy, and many people are pretending that this is an attack on men. neitheer of those are true.
And a basic principle of risk assessment to judge the possible consequences as well as the potential for harm. There are many reasons for women to feel threatened and fearful, and you do nothing to address them by attempting to delegitimise those fears.
I don’t think that subtlety and nuance come into this. I think that every woman or man has the right not to feel to be made uncomfortable by strangers. It is the responsibilty of everyone to try not cause distress to others.
Elevator Guy did something stupid and creepy. Elevator guy needs to know that he did something stupid and creepy. He doesn’t need to protected from the consequences of his inconsiderate and selfish actions, whether they be an aberration or not.
Coming from a nineteen year old girl who has spent the last two years on a college campus (i.e.; being at constant risk for sexual assault/harrasment), I find this story to be ridiculous. Rebecca, not every man that says hi to you (whether it be in a “confined pace” or not) wants to rape you. Maybe he was just being nice because he thought you were pretty. Was he leering at you eerily? Creepily smelling your hair or brushing you? No. He simply said you were interesting and that he wanted to invite you to his room for coffee. He did not even retaliate when you denied his offer. This does not come anywhere near a “potential sexual assault”.
Rebecca, suck it up and take the damn compliment.
I don’t understand, when reading through these comments, how this can still be confusing for some people to understand why this was an alarming situation. When have you EVER heard of “coming up for coffee” or any variation of that phrase being used to imply anything but sex? There is a reason it is used so often in movies. The phrase “coming up for coffee” has as obvious of intentions as “it’s not you, it’s me” means we’re breaking up. I’m sure there’s plenty of other phrases like that too.
But semantics aside, why didn’t he bring this up in the lobby when they were waiting for the elevator? Why didn’t he approach her at the bar? The most important question here, is why did he wait until they were ALONE to ask her? Maybe he was nervous and only then got up the courage and it came out totally wrong when it finally did come out. Maybe he wanted to say, “I’ve been reading your blog and really respect you. I’ll be at this convention a little longer and was wondering if you wanted to grab a coffee tomorrow afternoon or something?” But that’s not what happened. He waited until they were alone and then asked her to his room for coffee. She has every right in the world to find something about that proposition (to put it mildly) off.
In order for some people to understand why this situation was alarming, I’m going to give a rather extreme example. Not because they are equally life-threatening (although they both have the potential to go bad quickly), but because I think it is the only way some of the people here will understand what it would be like to feel somewhat vulnerable in a situation. Maybe alone with an unknown man in an elevator making a proposition for sex isn’t weird to you. But what if you were waiting in a parking lot at night to pick up a friend and a person covering their face walked up to the driver’s side, knocked on the window and asked for a lighter, how would you feel about that? Would you feel alarmed or creeped out? But THEY WERE ONLY ASKING FOR A LIGHTER.
And that’s the point. It doesn’t matter that, in the end, she was OK and he didn’t take it any further after asking about the coffee–just as much as it is OK to feel freaked out if someone walks up to your car at night with their face covered, even if they really only wanted a lighter. Why was their face covered? Why didn’t they stand back a bit and make the motion to roll the window down first? People learn to look for these flags so they can assess how threatening the situation is.
Night + face covered + alone (anyone) = pretty high level of caution. Night/early am + request for sex + alone (woman) = pretty high level of caution. Just because it isn’t universally alarming to everyone doesn’t mean it isn’t alarming to only one group of people.
‘Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.’
You cannot be serious. I am male, I work in an office and ride elevators from the car park to my floor in the company of random women coworkers and women visitors several times daily. Sometimes we talk to each other. If you think those situations are classed as ‘potential sexual assault’ then there is something seriously wrong with you.
@ Ron1 (830) –
Hmmmm …. more food for thought.
I think I overlooked aspects of the context (that Watson had been receiving rape threats, for example) when I made that comment (#816).
Certainly, the circumstances are important, and perhaps fear is too strong a word. Would she, for example, have been equally creeped out if the exact smae proposition had come freom a woman?
Different women would react entirely differently in the same situation. not all women would assume this man to be a potential rapist just as I wouldn’t assume if I was in a lift with a black man that he’s going to offer me drugs or pinch my wallet! I can see both sides but this has been blown way out of proportion.
Feminism doomed America. Enjoy your paranoia.
Bernard Bumner (832) said:
I’m not attempting any such thing.
I have walked in fear of assault. It is highly unpleasant. There are many reasons for people to feel threatened and fearful, in various circumstances.
I get that Watson is using this incident to simply request a “don’t do that”, and I feel that many of the comments are over-reactions.
However, I also feel that a point raised by another commenter (Mark W) has been dismissed when it deserves some consideration. That point is that Watson’s feelings under those circumstances could be the product of a society that has taught her to feel that way. Should not this also be addressed?
@827. Thorsten Said: “We are listening. Just don’t expect us to stop there. We will look into the clues, test anything and keep only the good.
……………………………………………..
This is getting really frustrating.
No. You’re are not listening. You are very clearly not listening and I suspect you don’t know how to listen because you were never taught how to listen and what to listen for. Further, you don’t appear to have an ability to empathize with Rebecca (a surrogate for women) so you won’t be able to look into the clues, you won’t be able to test anything and you won’t know what really is good, so how will you keep it?
Now please don’t get me wrong — I don’t mean this as an attack or as criticism of you. God knows I’ve been married 32 years, got a couple of daughters, been through loads of marriage counselling and I still get things wrong, often. But, I have an idea of how to listen and it starts with empathy, with acknowledgement of ‘other’.
Regardless, your response tells me that you really are not listening.
Cheers
My presence in an elevator with a woman is a “potential sexual assault.”? By that logic, her presence in an elevator with me a “potential false rape allegation”.
@Ron1
“If you think you’re being clever, a brilliant debater, you’re not. You’ve got the abilities of a leaky brick wall, Dude. If you really think you’re relying on reality to justify your positions then I really suggest you spend some time with a shrink.”
All you’ve done up to this point is try to offend me, sorry, you’re unsuccessful.
@Bernard Bumner
“I call it education.”
Educate what exactly? That men should stay away from women? That it is wrong to be interested in the opposite sex? Are you implying that we need some sort of degree to be allowed to talk to women? We are talking about the ludicrous idea that a woman is likely to be subjected to rape when she’s alone with a man. Your suggestion is a pathetically disguised suggestion to oppress the male sex. We are only acting on our nature, it is the fault of society that it is not fit to cope with human nature, not the other way around.
“What I’m telling you is that generally a Dude’s opinion on what is right and wrong for women – yours or mine – is not worth an iota of a women’s opinion on the matter.”
And what I’m telling you is that I’m not suggesting anything unfair or unreasonable – women should not have to fear rape and it is in society’s best interest that the individuals are neither scared nor potentially in range of danger at all times.
Either this is an issue and the only mitigating course of action is to either infringe upon the right of a woman to be on her own or the right of a man to approach the opposite sex or you agree that in the scope of things it’s a non-issue and we continue our lives. Either you stop whining about this or a course of action that is damaging to the individuals of this society has to be made, if it is in fact an issue.
Dawkins is a hatable smarmy get. The woman in the elevator is an over-reacting balloon. The man in the elevator is a creep. Now, what’s for tea…
@Dustin 828: As a woman, I say thanks for your conditional support, including your taking the time to view Rebecca’s original video. But also, please read the Schrodinger’s Rapist article. It explains why ‘potential rapist’ is not hyperbole, and not even a fear of men in general, but rather the steady backdrop to women’s minute-to-minute existence. We’re not always at defcon 1, but we’re never not at war, either. http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
Phil, I’ve read your articles for years and I’ve got to say, I have never disagreed with you more.
Treating this situation like a potential sexual assault is ridiculous. What you’re suggesting is that all women, every where in the world are constantly worried about being raped. You’re not only suggesting it but that women *should* constantly be watching their backs. This does nothing but generate paranoia and make all men look like rapists or potential rapists.
How would you feel if you were that guy? If you met someone that you looked up to and did nothing more than politely ask her out for a drink only to be accused by her and the entire world as a potential rapist.? I could completely understand if he was forceful but I’m definitely going to have to side with Richard Dawkins here.
It’s not about not understanding it. It’s about taking up a permanent victim status. Most of the women I know don’t feel that need and are about as afraid of the constant threat of rape as I am of getting robbed or carjacked.
@829,
How? There are so many things to be done.
First and foremost by educating men to understand that a vast majority of strangers have no interest in unsolicited attention, and that there are very few situations where approaching a stranger is appropriate. Even fewer where a proposition will be anything other than unwelcome. Make men understand that women are not walking around waiting to hit upon by random stranger.
Educate men to understand that approaching and propositioning strangers is not a right. That, if they choose to do so, they should be graceful when rebuffed, rather than feeling embarrassed or insulted. Educating them that strangers generally don’t make themselves sexually available to others, and probably aren’t interested in having a relationship with them. By educating men to understand that a women who isn’t showing any sign of interest in them is unlikely to be receptive to sudden propositions. For instance, someone who hasn’t made eye contact with them, and doesn’t seem pleased to see them probably doesn’t want to speak to them. However, also that eye contact and a smile aren’t unambiguous signals of sexual availability. and nor is being friendly. Or wearing a certain type of clothing.
By educating them to understand that making such approaches when someone is vulnerable and isolated is a bad thing to do and likely to cause distress. Following a stranger into an elevator is probably not a good thing to do. By educating men that if they are going to approach lone women, then they should only try it in environments in which women are likely to feel safe and able to escape, and that they should ask whether someone would like to get to know them rather than immediately propositioning them. If people want to get to know them, then they may or may not have a sexual interest in them.
The main thing to do is to educate men to listen to women, and to treat them with empathy and as fellow human beings, rather than potential sexual conquests.
@834
Yes. By making society a safer and less threatening place for women. It is no good pretending that the fear of rape and violence is disproportionate, given that such things are common enough and the potential consequences terrible enough.
As it is, there are a great many (especially) male commenters who simply feel the need to defend their right to impose themselves on women. I don’t necessarily aim that at you, but it is part of the context for my replies. They don’t even consider that a proposition – of coffee, let alone more – could reasonably evoke fear in a specific context.
They haven’t even considered the fact that sometimes it would be better to wait for the next elevator.
@ 812. Bernard Bumner
“Teach men who aren’t rapists not to act like potential rapists.”
Maybe we should set up “Not looking like arapist 101”. Than we despise of all who take it, because, who would have the greatest incentive to visit the course? Rapists obviously.
“The answer is for men to listen to and attempt to understand the concerns and experiences of women, rather than attempting to dismiss them.”
Yes, let’s listen to and attempt to understand. For this let’s discuss. But if during the discussions, we find parts should be dismissed, let’s dismiss them.
“a) Do you carry out a risk assessment after the event?”
No, but I base reaction after the event on information gathered during the event.
Now “I mistook you and it’s all your fault” is not the only possible reaction. There are others like “I mistook you, honest mistakes on both sides were made” or even “I mistook you, oops my bad”.
“b) Why are people so utterly obsessed with the fact that a rape didn’t take place?”
Which people are you talking about and how do you know they are utterly obsessed?
@ 813. Lyr
“Are men like Dawkins simply so unimaginative that they can’t put themselves in the place of someone else, someone who might be uncomfortable in a situation they themselves wouldn’t be bothered by?”
As far as I understand, Dawkins position boiled down is to say “Bear with the discomfort”. This seems to imply that he accepts that the discomfort is real.
@836. Andrew Said: My presence in an elevator with a woman is a “potential sexual assault.”? By that logic, her presence in an elevator with me a “potential false rape allegation”.
……………………………………………
I had really hoped the thread would not go here, but YES!
That is why males are seldom teaching in primary schools anymore. That’s why a coach of a team of young girls is taught not to hug them, etc etc.
So, like it or not, the safe path is to know the applicable social norms and don’t transgress, although that’s a pretty crude analysis of the situation.
It’s also really taking this discussion and moving it way off into the frontier. The elevator incident was simply about a clueless guy making a woman feel uncomfortable. The issues of sexual assault and racism were subsequent escalations as the comments frothed out of control on PZ’s blog.
Cheers
Well, I might as well add my own opinions to this vast heap of opinions.
1. I disagree with Mr. Dawkins’ assertion that there was zero injury done. The gentleman’s comments did inflict a tiny amount of injury — but the degree of injury inflicted is far lower than what is usually accepted in our culture as “acceptable verbal injury”. Indeed, many of the reactions to Mr. Dawkins, laced with obscenity and vituperation, greatly exceed in magnitude of malediction the original peccadillo.
The standards of viciousness that we accept in public discourse, much less personal discourse, are (IMO) far too low. Certainly this discussion has rippled with maliciousness and insensitivity vastly exceeding the comment made in the elevator. I suggest that our discussion of this incident should itself become an example of sensitive, reasonable, charitable disagreement.
2. I further suggest that, given the great heterogeneity of sexual attitudes, there is simply no safe means for men and women in our culture to emotionally interact. If a woman smiles at a man, is that a sexual come-on, an expression of pleasure, an invitation to chaste conversation, or is she perhaps smiling at somebody behind him? Is there any means by which a man can determine her intentions without asking her?
3. Despite the social progress of the last few thousand years, we are still saddled with an expectation that, to some degree, the male should take the first step in any sexual interaction. Many parts of our culture still hold that a woman who initiates interaction is morally deficient. Thus, the male’s act of initiation was in itself well within the range of acceptable behaviors, IMO. However, the means by which he initiated the interaction was most certainly clumsy.
4. I myself would never have done anything as idiotic as what he did. At the most, I would have commented that I appreciated her lecture, and followed up ONLY if her reaction indicated some interest. However, I would not have expected so trivial a meeting as to have any potential for leading to any relationship of any kind — even a conversation.
5. If a women is fearful of being alone in an elevator with a man, was it insensitive of him to board the elevator? Should he have departed the elevator at the first opportunity and waited for another elevator? Should she have departed the elevator? Men and women are not allowed to kiss in public in Saudi Arabia — should they be allowed to share an elevator alone?
6. In general, most women are socially more sensitive than most men. To put it more bluntly, most men really are clueless. This is not an indicator of intrinsic evil on their part — men and women (as groups, not as individuals) have a number of well-researched differences in cognitive performance. Is complaining that men are clueless rather like complaining that a woman “throws like a girl”?
I sincerely hope that any responses to this post are as sensitive as we all would expect the man in the exemplar incident would have been.
Face it people, everything -can- be a potential assault. Women, take anti-rape self defense classes and carry Mace. Men, Just don’t talk to women in enclosed areas like elevators when there’s only 2 of you. You have a captive audience, it’s just not polite. Grow up and take responsibility for yourselves.
I watched the bit of the video where she talks about what happened in the elevator, and it confuses me as to why she was offended. I guess that she interpreted the act of being asked “back to his hotel room” as being a sexual advance. But isn’t that her projecting the same thing onto him that she doesn’t want being projected on her? Had she asked the guy back to her room for coffee, and the guy showed up expecting sex, she would likely be outraged. Yet the guy asks her back to his room for coffee and suddenly he’s sexualizing her, really?
On one hand she’s telling men to me more aware of how sensitive women are to this situation and it’s potential, but just a little further over in the video, maybe less than 1 min, she mocks the misogynists who posted in response to her youtube by saying “you know how girls are… sensitive”. Didn’t she just remind men about how sensitive women are and how sensitive she is to the situation she was put in? Isn’t this her reaffirming the stereotype that just seconds later she mocks some one for holding?
As to the suggestion that this could have lead to sexual assault is just as absurd as suggesting that this could have lead to great and mutually stimulation conversation over coffee. While both are possible (hell anything is possible) both were very highly unlikely.
It’s pretty simple:
1. The stats on domestic violence are well known and quite clear.
2. The female opinion matters more than the male opinion as women are much more at risk than men are.
I have older sisters and we used to wrestle as kids. Once I hit my teens it rapidly became apparent that even as a weak and thin male (much weaker and thinner than my peers) I could easily beat either of my older sisters in any sort of contest of strength. If I jumped out at them while inside the house I could elicit an awesome scream and have them enveloped in a hug before they could react. It was fun! (for me, as a teen) but after I while I realized it was freaking them out. Women are aware of that power imbalance all the time. If they have young, weak brothers they are even more aware of just how vulnerable they are to even a weak male.
While they knew I would never intentionally hurt them I did sometimes hurt them accidentally. An untrained, skinny, weak male that spent most of his time indoors could and did subdue older and more athletic sisters with relative ease.
As adults they also know that some men, even if it’s only 1% (wild guess) just won’t take “no” for an answer. Think about the guys you know. Do you know 100? Can you imagine that 1 of them might get a little buzzed or just really excited, or just read the social cues wrong and refuse to take no for an answer? As men we are sometimes rewarded for our persistence in the “dating game” and it’s very difficult for us to imagine what it feels like to be pursued by a stronger person intent on having sex with us, even if we’ve been making it clear that we’re not interested in them.
If you’re straight, and male trying going to a gay bar and dress like you wanted to get picked up, then play coy for a few hours. Play it straight (“gay” in this case) and politely defer without indicating that you’re straight. This is how many women feel all the time.
Peter
Oh boy (see what I did there?), I really thought feminism and female emancipation had got beyond the point where all men are rapists and all females are helpless sheep. Obviously that is not the case.
The topic remains laden with emotional and sociological (Is that even a word? Not a native speaker) ballast and I don’t think it is reasonable to expect purely rational, unbiased answers from either gender. I live in Germany, currently host of the Women’s Soccer World Cup, another great opportunity to discuss the state of gender equality. Mainstream media here is full of editorials, thought-pieces and comments from both sides. It’s a confusing jungle of opinions and the constraint of political correctness does not help either. I consider this whole discussion a step backwards into the early days of emanzipation, but that, of course, is a product of my perception.
Dawkin’s comment, while showing a tremendous lack of empathy, does strike a chord in myself and apparently in a lot of other men as well. I’m a large guy and always had to fight (duh!, language I hate thee) against being perceived as threatening or intimidating, to the point where I shirked social interactions completely. To this day I get uncomfortable when I walk behind a women for any significant distance, simply because I’m afraid she might think I might follow her. Insecurity comes in different shapes and colors.
On the other hand I can completely understand being creeped out by the situation described by RW. I guess most people would be creeped out and uncomfortable, no matter their gender. Being physically more vulnerable surely won’t make it any more enjoyable. Personally, I interpreted RWs sentence as a form of “c’mon guys, I just held a talk about this”. That it triggered this storm of responses just shows how sensitive of a topic gender equality still is. However, that the situation got defused by a simple and clear “no!” is a good sign. Broadly generalizing (yeah I know, its only one anecdotal incident) it shows that women increasingly have the confidence to both state their wishes and expect the men to respect those wishes. I’m afraid this will sound hopelessly chauvinistic, but in my opinion emancipation brings with it a form of responsibility as well. The responsibility to in turn not hide behind old stereotypes whenever they appear beneficial.
I contemplated even posting this for the last 20 minutes, but seeing as the streamlining of gender properties and the conflict of ignoring contra integrating biological differences in society has appeared over and over recently, I might as well make this my first public internet post. Yay.
One thing that a lot of the guys here don’t get is that the vast majority of adult women have experienced unwanted sexual advancements in their lives. When addressing the issue, people talk about rape and sexual assaults, and those are bad, but even women that have not gone through this, have probably gone through unwanted groping or kissing or less harmful sexual unwanted behavior from men, and all of that begins by men not really wanting to know how women feel about their advances.
So let’s start listening to women.
On another note, people talk about segregated elevators as a supreme example of a stupid thing and ridicule it. And, because it is a very expensive thing, it probably is, its cost is too big if compared to the risk of bad behavior it could prevent. But if large hotels, that have a lot of elevators, separated one of them to be used only by women after hours, that would probably be a good thing. In Rio de Janeiro, where I live, all the suburb and the underground trains have a wagon on which only women can go during the rush hours. All the women I know are very happy with the legislation that created it, because they were really unhappy with all the unwanted groping they have to put up with when going back home after work.
@841 Chris Crawford
A very nice synopsis of the progressive argument lightly peppered through this thread.
Cheers
What an absolute feminist post. Grow up woman. There are gentlemen around. Yes you read right, gentlemen. Not everyone wants to get in your pants. But Rebecca was right to feel however she felt, but there is no need for this “Put even more simply: this wasn’t a guy chewing gum at her. This was a potential sexual assault.”
Geez cant I guy talk to a girl anymore!
This entire post makes a mockery of every woman who has actually been victimized, beaten, raped, murdered, brutalized etc. You have successfully over-reacted so that true victims look like sniveling idiots. Way to go.
As a recent female victim of some actual violence, I am offended by your stance. Please, shut up, and stop making a mockery of the actual feminist survivors out there.
I shouldn’t jump into the breach at this late of a date, but I can’t help myself. I’ve watched this chaos evolve from the start, not believing it was the real Dawkins in the first place, being astounded that it was, and I didn’t have that high opinion of Dawkins in the first place. He’s a damn good evolutionary biologist, he’s a lousy human being.
Others have said this, but I’m going to join the choir. I’m a big guy. I’m six foot two, and 250 lbs. To top it off, I am from a upper middle class, protestant background and have blond hair and blue eyes. If i was rich I would be at the pinnacle of the food chain.
Yet I can see, quite clearly, that I intimidate people, I can see it in their eyes and body language. Especially people very much smaller than me, which includes most women but also some men. I’ve gotten use to it, it doesn’t bother me, but I know I am always considered a ‘potential rapist/assaulter’. I have therefore become very soft spoken, smile a lot, and not say or do anything that could be misconstrued as inappropriate. I have never hit on a complete stranger, or even someone I’ve known for only a short time. And yes, I have told women “you go on ahead, I’ll wait for the next elevator”.
In my experience this isn’t a sexist thing. I make men much smaller then me intimidated as well.
I’ve seen some really dickish posts both here and at PZ’s and at other places. Yes, all muslims are considered ‘potential terrorists’, I’m considered a potential terrorist, we all are or we wouldn’t have to go through security at airports and federal buildings. Stupid analogy.
When I was in college, I went to a rather large University. There were a lot of kids taking a particular subject and instead of having finals for each class, they’d get them altogether at night in a large auditorium and give the finals to maybe 1000+ kids.
I loved night finals. I would go to the library early, study hard all day, and then a few hours before the final walk around campus and try to relax. It was a large, beautiful campus and I remember one night of one particular final it was a beautiful night. I walked around whistling, slowly wandering around, getting the kinks out, unwinding, trying to calm down and relax. I would then go into the final and ace it.
The next day, to my horror, I read in the student newspaper an editorial by a woman that was titled “Get Rid of Night Finals”. I loved night finals and couldn’t understand why anybody would want to get rid of them.
Then I read the article. She, and other female students, were terrified of going to them. Some women had been raped on their way to night finals.
An awful, and sobering thought entered my mind and it scared the crap out of me. How many women had I inadvertently scared, creeped out, made uncomfortable and threatened just by my mere presence and size and sex as I just wandered more or less aimlessly around campus without a care in the world, and certainly not a fear in the world.
As I recall my eyes teared up. Suddenly I didn’t want night finals anymore either. If i made one person that afraid, I wanted to avoid it.
I’m dismayed at the number of people, both men and women, discounting Rebecca’s uncomfortableness. The men are clueless and the women are setting themselves up to be in some nasty situations.
Yes, we are ALL potential criminals. In this society this is a unpleasant truth. Those of us who intimidate people, through no fault of our own, should try to reassure those people not belittle them. I smile, I’m very soft spoken in public, I try everything I can not to intimidate people. It isn’t that hard or that much of an inconvenience.
I feel sorry for Lalla Ward. She’s a much bigger celebrity and goes to much bigger conventions than her husband. She is such a tiny waif of a woman that i have no doubt she has been uncomfortable many, many times. She has no doubt had rape, no matter how far back, on her mind many, many times. And she is married to an insensitive cad.
Sorry Dawkins supporters and Watson haters. Phil and Rebecca are right on this one. PZ is right but in a backhanded kind of way. Dawkins was being a, and is being a, colossal Dick.
And reading some of the comments posted by men, here, on PZ’s, and other blogs I am truly ashamed at being male. I cannot apologize enough for the other clueless members of my sex.
What’s with this “potential sexual assault”?
So anytime a woman is with a man it’s a “potential sexual assault”?
If you are going to judge things that way, than getting into a car is “potential vehicular death”.
And every time you are near a body of water it’s “potential drowning threat”.
I get 100% of what Richard Dawkins was saying.
If you are that afraid than learn to defend yourself. Women are very capable of defending themselves. So learn how to do it and stop thinking any time a man enters the room it’s a “potential sexual assault”.
Holy crap. I usually try to read the previous comments before I make my own, but there are just under 900 of them, so this time I’ll break that rule.
No. No no no no no no no. This is stupid.
This should not be considered “potential sexual assault.” If you absolutely insist that it was, then fine. Technically I do have to admit that it was “potential sexual assault.” But if that’s so, then the guy who was chewing gum was “potential murder.”
He was just as much of a “potential rapist” before he spoke to her as he was afterwards. He was also a potential murderer, a potential epileptic, and a potential gum chewer.
So?
I’m sorry that she felt like he was creepy. I’m sorry that she lives in an apparent constant fear of rape. But you know what? I’m not a rapist. I’m not going to walk around thinking, “Be careful, Jacob. Most of these women consider you a potential rapist.”
How about we don’t treat people as if they actually are the negative things they could potentially be?
If she was scared, that’s her prerogative. I personally think that she probably shouldn’t have been, but I have a different set of experiences than she.
But he did not do anything wrong. He did nothing even slightly wrong. He did nothing that a reasonable person could possibly find even potentially wrong.
I’m with Dawkins on this one. I have nothing against Rebecca at all. She overreacted, IMO, but meh. That’s an incredibly minor thing to do. I overreact too. I want to emphasize that though I disagree with her reaction, I don’t think it was a really big deal, either.
But half the internet has apparently come out and decided that it’s common knowledge that men should just know better than to speak to a woman they’ve not met before. At least, not unless there are witnesses around.
And screw that. It boggles my mind that everyone doesn’t see how mind-numbingly offensive that is, both to men and women.
@843. Rift
Well done.
Cheers
@ 783. Bernard Bumner
“I wonder how many people would like to defend my right to distribute candy to school children and offer to show them my pet rabbits?”
Here’s on for you.
Actually I lived for decades near a man who did that, except they weren’t pet rabbits. He kept them for slaughter.
“In general, most women are socially more sensitive than most men. To put it more bluntly, most men really are clueless. This is not an indicator of intrinsic evil on their part — men and women (as groups, not as individuals) have a number of well-researched differences in cognitive performance. Is complaining that men are clueless rather like complaining that a woman “throws like a girl”?
I feel so sorry for men who have such a dim view of themselves. This is insutling evo psych nonsense wrapped up in a misandrist bow. and, somehow, its feminists that get the man-hater label.
You can stop being cluelessly privileged, as, clearly, many man have done. Phil and PZ show us this. Its not biology and not the fault of evolution. Its male privilege and it is not immutable.
@Dude 837,
This makes you sound like a very dangerous, paranoid, angry individual. It would be quite pathetically funny otherwise. I am a very happy actively heterosexual male, and I don’t feel in the slightest bit oppressed by my own suggestions. I’m merely advocating that men should be considerate to women, and that we should all help to address the very obvious power imbalances in society.
Precisely. That is why men need to accept their responsibilty to help to make society safer and thereby help to make women feel safer. In these kinds of discussions there is always much talk of what women should do and feel, but very little of what men should do and feel.
You. Don’t. Have. Any. Right. To. Approach. Women.
You may choose to. That is not wrong per se. But it is also not your right. If you do it in an inconsiderate and selfish manner, and if you make a women feel uncomfortable or afraid in the process, then that is your fault not hers. Actually, even if you are considerate and selfless in your approach, then it is still your fault.
You have no right to make the approach and therefore the consequences are entirely your responsibility.
A women has every right to go about her own business unhassled, unmolested, and even entirely undisturbed.
@Thorsten #839,
You aren’t qualified to dismiss anything.
Rebecca Watson found Elevator Guy to be creepy. That was her experience. Why aren’t you interested on other people’s experiences and perceptions?
I simply cannot believe that anyone who has viewed and understood Rebecca Watson’s original video wouldn’t find Elevator Guy’s actions at least inappropriate.
It is a very obvious feature of the discussion. Take a look back over this thread.
Screwed up the cut and pasting on that one. Try again
844. Jacob
For a different perspective try reading @843 Rift and 841 Chris Crawford.
Cheers
@Bad Jim
I never said it was the victims fault.
I take it you don’t believe in risk mitigation?
So person “A” goes to the elevator lobby of a hotel at 4am and presses the elevator button. Before the elevator arrives, an adult male “B” shows up in the elevator lobby and appears to also be waiting for an elevator. An elevator finally arrives and male “B” gets in the elevator.
At this point, do you have any advice for person “A?”
And what if person “A” feels uncomfortable being alone in an elevator with another person at 4am? Is it your advice that they should ignore their feelings and just get in the elevator anyway?
My point was that reducing risk takes practice. Anyone can reduce their vulnerability with some decent awareness training and applying it proactively. It’s a tool that should be in everyone’s toolbox. And whether or not someone applies good risk mitigation in their daily lives in no way absolves the criminals of their guilt.
Tim
Thanks, Jacob, for reminding all women that we’re just silly ninnies, who are not reasonable, are needlessly fearful, and of course, need to defer to men to tell us what’s up.
Nevermind that no one has said that he did something horribly wrong. Never mind that no one called him a rapist. Never mind that no one said men should never ever talk to women. Nevermind listneing to what a woman is actually sayuing at all. Just ignor her, dismiss her and correct her. That’ll solve everything.
Nope. Not a potential sexual assault. Simply Hysteria. I don’t agree with Dawkins on his Athiest views (being a Baha’i myself) but am 100% proud of him not caving in to the hysterical ravings.
Frankly, the author’s and the woman who was in the story, their definition of “potential sexual assault” is so low, that any man, talking to a woman anywhere, ever, is a “potential sexual assault.” This is unbelievably naive. I think their real problem is their FEAR of MEN.
@845 Ron1
Thanks.
That actually took a lot out of me emotionally to write. Thanks again for the support.
And it was immediately followed by a post from another clueless member of my sex, sigh.
A small suggestion: let’s not crucify Mr. Dawkins on this matter. I disagree slightly with him, but do not hold such a small disagreement to have much bearing on my respect for him. Of all the different people who have commented here, is there a single pair that holds the same opinions on all issues? I very much doubt that. So, if no two of us share all opinions, then every single one of us disagrees with every other person on some issue. Does that mean that nobody should ever respect anybody?
A male not talking is a potential sexual assault.
As is a closed door.
So where do we draw the line ?
Can we ask the time if we need the time?
Can we ask it if we don’t really need it ?
Can we define a legal protocol so that women can have a 100% stressless life ?
Like, they should wear a green shirt the day they’re ok to be asked out or something, or a third party referee, that would remove possible conflict.
And what about male prejudice, I personally suffer a lot of stress at the office when my secretery smiles at me. Because if I don’t return her smile she could take it wrong and sue me for sexual assault, it’s POTENTIAL, I could lose my job and it would be hard for me to find another one. Also women shouldn’t be able to wear sexy outfits, I live in fear of looking at their body, they could take it the bad way, and I may never see my kids again, as a potential abuser. Sarcasm of course, though not always so far from reality.
A lot of you know about a bit about biology, ethology, evolution, primatology etc don’t you?
well if despite this you’re not too weirdly stuck into plain blank slate ideology (like too many feminists), you should at least admit that :
MATING IS STRESSFUL!
You can’t suppress all discomfort.
And we won’t ever get mating symetry, let’s punish the abusers, protect the women, and let the men be men.
More arguments:
– How many such 20 sec moments of embarrassment or baseless fear are worth one loving happy couple that met in an elevator, living several years together?
– What if some women liked it ? Although it’s surprising to some of you, men do it because it (sometimes) works.
– More controversial though obvious : What if most women liked dominant (though gentle) characters who take charge, and are not afraid to face rejection?
– What if such encounters, lived lightly without such extreme drama, had a wider global positive effect on male/female relationships, reducing rape overall ?
Rift – thank you for that. Its no small comfort, amid this deluge of misogyny, apathy and cluelessness, that there are men who get it.
@851
I think Dawkins reaction was disturbing.
Why a letter to a “Muslima”? What has the tragic plight of our third world sisters got to do with creepers in elevators?
He comes across as angry and sarcastic to me, not ironic.
Praps that is the difference between the guy POV and the girl POV.
and bravo #843
that is veritas. as a girl i felt threatened and repulsed by Richards Dawkins overt anger and scorn.
like other commenters i was shocked and disbelieving. its cuckoo-bananas to compare Rebecca’s experience to FGM….and innapropriate. Dawkins seems very angry.
Blind Watchmaker is my favorite book ever.
“let’s not crucify Mr. Dawkins on this matt”
I am genuinely tired of women who stand up for themselves being painted as violent. Words and boycotts are not violence.
He’s not being “crucified”. He’s being called out for being a jerk. He’s veing called out for the complete wrongness of his posts. He’s being called out by people who respect him, who are asking fo the same in return.
He doesn’t get a “get out of criticism free” card just because you (the collective “you”) think he deserves one.
” …the right of a man to approach the opposite sex…
You. Don’t. Have. Any. Right. To. Approach. Women.”
Geez. There it is in a nutshell. Rebecca has metaphorically kicked a lot of men in the gonads who believe that they have a right to harass women.. sorry..”approach women”. How about you consider it a privilege that can only be exercised at specific times and places, or is that too much of a restriction of your right to make everyone with a pair of knockers miserable?
I may have a warped view of feminism but it strikes me as odd that so many people (especially women) think so highly of it. Perhaps those people only mean the part of feminism that promotes human rights and gender equality and fights sexual abuse. But isn’t it feminism that invented the “all men are rapists” dogma and used it in this or any number of other forms for decades? It seems to me that much of the fear being experienced by women today is actually rooted in a culture that has somehow adopted this view of men in general over the years.
My male privilege of not being brought up in fear of men (or women) certainly does not entitle me to ignore those fears in women and behave creepy towards them in confined spaces (or anywhere else). It is also true that rape and sexual abuse are a real risk and the statistics show the male offenders to be an overwhelming majority.
There are other real risks however (like traffic accidents, diseases) that we live with without being constantly terrorized by them. As a sceptic I try to rationalize risks and put them into proportion, and I try to fight irrational thinking. So why should I embrace feminism and actively support women in their fear of men? I will fight for gender equality and against abusive treatment any day. Catcalling, leering etc. are certainly abusive. As is asking a stranger for sex in an elevator. I agree: Do not do it.
But promoting fear of men to the point that women do not dare to go near them is abusive also. And not mainly to the men, who generally do not seem to even have a clue about that.
@844 Rift
I just went back and reread your post. I understand your position and agree on “Yes, we are ALL potential criminals. In this society this is a unpleasant truth. Those of us who intimidate people, through no fault of our own, should try to reassure those people not belittle them.”
However, I disagree on “I try everything I can not to intimidate people. It isn’t that hard or that much of an inconvenience. ” There is a point at which this gets out of proportion. I don’t know how you could cope with it, but it lead me onto a path of self-loathing that took years of therapy to heal.
Dawkins was dead on the money with this one. PZ, you’re usually rational, what the hell dude?
You consider asking someone for coffee and then not saying anything afterwards harassment?
@Chris Crawford 851,
When someone deserves to be bawled out, then it shouldn’t matter whether it is Dawkins or anyone else.
@shams 852,
No, I think you’ll find that there are plenty of men as well as women who were disturbed by Dawkins strange instinct to interject with a distraction. His backpedalling since then has been equally problematic. Dawkins is firmly in the wrong, and nothing less than an apology and full recognition that he was in error will help here.
@ Father Time 854,
Have you bothered to find out the full facts in this case. If so, do you really believe that elevator Guy was making an unambiguous offer of nothing more than a caffeinated beverage?
“You consider asking someone for coffee and then not saying anything afterwards harassment?”
i think an XY would say no, and an XX would say it can be.
I didn’t see much discussion on the original point made by the woman in the elevator, but I am assuming that she just used it as an example of random times and situations in which women have to be fearful or at the very least, hyper-aware and defensive. If this is the case, then Dawkins point is moot and he missed her point entirely, regardless of offense. Sure, nothing happened. But as long as we live in a society where these things CAN happen, then women will often be nervous and/or on-guard in situations like this in perpetuity. And THAT is something that males are rarely, if ever, exposed to.
The point is not that she was even close to being sexually assaulted: it is that she was nervous/frightened/aware in a situation that seems (and was) innocuous. And she shouldn’t have to be.
Very sad also that some feel shame to be men.
That’s the dangerous outcome of it, you see yourself as a potential criminal, so you identify a little bit with it.
I’m not “proud” to be a man, nor “ashamed”, it’s silly. It’s like shame to be white, or whame to be human or whatever, what’s the f***** point ?
Take the example of Rift, comment #843, the guy lives in constant stress of being too intimidating, too potentially harmful, and does EVERYTHING he can to be transparent.
Yet in the end he’s still ashamed…
He does his best, but still, he’s rotten inside, inspiring fear, so he has to work for it not to bother the world too much, so in an attempt for redemption he admits that he’s knows he is one of the bad kind and profess is inferiority publicly.
He doesn’t even get to be proud of his way of life, extremist feminists lead him there, and yet he admires them somehow…
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
@Father Time: “You consider asking someone for coffee and then not saying anything afterwards harassment?”
When someone has just spent her day talking about how unwelcome sexual attention at conferences is a bad thing.
When someone announces at 4AM that they are tired and are leaving to go to bed.
When they are followed onto an elevator by someone who has had hours of opportunity to speak to her and has remained silent.
When the invitation is made at a time and place where someone who has heard the term “elevator rape” might be uncomfortable.
When the invitation for coffee is made in such a way as to be indistinguishable from a request for sex.
Yes, that is harassment. What kind of jerk doesn’t consider that harassment? Were you raised by wolves?
@ 848. Ron1
I actually did read those, as they were near the bottom. I just can’t bring myself to agree.
I’ve been made uncomfortable by huge guys before, too. I’m not small, but there are some truly gigantic people out there. But I suppose I’m still a man, and thus better able to defend myself than a similarly untrained woman.
So a better analogy would be a group of guys dressed in stereotypical “thug” outfits. I’ve been actually and literally afraid before because I was in a small, confined area with a group of people who, at least at the time, seemed like they might be in a “gang” of some sort. When I’m in an elevator and six or seven men who look like gang members walk in, I get afraid.
What am I afraid of? I’m afraid I’ll be robbed, or beat the hell out of, or even stabbed and killed. At my job I read lots of medical records, and I start remembering hospital records from people who were jumped by random groups of young men they didn’t even know, and who were beaten nearly to death for no reason except that the attackers thought it was fun.
And then, when either I or the group of men get off the elevator, I feel relief.
But you know what? That group of men did nothing wrong. I can say that I was justified in my fear. I might also have been being classist, honestly. “Hey those people dress in a certain way, that means they’re likely to hurt me.”
You know what, though? Why not take this to a place where everyone will agree. What if I got in an elevator and a large black man got in after me?
Crime among young black men is much higher than crime among young white men, or at least it is in North Carolina.
Does that make it ok for me to blame the black man? After all, statistically, he’s more likely to hurt me than a white man of the same age. Is there any possible way to claim that he should have known better than to get in the elevator with me? That he should have realized his skin color made him scary?
No. Or at least, I hope no one will claim that, because that will disturb the hell out of me.
Looking at someone and knowing that they’re statistically more likely to hurt you than someone else, and thus feeling afraid, is an emotional reaction. It might be wrong, but as I said in my previous reply, you can’t completely control your emotions.
But actively blaming the other person for somehow not knowing better? That’s disgusting.
@Bernard Bumner 855:
“When someone deserves to be bawled out, then it shouldn’t matter whether it is Dawkins or anyone else.”
“Deserves to be bawled out”? Don’t you think that perhaps you’re being a little too sure of your own opinions? Yes, you feel strongly about it — but the jump from subjective “I feel strongly about it” to objective “he deserves to be bawled out” is a non-sequitur. He has his opinion. You disagree strongly with it; I disagree mildly with it; some people agree strongly with it. Is your world bifurcated between those who agree with you, and those who disagree with you and deserve to be bawled out?
I agree that Mr. Dawkins’ stature does not render him immune to criticism, but I suggest that we criticize the idea, not the man.
Overreaction. Yes, the guy was tactless. And now we have to read about this crap everywhere because Rebecca felt uncomfortable when she encountered a tactless guy in an elevator? Because she felt she had to let the whole world know about how uncomfortable she felt? Wow. Just carry some pepper spray, and next time you are faced with a similar situation preemptively spray the man’s face. It’s the only surefire way to be sure he won’t make you feel uncomfortable.
Also, still waiting to hear the guy’s side of the story.
@ ^ pheldespat : “still waiting to hear the guy’s side of the story.”
Why? Don’t you believe her side? What can he say that would change the fact that when RW says he made her feel “incredibly uncomfortable” she’d know? Do you need him to tell you what she feels or felt?
If he hasn’t coem forwrad yet, maybe its because he doesn’t remember, doesn’t realise its him we’re talking about or is too ashamed has nothing to add and doesn’t want to out himself? Or maybe he was just Richard Dawkins all along! 😉
@958. Andy Beaton : Thankyou, you said the reply that I was about to offer there better & quicker than I could. Seconded by me.
There is a time and a place for “coffee” folks. Your brains, empathy and imaginations. Use ’em.
@ 838. Andrew :
You know what, you are right there. There *is* a tiny neutrino-sized chance that you just very remotrely possibly potentially maybe could get a false rape accusation made against you if you get in an elevator with a woman.
Know how you can reduce that to zero – and also risk her chemical molecular sized chance of getting raped by you down to zero as well so you both win?
Take the stairs – it’s even good for your health.
Or if you can’t do that the next lift. Problem solved. 😉
***********
This is still going 960 comments later. Ugh. Anyone taking bets on when this thread will pass the thousand comment mark if it hasn’t done so by the time I finish this edit?
@844 Jacob
Well said.
“Potential Sexual Assault” ???? That means that every single time a man and woman are alone somewhere it is a potential sexual assault……
What’s next? Government regulation on when a man may speak to a woman?
What a bunch of drivel.
“Why should we not teach girls and women instead to have some sympathy for the man’s social ineptitude?”
Why should we not teach men that following women from well-lit public places to isolated, enclosed places in order to proposition them makes women understandably nervous?
I’m not surprised so many men think the solution to Elevator Guy’s lack of empathy and understanding is……for Rebecca to be empathetic and understanding. It’s certainly not up to the men to try and understand how a woman feels about basic safety, when she could empathize about his need to try and score a 4 am quickie with a complete stranger.
All men are not rapists, but when a man ignores conventional boundaries women don’t immediately know if it’s accidental or intentional.
And for heaven’s sake, asking someone out for coffee does not equate to asking someone out for coffee RIGHT NOW at 4 am in your hotel room. As adults, can we at least agree on this point?
@Horseman: If you plan on propositioning someone, here’s some advice: don’t do it in a way that the other person will find creepy
My point is that such advice puts the onus on the creeper not to be creepy. That’s impossible. Unless you’re deliberately and maliciously being a jerk, it’s highly likely that you don’t know when you’re being weird or creepy to other people around you. Unless you’re a telepath or unless the other person makes their feelings explicit, it is unreasonable to assume that you would know that you are being creepy in any given situation.
I am seriously uncomfortable around grown men who wear “Hello Kitty” t-shirts, but I can’t expect them to know that in advance and stay away from me, no matter how disturbing I find their mode of dress.
Again: onus should not be on this guy to know in advance that he’s being a creep unless he is fully intending to be creepy, in which case knowing that won’t make a difference anyway.
Messier Tidy Upper, I very much like your analogy to the “neutrino-sized” probability of a false rape accusation versus the “molecular-sized” probability of a rape. What does the fact that such tiny probabilities elicits such intense reactions say about us?
For this, i love Dawkins even more.
The only man, that said the truth, with a strong and adequate comparison.
Inviting for coffee is harassment nowadays, eh?
She felt non-existent potential assault, that is her goddamn problem.
Women now just looking for an opportunity to kick men in the nuts- that’s sexism i’ll tell you.
Very brave and unpopulistic act from Dawkins.
@Bernard Bumner:
“Teach men who aren’t rapists not to act like potential rapists.”
The problem is that we’re being told by androphobic feminists that *all men* are “potential rapists.” That being the case, the only way a man can possibly avoid acting like a “potential rapist” is to go out in public only in convincing drag.
I don’t have a problem with your suggestion, taken in isolation, assuming that the actions that men should avoid are defined less broadly. The problem is that the greater context, in which it is asserted that women *justly* see men chiefly as “potential rapists” rather than as human beings, is horribly sexist and deeply offensive. I have little respect for those who refuse to acknowledge the fundamental humanity of either half of the population. Men are as human as women!
@960
We are criticizing the idea.
I found Dawkins “letter to a Muslima” disturbing, angry, and innapropriate.
It seemed to reveal a deep reservoir of scorn and contempt for muslim women AND for western women.
As a girl, I PERSONALLY felt threatened and intimidated by Dawkins. I DOUBTED my initial response, which was to agree with Rebecca.
Like #843 spoke of male size being an intimidator, Dawkins intellect is an intimidator for a lot of us.
How could he say that?
Let me repeat, it is cuckoo-bananas to compare Rebeccas elevator-creeper experience with FGM.
Its innappropriate on so many levels.
@Chris Crawford 960
I’m offering nothing but my opinion. I never pretended it was anything else.
Appealing to others not to “crucify” Dawkins seemed to imply that you believe a certain strength of reaction is appropriate. I was suggesting that I considered a good bawling out to be entirely appropriate; I’m angry at his response, and quite willing to express that anger.
I’m not asking anyone to follow my lead.
@Mark 966
Who is saying these things?
@ 939. Illuminata
Women aren’t all silly ninnies. Most aren’t. I’m not even claiming Rebecca is.
1. I don’t think that all women would be afraid in this situation.
2. I don’t think feeling fear in this situation is bad. I think it’s inappropriate, but that’s not a big deal. Like I said earlier, no one has complete control over their own emotions. Especially fear.
I think caution would be advised to anyone going up to anyone’s room alone, if they didn’t know that person. If the guy was actually being really creepy (since “creepy” is hard to describe by merely quoting, I don’t know how creepy he was acting), then caution in the elevator might have been appropriate.
My only problem is that the guy is being blamed for doing something wrong.
He did nothing wrong.
(One could argue that his attempt to hit on someone was “wrong,” in that it was unlikely to work. I mean that it was not morally wrong.)
I might be overreacting in my defense of this person I don’t know, but it seems like the “OMG HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAT WAS A HORRIBLE THING TO DO” sentiment is strong in this thread.
And honestly, some of the people on “my” side are making some pretty horrible arguments. The right way to argue this is not to complain about women “cutting our balls off.”
It’s to ask whether or not it is ever appropriate to tell a person, “Having the genetics you have, you should know that some people are afraid of you, and you should adjust your actions accordingly. Those with different genetics can act in that way, because they are not feared. It is wrong of you to act like this other group does, because of how they see you, and as it is your genetics that create the fear, it is your responsibility.”
Edit: Dawkins expressed his opinion in a dickish, insensitive way. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him express an opinion except in a dickish, insensitive way. It’s not like he’s usually kind kind and gentle when he talks about why he disagrees with someone.
Edit2: Anyone who “personally” felt threatened by Dawkins post is either exaggerating or needs to see a therapist. Feeling personally threatened by an internet post that was not directed at you is not normal. I could just as easily say that as a Christian, I feel “personally” threatened by Dawkins, but that would be equally ridiculous.
Antoine, do you see echoes of Brownmiller vs Thornhill/Palmer wars in this one? I sure do.
@Evolving Squid: “Again: onus should not be on this guy to know in advance that he’s being a creep unless he is fully intending to be creepy, in which case knowing that won’t make a difference anyway.”
Why not? Most guys know that funeral homes and vigils for murdered toddlers are not appropriate places to troll for casual sex. If they can draw that line, they can draw others. At some point, we’ve all picked up from society the notion that there appropriate times and places for certain activities. It comes from paying attention to society around you. It just takes a bit of empathy and not ignoring the reaction of your prospective partner to get an idea if you are being creepy or not. And here, Rebecca is helping you out. She is explicitly saying to you, “Learn from this. You have one more datum when trying to figure out if you’re being a creep”.
Wow…. I see a lot of overly sensitive people getting upset over an encounter in an elevator that was harmless and innocent. So the guy’s pick-up strategy was lame. That in and of itself is not a crime or an intent to do harm. Rebecca Watson has lost a lot of credibility with this whole debacle.
@ 835. Ron1
“This is getting really frustrating.”
Well, I could ask you, why and what can be done, to make it less frustrating, however I’d ran the risk that this very question evokes further frustration, anger etc. Even this “clever” way of avoiding the direct question might do so. Maybe even more so for trying to be “clever” or being selfreferentiell in such a way as in this sentence.
After all, the whole thing here got started with a “Be aware of and responsible for what feelings the subtext of your, even most innocent questions, could provoke in others”
“No. You’re are not listening.”
I suspect we have different dfinitions of “to listen” here, but in order to reach common ground, I’ll let this slip for the moment and try to roll with you.
“You are very clearly not listening and I suspect you don’t know how to listen because you were never taught how to listen and what to listen for.”
Ok, let’s forget about the clues for the moment, if I first need a special listening ability to get them, they would be useless at the moment, I agree. What you say seems to suggest, that this listening skill can be tought however, so this would be a start wouldn’t it?
“Further, you don’t appear to have an ability to empathize with Rebecca (a surrogate for women) so you won’t be able to look into the clues, you won’t be able to test anything and you won’t know what really is good, so how will you keep it?”
Wouldn’t this be actually great? I mean: No need to go meta. No need to speculate about how to train inconsiderate man. You have the creepy elevator dude right here: its me (or in your words a surrogate at least) . So you can start with the education right away.
“Now please don’t get me wrong”
I try not too.
“I don’t mean this as an attack”
I don’t see it as such. Anyway sticks and stones can break my bones.
“or as criticism of you.”
I value criticism, especially the constructive sort.
“and I still get things wrong, often.”
Who doesn’t? I’ve no intetion of throwing any stones here.
“it starts with empathy, with acknowledgement of ‘other’.”
E.g. giving in makes things easier, agreed. But there are limits. There need to be rules, if only just in case.
E.g. we can all agree, that the danger of rape with one person in the elevator is nil. So is the problem, the man in the elevator? The talking man? The man proposing coffee? Coffee at the apartment? Coffee at 4 AM? Opinions on this seem to differ.
Creepy elevator dude i.e. me is willing to follow the rules from now on, he just would like to be told them in advance i.e. now. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2296#comic
And don’t get me wrong: I don’t claim that empathy equals giving in, that’s why I wrote e.g. However I’m trying here to make the step from words to acual behaviour, so to be as concrete as possible should help.
957 Antoine
Wow, just wow.
I am not ashamed of being male. I’m ashamed of being the same sex as these clueless idiots. I’m proud to be male. But then again I’m a nice guy, with a wonderful fiancee and not a clueless moron trying to get laid every chance he gets.
I don’t feel rotten inside, I’m don’t feel inferior in anyway. I don’t try to be invisible or hide. I only try to be nice and try not to be a dick.
I read an editorial in college by, not an extreme feminist, but by a woman that didn’t want to get raped.
OMG, I swear we need a test for reading compression before allowing people to post.
You have mis-characterized my entire personality. Women haven’t driven me to act any certain way. If anything I feel more sorry for the guys I scare the hell out of by just being huge. I wouldn’t hurt a flea. But here’s the kicker. They don’t know that!
It is amazingly simple to act nice. It comes second hand to me.
Just… ARGH.
I knew this would happen when I posted that. And yet I’m still amazed.
I’m a guy, I’m proud to be a guy. I love being a guy.
I hate moronic guys that give all guys a bad name. Is that hard to understand?
It’s cliche now, but you *really* don’t get it.
You’re the one that has cut my balls off, Antoine, not me, and not the ‘extremist feminist’ (what ever the hell they are, I don’t think I’ve ever met one)
@950 Konoios
Being nice, not being a dick, and trying to be aware of other people’s potential hang ups have driven you to self loathing? I literally can’t behave any other way, it doesn’t bother me at all.
Am I missing something? Isn’t that what we should all strive for as human being when interacting with anybody, not just women.
Again, just wow.
Time for reading comprehension class.
I haven’t liked Dawkins for a long time, for reasons that are beyond this already muddled mess of a conversation. I am criticizing the idea, not the man. But the man is the one that came up with the idea. Again, I feel sorry for his wife.
And now I know why it was so emotional for me to write that, I knew I would be misconstrued. I’m fading back into lurkdom. No, forget that, I’ve had enough of this pointless tempest in a tea kettle, just have to accept that a lot of people are just clueless about the feelings of others. I’ve read about this mess for far to long as it is.
I should have kept my trap shut and not posted in the first place. For those men and women who are fighting the good fight still, kudos.
I don’t believe in organized religion, now I don’t believe in organized atheism. Thanks guys.
i think you are misunderstanding. i meant personally AS A FEMALE. There is a lot of anger and scorn directed at women in Dawkins “letter”. ..it may not be as obvious to men.
Richard Dawkins is a great intellect and Blind Watchmaker is my favorite book ever.
But i found his “letter” to be innapropriate, disturbing, and very angry.
Its even more disturbing that Dawkins would write that if you read Rebecca’s post.
Shams, I am very curious about why you feel personally threatened by Mr. Dawkins. He did not address his comments to you in any manner; his comments are directed at an idea, not a person. You are translating an opposing opinion into a personal attack; I suggest that this is not clear thinking. I hold only good will towards you, but if you are consistent, you will consider me to be a personal threat to you. Doesn’t that seem a bit of an overreaction? I adjure you to isolate your objective assessment of his writing from your subjective reaction to it.
Perhaps there is a deeper truth hidden in your reaction (and those of many others). Mr. Dawkins has gained the admiration of many people. Could it be that their respect for his writings has transformed into a sense of personal loyalty to the man, and that his recent writings seem, to such people, to constitute a betrayal of that loyalty? If this is the case for some people, then the lesson is clear: never invest loyalty in any person — not for the cynical belief that your loyalty will be betrayed, but instead for the wisdom to recognize that loyalty should only be bestowed upon our closest friends. Idolizing Mr. Dawkins is no different from falling in love with a Hollywood star.
Bernard Bumner, you justify your harsh words by explaining that you are offering only a personal opinion. What if another person offered his own opinion that Mr. Dawkins should be raped and murdered; would you defend that statement because, after all, it is only that person’s opinion? Are personal opinions above criticism?
I and I hope many other men would have asked a lone female if she would mind sharing the elevator with me at that late hour and not been offended for her to choose to use it alone. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have to ask, just read her body language & not get in.
> You. Don’t. Have. Any. Right. To. Approach. Women.
Yes, I do. I your fervor to shame people arguing against you, you seem to have conflated the right to approach with the right to expect a positive response.
> You may choose to. That is not wrong per se. But it is also not your right.
How is it not my right? Who exactly should I ask permission of before I make any sort of interested approach?
> If you do it in an inconsiderate and selfish manner, and if you make a women feel uncomfortable
> or afraid in the process, then that is your fault not hers.
Are women responsible for themselves at all? I am aware that there is a fine line here, that yes, I am capable of doing things that cause other people discomfortable. I am also aware that just *being* can cause some people discomfort. Holding a political opinion, having read a certain book, seen a certain movie, worked a certain job. Maybe I’m wearing the wrong color. Smiling too much.
So, where exactly does one draw the line here? When is a person actually responsible for how they make others feel, and when does the person holding the feelings need to take responsibility for their own thought processes?
> Actually, even if you are considerate and selfless in your approach, then it is still your fault.
Nope. You see, I disagree with your use of the word “fault”. Its at the very core of the problem with this discussion, and an indication as to exactly how unsophisticated you are in your thinking here.
Dawkins’ point, and the point you seem to be willfully ignoring or incapable of understanding, is that approaching a woman is neutral. There is no fault, because there is no blame. You use legal language to describe it because you are predisposed – probably by combination of cultural propaganda and latent shame – to believe that showing unsolicited interest in a woman is by default a negative action.
Again – if this is your worldview, and not mine, what gives you the right to expect me to adhere to it?
You hold this view, I find it offensive. therefore, that you hold this view is your fault, not mine. Right?
> You have no right to make the approach and therefore the consequences are entirely your
> responsibility.
This is an oversimplification, and I’m sorry that you’re this stupid.
I will ask again – at what point does a person have to take responsibility for their feelings? Please note that this is most likely where the line will be drawn – was the approach awkward and kind of stupid, or was it Almost Criminal? Why should a person be chastized for something that is essentially neutral, when the conflict originates from the perceptions of another person? Have you ever actually tried living your life by basing your decisions on what other people could possibly think of you? Do you realize how unreasonable that is?
What if a woman feels threatened by my renting an apartment in the same building? Is it my “fault” for signing the lease, or is it perhaps something that the woman should deal with on her own?
> A women has every right to go about her own business unhassled, unmolested, and even entirely
> undisturbed.
And approaching her and saying hello is not a significant event. Hassled, molested? How can one have a reasonable discussion with someone who uses such loaded words? Especially molested – you seem to wish to color a simple approach with the language of hysteria – as if the words “You seem really interesting” is somehow now in the same moral category as child abuse.
Disturbing someone by talking to them in a public place is not a crime. I have this sneaking suspicion that you and your ilk would love to make it so.
Anyway, 2 things.
1> Know what you are. ( Interesting that if you said this to some women, they’d take offense )
2> Never apologize for being what you are. It is not your fault you are larger, or smaller. It helps to know that some people may feel threatened by this reality. But you should never let someone elses perspective of you become your own, which I think is a BIG problem with this whole line of discussion.
In other news, Rebecca won’t approve any comments in direct opposition to her position on her website.
@Rift 972
Being nice and not being a dick is not the same as “I try everything I can not to intimidate people. It isn’t that hard or that much of an inconvenience.” The point I was trying to make, perhaps rather inexpertly, was that there is a point at which going out of your way to appease others is no longer in proportion to the discomfort you might create by being yourself.
Denying your physical properties can create an image of yourself that has no redeeming qualities. And you can’t change a thing about it. At it hinders you from seeing your characteristics as strengths where they undoubtedly are. This is a bit off-topic, of course.
What are the moderation settings on this blog? I wrote a long, heartfelt comment about my struggles with misandry in our society only for it to vanish when I hit ‘Submit Comment’. I didn’t see a note that it would need to be moderated first, or any other acknowledgement, and it certainly hasn’t shown up in the comments stream. It really takes the steam out of a social critique when your best efforts simply vanish into thin air…
[Know how you can reduce that to zero – and also risk her chemical molecular sized chance of getting raped by you down to zero as well so you both win?]
So suddenly I’m a potential rapist. I have a non-zero chance of raping a given woman in a given situation?
[In other news, Rebecca won’t approve any comments in direct opposition to her position on her website.]
That’s fine, I won’t be giving her the traffic anyway, nor Phil Plait or PZ Myers once this discussion has wound down.
This must be the most responded to thread Phil has ever posted. Maybe he should set up another site for this kind of debate, and call it “Bad Flirting”?
like i said above, i meant threatened/intimidated as a female, and as an otaku of Blind Watchmaker.
Mr. Dawkins does not know me personally.
it was a poor choice of word.
for me it is more a sense that Dawkins must be right, not loyalty per se.
but that Muslima letter is just crazipants.
i can’t reconcile these two components of my belief edifice; Dawkins is a barking islamophobe and an angry white guy that secretly hates women, and Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist.
it does not compute.
Sorry guys, Richard’s right on this one.
This was a potential sexual assault, but if you view every interaction or even the close proximity of a man to a woman as a sexual assault you are being incredibly misandrist. You are calling every man a potential rapist.
Furthermore. How do you propose that a man approach a woman [even if he doesn’t do or say anything creepy] without being labeled a potential rapist. In an imaginary society where a man is never to approach a woman because in her mind an approach is a potential sexual assault how would men and women who are strangers ever meet.
I understand that an elevator is not the best place to hit on a woman, but extending that “potential sexual assault” is easy to pretty much any location or situation where a male stranger were to approach a female stranger.
I do have a solution for this…the solution is that women should switch roles with men and be the initiators and men are the ones that should never ask a woman out or approach her or attempt to get to know her unless the woman makes the first move. In fact I’d love to live in that world, please change the world around so that men like me aren’t paralyzed by fear of approaching a woman because she might interpret my approach as a potential sexual assault.
Dawkins point was that “being uncomfortable” is Rebecca’s problem, not the problem of the person who knew he had no intention of raping anyone–just as “being uncomfortable” was the Catholics problem when PZ put a nail through their holy wafer.
He is wrong: in both cases, some of the offence is on the shoulders of the person who should know better–who should know how his actions will affect others, and should care about that. He is wrong, but he is *consistent*.
PZ, on the other hand, thinks he was justified in the wafer incident (since it’s just a wafer, and he knew that), but that Rebecca’s ‘super fan’ was wrong because he should have known that she’d be uncomfortable. Sorry, PZ: you can’t have it both ways. If he was a creep (and he was!), then you were a jerk.
An analogy:
I was walking home at 4am. As I turned into the alley behind my apartment, a man approached me and asked me if I could spare some change. I was nervous that this might be a robbery, but I said “no.” He nodded, then walked off. I was relieved.
The next day, I was telling some people at work about this, saying “Seriously: if you want to ask people for money, don’t do it in a dark alley at night, sheesh.”
Someone piped up, “Wow, life sure is hard for you, huh? You know in some places people are beaten and killed all the time. You had a man asked you for money, then leave you alone when you said, ‘no.’ Nothing happened! Get over yourself!”
I hope this analogy manages to show that it has nothing to do with gender issues, but only with a failure to see the situation from the other person’s point of view. While I think Dawkins misses this central point–focusing, as he initially did, on the situation as an instance of the current state of women’s rights in our culture–I think he was primed to do so: he wasn’t the one who made it about women’s rights, when it wasn’t ever really about that. Rebecca did.
drunk at 4 in the morning and shocked that someone asks for sex?
dood, that’s my saturday night.
I love how “noting the actual harm done to women by religion in the history of this planet” = barking islamaphobe.
What kind of crazy accomodationist world…oh right, I’m on Bad Astronomy.
Dawkins has no need to apologize. He has his right to his opinion. Your discomfort is not important, and its repulsive that you actually feel justified in using it to silence someone.
This event has done little for me except to illustrate the fascistic, controlling attitudes of members of our educated class. Its astounding to hear story after story of people demanding the submission of other people’s spirits in the name of some fuzzy moral/political justification. Its even more astounding when you find these people calling themselves intellectuals and participating in science related blogs.
Theres a good chance that many of you have taken pride in your ability to think. I hope that discussions such as these help you to understand that maybe you have given yourself a little too much credit.
For me the point Dawkins made is that Rebecca was wrong in saying that a guy inviting her to his room is a problem that needs to be addressed at all. To say that she was objectified is simply wrong. You do not ask an object anything. You do with it whatever you want if it is yours and when it belongs to somebody else you ask the person it belongs to. Neither was this sexist. Sexism is denying one gender certain rights or giving special privileges to one. Comparing such a harmless action to real problems that exist in the world, i.e. the treatment of women who REALLY are objectified by men who REALLY are sexists is retarded and arguably counterproductive. In fact Ayaan Hirsi Ali has argued that this is counterproductive for years now and I think Dawkins more or less just repeated what he heard from her.
If however Dawkins really meant that somebody does not have the right to complain because there are others with bigger problems then his comment really was dumb. That’s what PZ seemingly thought it meant but I think PZ needs to improve his reading comprehension because although you could think this was implied in Dawkins first comment you simply have to change your mind after he clarified what he meant.
And what is Mrs. Watson’s response? You can read it for yourself but my summary is: Dawkins is a white male who doesn’t get it [ad hominem] and he is very offensive [nobody has a right not to be offended] and I know what I am talking about because of all my experiences [anecdotal evidence]. Does this sound like a skeptick to you?
I didn’t like Rebecca before all of this happened and now I really think she only joined the so called “skeptic movement” because it is the hip and trendy thing to do nowadays.
#970 Themos
I think I see what you mean, but it’d get even more sensitive if we really brought it up here.
I admit I never got much into these wars, it’s just ideology vs evidence.
It’s just that in the current case the skeptic community can’t get through political correctness, while RD is talking EXACTLY on the same tone as when he’s debunking creationnists, and SKEPTICS are using on him the same criticism as creationist do (he’s harsh, inconsiderate, etc), when he sticks to the fact and asks for evidence, as he always does.
There’s a LOT of smart people here expressing themselves out of their insecurities, and the tide is so strong I’m really shocked.
@ 971. Andy Beaton
“Why not? Most guys know that funeral homes and vigils for murdered toddlers are not appropriate places to troll for casual sex. If they can draw that line, they can draw others.”
Can they? I very much would like to see proof positiv for this considering the world of high mobilty we live in.
“At some point, we’ve all picked up from society the notion that there appropriate times and places for certain activities. It comes from paying attention to society around you.”
Someone already mentioned Tucker & Dale vs Evil. My society or social strata might not be identical with yours.
“She is explicitly saying to you, “Learn from this. You have one more datum when trying to figure out if you’re being a creep”.”
Most of the power of here complaint depends on the fact, that many, even many guys from the “Dawkin’s side” here agree with her, that the question could at least be considered creepy. This however says, that for those, it isn’t even one new datum.
Also learning by social osmoses, one example at a time is slow learning, especially for grown-ups. And while Mr. Creepy learns, he keeps on offending, by the just statet theorem: Only negative reaction ist new information. So this learning is just what we want to avoid, isn’t it?
@405 Clark Cox
So being male is equivalent to waving a weapon around?
No, being creepy in the right situation will make anyone understandably nervous.
Isn’t that exactly what happened? He asked the question, she said “no”, and that was the end of it.
No because we live in a world where “no” isn’t always accepted as an answer. It’s all about the context. He was behaving in a stalkerish manner (not approaching her until she was alone at 4AM), propositioned her even though they had never met, let alone spoken before. That’s creepy no matter who does it to whom.
@507 Thorsten (and 350 Varsil)
The guy, who claimed to appreciate her talk, apparently missed the whole bit about objectifying her. (Apparently Mr. Dawkins wasn’t paying attention during her talk, either.)
Yes, in a theoretical perfect world where there is no evil, murder or rape, an invitation to sex could be as casual as a question about whether you plan to watch Harry Potter 7.2, with the same lack of any sense of danger.
@571 Thorsten
I love kids, but I would never just go to a playground and approach kids I don’t know. The scenario of a man coaxing little girls he doesn’t know with candy should make you apprehensive, just as a man euphemistically asking a complete stranger for sex made Ms. Watson apprehensive.
The guy that she met wasn’t a monster, he was simply creepy. I’d like to think that most of us don’t go out of our way to offend people we don’t know for no apparent reason, so Rebecca’s anecdote was supposed to be just a helpful hint. (A thumb up to 971 Andy Beaton. Twho thumbs for your 958 comment!)
Shams, I would suggest that, as the years roll by, you’ll gain a greater appreciation for the, shall we say, diversity of thought among people. I can’t think of a single person whose thoughts I unreservedly embrace. Even the smartest people I know sometimes go way off the track of what I consider to be reasonable opinion. I have always admired Mr. Dawkins’ science writings, and I appreciate his sturdy defense of atheism, but I also have long felt him to be overly aggressive in his phrasings. Perhaps that is why he is so well-known: he makes good press. Mr. P.Z. Myers, in my opinion, is even more aggressive in his approach, and that has won him a good crowd of groupies, but I gave up reading him some years ago. There were too many implicit exclamation points in his writing.
Best wishes to you. I do not think that you are silly or stupid or anything at all like that. Your reaction to Mr. Dawkins is perfectly understandable and is — to some extent — justified. But I urge you to take a longer view and embrace celebrities less unreservedly.
Kinois, I disagree. trying not to intimate people, IS being nice and not being a dick. I said ‘it’s not that hard and not that much of an inconvenience’. I it was an inconvenience I wouldn’t go that far. Most people, unfortunately, think being nice is an inconvenience. And I’m not saying you do, I have an idea you don’t.
I am not denying my physical properties. I can reach the top shelf at walmart, and have helped many a little old lady, who have not been intimidated by me but seen my height as a lucky fluke that I happened to be there to help them. I can change light bulbs while standing flat footed. Like the Bumble I can put the star on top of a Christmas tree without a ladder or a chair. (I may be an atheist, but for social reasons i’m culturally a protestant, and not that’s not denying my nature either, I think humans evolved a need for tradition) I can scare off wannabe gangster kids with a mild growl. I am big, I accept that, both the cons and the pros.
My size intimidates people. That’s the truth. But it also comes in useful to those that i don’t frighten. And believe me, while it is a rare occurrence, guys much bigger than me intimidate the heck out of me. But that may be because I’m not use to it.
I think we might be arguing semantics and for that I apologize. Trust me, I don’t go out of my way to appease others. Anything beyond ‘being nice and not a dick’ I refuse to do. Except maybe moving over a seat at a theater is someone can’t see over me.
This is getting complicated and unfortunately I think this issue has generated a high noise to low signal ratio.
@972. Rift
Don’t beat yourself.
Your original comment was excellent and it’s a great example to any kid that is nuts enough to wade on down into this morass.
Cheers
@Leon
well, if Dawkins had written a scathing letter to a Magdalene sister in the service of sarcastically reprimanding Rebecca, and he chastized the sister for letting herself be oppressed like he did the virtual muslimah, i would have called him a barking christianophobe.
and Rift, your contributions to this thread have been great.
others, not so much.
…
>You don’t get it unless you have a personal relationship with Jesus.
“That’s not a reason for me to believe you.”
>You don’t get it unless you have a vagina.
“Oh you are so right!”
-____-
I treat women with respect I will admit I did not allways , I nearly got fired from a job for sexual harasment. I learned my lesson and haved never trated any woman like that. Maybe Mr Dawkins needs to learn the same lesson. Maybe he could start with the Bible that he blasts so munch read Jesus’s sermon on the mount where he said “If you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have commmited adultery with her” what this means is that Jesus says that men should look at women as fellow humans and not as sex objects.
POTENTIAL RAPE IS NOT A CRIME
JUST LIKE THAT TIME YOU GOT MAD AT SOMEONE AND THOUGHT BAD THINGS
POTENTIAL MURDER IS NOT A CRIME.
SEXUAL ASSAULT IS A CRIME
ASSAULT IS A CRIME
POTENTIAL RAPE IS NOT ILLEGAL.
I’m sure, this far down on the list, people aren’t going to be reading, but as a woman, I feel that I have to try and explain a few things.
1. She’s not demonizing the man, all she is saying is that when its 4am, and you are alone in an elevator with a guy, its kinda creepy. Hey guys, if you want to not be creepy, then when you find yourself alone with a woman in an elevator at 4am, please don’t ask her back to your room. Ta-Da. That is all there is to that.
2. Some of you guys are jumping to the conclusion that if there is a woman alone on an elevator you should wait for the next one. No, that’s not the case at all. What you need to do is not invite a woman back to your room. Get on the elevator, hell you can even say something, like in this case, “I really liked your lecture.” then leave it at that. DO NOT invite someone to your hotel room at 4am. I’m sorry, but society has taught us that men asking us to hotel rooms means sex. Now, maybe for this guy, it didn’t, but he should have been less clueless to know how it might have seemed. That is not too much to ask.
3. Did I mention, don’t invite women you’ve never met before to your hotel room at 4am? That’s creepy. Don’t do that, unless you want women to think you are creepy.
4. Please realize, that for women, being alone with a stranger (esp a man) can be scary. On average, we aren’t as big or strong as the males of our species. For those of you saying “Its fine, she could have just hit a button and gotten out,” you need to remember this is a woman we are talking about. That man might have been able to overpower her, he could have prevented her from touching a button. Hell, he dosn’t even have to touch her, he could have been carrying a knife of gun, all he had to do is say as much, and most women would not move an inch, for fear of their lives.
5. Yes, sadly, that is what a lot of us think when we are alone with a man. Growing up as a woman, it is made very clear that you can easily be hurt or abused. We have to be aware of this. So its just a little running thread in our heads now, just being aware. And I’m sure I’m not alone in wishing I didn’t have to think this, but sadly, that’s what we have to think.
6. If you doubt #5, please take a few minuets to look at abuse statistics for women. Its horrifying, and you’ll need to go look at cat macros for a little while afterwards to feel again.
You know how much hate mail Dawkins gets? If he complained each time someone said something mean to him… sheesh, seriously, coffee=/=butt rape
For some reason I can’t edit my previous posts otherwise I would have added this comment there:
tl;dr: I think Rebecca is wrong because this isn’t something a feminist should be making a deal about. It would be like an animal rights activist throwing a huge hissy fit over someone stepping on a snail accidentally.
It’s counterproductive.
Wow I was busy for a couple of days and that’s what happens in the skeptics’ community. So I read it here first and I have to say in a mere irrational way, it breaks my heart. A huge piece of my respect for prof. Dawkins is lost.
@ 963. GeezGuys
“All men are not rapists, but when a man ignores conventional boundaries women don’t immediately know if it’s accidental or intentional.
And for heaven’s sake, asking someone out for coffee does not equate to asking someone out for coffee RIGHT NOW at 4 am in your hotel room. As adults, can we at least agree on this point?”
I can agree that coffee at 4 AM at the hotel room, is considered creepy in the WASP-society I know. I don’t know where elevator dude came from, what he saw and what he thought.
But what does asking creepy questions say about the probability of rape? Especially if folks here point to the fact, that Watson was especially in fear of hate mailers who threatend raspe. Is it agreed upon this group that you first invite for coffee, redraw on decline and than rape? Couldn’t we just as well assume the the redrawel eased the situation up and therefore the question actually helped for the rest of the elevator ride?
Wow.. There’s so much “let’s make stuff up in my head and argue that” in this thread that it’s getting ridiculous. So far we have her description of events, and considering that she escaped unscathed, I think she overreacted just a tad. I hope to god(metaphorically speaking) that the guy never outs himself, or he’s in for a world of pain. All for asking a girl to go for coffee.
This is very amusing since Dawkins is right.
What he is saying between nailing the wafer on the cross and the woman just being casually talked to by a man in the elevator is that the Catholics put meaning into the wafer were as the “victim” in the elevator put so much meanings and her own interpretations on what the man said and where both of them were located in. It isn’t the mans fault that she is deathly afraid of being alone with another man in an elevator, who is the one with that fear? It is her fault that she wanted to see it in a negative light.
What happened was that he said she was interesting, he asked her to go to his room for some coffee, she declined. That is it. Did he grope her? Did he say she had a sexy body? Did he say he wanted to make sweet love to her in his room? Did he say if she didn’t accept his offering he will just have his way on the elevator? Heck, did he say they were going to have a pillow fight in his room?
To all of those questions it comes to a resounding no. All of those questions were interpretations of the situation, they never happened. You made them all up in your head and trying to pass it off as truth. That fear is completely and utterly irrational and sexist to boot. If you were to say the same thing about being alone with a black person in an elevator and exhibit these same symptoms you could very well be a racist, but this is a man and you feel this with all men so you very well could be a sexist.
Honestly this is so amusing that I am wondering if I just stumbled onto some feminist joke that you laugh behind the backs of non-feminists because we think you are serious about it. This is truly bewildering.
Wow, after 850+ posts, I’m pretty sure that Phil Plait will never read this. But I’ll say my piece anyway: You, Phil Plait, have just dropped a mile and a half in my regard. I was beginning to think of you as the new Carl Sagan. But now, not so much.
I just can’t believe that you would mobilize your huge fan base, on such a mis-guided attack on Richard Dawkins. The incidence, as you describe it, is a non-issue. It’s a “he looked at me funny”-issue. You Americans do simply not have a working moral compass. Or are women in Colorado walking around in permanent a state of fear of being raped, perhaps? They aren’t in Europe.
Imagine this: a white man and a black man in an elevator. The black man says: “could I borrow a cigarette?” The white man says: “sorry, I don’t smoke.” And after that incidence 50% of you Americans would come out saying: “the white man was victim of an assault and was lucky to come out alive”. The other 50% of you Americans would say: “the white man was an evil racist. The black man is the victim.” The thing is: there was no assault! You Americans are hysterical idiots! (sorry for the strong language.)
I’m sorry Mr. Plait, sir. But your attack on Dawkins is without any merit what so ever. You have disappointed me deeply.
@shams 980
Dawkins main problem is that, unless he spends a lot of time to think about what he’s writing (such as his books), his tone goes *way* off, even when he says something, that when read in a calm and detached manner, is completely rational. Then, because people see his tone as negative, they subconsciously project negative motivations to his writing.
When he says something along the lines of “Perhaps religious indoctrination of children should be seen as a form of child abuse”, instead of reading “If we think about it rationally, we are doing a disservice to our children by teaching them only the views of our own religion”; people get stuck on the “child abuse” part and think: “Richard Dawkins wants parents who raise their children in a religious manner to be punished!”.
About a year ago, a professor at my university was searching for candidates for a project for a master’s degree. Since I wasn’t going to finish my bachelor’s degree in another two semesters, I sent him an e-mail asking him if that was all right. His answer was along the lines of: “Sure, this may sound a bit rough, but I think your grades are a bit low.”
I was furious! My average grade was a bit over the equivalent of A- (I hate that grade, it sounds like it’s lower than B+). Until I was pretty proud of my grades, not genius level, but far above average. He made it sound like I was some kind of loser who didn’t really have a chance. Well, turns out he’s a great guy when you meet him in person. He was worried about my grades because I needed to have an average of A to guarantee that I would receive a scholarship to help financially.
Because his tone was dry and abrupt, I automatically assigned negative motives to his rather unclear message.
In this case, Dawkins’ message has an insensitive tone (something he should really work on) and because of this, people have been reading a bit too much between the lines and in a negative light.
His overall message is (as I read it): “Don’t you think you should use your time to talk about more important? Why complain so much since, in fact, *nothing bad happened*? There are women out there who are suffering *right now*. Shouldn’t it be more important to talk about *that*?”
This is, of course, wrong. Rebecca can focus on whatever she wants. It’s her blog, she can whine about not being to find fresh vegetables at her local grocery if she wants too.
But somehow people seem to have transformed his posts into:
“Women here shouldn’t complain about sexual harassment or rape because elsewhere some women have it much worse”.
I have no idea about the relative physical size of the individuals involved but does it make a difference in this case if the man is much smaller than the woman…let’s imagine that the woman is an ex-athlete and is 5’10” and 170 lbs while the man is 5’1″ and 105 pounds…
What if the 2 individuals in the elevator had these dimensions but the roles were reversed and it was the woman who was asking the man to come to his room for coffee.
It’s just as sexist to assume that all men are rapists as it is to assume all women want to be propositioned.
If you don’t want to be judged by your gender, don’t judge me by mine.
So many boundary crossers
The guy in the elevator with his classless invitation,
Dawkins with his comparison to the plight of women in some other cultures,
Phil with his labeling of men in elevators as potential sexual assailants,
Rebbecca with her turning mole hills into mountains (and her gratuitous use of the word “misogynous” in the video),
People who go to skeptic conventions are just weird.
[It’s just as sexist to assume that all men are rapists as it is to assume all women want to be propositioned.]
Propositioning a woman is an assumption that all women want to be propositioned? All it was was a request for a consensual encounter (not even necessarily sexual) and the denial of the request was immediately and politely accepted.
Well, I didn’t read every comment. But I must say if this is a widespread point of view, that you may have changed my point of view. Apparently woman aren’t equal to men? Woman = weak. Ok, noted. I will treat you accordingly. Hey here is an idea. If you know you are weak, and you are scared of your shadow. Don’t get into an elevator with a man. If you get in first, get out while you still can. As a child, I faced real physical bullies, so I know fear. Maybe MORE than you do. But to live in fear, you have surrendered. That is a coward. Become stronger, don’t beg the world to coddle you. It is not very attractive. Try this http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity-lifestyle/articles/living/should-women-own-guns
She remind me of this type of girl:
http://www.thedoghousediaries.com/?p=1042
http://xkcd.com/642/
Let me make sure I have this correct…
1.) She gave a talk that someone (a male) found interesting.
2.) They subsequently saw her at a random location which happened to be an elevator in a hotel they shared and asked if she’d like to have some coffee in their room.
3.) She said no and the person then left her alone and she went back to her room.
Is this correct? If so, let’s get this guy on the sex offender registry NOW! He was attracted to her? How DARE an animal find another animal attractive! I suppose she never wants to be sexualized? Never wants a man to find her attractive, even a future boyfriend / husband? Guess what? We are animals and we are attracted to the opposite sex. We had better hurry and close all of the bars, clubs and social events down lest someone find someone else attractive and ask them if they feel the same!
Of course, her response is: “But it was 4 a.m.! He could have raped me!”
Ok, but DID he rape her? If not, why is she posting this on the internet? She turned a guy down and he left her alone, SO WHAT?
Maybe he should have directly asked she for sex at noon, that would have been much better than asking if she wanted coffee since they were both in the same hotel, right? Or maybe he was leaving in the morning and really wanted to talk before he left. YOU DON’T KNOW.
Maybe since she was in a foreign country the customs and social graces aren’t the same? Maybe it’s OK to ask someone if they find you attractive and are interested in a mutual experience without that being predatory? Or maybe he ACTUALLY wanted coffee and to talk because he found her interesting. (Which I highly doubt, because she isn’t very interesting, and apparently is the kind of whiny person who takes offense to everything)
Tell me something, if I’m in an elevator and a woman hits on me at 4 a.m., should I consider that a predatory threat? An answer such as “A woman would never do that” would only show your ignorance about the diversity of women’s sexual attitudes and hurt your feministic cause.
A man hit on her, oh god, quick, tell the internet for some attention!
Of course, we will never know if this man was her “type” or not, now will we?
SHE interpreted it as uncomfortable, SHE interpreted at predatory, but he probably felt something along the lines of… “Wow, I just got rejected by a seemingly intelligent woman who I wanted to have a conversation with.” and felt bad.
Of course, in her mind, he went back to his hotel and started furiously masturbating to the images in his head of him violently raping her.
One last question… how would she have reacted if it had been a woman that asked her for coffee at 4 a.m. in the elevator? Would that have been predatory? Seems like SHE is the sexist one.
What an unbelievable amount of crap. I would have expected this community to be above the “all men are rapists” nonsense.
Stop whining and grow some thick skin; I’m with Dawkins on this…
There was this Arabic looking guy on a plane with me once who kept trying to make awkward small talk. Um, just a word to the wise here: Middle Eastern looking people, don’t do that! I don’t really know how else to explain how your presence on the plane makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a white American with an Arab on the plane high above ground from where I couldn’t escape. This was definitely a potential terrorist attack. You may not think anything bad happened to me on that plane, but something bad did indeed happen. That Arab didn’t have to physically assault me for the situation to be bad. The atmosphere in there was enough to make it bad. And I am absolutely right to talk about it and raise awareness of it.
@Yves
“Women here shouldn’t complain about sexual harassment or rape because elsewhere some women have it much worse”.
that is what i got out of it.
praps you should read it again.
And I thought using FGM to sarcastically reprimand Rebecca was beyond the pale.
It read like an angry sarcastic rebuttal to not just Rebecca, but to all women, western and muslim alike. It was also exceptionally inappropriate, in that Dawkins knows Rebecca, and knows of the response she gets from hate-mailing atheists on her FGM and rape presentations.
If Richard Dawkins were to apologize to Rebecca, it might restore my esteem for him.
Otherwise I have to suspect Dawkins is just another angry white guy that hates women, and a barking islamophobe to boot.
Or perhaps it is early onset dementia.
Djeez people, the guy in the elevator was nervous talking to a famous pretty girl and made an awkward comment.
Why is it so difficult for women to understand that most men are not their coolest self when talking to a strange woman.
Poor guy was already painfully shot down by Watson and now he is considered a rapist by half the internet. Who is the real victim here?
@1026
no one considers him a rapist except you.
we all just consider him an awkward creeper.
the question (aside from wondering if Dawkins has gone mad) is do men have a right to approach women?
the answer is no they do not. it is not a right.
The problem here is that this woman clearly conflates regular male sexuality with the sexuality of a rapist – even though this man was clearly not a rapist, she thinks of his expression of a desire for consensual sexual contact as something approaching rape. Was he tasteless? Sure. But tasteless is a far cry from rape, it doesn’t even make it closer to rape than a ‘tasteful’ expression of the same. Tasteless is just tasteless, but apparently this woman thinks that anything a man does which is slightly ‘weird’ or ‘tasteless’ makes him a potential rapist. Oh wait, scratch that, she thinks that any time she’s alone with a man it’s a potential sexual assault situation. She’s free to think that, but in this case she was completely wrong to think that, so don’t expect me to support her sentiment.
“The problem is that we’re being told by androphobic feminists that *all men* are “potential rapists.”
LOL, oh really? Please show your work. Prove it. Or, stop trying so desperately to be offended and actually read what women are saying.
The tin-eared, overly emotional responses to some dudes on this issue has convinced me never to set foot at a convention. Where once I thought the atheist movement was about skepticism and rational thought, I find instead a huge wad of crybabies who think having to treat a woman with basic common decency and respect equals the end of civilization and the human race. Unnerving and unsettling.
If I wanted to hang out with men like this, I’d have stayed in church.
This is directed at Shams (Comment 1025):
“‘Women here shouldn’t complain about sexual harassment or rape because elsewhere some women have it much worse’.
that is what i got out of it.”
That is what you got out of it, but re-read what Dawkins said. He didn’t that woman in the western world shouldn’t report rape or sexual harassment. If you read it again you will see that no were. What he is saying is that you should interpret a situation in which neither rape or sexual harassment took place as a situation that it could have or did in the persons mind. I am not going to re-iterate what happened, because it has been said enough.
Robert, please show your work. Or stop making up testerical complaint about imaginary things.
And cyncicus, dumpling, skin color is something one can’t change. Racism is an actual problem. Poor widdle EG not getting to have sex when, how and with the women he wanted, isn’t. False equivelancy. You get an F.
I can’t help but notice a subtext in Dawkin’s comments, it wasn’t a comparison of real physical harm vs interpretation of words, it was only comparing it to religious issues (The plight of Muslim women, comparing it to nailing the wafer)
It seems like what he’s really saying is “Don’t complain about sexism, don’t you know there’s RELIGION out there? That’s the real bad guy.”
That seems all the more insensitive since it seems like he’s giving the atheist male an implicit pass because he’s part of Dawkin’s Atheist old-boys-club.
Also, everyone attacking Rebecca, did she file assault charges against the guy? Has she even given his name out to try and embarrass him?
She said, “I am uncomfortable, this is why” She even presented it as “He probably didn’t realize why I would be offended. If everyone wasn’t so quick to try to take this as some horrible act of “politically correct” censorship, you might take it as I took it. “Ok, girls do not like it when you hit on them in enclosed spaces. Noted, thank you Rebecca for sparing me a possible uncomfortable faux pas.”
Kim (comment 17): Just how is not understanding that asking for coffee could be misinterpreted as asking for sex at all equivalent to rape? Understanding that “coffee” might actually mean sex is culturally-dependent. There are many reasons to not understand it, and even someone who might know about it might not think about it when asking an innocent question.
@1029
No, Dawkins angrily and sarcastically and deliberately used an example of horrific oppression of muslimahs (FGM) to shame Rebecca into shutting up about what he considers a trivial situ.
you are wrong, and Dawkins is cuckoo-bananas.
He should formally apologize to Rebecca.
@ “Illuminata”: Gender is also something one can’t change, unenlightened one. Would we be hearing about this if the person in the elevator was a woman? Also, skin color was not the point of the story. You get an F.
Was only able to get through about 350 or so of the 800 some comments, but wanted to add in my two cents. To start with let me level set
1. They guy asking for her to join him for coffe was probably not the brightest or best thing to do. Could certainly be seen as “creepy”
2. Watson’s original reaction in her video was not out of line. She was within her right to feel uncomfortable, and find this guy creepy.
With that out of the way, what I have a problem with is not this guys action, or Watson’s initial reaction, but with the posters from various sites that want to label this guy as sexist, or a potential “rapist” or physical assult. This whole “male privilege” thing is what gets me. I just don’t get how people can see this guys actions, while not the brightest, as being some how sexist, or him showing off some sort of male privilege. If this guys was expecting her to like his advances, or expect them to be returned in kind, that would be sexist, with him expecting something. All he did was ask. He had no expectations for the outcome. To claim he was sexist just for asking, is in my opinion a sexist statement, claiming that he does not have the right to ask. That as a guy he should know better about the circumstances, and should not ask is sexist in my mind. He has the right to ask, she has the right to say no. Everyone goes on their own way.
I do want to point out a couple things that folks seem to be going back to that leads to them seeing him as sexist, but in my mind are only assumptions. I see folks continuing to point out facts that her speech earlier in the day dealt with this very subject, yet this guy ignoring that speach shows his perceived “male privilege”. But this is an assumption (from what I can tell) that this guy had any connection to the conference at all. How are we to know he knew she had just talked about this. The next piece people keep saying is that she advised the folks around her that she was tired and was going to bed, and the fact that this guy used this opportunity to “get her alone” shows his male privilege. Now I will preface that I have not seen the video, but in the text of it I have read, there is not mention that this guy was “lurking” or otherwise around to have even heard this conversation. This is an assumption that he knew of the situation, even an assumption that he “followed her to the elevator”. Could have just been by chance that he even stepped into that elevator.
But going back to the top, what this guy did was probably not the best thing to do, and Watson saying as much in her video is ok in my book.
@ 902. Nigel Depledge Says:
“@Thorsten (819) –
OK, now I’m just confused again.”
As far as I see, commenmt #819 isn’t by me, so I don’t see how I can help you here.
So the dude was a creep – but I think calling it a “possible sexual assault” is a bit of a stretch… In fact, a really, REALLY BIG stretch.
Let’s face it. There are always going to be creepy guys out there.
That aside, all the hateful talk directed at Richard Dawkins is way out of hand. He has done more for the skeptical movement than the very large majority of those mouthing off.
I seriously hope this does not affect TAM this year. I am bringing three new people with me, and I know that if this conversation is on display there, they (and probably any other newcomers) will be very put off.
This is a singularly depressing moment in the time I have been an active skeptic.
Womens issues ARE important. But that is not the conversation that should be dominating our dialogue. And the pillory of one of our heroes can not possibly be productive for anyone.
But let’s say the man hadn’t said anything to her. You still had all the ingredients of a “potential sexual assault”: a man, a woman, an elevator. He may have had a gun. Who knows? I can only imagine how awkward she felt even before he said anything. If that man had been more sensitive he would have never gotten in that elevator with that woman. Or any woman. Ever.
Wow to the original post and the whole discussion. I think the knowing attitude of the feminist-minded must come from the subconscious awareness at how clueless and out of touch they are.
My first night in a dorm one year at college, a girl invited herself into my room and onto my bed until she could pressure me into letting her blow me. During, she complained that I wasn’t being vocal enough. One of my college girlfriends consummated our lust in essentially the same way. All par for the course–none of this struck anyone as out of the ordinary. I’m not traumatized, but neither am I stoopid enough to buy into movements and gestures to reconstruct and educate men so that no woman ever has to suffer a “predatory vibe.” Get over yourselves.
@shams 1014
“It read like an angry sarcastic rebuttal to not just Rebecca, but to all women, western and muslim alike.”
It is indeed a sarcastic rebuttal, but only to Rebecca, for what he sees as a non-event. Nowhere does he says that it applies to anyone else, that comes from how you read between the lines. My point what you read there exactly what you *want* to read. You will, as any normal person, assign ideas and motivations to the person based on the tone of the text and your preconceptions. But in doing so, you ignore the actual ideas and motivations of the person. Even worse, you use them to build an image of what other ideas and opinion the person *must* have. Of course, *no one* is immune to this.
Try this as an exercise: instead of picturing a misogynistic and islamophobe jerk in your mind. Image this instead and re-read the comment: the commenter a person who is appalled by the treatment of women in certain cultures, a treatment which is not opposed or even justified by the local religion, Islam. Yet, most people pretty much ignore the issue and even attack you for even thinking the religion might be responsible or at least complicit. Then, you come across a blog post by someone who is championing the condition of women, who complains about someone having made a pass at her. The commenter says to himself: “If she champions the condition of women, aren’t there more *important* things to focus on first?”
Dawkin’s post sure has a different feel after that. Now, if you’re saying I’m inventing the whole thing, then you are right! The whole point is that we can assign many motivations to the same text. We can either see the text as “You should refocus your priorities” (written in a inappropriate sarcastic tone) or “Come on! The guy just made a pass at you. Could be worse: you could have your genitals mutilated.” (written with a bizarre incorrect argument).
My point is that *both* are wrong… or maybe partially right… or maybe one is right… 0r…. We just don’t know. But, going as far as Rebecca and saying that he dismisses women who have actually experienced rape is going too far. He says nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even make sense! He appalled by Islamic women who suffer genital mutilation but doesn’t care about other women being raped?
And why suspect that Dawkins is just “another angry white guy that hates women”?. Where the hell does that come from? He could very well be concerned with the condition of women, yet still think what happened to Rebecca was a non-event. Why does he hate women? Because he traces the line of unacceptable (as opposed to inappropriate) behavior at a different place than you do?
@ 1033. shams Says:
“No, Dawkins angrily and sarcastically and deliberately used an example of horrific oppression of muslimahs (FGM) to shame Rebecca into shutting up about what he considers a trivial situ.”
If shutting her up was the intention, the action to start a discussion on an open blog would indeed be incredible stupid. This much I agree.
However as far as I can see, he just wanted to state his position, i.e. that it is a trivial issue to him and what follows in his opinion from this: Zero priority.
Oh noooo!!! He asked her out for a cup of coffeeeee!!! Male privilege!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Somebody call the cops!!!! Get the SWAT team!!!! Send in the Marines!!!!!
This degenerate creep asked her out for coffee!!!!
He MUST be EXECUTED!!!!!!
NOWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got hit on in an elevator #firstworldproblems
I’m a sex object just because I pose naked #firstworldproblems
Some famous guy made flippant comments about me #firstworldproblems
Okay Richard, wherever you are, here it is, the points I could make.
Is an elevator less threatening than a phone booth. Should a guy stand in the doorway of a phone booth and ask a stranger to go somewhere private for any purpose whatsoever?
Second: Would it be different if it was two guys? Newp. What is inappropriate here is the asking in private to go somewhere private for any stated purpose.
Now, I will concede the elevator being “Mostly Harmless” in the right situation with the right tone of voice and body language if the follow up location was somewhere like the Hotel lobby/bar/restaurant/coffee house. Inviting someone to meet in a public place is way, way less creepy and threatening.
Hope that helps.
You keep saying. This was a potential sexual assault.
Really? So when are men allowed to ask “Would you like to come up for coffee?”
Yes he was a fast mover…I mean come on you would think that he would have at least spent some time having a conversation to see if they got on. And probably somewhere there were other people. So you know, he was a little foolish thinking that he would get a positive respone. So you know I agree the guy was a creep but it was not potential sexual assault.
It was a guy hitting on a woman. It was foolish, it was stupid and it was bound to get a negative response…but what it was not was a potential sexual assault.
Why do I know this?
Because the woman got off the elevator perfectly safely. Feeling a little creeped out yes. But she was safe. He did not follow her, he did not try to press the issue….in fact as was stated.
He asked her politely and here is the big one….
Took the word No….as No…..
Which I thought was the point.
I am very sorry but is it going to get to the point in which we need written approval before we can ask anything. Do we need a vetting comittee? Or something.
Guys will ask you for “coffee” in dumb ways…the VAST majority will take your “no” as “no” and move on away. If that is not good enough for you then we are never going to reach the standards to which you wish to reach. Because they are impossible.
[quote]There was this Arabic looking guy on a plane with me once who kept trying to make awkward small talk. Um, just a word to the wise here: Middle Eastern looking people, don’t do that! I don’t really know how else to explain how your presence on the plane makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a white American with an Arab on the plane high above ground from where I couldn’t escape. This was definitely a potential terrorist attack. You may not think anything bad happened to me on that plane, but something bad did indeed happen. That Arab didn’t have to physically assault me for the situation to be bad. The atmosphere in there was enough to make it bad. And I am absolutely right to talk about it and raise awareness of it.[/quote]
THIS
@ 1033. shams Says:
“No, Dawkins angrily and sarcastically and deliberately used an example of horrific oppression of muslimahs (FGM) to shame Rebecca into shutting up about what he considers a trivial situ.”
If shutting her up was the intention, the action to start a discussion on an open blog would indeed be incredible stupid. This much I agree.
However as far as I can see, he just wanted to state his position, i.e. that it is a trivial issue to him and what follows in his opinion from this: Zero priority.
Let’s recapitulate why the issue is of great importance according to Watson.
“This is the paragraph I ended up quoting:
My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”
…
I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?””
I understand this position as follows:
So there is a gal thinking the advance was not necessarily creepy. This is dangerous, because from that it follows that among others women who are raped will from this come to the con clusion that no woman and therfore noone at all will give them any support.
I don’t get the reasoning here.
Dear white man in an elevator,
How dare you be scared when an unfamiliar black man in strange clothes enters into the elevator with you late at night. You are all alone, and not at all comfortable with this strange man entering the enclosed elevator. What? He put his hand in his coat pocket? There could be a knife in there, you think to yourself, and for a brief moment you literally fear for your life.
Again, how dare you be scared….all he did was sit there quietly by himself. He didn’t even ask you nicely if you would like to join him in his room for tea. Didn’t ask you for a match for his cigarette so he could catch you off guard. Didn’t unintentionally make you worry about a potential sexual assault, just made you fear for your life.
……
Obviously that’s not an exact parallel, but the point is that there is a very, very fine line that prevents this from being an exact parallel. Rebecca was scared in the elevator in part because unfamiliar men in enclosed places have a bad rap. A lot of white people think the same way about black people, but we don’t blame the African American for being insensitive by daring to jump in the elevator with him. Rather, we call the whites racists (enter any races here).
The question then is when are do we ask for sensitivity to a groups justified prejudices (with women being scared of male predators in an enclosed space at night…we encourage men not to say anything that could be construed as predatory), and when do we ridicule those prejudices?
Numerically speaking, I am not sure if there is a huge difference between the percent of men who are sexual predators and the percent of African Americans who are criminals. So probability doesn’t seem to be the only factor in saying that Rebecca is justified for demanding more sensitivity from men in elevators.
Rebecca is right. Richard is wrong. ALL Rebecca said was “Guys, don’t do this.” She didn’t accuse the guy of rape. However, Richard simply had an age-related BRAIN F*RT due to probable neuronal misfirings in the deep white matter of his brain–the kind of thing that makes people spit fire when they age, some earlier than others. Rebecca was right to bring attention to what happened in the elevator, and Doc Dawkins was right to voice an unpopular take on it. You all are right to dress him down for it, but the man had a brain fart. That his brain KEPT ON F*RTING, well, all I have to say to that is “WHERE’S THE GLADE????”
What’s weird is that women are the ones telling guys how women feel in these situations, when in fact it is men — or some men — who might have more experience with how women behave in these circumstances than other women do. Sometimes, perhaps more often than many of you realize, women will go straight to bed with a man she has just met at a conference bar. It doesn’t mean that a man should assume a woman is going to go straight to bed with him, but it doesn’t make him a monster for politely asking either.
The details of this case are obscure: perhaps the guy was socially clueless or drunk or both or perhaps he was an adept skirt-chaser with a long experience of picking up women at 4 a.m. in hotels. At any rate, living life is about risking and dealing with awkward social encounters. Creating awkwardness != sexual harassment.
I am uncomfortable with a particular facet of this whole discussion.
When a woman explains how she felt uncomfortable in a situation, (using ‘I statements’) and then directs commentary and behavior tips to “guys”, how is this not sexist in it’s own way for the following reasons:
– extrapolating her own feelings in this situation into the way that all women would feel in the same situation? I doubt that ALL women in this situation would feel the same way, simply from them being of the XX gender.
– addressing her comments about proper behaviour to “guys”? If anyone, male or female directed a suggestion for behaviour as “ladies, don’t act that way”, it’s equally as insensitive and sexist.
It’s women like these who are ruining society in my opinion. The paranoid and fearful objection to that man’s actions is simply a power play in the greater scheme of things… women need to stop being like this because they are killing men. Chivalry already seems dead and this is just an other sign of how women–especially the feminist types–and men, like the one defending her against dawkins, have totally lost touch with reality. What is more important than how you treat the other people around you? Even thinking that this man is being creepy by doing that is disrespectful. Think highly of others and others will think highly of you! If you think that some person making the effort to be friendly in the elevator is a “potential sexual assaulter” then you probably deserve to be removed from the gene pool.
I agree with dawkins. my friend got sexually assaulted by a giant drunk 40-something heavy-set woman when he was in high school – let’s all write 1000+ comments on why women should treat men with more respect now, because of that one incident. the fact of the matter is that if you dont want to have to face potentially dangerous situations then i guess you could just stay in your house for the rest of your life – but if you want to go out your front door, you are taking the chance that bad things may happen to you – thats life, get over it.
The moral of this story: don’t talk to geek chicks in the elevator or you will start blogosphere war.
I think this chick is just overreacting. She must be happy that men like her and don’t turn they heads in the opposite direction when they see her.
Every situation can lead to an assault. So what? Don’t talk to women?!
Maybe if she was ugly she would have reacted different, and the man in the elevator would have been assaulted 😀
This is rather interesting.
I am the son of a single mother and was rasied to be a feminist and consider myself one. When I read Dawkins first comment I came away with the feeling, “what’s the point.” He was using sarcasm to highlight the abuse of women in the Muslim world and perhaps tweeking someone who over reacted to a guy making a potential pass to her on the elevator. Let’s remember we do know nothing about this guy and it is a long way from coffee to rape. Although, I would advise my daugther not to go with any guy’s room she met on an elevator to have “coffee.”
Of course reading the commentary opened my eyes to the fact that women still face a lot of harrassment even in our more enlighten age.
For the guys who don’t understand this, how would you feel if a guy you never saw before asked you to come back to his room for coffee?
Would anyone like to go out for coffee? I’m avaliable ;P
One of my favourite figures of American fiction, Ignatius J. Reilly would rail against the geometry and theology of this debate. I think that he would have fit into the blogosphere rather handily:
“I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip”
My valve! What have we learned in the last few days?
1) Richard Dawkins strikes some people as a pompous arrogant jerk.
2) Some people are surprised that it took the rest of the people so long to realize the first point. But then again, when you agree with a jerk (and his over the top anti-religious rhetoric) it’s okay, isn’t it? I mean, “Cut the guy some slack, he’s being a jerk in a good cause.” Hmmm. Didn’t Phil have something to say about jerkiness once?
3) Women can feel intimidated and threatened by men. Sometimes this is waranted, some times it is not, but who are men to criticize? I mean after all we are all potential rapists.
4) Skeptics and Comicon attendees are the same genus. Apparently all the males are lacking in social skills and are over-sexed.
5) Skeptics are now distancing themselves from atheists.
6) The general level of jerkiness has expanded to fill the space available.
7) If the elevator event had happened on that much loved execrable “Comedy” Big Bang Theory it would have been a laff-riot ™. The conclusion is that we need to be accompanied by a studio audience.
8) I love the posts that replace the poor sap with a person of another race or ethnic group. I will leave you with another Ignatius quote and retire to the couch to munch popcorn. Do carry on.
“I do admire the terror which Negroes are able to inspire in the hearts of some members of the white proletariat and only wish (This is a rather personal confession.) that I possessed the ability to similarly terrorize. The Negro terrorizes simply by being himself; I however, must browbeat a bit in order to achieve the same end. Perhaps I should have been a Negro. I suspect that I would have been a rather large and terrifying one, continually pressing my ample thigh against the withered thighs of old white ladies in public conveyances a great deal and eliciting more than one shriek of panic. Then, too, if I were a Negro, I would not be pressured by my mother to find a good job, for no good jobs would be available. “
@ 996. Keith Bowden Says:
“The guy, who claimed to appreciate her talk, apparently missed the whole bit about objectifying her.”
As I described earlier, maybe I don’t get the objectifying thing either. I have contact to lots oif people on a daily base and I am continously and partielly objectifying people. E.g. you. You are just someone in a discussion with me on the internet. I wish you well as I do all people, but am I at the moment really interested in you as a whole person? I don’t think so. If I shop am I really interested in the seller as a whole person or is he just a sort of selling automata for me? I guess the later. I don’t see the problem as long as I respect the basic rights of said people-machines.
“Yes, in a theoretical perfect world where there is no evil, murder or rape, an invitation to sex could be as casual as a question about whether you plan to watch Harry Potter 7.2, with the same lack of any sense of danger.”
There are many possible explantions, e.g. somone wrote that the elevator dude simply got to nervous for his own good. Even in this non perfect world I don’t see a big issue with that.
That this isn’t hug-bear-land is one of the reasons, I dont expect people to always act perfect and fully consider and respect anyone’s deepest inner feeling. Who has time for even finding out what these are?
“I love kids, but I would never just go to a playground and approach kids I don’t know. The scenario of a man coaxing little girls he doesn’t know with candy should make you apprehensive”
No problem. At first impression I also would probably go up from DefCon 5 to 4, but then down again if it turns out to be harmless.
“The guy that she met wasn’t a monster, he was simply creepy. I’d like to think that most of us don’t go out of our way to offend people we don’t know for no apparent reason, so Rebecca’s anecdote was supposed to be just a helpful hint.”
For those who don’t need it? Did she tell the one who did need the hint, i.e. elevator dude?
In my last post here I have expanded a bit on the dangers she sees if not everone agrees, that the dude is a creep. I find her logic wanting.
I agree with Dawkins. She’s whining. What does she expect decent men to do…try and think like a rapist so they can not accidently do or say anything that might be taken as an offense? Grow some skin. If elevators scare you, take the stairs. Guys are going to be on there and I don’t even take that as hitting, he merely extended an invitation that she refused and that was it. Because she felt creeped out is not his problem, it’s hers. Get the hell over it and don’t blame the guy who did nothing wrong.
I find it appropriate to put the elevator incident into perspective (by Rebecca´s own description).
1) Rebecca is too lazy to prepare for a panel talk, whom people paid to hear.
2) Rebecca blames an unknown man for not getting her message, which she says was no more than a ramble(Yes, that was her own description of her talk, and yes she blames an anonymous person for her failure to even bother living up to her freely taken responsibility of stating her case clearly).
3) Rebecca plays the victim card and suggests people who does not get her ramblings are misogynists(wishful thinking on her part and kind of yeah sexist, who would have guessed).
4) Rebecca dismisses all that Dawkins has say to about evolution, because he is an privileged* old white heterosexual man(talking about objectification, ha).
5) Rebecca starts a boycott campaign against Richard Dawkins, for pointing out that she was rambling, which she admits she was.(The action of a person disconnected from reality)
*I do not get it, Is she too frail to handle people pointing out that one of her arguments fails badly. And in her video she uses loads of time stating how great it is to travel and meet likeminded people. And what is this “privilege nonsense about, she visited the mythbuster studio.
Rebecca failed on a massive scale, by straight out refusing to think, yes I´m going to say it, sceptically about her own responsibility for not doing her homework and resorting to anecdotal ramblings.
Amazingly the last bit above is not in any way a guess of mine, It´s a condensed conclusion of her own yes she said it unrehearsed ramblings.
I think she owns the organizers and the people who paid to hear her something more than the giggling apology she made on youtube for making a fool out of them. If they wanted to hear unprepared ramblings they would bloody hell go to church.
It´s not my call but if I was a skepchick member I would throw her out for making skepchick´ look like complete morons. I mean Rebecca gets to present your views in a large public forum and she does not even bother prepare for her talk.
And what about the Dawkins boycott, oh my, talk about pointing the finger when ones own incompetence begins to shine through.
Yours soon to be told straight out lies about by a female.
JRBendixen
I was once approached by a black guy at night. I know very much how she felt.
Actually, I’m not joking. I do support some types of racial profiling and do think women should be a bit leery of men if in Rebecca’s position.
Has anyone considered what this attitude of fear and paranoia women are associating with being alone with men is actually doing to, well, men?
I feel more and uncomfortable and unsure of how I should act towards women with every passing day. I was taught from a young age to respect women as equals and seeing things like this just make me question every little thing I do.
Good grief! After reading alot of the comments here I’ve made up my mind to stay far away from any skeptic/atheist events. Too many of you people just don’t get it even after a clear explaination. I’m beginning to think many are brain dead. What is so hard to understand that trying to pick up a woman in an elevator at 4AM IS UTTERLY STUPID AND IS GOING TO MAKE ANY WOMAN VERY CONCERNED unless she’s a hooker. I choose to stay as far away from morons like that as I can get. I’m 61 years old and known better than that for 40 years, about the time I stopped being a self absorbed idiot. I can’t believe so many supposedly educated and thoughtful people are such complete jerks. Forget any meetings or conventions, I don’t want to be anywhere near you.
A man and a woman alone in an elevator who ignore each other, smile politely, or engage in small talk =/= creepy.
A man that asks a woman to go for a cup of coffee sometime and offers a phone number even if they’re in an elevator alone =/= creepy.
A man that asks a woman to his hotel room at 4am for any reason while they’re alone in an elevator especially after the talk said woman has given = creepy.
On the flip side, creepy =/= rapist.
The point that I think I’m getting from the video is education. A general, ‘hey guys, if you do this you’re likely not to get the intended outcome, and the woman will likely be a bit creeped out’. It seems to me that pretty much everyone is blowing it out of proportion.
@ 936. Bernard Bumner Says:
” …the right of a man to approach the opposite sex…
You. Don’t. Have. Any. Right. To. Approach. Women.”
There once was something called the right to free speech.
“A women has every right to go about her own business unhassled, unmolested, and even entirely undisturbed.”
As a man who walks the city I really would at times apreciate to be undisturbed by all these salesman, political campaigners, Hare Krishnas and what not. Unlikely to happen though.
“@Thorsten #839,
But if during the discussions, we find parts should be dismissed, let’s dismiss them.
You aren’t qualified to dismiss anything.”
As you seem to be of the opinion to have some insight into my qualification, could you please expend a bit more on what exact qualification I need to dismiss exactly what?
“Rebecca Watson found Elevator Guy to be creepy. That was her experience.”
This is part of her feeling which is part of her experience. Another part is, that elevator dude did ask not stab, did talk, not shout etc. and after all did retreat peacefully.
“Why aren’t you interested on other people’s experiences and perceptions?”
To a degree I am.
” Which people are you talking about and how do you know they are utterly obsessed/
It is a very obvious feature of the discussion. Take a look back over this thread.”
If it would be, I could have spare you an me the question. It still isn’t.
Some guys are pretty clueless about women, especially since any formal way of approaching women has been taken away. Do you think a woman in an elevator in 1950 with a fellow man that just attended her speaking engagement would have been afraid? No, because he likely would have been married and making an innocent comment.
I haven’t seen anyone else mention that he actually might have been thinking coffee. It’s late, the bars are closed, you don’t want to leave the hotel, where can you get coffee? A hotel room. Do you have something to talk about? Yes, actually, the talk she gave. It’s actually easier for a guy to ask a girl to coffee than it is for him to try to close a one-night stand in a single line. That’s why the concept of “game” exists and it is a big deal that needs to be taught.
And please stop saying “potential rape” because that is just ridiculous. It’s insane that a man that speaks to a woman in a confined space is a potential rapist. And women feel uncomfortable alone in a confined space with a man they don’t know? I’m going to hazard a guess that outside of your feminazi circles that this isn’t remotely true.
Fascinating! Can atheists bring themselves to talk rationally and calmly in the face of tradition, emotional baggage and unconscious biases? I thought that’s how fundies behave.
SO:
26. Shawn S. Says: “…this man wasn’t asking for coffee, although that is what the words said, he was propositioning her.”
1) Do we definitively know the man’s intention? It’s easy to suggest or infer, but is it actually TRUE?
2) I see a lot of comments about what not to do. Is anyone competent enough to put into words what IS ok to do if a man is actually just interested in a platonic get-to-know you?
3) Is anyone competent enough to put into words what IS ok to do if a man is sexually interested? “Wait for her to make the first move” is sexist, too, isn’t it?
I’m sorry, but I think this is kind of stupid. As a woman, I’ve never felt any different alone in an elevator with a man or anyone else for that matter. Viewing that as “potential assault” is insane. I mean, if I had a friend who felt threatened by elevator men I’d immediately reccommend seeing a therapist.
I’ve been talked to and even occasionally asked out in elevators and I evaluated it the same as any other situation, in fact I’ve initiated conversations with guys in elevators if I was bored enough. To me assuming all men (or even all weird men) are out to rape you is mind boggling. Also I hate when people stereotype women as all being fragile little flowers or assume we all have the same experiences. I hate actual systematic oppression and I’m no fan or rape culture, but this is blown so out of proportion it’s painful. I’m gonna have to agree with Dawkins, it’s annoying and nothing more.
@thorsten 1041
well….actually I am a great admirer of Richard Dawkins. I think his contributions to evolutionary biology and evolutionary theory of games are magnificent.
But im also a muslimah.
so i did take it that way.
this is not the Richard Dawkins i know from the Blind Watchman and Evolution and the Theory of Games. This sounds like an angry old white guy in the throes of senile dementia.
It was WRONG to use FGM to try to shame Rebecca Watson into shutting up.
If Dawkins has the nobilty and character I imagined in him before his comments at PZ’s, then he should gracefully apologize to Rebecca.
or maybe i was a great admirer of Richard Dawkins.
“But what does asking creepy questions say about the probability of rape? Especially if folks here point to the fact, that Watson was especially in fear of hate mailers who threatend raspe. Is it agreed upon this group that you first invite for coffee, redraw on decline and than rape?”
I’m not sure Rebecca immediately categorized Elevator Guy as part of the E-Mail Rape squad. All she knew is that she had spent the majority of the day talking publicly about not being sexualized (i.e. randomly hit upon) and this guy still propositioned her. She had said she was tired. It was obviously not a good time to invite her to have sex. I think the guy was simply clueless…he missed her “signals.” The problem is, how does a woman separate simply ignorant from willfully ignorant? We can’t tell. We’re not mind readers any more than guys are. All we can do is observe behavior, and when your behavior UNINTENTIONALLY looks like what a rapist would do (as in wait until you’re alone and in a vulnerable place, after drinking) this presents a dilemma for the woman. Are you nice clueless guy or are you ignoring signals because you just don’t give a flip about my boundaries?
BTW, a rapist might invite you for casual sex first. Yes, many rapists/gropers/creepy dudes do just that. Of course, they don’t intend to take “no” for an answer. It can be a sort of gross version of dominant foreplay. They enjoy watching the fear. Many rapists babble on while raping. Don’t ask me why, I’m not a rapist/groper/creep any more than you are.
And again, this “invite for coffee” should be discarded in favor of “have coffee now, in my hotel room, at 4 am.” They really do have elicit different reactions, and I think some men are intentionally changing the statement.
Some women are afraid of men in certain circumstances. This is a rational fear because women live with a relatively high chance of experiencing sexual assault.
Women responding fearfully to men makes many good men sad. I can understand that men don’t like being seen as potential threats.
What I don’t get is why these same men are getting all pissy at the *women* who are (quite rationally) fearful. These men *should* be getting all pissy at the rapists who give these women a good reason to be fearful.
Seriously dudes, it’s not her fault that she’s scared of you. Don’t get mad at her.
I wear tinfoil hats, just in case the government can read my thoughts.
I take homeopathic medicine, just in case it works.
I believe in god, just in case I need to get into heaven.
I’ve taken out 2012 insurance, just in case the Mayans were right.
As skeptics, if we can see the absurdity in living in fear of an unlikely event; why can’t we see the absurdity of Rebecca’s irrational fear? Her ‘uncomfortableness’ lives only in her head.
Dawkins has really nailed this on the head. Women in the middle east really are suffering, Rebecca is not. She went though an inconvenience of having to say “no”, once. Then they both went on their separate ways.
To see how blind you’ve been PZ & Phil, consider exactly what you said but in this form:
Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.
Actually @Mike, it is YOU who do not get it, as can be seen by your statement:
“4AM IS UTTERLY STUPID AND IS GOING TO MAKE ANY WOMAN VERY CONCERNED unless she’s a hooker.”
I’ve been waiting for 1000+ comments for somebody to finally come out and say it, and you have finally said it. ‘Only a hooker would accept such an offer.’ Well guess what – there are plenty of non-prostitutes who would gladly take up an honest offer of sex by a random dude in the elevator at a conference. There’s even a term for it: conference sex. Yes, this woman would likely assess his ‘creepiness factor’ before responding, but the fact alone that he asked her does not make him creepy. Rebecca telling legions of atheist men that women do not want this kind of offer is not only confusing (as probably many of them have successfully used this tactic in the past) but presumptuous (that all women feel the same way she does). In my opinion, honesty is always the best policy, and issues like this only bring more confusion to both parties, and as a result, less communication (and less honesty!) when situations like these arise.
Commenter #529 Connie Dobbs made an excellent points as well, including: ‘Being a feminist is more than going to meetings and reading books – it’s living your life, unburdened by the archaic idea of women as the “weaker sex”.’
As a woman, I am sad that women like Rebecca feel uncomfortable in situations like the one in the elevator, but I am equally sad that there are nice men like Rift (#929) who also live life feeling a bit uncomfortable that he may be constantly terrifying women due to his size. I am also sad that there are men who feel the need to cross the street late at night instead of passing, for fear of scaring me (just fyi: I can handle it!) But I think that this is what Dawkins was getting at: none of us feels comfortable all of the time. That’s life, on a planet full of human beings. Each of us needs our own space while at the same time, we need (and want!) to share that space with others.
@1066. Thorsten said:
“As a man who walks the city I really would at times apreciate [sic] to be undisturbed by all these salesman [sic], political campaigners, Hare Krishnas and what not. Unlikely to happen though.”
Whoa, dude. Why do you feel the need to publicly whine about being put into awkward situations by people on the street? You don’t really know that those people were trying to sell you something, get you to endorse a political candidate, or push their religion on you. And, after all, you probably have never bought what they were selling, endorsed their political candidates, or converted to their religion, so nothing happened. Why spend 31 words griping and moaning about non-events. These people have freedom of speech, you know.
You’re making a 31-word mountain out of a molehill here with that comment. I mean, really, if you’re uncomfortable with workers for a political campaign annoyingly soliciting your endorsement when you’re simply taking a walk from A to B on the street, does that mean that no one is allowed to ask for political support? Might as well pack up our democracy and call it quits, pal. And let’s bag capitalism while we’re at it, since according to Thorsten’s over-reaction here, no one is allowed to sell anyone anything either. And by the way, if you’re so put out by these folks when you walk down the street, I’ve got an idea–don’t walk down the street! See, that’s not so hard.
I understand perfectly, Thorsten, that you have every right to complain about being annoyed and that you are justified in airing these complaints in comments on a blog. And I for one would never try to sell you anything, ask you to endorse a political candidate, or convert you to a certain religion. I’m sophisticated and mature. But your annoyance is not rational or reasonable, as I pointed out above with fairly logical generalizations from your own personal experience to the end of democratic civilization as we know it. So get a grip, man. People like you who complain about annoying situations that make them feel pressured are exactly what’s wrong with our society.
Wow. Just wow.
From her comments, I don’t even think Rebecca was thinking “OMG I almost got raped!” She was thinking “Jerk!”
Dawkins was clumsy, over the top, and insensitive in his bizarre attack.
Then the overreactions to Dawkins started (from both Rebecca and Phil…and Rebecca’s treatment of Stef was unconscionable), and then all the guys responded to those overreactions…..and now we have a massively damaged “movement” that is not likely to recover soon…all the women are pissed and all the men are on the defensive.
I’ve sold my TAM ticket because I really just don’t want to be a part of this anymore. As someone said on another thread, it’s going to be like the Thanksgiving dinner in the midst of a family fight…landmines everywhere, you don’t know whose side everyone’s on, and you don’t know what comment will set someone off (“Have you read Greatest Show? WHAT! You read that misogynist?”)
Rebecca hates being sexualized yet she poses for a pin-up calendar? Give me a break. She also has no problem sexualizing others and posting things like “I’d do him” on her blog:
http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/
At least Dawkins put that whiny self-absorbed hypocrite in her place.
958
“When they are followed onto an elevator by someone who has had hours of opportunity to speak to her and has remained silent.”
Uh no. He couldn’t have interrupted her and asked her for coffee he had to wait for her to finish and leave which is apparently what he did.
Spare me the elevator rape, he made no signs he intended to rape her.
“Yes, that is harassment. What kind of jerk doesn’t consider that harassment?”
Everyone who knows how to use a dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harassment
harass (ˈhærəs, həˈræs) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— vb
( tr ) to trouble, torment, or confuse by continual persistent attacks, questions, etc
Asking once is not continual or persistent so it’s harassment.
Nathan nails it! And shows this: most of this discussion has been indeed sexist — against men!
Men need to know their place and told how to behave in public by women!
A few random thoughts…
Dawkins is right….this is much ado about nothing…skepchic needs to get over herself because NOTHING HAPPENED. This potential assault “crap” is just that…
How many criminals do you want to convict BEFORE they commit a crime…
How many here have lusted “in their mind”? From the information given, if you have ever lusted in your mind, then you are more “guilty” than the man asking about coffee.
If you see sexual preditors everywhere, I’m more than sure you will “find” them…
This is the same kind of over-reaction that “created” the McMartin pre-school debackle.
“I seriously hope this does not affect TAM this year. I am bringing three new people with me, and I know that if this conversation is on display there, they (and probably any other newcomers) will be very put off.”
Dude, there is gonna be nothing BUT this at TAM this year! I couldn’t go and now I’m glad. The movement is going to be split, and the playfulness driven out. Like Dawkins? Some people will accuse you of supporting the subjugation of women. Don’t like Dawkins and you’re a Feminazi to others.
And sadly, I think the damage is permanent because anyone investigating skepticism is going to find these threads and realize that skeptics are just not people you want to hang out with.
I say bail on TAM this year and see if this thing settles out. If you can get to skeptic’s conferences in other parts of the world, do it, there’s a lot less polarization on most topics than in the US.
did we break it?
So tell me about how many dragons do you average a day when you’re busy white-knighting?
“but it looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum.”
Uh no sorry, it was not a potential sexual assault. It was a man asking a woman for coffee.
But hey, why stick to the facts when you can just make sh’t up.
I’ve now seen Rebecca’s concerns compared to chewing gum and stepping on a snail. Way to prove her feminist points, guys – be a woman and dare to stand up for your basic humanity, and get flamed for it.
The problem, as described, is a world in which men push their personal agendas on women, no matter what body language or even *literal words* the woman uses, under the rationalization that ‘she can always say no.’ Well, I’m with PZ and Phil – that’s not good enough. We as a species can do better.
For all the folks hung up on the phrase potential rapist – believe it. The chances of getting assaulted are scarily high, the act of getting assaulted is sufficiently horrible, and the chances of being blamed anyway, by hordes of men and women both (not unlike this forum, come to think) are a near certainty. I’m gonna keep putting this out there for everyone’s perusal: the Schrodinger’s Rapist article. http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
I find it hilarious, the number of Dawkins defenders demanding that Rebecca see things from the man’s point of view. That’s doubling down on the sexism! She already has, and properly labeled his behavior as objectification – of her. Smearing her for pointing out this objectification? That’s the doubling down.
I) If a young woman is going to voice concerns about “sexism” and being “objectified” she would perhaps find more credibility by not referring to herself as “SkepChick”. Perhaps it would also behoove said Chick to not post semi-nude photographs of herself to the internet (see links in msg #128 above) and to not pose scantily-clad for a “SkepChick” calendar (yes, that’s a real thing – google it).
II) The gentleman in the lift did not become “creepy” until the moment his invitation was rejected. Had he been Ms Watson’s favourite celebrity – say, (assuming that she prefers men) Brad Pitt, or Justin Bieber, or David Beckham, or whomever it is that the young ladies favour these days – her YouTube video would no doubt be telling us how “awesome” it was that “hot, cute Mr X” was on the lift with her in the middle of the night and had expressed an interest in her. The gentleman on the lift is not psychic, since psychic powers do not exist. He may very well have realized that his chances of success were low, but elected to make an effort anyway – for his optimism and courage he deserves the admiration of all of us. No doubt he would have not asked, had he known that the young lady would be so troubled by his polite offer.
.
#1070 – Nathan, brilliant point (in bold, the other stuff I could do without). I’ve been thinking about this issue for the past hour or so and wish I’d made that connection.
Phil, love your stuff but you have equated the commonplace act of a man being alone in an elevator with a woman with a violent, dangerous situation. The only basis for this is the female’s interpretation of the social situation. What you have described in this post could be interpreted as reverse-sexism, if the term exists. A small minority of men are violent, hence women must treat being alone in an elevator with a ANY man as a potentially violent situation = discrimination. A point well illuminated by Nathan.
One might argue that this type of discrimination is fair, and they might have a point. But let’s call it what it really is.
I find this really fascinating – and essentially much ado about not very much. All the while, some woman, somewhere in the middle east has been stoned to death for adultery or executed by their family for e henious crime of wanted to divorce her husband (something I have personal experience with in Iraq). When apartheid ruled in South Africa we didn’t hear the end of it on TV and in the movies. But while a similar injustice occurs every day in Muslim countries, we fiddle around discussing implications of invitations for coffee in an elevator. In this, Richard Dawkins sarcastic point is very well taken.
You call yourselves skeptics? It just struck me that there’s no evidence of the incident actually occurring other than the ladies story. What a fantastic plan to gain attention, and it’s working.
It’s so annoying that of everything Rebecca has said, people focus on this, blow it entirely out of proportion, thereby creating a strawman, criticise it to no end and then dismiss everything else she’s said. I’m seriously sickened by all this, but also really glad that there are guys out there who do get it. Thanks for taking a stand, it means so much.
Rebecca didn’t even say the things people are foaming at the mouth about.
She said it was a jerky thing to do, and after Dawkins overreacted,OTHER people (Phil) then began claiming it was a narrowly-averted rape and that basically women are just helpless prey, trembling deer walking through a lion’s cage everyday and the OTHER people began saying that women have no complaints and sexism is no big deal.
Close this thread already. I seriously doubt anyone has anything new to say.
Quoting for truth:
“Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.”
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Among geeks, I think there is a very real possibility that going to a hotel room for coffee would be just that– coffee, conversation, maybe the start of a friendship.
I agree his timing was bad and it would have been better to wait until the door was open and ask if they could meet for coffee sometime, but I wouldn’t assume that being alone in a hotel room together meant the certainty of angling for sex.
Men are not all sex fiends.
If your wife our girlfriend received that proposition and went to his room for coffee, and swore it was just coffee and technical talk, would you distrust her?
This sexist garbage has ruined every skeptical blog I ever bother to read. Every man is not a rapist, every invitation from an unattractive man is not a prelude to sexual assault. I will also quote for truth.
“Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.”
That’s the long and short of it.
The basic problem here is that people are relying on a logical fallacy in their thinking.
“All or nearly all rapists are men, therefore it is not unreasonable to fear that a particular random man is a rapist”.
Logically equivalent to:
“All or nearly all Charles Mansons are men, therefore it is not unreasonable to fear that a particular random man is Charles Manson”.
It’s a sufficient and necessary condition confusion issue. The fact that someone is a rapist lets you be pretty close to certain that that person is a man, but someone being a man tells you nothing about their propensity to rape.
In actual fact, the chances that this particular man is a rapist are miniscule. But we’re built to think “tiger” when we hear a twig snapping, not “just the wind”, because the chances of error are worse if you mistake a tiger for wind than if you mistake wind for a tiger. So it’s understandable to leap to “rapist” rather than “just another dude”.
But, even if the error is understandable, it’s still a logical error.
If the man had pressed the issue, all this bruhaha would be totally justified… but y’all are wasting a lot of energy on a theoretical that can never be proven.
There was nothing logical, rational, skeptical or reasonable about Watson’s response to the alleged incident, or her response to Dawkins. Dawkins called her out, and is 100% right. She won’t admit that she was wrong and is turning it into a popularity contest. Being that most people in this community do not see women as equals to men (by wanting to grant them special privileges) it’s pretty safe to say that when a 70 year old man and a slender 20 something woman clash, the one with the tits is going to win. Sad but true. I just hope there are enough people who won’t set their skepticism and rationality aside for political correctness left over when it’s done to maintain a RESPECTABLE skeptic movement.
“He may very well have realized that his chances of success were low, but elected to make an effort anyway”
Dude—we’re not slot machines dispensing sex.
“– for his optimism and courage he deserves the admiration of all of us.”
Wow. Just…wow. The fact he made, at best, a clumsy socially inept move deserves admiration? Ignoring social cues from other people is good? And how the woman he hit on feels is of no consequence, because it’s up to someone else to decide how she should feel. The fact that he inconvenienced, bothered, irritated, or made her uncomfortable is moot. A man who follows a woman out of a bar and waits until she’s stuck in an elevator is now the new Man To Be Admired. Did that woman say she’s tired and wants to go to bed? And that she doesn’t like to be sexed up at conventions? Mere obstacles to the Real Menz in their quest to get laid!
Yes, this thread needs closing as it’s officially entered the twilight zone.
“Yes, this thread needs closing as it’s officially entered the twilight zone.”
Silence dissent and persecute the thought criminals!
It is sad some dude in an elevator has done something that Creationists could not.
What in the hell does this have to do with astronomy?
Very few women on earth would consent to going to his apartment for “coffee”, even if they were horny as hell and the guy looked like Brad Pitt. So, the guy was pretty much an idiot –or very ballsy — to ask.
Dawkins’ remark was tongue in cheek and a message to “get some perspective”, but naturally everyone got their panties in a bunch, because most people love the opportunity to screech in self-righteous outrage, relishing the opportunity to feel self-important, superior, and to show off how enlightened they are. Pathetic idiots, get a grip on reality.
First, thanks and kudos to Phil, PZ, and the other male supporters of Rebecca Watson’s thoughtful post on unenlightened, unevolved, clueless male behavior and how it reflects badly on the skeptic movement (to say nothing of men in general), and for calling out Richard Dawkins on his outrageous and frankly moronic (and sophomoric) response to it.
I’m not generally a joiner of movements after my experiences with fundamentalist religion, but I’d thought that going to TAM might be a lot of fun and enlightening. I have friends speaking there, and I really enjoy the posts by many of of its members, like Phil. But I have to say this whole sordid brouhaha has turned me off completely. Any organization or movement that cannot bear to honestly confront an issue as serious as misogyny cannot presume to speak for all of its members and certainly can’t speak for me.
All of this sounds depressingly familiar from my days in the fundy camp. Do you guys really want to be compared with that?
edited
HEY!!!! You’re ruining it for the girls out there that want to get hit on. Knock it off already. Maybe I’m shy and sometimes a guy has to start the conversation. I’m all for equal rights, but stuff like this makes me embarrassed to be a woman.
If this guy was planning to rape you he was probably the most polite rapist in the history of the world. Maybe you should focus on actual violence and rape and not your own pity party.
Apparently all males are rapists by default, and any disagreement from that viewpoint is considered sexist. Then, it would make sense as to why any sort of communication by that man in the elevator is offensive and predatory. He was guilty at the get-go, so her fears were completely justified. It doesn’t matter if he actually did anything that amounts to sexual assault, he was probably planning to, since he’s male.
Right, so, I’m a man, and I’d like to consider myself quite decent even. Now I’ll be scared of going into elevators alone with any woman, just at the thought that she might be scared at me! Maybe I’ll just have to wait for the next. Is there any way that we can show woman that we really don’t want to do anything other than get the free ride on the elevator?
“tongue in cheek?”
you better read it again, Prim.
wtf do oppressed muslim women have to do with Creepers in Elevators? this reads like Angry Old White Guy in a fit of senile dementia.
I’m coming away with the strong impression that Dawkins doesnt care much for women in general.
im sick of this bulshytt equivalence. Dawkins used FGM to try to shame Rebecca into shutting up about something that bothered her.
That is a douche move, and Dawkins looks like an assclown.
Maybe he was one all along, and i was just dazzled by his intellect.
@Melf-Himself
““Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, ….”
This is not a racial issue, it’s a “person making an unusual request at 4am” when you are vulnerable issue.
If someone asked me for money in an elevator at 4am, I don’t care what race they are, I sure as hell wouldn’t turn my back on him/her. Anyone making such a request is simply not to be trusted. If someone propositioned me in an elevator at 4am, I sure as hell wouldn’t turn my back on him/her. That person is simply not to be trusted.
Richard Dawkins observation that Rebecca could have “pressed a button” to flee her attacker is beyond asinine.
Rebecca was trying to educate “normal” males. Clearly there is at least one normal (we can assume) male that needed an education. I’d be willing to bet a whole lot of money that there are others. Maybe she reached some. I hope so.
Tim
“Dude—we’re not slot machines dispensing sex.”
Indeed – hence the young gentleman’s politely-worded invitation.
“The fact he made, at best, a clumsy socially inept move deserves admiration?”
I suspect nearly all of us who are men can remember, with regret, failed opportunities we had to ask out attractive women, because we could not muster the nerve when the rare opportunity presented itself.
“Ignoring social cues from other people is good?”
I do not think there is any more evidence that he ignored social cues than there is that he merely misunderstood them. Who can know what glances may have been exchanged, what hints may have been dropped, when the account of only one of the two parties has been made available to us?
“And how the woman he hit on feels is of no consequence, because it’s up to someone else to decide how she should feel”
Again her reaction was completely unknowable until the invitation was extended. She might have said yes, and she might have said no. In all likelihood the gentleman felt remorse for troubling the young woman when his invitation was declined.
“The fact that he inconvenienced, bothered, irritated, or made her uncomfortable is moot”
All completely unknowable until his invitation was declined. Had she been inclined to smile and graciously accept the invitation she would not have been “inconvenienced, bothered, irritated, or made uncomfortable”. He could have asked her out in the middle of the day on a crowded street and still “inconvenienced, bothered, irritated, or made her uncomfortable”. That is a risk we must all take if we are ever to pair up with members of the opposite (or same) sex. Sometimes they’re going to say no, but sometimes they may say yes.
“Did that woman say she’s tired and wants to go to bed?”
Allegedly that statement was made. But was it made in a come-hither manner? We cannot know. Sometimes those words are code for an invitation (but just as often they are not, of course).
“Mere obstacles to the Real Menz in their quest to get laid!”
Real Womenz like to get laid too, you know.
Good night.
Phil. Get a grip man. Dawkins is being insensitive. The guy in the elevator was crossing her comfort zone. If there was anyone I thought I could trust with avoiding a “sky is falling” mentality for something so banal as bad timing, it was you.
Can’t say I agree with you, Phil, but that does happen about every 100 or so of your blog posts.
I’m probably a bit biased because I’ve always loved Richard Dawkins, and I’ve never cared for Rebecca. I sometimes wish SGU provided a no-Rebecca version of their podcast.
I fully agree with Richard on this one, and don’t have any problem with the tone or rudeness or condescension of his posts. That is Richard’s style, and when it is directed at Creationists and their ilk, I’ve seen most atheists and skeptics laugh and swoon. On SGU, I’ve heard Rebecca employ a similarly dismissive tone with those with whom she disagrees. Richard is just a lot better at it. In his post, he was simply contrasting Rebecca’s non-event with real misogyny epitomized by the treatment of some female Muslims.
On the accusation of racism: Did Dawkins imply that all Muslims abuse women? If you think so, you might have a problem with reading comprehension.
I’ve been thinking about what Mr. Dawkins said, and specifically, that first comment he made. For arguments sake, I will play Devil’s Advocate here and suggest a possibility: Maybe Mr. Dawkins was trying to make a subtle point about our reaction to a relatively innocuous interaction in the US, and compared it to our rather tepid reaction to the legally sanctioned rape, torture and murder of women in other countries. Maybe, just maybe, he was hoping some of the anger directed at him would be turned on those who commit horrendous atrocities every day.
Or maybe not. Who knows. But maybe we should take some of this energy we’ve devoted to denigrating Mr. Dawkins comments and dissecting Rachel Watson’s experience, and devote it instead to delivering from harm as many people as possible.
FFS people. Does no one understand the difference between the idea that this specific incidence was creepy, so maybe people should try to avoid repeating it and all this other BS that has been stirred up? Calling elevator dude a potential rapist is over the line, but so is Dawkins’ comments. Generalizations are bad…all the time (see what I did there?)
Can’t say I agree with you, Phil, but that does happen about every 100 or so of your blog posts.
I’m probably a bit biased because I’ve always loved Richard Dawkins, and I’ve never cared for Rebecca. I sometimes wish SGU provided a no-Rebecca version of their podcast.
I fully agree with Richard on this one, and don’t have any problem with the tone or rudeness or condescension of his posts. That is Richard’s style, and when it is directed at Creationists and their ilk, I’ve seen most atheists and skeptics laugh and swoon. On SGU, I’ve heard Rebecca employ a similarly dismissive tone with those with whom she disagrees. Richard is just a lot better at it. In his post, he was simply contrasting Rebecca’s non-event with real misogyny epitomized by the treatment of some female Muslims.
It really was a non-event. Nothing happened. There is absolutely no reason that a guy shouldn’t feel free to get on an elevator and chat with a member of the opposite sex. I pity Rebecca for feeling vulnerable or threatened in that situation, but I can’t support her assertion that the guy was in the wrong.
On the accusations of racism I’ve seen in the comments: Did Dawkins imply that all Muslims abuse women? If you think so, you might have a problem with reading comprehension.
@1079
Meant to say at the end that it’s not harassment.
Dawkins hit the nail on the head. Get off your whiny self-absorbed privileged high horse and get some perspective on real world issues.
Frank Grimes- You’re new around here, aren’t you?
There’s been several skepchick calenders. They raised money for charity.
Those pictures of Rebecca are hardly ‘nude’.
Secondly there have been several skepdude calendars as well, with PZ, Phil, and James Randi in them. Google it…
I can’t remember if your hero Dawkins had the guts to pose “not-nude” or not.
Oh, and here’s a dollar for you to buy a clue.
Edit, BTW you didn’t seem to notice that the book Rebecca is reading ‘nude’ is the first book written by the owner of this Blog, Dr. Phil Plait- Bad Astronomy. On second thought here’s another dollar.
To the folks trying to smear Rebecca because she has appeared in Skepchick calenders: I hope you’re not saying that a person can ever be ‘asking for it’ in person, because he appeared in a picture that piqued your interest. I truly hope you’re not. Because you can see the difference between appearing in a picture, and being propositioned in an elevator at 4am. Can’t you?
The line “made her feel…” is used quite a bit by some. She *reacted* with feelings, he didn’t *make* her feel them.
Rebecca presents a sexualized image of herself but complains about being sexualized. She sexualizes other on her blog with comments like “I’d do him”, but complains when others do the same to her. She drags her blog to the gutter with posts like, “I was alarmed at my sudden incredibly strong attraction to one Mr. Justin Theroux, whom I immediately wanted to lick from top to bottom”. But she hates when creeps respond in like manner.
http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/
Looks like blaring hypocrisy to me.
Watch the video. Where does Rebecca say anything about: coitus, fear, being attacked, rape, speaking for all or any other women, being in a “potential sexual assault”, that she was followed, that she was sexually propositioned, that she’s married, that she recognized the guy, that he was a stranger…ad nauseum? Way to go wayyy off topic, people. It’s like watching a game of telephone. This doesn’t make me concerned about communication between the various sexes but it does make me wonder about basic comprehension. (I’m guessing Dawkins didn’t bother to actually watch the vid either). And no, Rebecca saying that, personally, she doesn’t like coffee at 4am with men, after giving a talk and then staying up at the bar, is not like the time that you thought you were going to be mugged, or panhandlers, or minorities in your neighborhood, or walking down dark streets, etc. All are off-topic, blatantly stupid analogies. (Note I didn’t suddenly and inexplicably feel the urge to use the adjective “creepy” in a dozen different yet variously definable ways as if it was the most versatile word in the English language and as commonly used as a personal pronoun).
Rebecca is apparently no stranger to post-conference room visits, as long as she judges someone as “hot”.
http://skepchick.org/2006/04/a-very-heretical-easter/
“Highlight of the weekend: watching two hot college girls on a panel fight over the use of humor and controversy to spread the atheistic word. I kept hoping the moderator would suggest we all head upstairs to a hotel room and settle this with a tickle fight.”
Read this people :
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/07/letter-to-professor-dawkins-from.html
Please just read it – and the comments there and please stop and think.
Wow – I weep for humanity and equality reading some of these asinine comments.
Funny story – I met my fiancee in an elevator. It was in my apartment building. I struck up a conversation about her outfit and asked her if she’d care for a glass of Sherry. 2 years later, I gave her a ring. She was a visitor, and without speaking to her there, I’d have missed my soulmate forever.
Nobody here would say that my act there was improper, as it turned out well. What a great deal of people, especially this mind-bogglingly-stupid author, fail to realize is that as the male in that situation, we can NOT actually read your mind or the future. If she had thought it creepy, It would be the EXACT same situation as that above. The friendly invite (No, morons, asking a woman over for coffee is NOT soliciting sex. Could it have romantic intentions? Probably. Is that bad? No. Is that soliciting sex? No.)
Basically, small-minded females who give decent women a bad name seem to think that if a guy approaches them on an elevator and she likes them than he is charming and it is good. If the same man does the same thing and a woman finds him unattractive, it is creepy (okay – maybe fair) and it is a potential sexual assault (wtf). By that “logic” any man passing any woman on the street EVER is a potential sexual assault, as he may find her attractive,, which is the only empirical evidence we can infer from the above situation!
I’ve been hit on by unattractive women. Sometimes they’re PUSHY. I’m skinny. Sometimes they’re BIGGER than me. It’s UNCOMFORTABLE. That’s part of life. I do not insult or blame them. I empathize that it must be hard being in her shoes and try to let her down easy. I do not cry rape like a feminist-for-the-purpose-of-being-feminist Nancy Grace wanna-be twit. I believe in equality for gender/sexuality/etc, not “we should handle females like delicate china,” so I guess that makes me chauvinist.
In the end, I’m glad I’m a chauvinist, because my fiancee respects me, and I’m glad I’m a potential rapist, because I’m with a woman who loves me.
Now stop seething with angst, take 3 deep breaths, and consider things from the other perspective like an intellectual. Who knows – maybe you can become one.
So a person relates an anecdote of an encounter at an atheist conference with a creep who hits on her in an elevator at 4 a.m. when she’s said she’s tired and has earlier that day given a talk against sexism and people sexualising her. She say’s calmly and rationally in a reasonable tone of voice :
Then all hell is unleashed :
– one thousand one hundred and twenty five comments in this one thread on the BA blog.
– at least three threads with thousands of comments on the Pharnygula blog.
– Multiple threads on numerous other science and feminism blogs.
– Oh and, of course, more threads and comments on the Skepchick blog itself where one comment by a low life scumball openly threatened to rape women to “show feminists there are real issues.” I kid you not. She outed his IP btw.
Almost all these blog threads attracting a frighteningly high percentage of those who just, somehow, cannot get it and who shriek at her for having the temerity to raise the issue, imply she’s a man-hating crazy-lady who’s being too precious and jumping at her own shadow despite knowing that women *do* get raped in elevators and despite knowing that she *herself* has had rape and death threats made against her.
The very atheist and skeptical community shudders and cracks under the sturm und drang, the fury and howling of the Rebeccapocalypse.
All over a woman relating her story and just saying :
Wow. 😮
This baffles me. It really does. Are people really this bad, this clueless, this ill-manned and sexist in today’s world that such simple words and such a small and obvious point is such a controversy?
PS. Please read what is written here :
[usual web address starter] almostdiamonds (dot) blogspot (dot)com
/ 2011/07/ letter-to-professor-dawkins-from (dot) html
All of it – especially the comments.
Just as a point of fact, if “something bad” happens no where except in someone’s mind, it is not actually “something bad”. It is actually “nothing bad” because no negative event actually took place. “Potential events” are literally “nothing”. The same goes for “almost getting into an accident”. Sorry, but unless you actually collide your car with something, nothing really happened, no matter how flustered it makes you.
Put simply, just because you feel something doesn’t make it real.
Rebecca is apparently no stranger to post-conference room visits as long as she finds someone “hot”. Not to mention she herself sexualizes women!
http://skepchick.org/2006/04/a-very-heretical-easter/
“Highlight of the weekend: watching two hot college girls on a panel fight over the use of humor and controversy to spread the atheistic word. I kept hoping the moderator would suggest we all head upstairs to a hotel room and settle this with a tickle fight.”
Hi there, I followed this over from Google+. I just watched Rebecca’s video.
I used to moderate my comments on YouTube for fear of really inappropriate, ignorant and sexually focused comments. Over time, I let up on the comment moderation and lo and behold, the content of my videos dictates the behaviour of my audience. When they do act up, my viewers step up and put them in their place. I’ve come to trust the community and viewing audience on YouTube and find I am making more videos now!
If I were Rebecca — I would have thought the statement by the guy was inappropriate and would have felt uncomfortable. I would have most likely avoided the guy for the rest of the conference.
Thoughts on the guy — drunk guys at conferences say dumb things. I had one say, “I don’t think my wife would like it very much if I brought you home”. I told him he was probably right.
Thoughts on the disconnect between the genders — it’s a very wide gap and many men are not aware of how their actions come across. They’re also not aware of their privileges as men that the world is shaped by them and for their preferences.
Thoughts on Rebecca’s point of view as a skeptical, feminist, Athiest — Her beliefs along with her energy level and alcohol consumption probably shaped her interpretation of the situation as well.
Takeaway — try to think before you act. Drink less. Don’t hang out with women at conferences after midnight.
Or click on my name here for the same open letter to Richard Dawkins – direct link.
People here who think nothing happened, who think she had nothing to worry about :
You *especially* need to read this and think about this.
But I bet you lack the guts to do so.
It baffles me that you still don’t get that people are responding to Phil Plait’s blog, with all its nonsense references to ‘male privilege’, and not the original report of the incident from the woman herself.
If we were discussing A PERSON being intimidated by ANOTHER PERSON the “don’t intimidate others” approach would be perfectly reasonable.
That’s not the argument – it’s A WOMAN being intimidated by A MAN and how that deserves special attention that’s the problem. This whole thing had nothing to do with garbage concepts like ‘male privilege’ and there was no reason for Plait to do anything but say that the PERSON in the elevator was out of line.
If you want to criticise the furore this has generated, start with Phil Plait.
If you can’t see why men would be offended by this culture of fear that is being created around them, then let’s just give up as a species now. Bring on the asteroid!
Dawkins’ words let me know with great clarity, just how unwanted my female self is, in ‘his’ atheist movement. I gather that I have a bit too much self respect, for him to respect.
Dawkins first comment was wrong for being off topic. Rebecca had expressed the rather modulated emotions of irritation and discomfort, and said mildly, “Guys, don’t do that.” And many men, PZ Myers included, got that. But then Dawkins came in with metaphorical sixguns blazing… to champion what great causes, exactly?
– To misdirect our attention away from Rebecca’s legitimate concerns.
– To belittle Rebecca for daring to ask for basic courtesy and respect in personal interactions.
– To trample the civilized idea that grown men can be asked to listen to the words of the women around them.
– To posit the monumental falsehood, that feminism must confine itself to only ‘big’ issues. (Big as determined by Lawman Dawkins, don’t ya know. You little ladies can’t handle choosing your own battles.)
Dawkins’ second and third comments were just steaming piles of privilege. Here’s how I heard him: ‘I wasn’t there, but since I imagine your experience was trivial, you shouldn’t have talked about it in public.’
In a word, Mr. Dawkins, NO.
It’s not about her original video…it’s about Dawkins’ idiotic rant, her reaction to a fellow skeptic (who she publicly went after at a conference), and most importantly and most stupidly, it’s about people responding to what other people said in the ensuing threads.
Now it has become about which side you’re on. You are either on “Rebecca’s side” or you’re a latent rapist…or put another way, you’re either on “Dawkins’ side” or you’re a manhating Feminazi.
I’m done with the whole thing. Glad I’m not going to TAM because it’s going to be nothing BUT this bile the whole time.
@Julie – Many feminists themselves are not exactly above dismissing the concerns of other groups. They’re grown women who can’t be asked to listen to the concerns of the men around them, so it works both ways.
Men have a million issues over their own equality, big things like ritual circumcision and gender-based conscription, that I’ve never heard one feminist take seriously.
The fact that we’re even having this conversation disproves the whole concept of ‘male privilege’ forever.
Heartfelt second to Messier Tidy Upper’s latest link: A Letter to Professor Dawkins from Victims of Sexual Assault. Excerpt:
“… You decided you knew better than she did what had happened, and you were comfortable explaining it to everyone else. That is part of how communities are ruined and ultimately shaped to support sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. That is how offenders operate and how they are excused. That is how the world that hurt us was built. And you have added to that…”
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/07/letter-to-professor-dawkins-from.html
Feminists are way beyond fighting for equality these days. They are about shaming men for being men. What is the female equivalent of “creep”? (It’s probably “fat chick.”)
This is just all wrong.
Everything you say here is wrong. She made an assumption about the man, she made an incorrect assumption but an assumption none the less. He had no intentions to rape her and did not physically attack or intimidate her in any other way. If you make an incorrect assumption about somebody it is NOT their job to protect you from a perceived an unreal threat.
That’d be like if YOU got into an elevator at night and there was a black man in there. You make the incorrect assumption that he is a criminal and wants to mug you because he’s black and lets pretend you’re a racist. He asks you for the time. You tell him the time but feel physically threatened because you incorrectly believe he just wants you to take your phone out so he can steal it. Does this then mean that ALL black males should be barred from asking you the time when in a similar situation?
This article vilifies all men, not based on trends, or even anecdotal evidence. But based on the incorrect assumption made by one women. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Dawkins was simply making a point that the man did nothing to her but gave her an invitation to spend some time with him, she refused and he did not act impolitely in anyway or even give her a hint that he intended to assault her.
I know this is the internet, and any idiot can say anything. But you are in a privileged position, your blog and article are read by a lot of people who hold you in a trustworthy position. You need to have some sort of integrity and treat each individual fairly. You’ve instead taken it upon yourself to vilify any man who so much as speaks to a woman and then you’ve attacked the character of a man who was simply bringing up a logical counter-point.
This kind of viewpoint about a group of people is wrong. We call it stereotyping. It’s the same reason white men like you made black people use separate bathrooms. The same reason ethnic cleansing occurs around the world. The same reason Hitler massacred 6 million jews. Oh and I know what’s coming.
“You can’t possibly compare the author to Hitler.”
I didn’t, if you take the time to read and employ critical thinking skills you’ll see that I only linked their reasons for action. Stereotyping in all forms is bad, just because this form of stereotypingi s not leading to the death of any group does not make it better than any other form of stereotyping.
If we as people intend to ever evolve and grow into a truly fair, just, and advanced society, people like you and the woman behind this story will have to learn to see situations as they are and not for what they “could be.” Until that point we will always fight wars, and people will always do evil upon one another. All evil in this world is a product of fear.
I’m a male. I haven’t sexually assaulted anyone – nor do I conceive of any situation where I might.
I am mindful that women find some situations scary when they present no threat to me. My wife reminds me of this by gripping my arm more firmly as we walk in strange areas, encounter unusual situations or see strange things happening. I try not to judge these events – but I do know that she will be afraid of quite different things to me. That’s life. End of that story.
I don’t see much discussion above of “how” this guy spoke to this woman. You can invite someone for coffee in a thousand different ways and depending on the body language, inflection and the look in your eye it can be offensive or can be perceived to be. Anybody who doesn’t understand that must have a limited grasp of communication. So – we don’t know the tone of the request and we don’t need to – it upset this woman. Period. It’s hard to imagine a way of suggesting coffee at 4am in a lift in a hotel that wouldn’t be wrongly perceived – at 10:30 am it’s a different story. Context!
Are there worse things happening out there as has been pointed out – yes of course there are. But perhaps not to this woman. She wanted to make her point. She’s done it. The good news is that with a single rejection, the situation went no further. At 4am, in a lift, in a strange town – there’s a risk that it won’t end so easily. For many people around the world it would not have ended so easily as as also been pointed out.
This entire story reminds me of a similar episode from my own life.
I’m a man, first of all, and if I can say so, not a very physically intimidating one.
One evening, while leaving my office on campus, I stopped to ask a female student outside having a cigarette if I could borrow her lighter. Mind you, this is 6pm, full light, people in all directions, less than 20 metres away.
Before I could even finish the phrase “Excuse me, may I…” I was met with a full stream of pepper spray, screams of “RAPE! RAPE!” and was hit with a flailing purse several times.
Security showed up. I showed them my ID and explained (while trying to washing pepper spray out of my now blackened eyes) what happened. Guess what their response was? I was arrested, charged with harassment, intimidation and attempted sexual assault, and held in jail overnight.
Thankfully the security footage showed exactly what happened. The charges were dropped. This didn’t stop this young woman from attempting to file a civil suit against me. Luckily, after she realized she actually had to pay her lawyer, and face a judge, she dropped the case.
I understand the fear she felt when I approached her. But this fear also allowed her to assault me and nearly ruin my career and financial wellbeing. I still get snide comments about the incident around campus. She was paraded as a feminist hero by her fellow students. An offender shouldn’t be treated or assumed to be an offender until they have committed, or indicated that they may commit, an offense.
Eh. While I can certainly see Rebecca being uncomfortable in that situation, and Dawkins certainly didn’t add much helpful to the dialogue, it all seems pretty overblown. It behooves us all to avoid making others uncomfortable, but an elevator in a hotel isn’t exactly an isolated space so maybe not everyone is going to think of it as a scary place.
BDSM conventions have very strict rules on touching, personal space, propositions etc.
How about something like that for skeptical gatherings?
Say, no closer than 3 feet and men not allowed to be on elevators or in rooms alone with a woman who is not their wife or girlfriend. They also have separate rules for singles. They don’t approach anyone of the opposite sex without being invited first.
If you are not a horndog looking to get laid, and are really there for the conversation, would that be a problem? I can’t see why it would be.
@Impulse – that’s the important word – “others”. Not just women. It’s all about how women are conditioned to fear men specifically. They’re bombarded with messages daily telling them to be scared, from the news, from other women and yes, from feminists who insert rape statistics in to every discussion they have no matter how irrelevant.
A woman sat down next to me on a relatively empty Tube train a few months ago. Now, this is odd because normally if there are plenty of seats people sit as far away from other people as they can, it’s just an unwritten rule. That made me feel uncomfortable.
Should I have complained about it? Should I have written a blog post or made a video for YouTube to say how it made me feel? No. Why? Because I’m a man. Men are conditioned to think “Is she hot?” instead and then decide whether or not we mind.
Now, of course, it’s public transport so she had every right to sit there, but it still made me uncomfortable.
I really wish I had forgotten to check BA today, alas it’s been a slow day at work so far…
I really really don’t see the issue, Dawkins being a bit of a jerk can hardly be news to anyone, and from my point of view RW wasn’t really being overly hysterical. What is hysterical is the reaction from some other people, unfortunately including you Phil. “Potential assault”? O’rly? as the internet lingo goes.
Yes we all know that “A drink/coffe/whatever in my room?” will really be an invitation to have sex most of the time, and a cheesy one at that. So what of it? Haven’t we all said stupid things at times, from what I can gather he wasn’t rude, didn’t comment on her ass or anything of the like, he blurted out a bad cliche, she declined, end of, it’s happened a million times before in bars, at work, in hotels and probably in places I can’t even imagine.
How many of those times ended up in rape? I’m sorry but if clumsy comments are going to make you uncomfortable you’re probably in for a rough ride through life, regardless of your gender or specific fears, and if someone is going to call me a potential rapist because I’m in an elevator with a woman I’m going to be taking more than a little offence to that. Yes being a rather physically strong person I could probably rape most any women and a non trivial amount of men as well should I want to. Just as I could run over people with my car on my way to work with little trouble. I still don’t see why I shouldn’t be offended that some people apparently think I very well might just because I can.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing, I live in Sweden and statistically I am at a far greater risk of assault than a woman should I choose to walk through the city streets alone at night. Yet I do on occasion because I won’t let that determine how I live my life, and I don’t go writing blog posts about “Potential assaults” whenever I pass a group of strange men in the street late at night. Also, again this is in Sweden, the vast majority of rapes happen at home and are commited by men the victim already know. So I guess at least if you live in Sweden the reasonable thing for a woman to do is simply to not know any men.
“feminists who insert rape statistics in to every discussion they have no matter how irrelevant”
Feminists rape statistics are a lie in the first place. There are more false rape accusations than there are rapes in America. More men’s lives are ruined over false rape accusations in the U.S. than women’s lives are ruined over actual rape. Sexism is alive and well and it is women who are the oppressors.
“potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum”
Err no he wasn’t. Asking a girl back to your room and being refused is not potential sexual assault.
She might of found it creepy (depends a lot on the woman who is asked), but to claim that the person planned to sexually assault her is offensive and wrong.
First world problem, blown out of proportion. That is what Dawkins was getting at (all be it sarcastically).
I am unbelievably disappointed in my hero, especially when he used the chewing gum analogy. None of his argument was impressive, and i found that hard to believe after reading his books.
I commend the article and debate, and it even makes me realize how the colour debate can be similar, because what I find so inoffensive, and people of colour find offensive…well, it might be the same thing, you can’t comprehend till you have felt the put-down or threat.
Perhaps a better analogy would have been a random cat and dog enter a yard together, does the cat tense up? You betya! It would be pretty dumb of it not to!
Using the phrase “potential sexual assault” is overstating the matter to a huge degree. If the man had physically imposed himself on her and was only stopped by someone interrupting them, that is a potential sexual assault. What happened here was an awkward situation.
I understand that Rebecca may have felt uncomfortable, but calling it a potential sexual assault is an overstatement, and also potentially hurtful to the man involved. He met someone he found interesting and wanted to get to know better, took a risk at being humiliated, and now gets labelled as a potential sexual predator.
Saying that was potential sexual assault is like saying that being alone with a black guy is a potential mugging
What part of “confined space” and the simple physical advantage a man is likely to have over a woman (far greater upper body strength, for a start) do men not understand? Nobody, least of all RW, was saying “you’re never allowed to talk to women, ever.” The point is that she was in a situation which, despite Dawkins’ witless claim, is a very effective trap. Ever tried to get past someone bigger than you who’s blocking the door and doesn’t want you to get out?
This guy used a line that is common code for “come and have sex” – hell, we have idiots in Australia writing that “girls, when a guy asks you to his room at three in the morning, it’s not for cocoa” in rape cases. It’s not some arcane code, it’s broadly known. He didn’t talk to her in a public place. He didn’t say he’d like to have coffee the next day. He’d already heard, from what I gather, her say she was tired and tipsy and wanted to go to bed. Even if he really wasn’t trying a bad pickup line (bad in that time and place) he was being completely insensitive and selfish – she didn’t want further conversation or coffee with a stranger, she wanted to go to her own bed and sleep. Didn’t her stated wishes have any meaning at all? Didn’t it ever occur to him – as it evidently doesn’t to all those rushing to his defence – that what he did was imposing on her, and on the creepy-to-frightening scale?
As to the “it wasn’t potential assault” defence – how the hell was she supposed to know that? What do you want, fellers – for women to assume any man who starts chatting her up in a lift, or anywhere, is perfectly safe? Guess what, when we do that and get raped, it’s our fault too: we weren’t careful enough, we should have read the signs.
Men complain about being treated as potential rapists, when all that’s being asked is that you think above the waist and not put your own wishes above consideration for someone else. How would you like to spend your lives having to modify your behaviour to avoid becoming another rape victim? Because that is the reality of too many women’s lives!
I said (891) :
Curses! I referred to the wrong commenter. I should have said Alex, not MarkW. My apologies to you both.
Edit – and I made the same mistake in #910.
@Shams, in reply to comment 1109, I think integralmath explains it best here: http://youtu.be/wHkvY-GnlR8
Men are stupid. Women are stupider. I’m going with Dawkins on this one.
Andrew (912) said:
No. A proposition that was either of a sexual nature or was so badly phrased that it could easily have been misinterpreted as a sexual one, while in a confined space with no other people around, is what everyone is referring to as a potential sexual assault. I think this is a slight exaggeration, but I get that Watson felt uncomfortable and potentially threatened.
Thorsten (1037) said:
Quite correct.
It seems that the comment to which I thought I was referring is actually #855. I have no idea how I got so far off the right number there (maybe it was 849 when I commented, and I made a typo in recording it, and then the number got bumped as earlier comments emerged from moderation into public view?).
Aarg . . .
Too … many … comments … cannot … keep … up.
No, Phil. It wasnt sexual assault in the making, it was a guy asking a girl a question. RD was spot on in his response, and I applaud him for it. Rebeccas response to never again read RD books, never give them as gifts, etc – an outright abuse of rationality. He disagrees on one point with her and she throws down that response with a healthy dose of ad hominems about him being white and rich and whatever. RD was supporting female rights, demanding respect for REAL violations.
I have lost a touch of respect for many people I really once respected over this insight to their perspectives on the world.
@Nigel Depledge – No problem.
I reject the kind of institutionalised misandry that finds teaching women to fear men to be acceptable.
Phil Plait’s blog here is an example of what I mean. It could easily be used as a template for the kind of scare stories that make cause women to react the way this woman did in this situation.
It’s the same kind of thinking that causes airlines to ban single men from sitting next to children. It’s the same kind of thinking that causes the vast majority of child custody cases to end in the father being estranged from his kids. It’s the same kind of thinking that causes boys to lose out at school when their female teachers tell them to behave ‘more like the girls’.
They’ve created an unrealistic, negative stereotype which, I’m sad to say, far too many of the commenters here seem to subscribe to. I really fear for our future if parents are teaching these kind of messages to their children, especially their daughters.
I feel sorry for anyone who truly believes that a society that hates men as much as American and British society does also endows them with any kind of ‘privilege’.
From Family Guy:
Brian sits down next to afemale student:
Brian: hello.
Student: *rabid mode* she attacks Brian with peppperspray. “No means no!”
I’ve got to disagree Phil – this wasn’t a potential sexual assault, any more than meeting a black person in the street is a potential mugging, or a woman in a low cut top is a potential slut. If we treat every man as a potential rapist, where does that leave 50% of the population?
Dawkins was insensitive, but on the right track.
I think the problem here is that men do not know when it is appropriate to proposition a woman in public. The rules for avoiding a sexual harassment charge are simple:
1) Be handsome
2) Be attractive
3) Don’t be unattractive.
This video explains it all…
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassment/258532/
There’s a clear historical line running through “rational thought” – an unimaginable dislike of women. From Kant to Dawkins men of “reason” find themselves abandoning the very thing they like to define themselves by when confronted by a woman with a voice.
Instead of shouting down women who express discomfort, getting all huffy about some kind of misguided sense that they’re saying we’re all rapists, maybe men could take a single damn second of their day and wonder; why might women feel like that? Why might they say such things? I don’t know, so as a reasonable man I should probably ask.
Instead, all we get is a bunch of idiots telling women to shut up and listen. Again.
I’m now convinced 90% of the people commenting on this who are saying Rebecca was wrong know nothing about the issue or about what she asked. All she said was:
“Guys, don’t do that”
That being ‘being a creep’. Its actually agonizingly painful to read how people somehow take ‘don’t be a creep’ to mean ‘all men are rapists’ and ‘never talk to a woman ever’
Over-reactions all round . . . . .heat, not light. Oh wait, it’s the internet. Having said which, as brilliant as Dawkins the scientist is, it’s a shame that he has also to be Dorkins the blockhead so often.
Over at the PZ Myers blog, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php,
I am struck by the correlation between the use of the f-word in comments and support for Ms Watson’s position in the same comment. Would someone like to firm it up quantitatively and offer a hypothesis?
@dirk: “Feminists are way beyond fighting for equality these days. They are about shaming men for being men. What is the female equivalent of “creep”? (It’s probably “fat chick.”)”
Pure class, dude. You make me proud of my gender.
@Alex: “I feel sorry for anyone who truly believes that a society that hates men as much as American and British society does also endows them with any kind of ‘privilege’.”
I feel the privilege I enjoy every day of my life. Maybe society just hates you.
@Andy Beaton – This very article is proof that no such privilege exists.
I hope, for their sake, you never have a male child.
Are you American? Did you register for the draft? Did any of the women you know?
Never gave too much thought about how I might be coming across, always believing it was fine as my intentions are never to endanger or intimidate another. This discussion has made me realise that I owe any woman a minimum level of comfort and security irrespective of my good/honourable intentions. I’ve been made aware and I can’t unlearn it, not sure our fathers have impressed this down to us, but as my 2 year old grows up, I’ll make sure he’s aware of the need to be careful of his manner/approach every bit as much as the point I was always going to impress on him of the zero tolerance for any man employing physical or emotional violence towards a woman.
It seems to me that this argument is one based upon a rather wide generalisation; that every time a man approaches a woman within a ‘confined’ space this is a potential sexual assualt. If we change the environment, if he was passing her on the street, she could easily walk away – would we still view this as a ‘potential’ sexual assault? This article fails to identify the difference between a conversation or question and a sexual assault. If he had asked her to have coffee with him when she was in an elevator full of people – would she have even bothered to highlight it as making her feel uncomfortable? It seems foolish to name EVERY encounter between a man and a woman a sexual assault if the woman feels uncomfortable at the time. Life is based upon meaning; if he meant to be predatory, it could be considered wrong, however he might have just been trying his luck. What if we reversed the roles and a woman asked a man for coffee? Would we all be screaming sexual assault then? No, I don’t think so.
And don’t consider me foolish for taking this point of view, I have experienced advances from other men I did not wish or did not encourage, but I’m not going to label every situation potentially threatening because of it.
@ 1076. Joshua Fisher Says:
““As a man who walks the city I really would at times apreciate [sic] to be undisturbed by all these salesman [sic], political campaigners, Hare Krishnas and what not. Unlikely to happen though.””
Thanks for sicing it. Yes, I could use a spellchecker here.
“These people have freedom of speech, you know.”
Exactly.
“I understand perfectly, Thorsten, that you have every right to complain about being annoyed and that you are justified in airing these complaints in comments on a blog.”
Yep. And of course Watson has the same right as I have. And Dawkins for that matter. And Elevator Dude.
“People like you who complain about annoying situations that make them feel pressured are exactly what’s wrong with our society.”
http://www.tagtele.com/videos/voir/21907
Almost any situation can “potentially” be sexual assault.
The idea that the guy is automatically wrong just because he caused the woman to “feel” threatened, despite not exhibiting any threatening behaviour, is nonsense.
With regards to incidents outside of this one, the possibility of a woman feeling uncomfortable or threatened can be attributed to anything, ranging from misconstruing the situation, to irrational fear/paranoia, to her complete social ineptitude.
It may be unpopular to oppose offering unconditional support to a female who’s emotionally distressed, but you have to realize that just feeling a certain way does not make your feeling justified. This applies to everybody, regardless of gender.
It should be acceptable for a person of any gender to solicit sex from a person of any gender in an elevator, and give up if the attempt is refused. It might not be an effective way of getting sex, but hey – for each according to their ability. It’s pointless to create a social movement for shaming tactless people, because being shamed does not cure tactlessness.
Phil, people asking you on a date IS NOT POTENTIAL SEXUAL ASSAULT. Period. You can’t view all males as rapists, that’s counter-productive. As someone who has been molested (by a teacher, no less) I can understand how a woman may feel threatened, I truly do. However, I do not thing that a random, obviously harmless if awkward invitation should’ve provoked such a public reaction from her. As far as I am concerned, this woman did blow things out of proportion. However, Dawkins’ reaction was just as over the top and completely uncalled for. It was a a vile, shameless attack. I find it incredibly offensive that (and really disappointing) that a man such as this would dismiss the rape culture western women live in just because our eastern sisters suffer even more. THE LATTER DOES NOT NEGATE THE FORMER, THAN YOU VERY MUCH. That’s essentially saying “Yes, somethign unjust happened here, but it does not matter, because far more unjust things happen somewhere else”. That is a logical fallacy and really disappointing to see someone like him engage in that. I expected more from him.
At the moment I really want to bitchslap the both of them – Dawkins and Watson – and tell them they both acted like idiots.
Is this comparable to feeling that you’re going to be a creep each time you open your mouth to another person of the opposite sex?
That’s the feeling I get — perhaps women don’t know THIS feeling. In the same sense nothing happens physically, but that’s the exact scenario that could cause a man to be eyed like a predator.
Is this seriously a post? This is ridiculous.
Richard Dawkins used to be a hero of mine. Not any more.
Ruth and Kayley, exactly. A lot of men are clueless about the everyday precautions women feel they have to take in the hope that they will not be assaulted/raped. Or blamed for it if they are (“why did you go out without your flamethrower and attack dogs?”). Lying in the reception area of my local police station is a home/personal security leaflet which in one section warns men that approaching a lone woman to whom they are a stranger (especially at 4.a.m!) is not a good idea, as she won’t know that you don’t mean her any harm.
What is so difficult about that?!
@gia – You are right that just because a worse thing happens, you should not ignore a bad thing.
However, it’s the same message anyone who cares about men’s issues gets from feminists all the time.
Man: “I think child custody should be split more fairly.”
Feminist: “WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT THAT WHEN WOMEN ARE BEING RAPED!!!! WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE WOMEN!!!!”
@ 1124. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
“All over a woman relating her story and just saying :
“Guys this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, don’t do that.”
Wow. 😮
This baffles me. It really does. Are people really this bad, this clueless, this ill-manned and sexist in today’s world that such simple words and such a small and obvious point is such a controversy? :-(”
But isn’t this the gist of what Dawkins wrote? It is so small and obvious that it deserves of no attention.
Unless of course one draws the strange conclusions which Watson seems to draw and which I cited above.
I admit it – I do hate men (or most men, anyway, because they make my life such a hassle). Why shouldn’t I? Most of them hate me.
Then I guess I’m one of those guys who just doesn’t get it. See if you can set me straight: http://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=990
@1116
Racism? I thought aetho-skeptics were supposed to be “bright”.
Muslim isn’t a race– its a religion.
Arabs are mostly semites…like hereditary Jews.
No, Dawkins is not a racist….he is a barking islamophobe and a full frontal misogynist.
bulshytt.
He was trying to shame Rebecca into shutting up over an issue HE decided was trivial. He was also scolding muslim women for putting up with horrors like FGM and stoning, and getting a few collateral whacks in on the evils of religion.
Dawkins is a douche.
He sounds like an angry old white guy with early onset dementia.
This suxx.
This is why I don’t like feminists. I’m all for equal rights, but feminists want everything 100% their way. They never stop to consider how men can also be the victim in these types of situations. Talk to a woman in the wrong way, and you can be arrested, labeled as a sexual predator, and have your life ruined forever. And I’m sorry, but that’s just as bad (if not worse) than being raped. When you’re raped, you have the support of people around you. When you’re labeled a sexual predator, you end up living under a bridge because you’re not allowed to live within 1000 feet of any place where there are children. Both are life ruining events.
And then these feminists have the GALL to complain that they can’t meet any good men. SHEESH…it’s because they’re all afraid to even TALK to you!
It’s times like these I really wish I were gay.
@ 962. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
July 6th, 2011 at 10:55 am
@ ^ pheldespat : “still waiting to hear the guy’s side of the story.”
The guy hasn’t had any opportunity to say anything and almost everybody assumes he’s a rapist. Even if he really wanted sex, it seems he’s not a rapist, since he accepted her “no”. It’s regrettable that she felt uncomfortable, but she’s made a galactic storm in a Planck-length of a “non-sexual-assault”.
He *allegedly* asked for sex (given the interpretation of social norms & the circumstances –coffee, 4.30, alone, elevator–); she said “no”; END.
What if he happened to be gay? That would be quite a story: gay man publicly accused (and sentenced by the world wiSe web) of potential sexual assault on a woman. No. It’s not funny. Accusing him based on assumptions isn’t funny, either. I insist: I don’t question her feeling uncomfortable, I question this huge fuss over an acceptance of a “no” as an answer.
Be careful when somebody shakes your hand, people: it’s a potential karate move that could rend you quadriplegic.
No one assumes the guy was a rapist. They assume he was an ass, who didn’t listen to a word Rebecca said and acted in a way that made her uncomfortable. But Rebecca would be insane if she didn’t have her own safety in mind when someone behaved in such an asocial manner at 4AM alone in an enclosed space, when she had spent the day asking guys not to treat her like a sex object at conferences. She then committed the unforgivable crime of asking guys not to act like jerks.
If he was gay? So what? Do gay men have blinking signs that tell women they can relax? Or would a gay guy who behaved like Elevator Guy be just as creepy at 4AM?
Jeez, guys, it’s not difficult.
SHOW A LITTLE F***ING EMPATHY. If you want to talk to a woman, don’t do it in a way that creeps her out. If you don’t act like a jerk, the Rebecca wasn’t criticizing you.
@OmegaBaby – Do yourself and your male friends a favour and Google the term “marriage strike”.
Oh how I miss Stephen Jay Gould….
@Shams “He was also scolding muslim women for putting up with horrors like FGM and stoning”
I’m not going to go into too much detail about this, but it seems like you have a solid understanding of the English language. Read Dawkins’ post again, because he was trivializing the event in the elevator. In no way shape or form was he scolding Muslim women. I’m pretty sure you already know this, and it would be in the best interest of your argument if you corrected yourself.
On another note, I’m speaking as a white male. If a larger black male steps into an elevator with me, and offers to smoke a joint with me, is it reasonable that I feel uncomfortable and perhaps worried about offending him upon denial of his request? Yes.
Is it reasonable that because he is a different ethnicity than me, I’m concerned that he may take offense and rob/harm me in some way? No. Even if a thought like this did cross my mind, I would have the sense to realize the stupidity taking place in the back of my own head. Furthermore, I could never muster the audacity to go and complain about this man in the elevator making me feel uncomfortable.
I don’t blame other people for my problems. If I’m afraid or nervous about this offer in the elevator, I recognize that the paranoia or stereotyping problem is mine. I’m not some IDIOT who creates a video explaining why this mans offer was inappropriate.
@ 1145. gia
“As far as I am concerned, this woman did blow things out of proportion. However, Dawkins’ reaction was just as over the top and completely uncalled for.”
I can agree that the whole discussion could have been conducted more wisely. However grown-ups should be able to concentrate on the facts, no matter what the circumstances.
E.g. would it have been a non-starter if Watson included a nod to the elevator dude in her speech, something like “important thing is, he did gtake a no, but here I want to talk solely about the creepyness”? Maybe that would have helped, but I have no intention to demand such a qualifier. People have to learn to get along with the insecurities of human communication.
“It was a a vile, shameless attack. I find it incredibly offensive that (and really disappointing) that a man such as this would dismiss the rape culture western women live in just because our eastern sisters suffer even more.”
I’m not sure that I understand the “rape culture” thing. Agreed, rape does occurres as it does in other cultures, agreed it was often apologiesed in our heritage and is still today by some subcultures. Is ther more to the term “rape culture”?
“That’s essentially saying “Yes, somethign unjust happened here, but it does not matter, because far more unjust things happen somewhere else”. That is a logical fallacy and really disappointing to see someone like him engage in that. I expected more from him.”
It would be a fallacy, but Dawkins explicitely denies that this was his intention. As far as I can see, he upholds the distibction “bad taste and even maybe fearinvocing” on one hand and “unsocial behaviour to outright crime” on the other.
1153 Thorsten
I think comparing Rebecca’s experience to FGM in order to shame her into shutting up is simply beyond the pale.
I think Dawkins should apologize to Rebecca.
What do you think?
“would you like to come to my room for a coffee ?”
“No”
“Ok”
Yea, thats a potential rape right there ladies and gentleman. Good thing it was narrowly avoided. Guess we should give her a medal for “surviving” this horrible assault.
Hey, maybe this man was actually attracted to her, guess he should go to jail just for thinking a girl is sexy, having committed a thought crime and all that…
On another note, what if she had said yes when he asked for coffee? Is this still harassment? How is the man supposed to know without asking? Is he to be held legally accountable for someone else’s feelings? For someone feeling uncomfortable because of a question he asked?
That is absurd. I won’t claim that these females represent the entire gender, but people like this need to be kept in foster care if they are that distressed by human interaction.
No one should apologize to anyone because this is a non-issue. A man asked her back to his room for coffee, she said no. End of story.
Oh wait, that’s what Dawkins said. I guess we all can continue to make the storm bigger, with boycotts and everything.
Thorsten, if you want an explanation of rape culture, try this link: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html
“Rape culture is the way in which the constant threat of sexual assault affects women’s daily movements. Rape culture is telling girls and women to be careful about what you wear, how you wear it, how you carry yourself, where you walk, when you walk there, with whom you walk, whom you trust, what you do, where you do it, with whom you do it, what you drink, how much you drink, whether you make eye contact, if you’re alone, if you’re with a stranger, if you’re in a group, if you’re in a group of strangers, if it’s dark, if the area is unfamiliar, if you’re carrying something, how you carry it, what kind of shoes you’re wearing in case you have to run, what kind of purse you carry, what jewelry you wear, what time it is, what street it is, what environment it is, how many people you sleep with, what kind of people you sleep with, who your friends are, to whom you give your number, who’s around when the delivery guy comes, to get an apartment where you can see who’s at the door before they can see you, to check before you open the door to the delivery guy, to own a dog or a dog-sound-making machine, to get a roommate, to take self-defense, to always be alert always pay attention always watch your back always be aware of your surroundings and never let your guard down for a moment lest you be sexually assaulted and if you are and didn’t follow all the rules IT’S YOUR FAULT.”
1154 shams
I think Rebecca’s “experience” was a non-event. But Jose beat me to it.
This is why I never travel alone in mirrored elevators.
@shams
I think comparing Rebecca’s experience to FGM in order to shame her into shutting up is long overdue.
I, on the other hand think Rebecca needs to take both her ego and persecution complex and shove them. Then she needs to apologize to Dawkins.
That’s what I think.
On this blog I count the “f*”:
#552 pro Watson
#957 anti Watson
#1151 pro Watson
not enough statistics, really.
@Jose, Leon
that is not what Dawkins said.
this is what Dawkins said.
we ALL wish Richard Dawkins had said something different.
But he didn’t and the interwebz is forevah.
I think he should apologize.
I’m as a male in two minds about this argument.
On the one hand Richard Dawkins statements were so inflammatory to women it was disgusting.
On the other hand the implications made by the community that any male in an enclosed space with a woman is a potential rape fiend is insulting.
To be honest, the guy that hit on Rebecca couldn’t have picked a worse place to start that conversation. At least strike up that conversation in a space where its physically possible for them to leave.
I just found this on my twitter account:
According to Dr. Legault, “Controlling prejudice reduction practices are tempting because they are quick and easy to implement. They tell people how they should think and behave and stress the negative consequences of failing to think and behave in desirable ways.” Legault continues, “But people need to feel that they are freely choosing to be nonprejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them.”
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/ironic-effects-of-anti-prejudice-messages.html
Schrödinger’s Mormon Knocking On My Door
@ 1077. Yolanda Says:
“From her comments, I don’t even think Rebecca was thinking “OMG I almost got raped!” She was thinking “Jerk!””
If this is the case it’s even more of a non-issue, because than there wasn’t even the discomfort of a temporary feeling of fear of rape, but only the discomfort of being asked a question by a jerk.
At this point in time, I can thank Watson for providing a fantastic illustration on why men, particularly men who identify as socially liberal skeptics, should not support feminist ideology.
Here is another reason:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/02/18/gay-spearhead-reader-gay-men-and-women-are-not-natural-allies/
@ 1150. Andy Beaton Says:
July 7th, 2011 at 7:35 am
>No one assumes the guy was a rapist.
“potential sexual assault”… “potential rapist” then.
>They assume he was an ass, who didn’t listen to a word Rebecca said and acted in a way that made her uncomfortable.
I think he did listen to her when she said “no”. Where do you get that he didn’t listen to RW?
>But Rebecca would be insane if she didn’t have her own safety in mind when someone behaved in such an asocial manner at 4AM alone in an enclosed space
“would be insane if she didn’t have her own safety in mind “, agree, but she and the well-intentioned bloggers and posters have blown a no incident out of proportion.
“someone behaved in such an asocial manner” Err… That’s subject to interpretation. I think I said before (and other posters have said it too) that the guy might have had the best of intentions/be a nerd/be tired and don’t realize that it was creepy…
“, when she had spent the day asking guys not to treat her like a sex object at conferences.”
I didn’t get that from the article, perhaps I read wrong.
“She then committed the unforgivable crime of asking guys not to act like jerks.”
No. It’s not unforgivable. It’s just exaggerated because any attempt to communication with a woman might be a potential sexual assault. What are men supposed to do? Use an anti-misinterpretation of intentions protocol? And yes, the guy might have acted bad, but that was it. Perhaps he’s sorry, but nobody wants to hear her opinion.
“If he was gay? So what? Do gay men have blinking signs that tell women they can relax? Or would a gay guy who behaved like Elevator Guy be just as creepy at 4AM?”
Well, most of the uncomfortableness comes from the assumption that he was straight and that he wanted sex. We still have no confirmation whatsoever of those assumptions. And as I said, you guys should consider the real possibility that you’re publicly condemning a gay man of potential sexual assault on a woman. How does that make you feel? Better than a creepy man in an elevator?
“Jeez, guys, it’s not difficult.”
Agree.
“SHOW A LITTLE F***ING EMPATHY.”
Capitals and swear words don’t make your argument stronger.
“If you want to talk to a woman, don’t do it in a way that creeps her out.”
That’s fine and I agree. But it’s a slippery slope, as other posters have said before. Perhaps if some guys talk to women –even in public spaces– they’ll creep them out no matter what. Hell, I noticed that kids and women cross the street when I walk with a friend of mine who’s specially tall and strong. What should he do to not creep people out? Walk in shackles and handcuffs? Wait, that would be worse
“If you don’t act like a jerk, the Rebecca wasn’t criticizing you.”
Fine. I think I understood that. I just want to point out that this whole thing is exaggerated. Most men try not to creep women out and many apologize if they realize they were at fault. That is basic manners we can all agree with, I think. Now the problem is the “making her feel uncomfortable” part. It usually is obvious. Sometimes it’s not because of different expectations/backgrounds, etc.
One example: I met a Finnish female student at college. She freaked out when she was introduced to some Spanish colleagues because they did what is customary in Spain, Italy, France… when a man and a woman are introduced/meet: they kissed her on her cheeks. Then, she and them learned about their cultural differences, and that was it. No more kisses for her. She felt uncomfortable but the guys had no ill intentions. They just thought they were being polite!
The opposite case with a Southern Italian girl: she would kiss and hug everyone she was introduced to. Result: some Eastern European males thought she wanted sex/a relationship/was promiscuous. And yes: some of them felt uncomfortable with her antics.
To sum up: It’s regrettable that she felt uncomfortable but 1) nothing happened, the guy accepted her “no”. 2) the guy committed a social faux pas. We all agree on that. That’s it. And please don’t read more into my words than what it’s written here. I’m not doubting her feeling uncomfortable. And I’m not taking Dawkin’s side (at least not intentionally) nor justifying/endorsing anything he said on the issue. My only problem is with the huge fuss. Not with the veracity of the facts. I’m not justifying jerks nor rapists. I’m all for women’s rights, equal pay, you know the drill. But please, people, don’t make an unfortunate mistake into a “potential sexual assault”… because there was no sexual assault nowhere to be seen.
Peace and love.
Ye-non-existent gods! Is this really so terribly hard for folks to fathom? What part of the following do some people here NOT understand?
Some men – NOT all but *some* – are rapists.
Women *do* have legitimate reasons to fear that in certain specific (& predictable) contexts – such as hotel lift at 4 am when they’ve been cornered by someone who has clearly ignored what they’ve said before – there is a risk (which can be higher or lower depending on specific context but *a* risk) that they could be raped.
That’s the reality. We can hate it and we are well-advised to work to change it but that is how it is and what many women have told us and will keep telling us if we actually listen to them.
Please read the open letter to Dawkins and its comments which is linked to my username here.
Therefore if someone wants to behave like a decent, considerate person rather than being a selfish, rude, jerk they will do what they can to lessen that fear.
NO one is suggesting that men be oppressed.
NO one is saying that men have to sit at the back of the buses or cannot talk to women anymore.
This is NOT about that.
This is about women and how they are treated badly by some people.
About having the basic courtesy, empathy and regard to listen to what women say and respect them – and to then think a bit more and behave a bit more considerately.
To make women’s lives less full of fear of being violated rather than more.
Its also about the mostly male atheist community generally not drooling on its collective shoes, tongues out, jaws slack, whenever a woman walks into the room and ignoring her when she says : “Don’t hit on me, don’t just sexualise me, listen to and respect me.” And how too many atheist convention goers are doing those former two things and not those latter two and are thereby making atheist conventions and the atheist community generally unwelcoming and hostile to women.
When all is boiled down RW was saying something that can be put into three simple words :
That’s all – and she used one brief example to illustrate what NOT to do in an otherwise highly positive video communication saying that most blokes there *did* get it and yet that has led to, well, this mess we’re in now. Sheesh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHCqz-J51IU
Haven’t seen these posted yet, but wanted to put out some statistics for those who feel this was a “possible sexual assault”
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
Approximately 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.1
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.1
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.1
28% are an intimate.1
7% are a relative.1
More than 50% of all rape/sexual assault incidents were reported by victims to have occured within 1 mile of their home or at their home.2
4 in 10 take place at the victim’s home.
2 in 10 take place at the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative.
1 in 12 take place in a parking garage.
43% of rapes occur between 6:00pm and midnight.2
24% occur between midnight and 6:00am.
The other 33% take place between 6:00am and 6:00pm.
Looking at those numbers, she should have been more afraid if one of the people she was at the table with stepped into that elevator, rather than this guy. She should have been even more afraid if this had happened before midnight.
Facts are the statistics state she should have been less afraid of this strange guy in an elevator at 4am than she should have been at 10PM with a friend in that same elevator.
But I will state, this is more directed at the commentors than Rebecca, as she never said she was afraid, just creeped out. She was well within her right to be creeped out, and should have been more creeped out (but not afraid) by a stranger compared to a fried.
Holy Hale-a$$hole-ah!
I’m really disappointed in you, Phil. What a strange and twisted world view you have. You seem to be advocating that 1) women should be regarded as weak and powerless and 2) women should treat all men as “potential predators,” men should be accepting of this as a fact and be sensitive to it. That is messed up! What if someone were to treat all black people as “potential muggers” and expect them to accept that as a fact and be sensitive to it? Wouldn’t that be just a teensy bit racist? It is incredibly racist! Just like the analogous situation between women and men is sexist as all get-out.
If the “Skep-Chick” wants to feel like a weak and powerless prey item, that is her right to do so. But it is also her responsibility for allowing herself to feel that way. Just because an exceedingly small percentage of men are rapists does not mean all men are and should be regarded as such. Does she feel that way when alone on an elevator with a woman? There are women who are rapists and murderers too.
The fact of the matter is every last human being on this planet deserves to be treated equally, fairly, and not have preconceived notions applied to them for no good reason other than one’s own paranoia.
Oh Phil, another bandwagon to jump on?
Lets make this absolutely clear, NOTHING HAPPENED, one dude who may or may not have been horny asked a pretty girl if she fancied a coffee when they were in a lift together.
Jesus you would have thought that the earth had stopped spinning, or the sun had gone supernova. This politically correct rubbish just needs to get a hold of itself.
That is all this is about, one chick (my freedom of speech to call her what I want) thinks she is going to get raped by a horny dude in a lift. How absolutely ridiculous.
This is like saying if my aunty had one more chromosome she would be my uncle, one who liked hugs and dribbling, but the point stands. let me just reiterate NOTHING HAPPENED.
Molehills and all that. There is nothing to see here and no argument to be made.
So some girl dislikes being objectified, I have news for you, GET USED TO IT, well at least if you are hot.
The reality is that men and women will always be in this predicament, that is not that she could have been raped, shoulda, woulda, coulda is the stupidest argument on the planet. This is like all the armchair critics that get up to tell you how an accident could have been prevented, got news for you it happened get over it let the law sort it out. In this instance NOTHING HAPPENED.
Old school joke just sort of brings this all in to perspective; Little girl in the playground is telling all her friends about all the toys and makeup she has, bragging about all of the best things her mommy and daddy have bought her.
Little Johnny runs up with his trousers down and says “I bet you havent got one of these”
Little girl pulls her panties down and says “No I havent but my mum says with one of these I can have hundreds of them”
And that my friends is the moral of this tale. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls, nothing in this case points to any issue only potential. This is supposed to be a scientific blogsite, go back and try and understand what potential is all about. It takes an action to turn potential into something else, and once again for the hard of thinking NOTHING HAPPENED.
Lets just put this in to context for all of you regarding this nonsense, there is probably a wish by this “Skepchic” to make a name for herself, Richard Dawkins has provided a marvelous opportunity for her to get big numbers for her blog and yet she is still throwing the feminism card. Even though it is the preeminent thinker of our day that people are coming to see not some feminist hack with nothing of any value to say.
There is your feminism wrapped up in the conundrum that it is only because of a real male superstar that you are getting any airplay, Richard has done you a favour by using his fame to increase yours, not very feminist is it.
Look up feminism in the dictionary, from what I remember it says:
Feminism: Equal rights for fat ugly chicks.
While that is somewhat of a joke it proves the point eloquently, the ones complaining are often the ones no-one cares about and it is this perceived degradation that they wish to spout off about. In the case of “Skepchic” someone elses fame has increased her noise level and you have all fallen for the PC nonsense surrounding it.
Got news for you all NOTHING HAPPENED, NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT, best PR this chick has ever had from idiots supporting NOTHING HAPPENED.
Really all you PC nutters get over yourselves, if a girl is damn hot she doesnt need feminism as every guy on the planet will fall over himself trying to impress her. Similarly, if a man is seen as handsome, rich or eloquent then even the most swarthy feminist with a moustache can be swayed.
I will repeat it again, NOTHING HAPPENED, that is the truth of this and this debate is ridiculous because of it, if the guy had touched her or forced her in anyway then there is an argument, otherwise just get over yourself an be flattered at teh attention. This ridiculous argument I have seen regarding gay men coming on to a straight man in a lift is just as stupid, I for one, confident in my own sexuality, would take it as a compliment and not as some reverse engineered rape, I think this says more about “Skepchic’s” frame of mind than the guys, perhaps her fantasy world revolves around being dominated.
Ahh now the real crux, psychology over substance
Let me preface my statement by saying I was not in the elevator with Rebecca, nor have I watched the video describing her impression of the events. My statements are based solely on reading this post…
Having said that, how do you make the leap from asking to have coffee (I concede that this was probably an invitation for something more) to a “potential rape”?
What made this a potential rape? Was it the late hour? Was it the invite for coffee? What if there was another male in the elevator? Is this a potential gang rape? That is just silly.
Was this an awkward “pick-up” attempt? Certainly! Was this a little creepy? Probably! Is this how I would want someone to approach my daughter? No! However, an invitation for sex (which is probably what this was), however awkward, is a far cry from rape!
@1153. Rift : Oh how I miss Stephen Jay Gould….
Me too.
And Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan as well.
@1163. pheldespat :
Actually we don’t know for sure. We don’t know who he is or what he really wanted. Neither did RW at the time.
What we can do is make reasonable assumptions based on what he is reported to have said and done but that’s all. We can guess that he was a harmless putz who was just too clueless. Or he might’ve been a self-declared “gift to women” (
) “player” who said that to all the ladies and some would take him up on it. Or just perhaps he was / is a serial rapist and murderer.
He hasn’t come forward and given his side we don’t know why. Perhaps he is ashamed of himself. Perhaps he simply has nothing to add. Perhaps he doesn’t know or remember what he did. Perhaps – aremote possibility Igrabnt you but a real one nonetheless – he is in police custody or worse is out somewhere digging a shallow grave for his latest victim. I don’t say he is. I don;t know and I think it is a very remote possibility.
But we cannot say for sure. We can’t read minds – nor can Rebecca – but what she knew at the time was that he made her feel “incredibly uncomfortable” by what he did and that he probably lied when he said he was interested in her talk – because he totally ignored the whole point of it which was don’t sexualise me, don’t hit on me.
How do you pick a rapist from a socially inadequate putz fan or a tool who thinks he is a cool PUA because he offers all the women that pass by a “coffee” invite? How does RW tell at the time which is which?
Oh for pity’s sake, read the article linked to my name. That tells you why.
As for other cultures and customs – true but irrelevant.
In what ethnic culture is EG’s conduct considered acceptable and non-creepy, please tell?
@ Niall:
“To be honest, the guy that hit on Rebecca couldn’t have picked a worse place to start that conversation. At least strike up that conversation in a space where its physically possible for them to leave.”
This is pretty much exactly what Rebecca said in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is absolutely astounding to me how so many allegedly “rational” men, including Dawkins, have become so absolutely hysterical over such a simple statement
Stephen (1038) said:
True, the hate directed at Dawkins is way OTT. I’m sure he’s accustomed to that (not that this justifies the hateful nature of many of the comments).
Having said that, his previous accomplishments do not excuse his belittling of this issue. I’m disappointed in him, because he seemed clearly not to get what Watson was saying.
I think what is happening here is a collision between two probability tails: the most extreme cool, detached rationalists coming up against the most extreme empathic, engaged emotionally intelligent. Most people, I suspect, are going “huh?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXIdamBEUJE (2:40 in)
“He’s right and he’s right, they can’t both be right.”
“You know, you are also right!”
@ 1155. shams Says:
“1153 Thorsten
I think comparing Rebecca’s experience to FGM in order to shame her into shutting up is simply beyond the pale.”
I’m all pro polemics ‘n stuff, first as a general free speech thing and second as a rhetorical tool which helps bringing discussions right to the core.
I am often a bit at loss of how people use the the “you can’t compare”/”shouldn’t compare”-argument in discussions. Can I compare apples an oranges. Sure, in content of glucoses for example. Can I compare Obama and Hitler? Me thinks Obama’s skin is darker.
Of course if you argue by example, drastic examples might help to nail the point which you are actually after. As I understand Dawkins point was to emphasize the difference “crime against women” vs. “inept behaviour which discomforts” in the context of how relevant he thinks these issues are in the context of the atheist movement especially atheist conferences and speeches given there.
“I think Dawkins should apologize to Rebecca.
What do you think?”
I think it would probably do more good than bad, if he apologized in the sense of regreting the tone, because it was seemingly misunderstood and created this tempest, but I’m a socially inept creep, so what do I know. As i said: I am a bit at loss.
OmegaBaby (1163) said:
Heh. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there! 😉
@Messier Tidy Upper and @Margaret and at everyone else who supports Plait’s article – he didn’t rape anyone. You know he is not a rapist because of this. This is a science site, you’d think the concept of empirical evidence would not be completely unknown to you.
Once again, whether the woman felt uncomfortable or not is not the point. It’s Plait crying about male privilege when he’s propagating the Fear Men message this woman has been indoctrinated with.
@ bigdaddyhen:
“Facts are the statistics state she should have been less afraid of this strange guy in an elevator at 4am than she should have been at 10PM with a friend in that same elevator.”
And yet, if Rebecca HAD been raped by the man in the elevator, I guarantee that a lot of people would be saying “Well, what was she thinking? Why did she get in an elevator with a strange man at that time in the morning? Why didn’t she wait for the next elevator? Especially since there might have been alcohol involved? She totally had it coming.”
Women get blamed for “not being careful enough” if we get raped or assaulted, but then we also get blamed for being “paranoid man-haters” if we work just a little too hard to stay out of potential rape situations. We can’t win.
Going through some of the comments, this thought only just occurred to me:
Why are we all focussing on the elevator incident (and Dawkins’s response to it), when Watson was trying to raise a wider issue in the speech she gave?
It seems to me that women who attend conferences like that one should not have to put up with being singled out and repeatedly propositioned (even if it’s a different man every time). Or, as a commenter (somewhere in the 800s, I think) noted about SF conventions, often women stop attending because they get groped in the crowds. Which is not acceptable behaviour.
I am just about old enough to remember a time (the 1970s) when an attractive woman might get her bottom pinched on a regular basis when in busy public places. Have we really not progressed beyond this in the ensuing 30-odd years?
Phil, I as a woman, a nerd, and someone who, like Rebecca, has had to put up with objectifying comments and threats of rape from critics responding to things I’ve written or said in public, I want to thank you for wading into this debate. I’m sure you knew you would get some strong negative responses for defending Rebecca’s right to ask men to treat her respectfully, but you did it anyway, and I appreciate that.
A lot of men — a lot of people — all over the internet seem to be willfully missing the both the context and the crux of the argument Rebecca was making when she brought this incident up in her video post.
The CONTEXT of Rebecca’s argument is that Rebecca has recently been very involved in a general community discussion of how to attract more women to skeptical / atheist events and make women feel more comfortable at those events. In fact as she stated in the video she had been speaking on that very subject at the conference, both in her talk and afterward in a social setting at the bar. She was using this as an example of the type of behavior that men might want to curtail if they are actively trying to increase the participation of women in their community. Rebecca’s stated intent was to HELP men who would like to see more women participate think about ways to make women feel welcome.
The CRUX of her argument was NOT that she felt personally threatened by this particular situation (although she probably did — I certainly would have, because propositions made to me by strange men in isolated places have more than once been followed by those men touching me inappropriately and/or verbally threatening me with violence for rejecting them, and this isn’t just my personal experience — a lot of women I personally know have experienced the same sequence of sexual proposition from a stranger -> rejection -> groping or angry response and for a few women I know that experience HAS escalated to an assault).
The crux of Rebecca’s argument was this: women who have been invited to professional events on the basis of their intellectual prowess FEEL DISRESPECTED when a sizeable minority of men at those events act as if they were more interested in women participants’ sex appeal than their ideas, and women feel ESPECIALLY DISRESPECTED when men who claim find to find a woman attractive ignore that woman’s STATED feelings and desires.
Rebecca’s point was that the event in the elevator wasn’t the first time a man at a conference has made an awkward or unwelcome sexual advance in Rebecca’s direction, or ignored her wants or needs in asserting his own. Her point was that THIS HAPPENS TO HER ALL THE TIME, and it’s exhausting, and it makes her feel less welcome.
Men who want to involve women in intellectual discussions, listen up: most of us would prefer for you to focus on us as conversation partners in those contexts, and save your assessment of us as potential sex partners for another context. When I as a woman have ostensibly been invited to participate in an event because of my intellect, but am confronted once I am there with a number of colleagues who seem more interested in talking to and about me as an object of sexual desire than they are about my ideas, I feel objectified and disrespected in a way that I would not necessarily feel if I were at a singles’ bar.
Men who want to have sex with women, listen up: are you more interested in convincing women to WANT to have sex with you, or in asserting your right to say and do what you like whether or not it makes women you’re attracted to uncomfortable? Because if it’s the former, not just as a woman but as a person, I am here to tell you: The best way to get someone to like you and want to spend time with you is to LISTEN to that person and consider things from his or her perspective. Ignoring your desired partner’s perspective on your behavior is really, really unsexy.
@ Alex:
“he didn’t rape anyone. You know he is not a rapist because of this.”
We know that now, in hindsight. But a woman stuck in an enclosed space with a man making sexual advances has *no idea* how he’s going to react to rejection.
Even if 99% of men would take it well, and only 1% would react with violence or rape – Rebecca has no idea whether she is dealing with a member of that 1%. And if she is that unlucky, SHE will be the one having to endure a sexual attack and its consequences.
In my experience, the numbers aren’t that lopsided. I’ve turned down seemingly nice men, only for them to start swearing at me and threaten violence. These incidents occurred in public places. I shudder to think how these men would have reacted if they had me alone.
I wish skeptical men would understand that sometimes, caution and suspicion are actually very rational responses women have to their own lived experiences.
1208. bigdaddyhen : Yep. Statistics. And there’s never *ever* an exception right? Never a case of those ends of the Bell curve and anomalous data points being recorded?
Women never do get raped by strangers too? That’s not something they should ever pay attention to or be wary of because statistics say they need to worry only about their friends, partners and family instead?
Yes, when RW was alone in that elevator feeling “incredibly uncomfortable” she should have been thinking yeah its statiscally highly unlikely I’ll get raped and that would’ve made it all fine’n’peachy. Riii-ght.
Far as I can gather – & I’ll admit I’m no expert here – rape statistics are generally dubious and come with a lot of caveats because a heck of a lot of rapes go unreported.
@1203. Thorsten :
So making women feel “incredibly uncomfortable” by acting like a jerk is a non-issue? An extreme non-issue? Really? For you maybe it is.
But perhaps you should ask a woman what *she* thinks of that idea.
Don’t you kinda wonder, well, wouldn’t it be nice, better for folks, if it really *was* a non-issue and blokes did what RW advised and y’know – didn’t do that and then we saw more of them at athiest and skeptical conferences?
@1218. Nigel Depledge : Seconded by me.
@Nigel: “I am just about old enough to remember a time (the 1970s) when an attractive woman might get her bottom pinched on a regular basis when in busy public places. Have we really not progressed beyond this in the ensuing 30-odd years?”
Good question. Let’s see what julesmaine has to say:
“Feminism: Equal rights for fat ugly chicks.”
Apparently not.
@Nigel Depledge 1218:
So you’re comparing asking a woman out to groping and bottom-pinching?
@ Messier Tidy Upper
Well said.
It saddens me that so many men (and a few women) completly missed the underlying, but quite obvious message, which is: “if you approach me this way, I will have a negative feeling and I’m very likely to say no to whatever you ask”.
You only have one occasion ot make a good impression. Don’t mess it up. And this is true for many more social interactions than just a pass for the night.
Of course, figuring out what is acceptable behavior is heavily culturally-dependant, but eh, guess guys: relationships are not easy.
But seriously, a stranger asking you to go in his hotel room at 4am? Most people in all countries I can think of are either sleeping or having sex at these time and place, how could she not think that the guy was a creep?
@1216. Alex :
No, we don’t know that and cannot necessarily draw that conclusion.
In this one specific instance, Rebecca Watson wasn’t raped by him this time. That much *is* fact.
It is also fact that he made an inappropriate almost certainly sexual (just a “coffee” ya reckon? Yeah, right that’s so-oo likely – not!) advance when he should have known it was unwelcome.
That Rebecca had (as the post my name is linked to tells you) already implied a “NO” in her talk that he claimed he found “interesting” by saying as a lecture topic “don’t hit on me and sexualise me” EG ignored this and her statement that she was tired and going to sleep. That shows a certain lack of respect for her and her boundaries that deserves noting.
What else might he perhaps have ignored if she’d be drunk enough or unclear enough?
He set off her “really bad vibe” detectors – perhaps she was wrong toget that vibe – or perhaps she wasn’t.
We do NOT know either way.
Its not unknown to me. Neither is the relaity that women do get raped and do have cause for concern. I’ve heard stories, I’ve heard what women say, I’m willing to listen to and respect their views. Aren’t you?
Oh wait, YES it *is* the flipping point!
That is the whole message RW was trying to give in my view.
Her initial video clip was about this conference and her experiences there of how *most* blokes got it and how she said thankyou to them – all except for this one ELevator Guy who obviously hadn’t paid any attention to a word she said. Besides perhaps just one firm “no” at just the right time.
@1226. Heliantus : Thankyou. That’s much appreciated.
MTU-1220
Where did I ever state she should not be worried? I said statistically speaking she should be “less” worried with it being a stranger, than if it were a friend. That does not mean she should not be worried at all. Of course it was entirely possible she could have been raped by the guy (and to Margaret 1217 I would never put any blame on her if she was). I was simply pointing out statistically she was less likely to have been rapped by Elevator guy than should would have been by a friend. But of course those statistics still state 27% are done by strangers, so there is still the chance. And of course our emotions don’t run by statistics, so while the stats say she was less likely, emotionally she probably would have been more scared.
And again I just want to point out RW never said she was afraid, just that she was creeped out. There are no statistics for being creeped out. The stats were more to those who say strangers should be wary of talking/hitting on women because these women may be afraid, because they know that interaction is a “possible sexual assult”. Common sense should have told the guy to not due it. But I would argue that has nothing to do with it making a possible hostile situation because of “possibilities”, but just common sense.
@Margaret – For the one billionth time, it’s that sort of attitude that is evidence against Plait’s linking of this to ‘male privilege’.
Is women being taught to fear men supposed to make us feel ‘privileged’? There is a very simple word for this – prejudice.
Edit – and Messier Tidy Upper continues to propagate the ‘he might have raped someone else we don’t know’ nonsense. More prejudice and more failure to understand that courts decide who is and isn’t a rapist, not you.
Whether she felt uncomfortable or not is not the point because it’s not her article I’m responding to. It’s Phil Plait’s comments on Richard Dawkins and him linking this to this to ‘male privilege’. The woman in question may very well have felt uncomfortable but the point I am trying to make is that is more to do with the Fear Men message women are taught from the day they can understand speech than any genuine danger.
@ Mark:
“So you’re comparing asking a woman out to groping and bottom-pinching?”
Have you ever heard of the term micro-aggressions? It’s not like one singular act – one bottom-pinch, one request for sex – is the end of the world.
It’s the way a thousand tiny little acts add up, and the fact that you have to constantly be on your guard for the next one. Because you KNOW the next time is coming.
(Some examples of microaggresions: http://microaggressions.com/)
@ bigdaddyhen:
“(and to Margaret 1217 I would never put any blame on her if she was). ”
I appreciate this, and I apologize if I gave the impression that you personally would blame the victim.
However, I would respectfully ask you to take it a step further: Just because *you* would not blame the victim, doesn’t mean other people would be so kind. Unfortunately in nearly every high-profile rape case, every comment section on the Internet will be filled with people lining up to trash the victim before *any* facts are known. And even a non-famous woman who reports a rape knows her character will be dragged through the mud.
@ Alex:
“Is women being taught to fear men supposed to make us feel ‘privileged’?”
Privilege isn’t a feeling – it’s a fact. You are statistically far, far, far less likely to be raped than the average woman.
I assure you that women aren’t enjoying that sense of fear any more than you are.
I think this is really sad how overblown people’s reactions are to this. One person even relating this almost to rape. How can someone seriously think that? Phil, what if I was standing in the elevator and a woman asked me for a coffee? Should I feel sexually assaulted and be afraid because this woman might “have a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you”. Maybe the sexism is going the other way in mistrusting men so much that there’s such a high chance of misconduct possible. I really think that’s the crime here.
I asked a woman friend about this and she said the following: If a man asks a woman out and she also find him attractive then it’s called seduction. If she finds him unattractive then it is harrassment.
Please keep things in perspective. As another commenter noted, no body has even bothered to even think about the man’s side to this story. Any logical discussion must have both sides be presented.
margaret 1230. The only thing I have to say to those who would in any way put any blame on a women for being raped is that those people are more an animal than the person doing the raping. I could care less about their opinions or thoughts.
@Margaret – Yep, being hated is a great privilege that I’m honoured to share with my brothers.
We die earlier, we retire later, we work longer hours, we travel further to work, we get cut off from our kids, we’re more likely to die violently, we commit suicide more often, we’re more likely to be homeless, we don’t get a fair trial when accused of rape thanks to one-sided rape shield laws that circumvent the concept of innocence until proven guilty, our male children are taught from an early age by female teachers that they’re inferior and poorly behaved, we do more dangerous jobs, we make up 96% of coalition casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have to pay when paternity tests say the kid isn’t ours – the list goes on and on.
Privileged? Like hell we are.
@1229. Alex :
Why precisely is what I’ve said “nonsense” Alex?
Can you *prove* that EG has NOT raped before and isn’t a rapist and won’t ever rape anyone in the future? (And no, I’m NOT saying EG *is* a rapist, let alone that I can prove it, only that that is one possibility and we just don’t know. Just as RW just didn’t know in that situation.)
No, Alex, the courts decide whether someone can be *convicted beyond reasonable doubt* of rape NOT whether rape actually happened or not.
Do you really believe that there aren’t a stack of rapes that happen but go unreported or cases that are too difficult to prosecute and just get dropped? Do you really mean to suggest as it would seem that those cases therefore aren’t really rape?
Do you truly not see the distinction? Are you really that ignorant not only about women but also about how the “Justice” system works – or in many cases fails?
Uh, Alex that’s called “cherry-picking” – when you single out just one tiny thing and claim that’s everything.
Don’t you think there might be, y’know, just a few other points and things here that deserve to be noted? Like, say, RW’s original piece that led to all this and how her key point was :
Do you honestly *really* wish to imply that your response to that is : “nah, stuff what the women say, its fine to be as creepy as like and make women unwelcome and sexualise them without showing any respect to any boundaries or wishes they may have?” Truly?
Because that’s the vibe I’m getting from you – and I’m a bloke and we’re notoriously insensitive when it comes to picking up vibes! 😉
@Messier Tidy Upper – it is everything. I don’t have to prove anyone didn’t rape anyone else. The burden of proof is upon the accuser. That’s how the justice system in every civilised nation on Earth works.
There’s no “well, we couldn’t prove it so we’ll just say he did it anyway”.
She can feel any way she wants about this and I understand her reasons for feeling that way but her feelings have been biased by prejudice whether she realises it or not.
Men, women, assumptions & offense. My thoughts on the Watson–Dawkins debate .
http://blog.michael-lowry.com/2011/07/watsondawkins-debate-on-men-and-women.html
If she had found him attractive, not found him ‘creepy’ in some way, would she have had the same attitude or taken the same offense? How do you meet people? Was it awkward? Possibly. Had she addressed that awkwardness with him, would he have apologized? Did she give him the opportunity? Or did she just presume because of her discomfort level?
I think it was irresponsible for her not to address this with him in some way specifically. By knowing his name, she simply could have waited for an opportune time away from that spot in a place and time where she could have articulated. Instead, she choose this as a spring board for discussion. How do any of us know HER intention with taking it public? Why shouldn’t we be skeptical of her claims?
Funny how things work. If we are interested, we might find an elevator proposal charming. Others don’t. So she was uncomfortable, she had multiple choices. Do we have to take everything to a level of presumption? If you feel that physically threatened on a constant basis, in a somewhat controlled environment, I have a suggestion. Carry mace, in your hand. Take your keys out of your pocket and hold them between your fingers. Or if a man is on the elevator when it stops for you, or a man enters the elevator when you are the only one aboard, get off. Take the next ride. YOU are in control. And that is the only way true feminism works, taking that control and using it.
@ 1220. Messier Tidy Upper
“Yep. Statistics. And there’s never *ever* an exception right? Never a case of those ends of the Bell curve and anomalous data points being recorded?”
If we want to talk at all about whether a fear is reasonable or not reasonable, so what do you suggest other than statistics? There may be bad statistics out there, but then the problem is the “bad”-part, not the “statistics”-part. Don’t you agree?
“Yes, when RW was alone in that elevator feeling “incredibly uncomfortable” she should have been thinking yeah its statiscally highly unlikely I’ll get raped and that would’ve made it all fine’n’peachy. Riii-ght. :roll:”
There is no question of “should” in as much as no one has to justify his feelings, only maybe sometimes his actions. Whether thinking of something in an emotional stressful situation helps an individual I am at best in a layman’s position to answer, as I am not as psychotherapist.
“@1203. Thorsten :
@ 1077. Yolanda : “From her comments, I don’t even think Rebecca was thinking “OMG I almost got raped!” She was thinking “Jerk!””
If this is the case it’s even more of a non-issue, because than there wasn’t even the discomfort of a temporary feeling of fear of rape, but only the discomfort of being asked a question by a jerk.
So making women feel “incredibly uncomfortable” by acting like a jerk is a non-issue?”
This refers the context of what the atheist movement should focus its attention on. That seems to be Dawkin’s point and I don’t think this is unreasonable.
“But perhaps you should ask a woman what *she* thinks of that idea.”
Many women here and elsewhere have voiced their opinion about this. They are putting up websites and blogs, they seem quite capable of making their position known without me even having to ask. Of course it is basically always great if someone, some group volunteers to attac some problem, you have. I applaude “Catholics for the Environment”.
“Don’t you kinda wonder, well, wouldn’t it be nice, better for folks, if it really *was* a non-issue and blokes did what RW advised and y’know – didn’t do that and then we saw more of them at athiest and skeptical conferences?”
Lot’s of things would be nice to have, but I still fail to see this as an important atheist problem, which atheists have to address as such. The only thing that comes close to this is that some seem to claim, that women or asked for a date more often at atheist or sf conferences than at other social situation and they often explain this by being more men there.
It seems that Watson was not only in discomfort, but effectively paralyzed by the sitution, otherwise she could have made the obvious move to correct this, especially after it turned out, that the dude didn’t intend to press the issue: Tell him, that and why she felt uneasy.
Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way putting any demand on her or holding this up against her. The heat of the moment often let’s one forget the most obvious moves one could make.
I’m just pointing out what may be an effective route to correct, what she wants corrected. With the opportunity gone, and talking to a general audience in the form of a general advice, there ist little to nothing which she adds to things we already know. We knew that creeps and creepy fauxpas exist, so that’s one more case. I don’t think that anyone ever assumed that atheists are immune.
And again: Don’t get me wrong, I am not in principle opposed to the idea of general action be taken, but I’d like to discuss concrete proposals. I somewhat tried this in the posts, there I was talking about a cataloge of creep and the danger of reviving the “suggestive behaviour”-argument.
[Once again, whether the woman felt uncomfortable or not is not the point.
Oh wait, YES it *is* the flipping point!
That is the whole message RW was trying to give in my view.]
The problem was that she compared being asked to go have a coffee in his room and then having her denial politely accepted as “sexualization”.
That’s why Dawkins responded. No one is denying that the encounter may have made her uncomfortable. But to suggest that whenever a man solicits a consensual coffee encounter with a woman on an elevator, doesn’t restrain her in any way, then politely accepts his rejection as sexualization is laughable. Even if he wanted to have sex, he didn’t sexualize her, he asked her if she wanted to share some coffee with him and then politely took ‘No’ as an answer.
Of course, in her follow-through she’s all to happy to make it appear as though it was a potential rape, and Phil Plait and PZ Myers call it such. It’s boggling to me how anyone can turn “being hit on in an elevator and having your denial politely accepted” into a feminist issue. But look at the great defenders of women, Phil Plait and PZ Myers, they get it and anyone else who cares about real threats to women and actual rapes just have male privilege. Frankly, I’m glad Richard Dawkins exists and can be the voice of reason when insanity rules the blogs of so-called scientists in the name of non-rational feminism.
@Alex: “Yep, being hated is a great privilege that I’m honoured to share with my brothers.”
Don’t call me your brother.
I’d just as soon not be associated with crybabies going on and on about poor men and how they’re such big victims and it’s all women’s fault. You want to be man? Take some advice from an older guy who grew up with the stereotypes: grow a pair and quit whining about how unfair those women are to you.
I mean really. “Men are more likely to be casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan”? That’s your idea of an injustice? Are they not volunteers for dangerous service? Does it bother you that men suffer more fatal injuries in professional football than women? Why don’t you take the time to listen to what the women in this thread are saying and you can decide who’s really getting the short end of the stick in the modern West?
(I’ll give you a hint – it isn’t you, and when you claim it is, you sound pathetic).
@Andy Beaton – You know you just did what Plait is complaining about Dawkins doing, right? Stating that you think other issues are more important so nobody else should care.
It’s an injustice that women who volunteer for service in the armed forces aren’t elligible to take up front line combat roles – you know, the roles that might just get them killed. It speaks to the expendability of men.
Both genders get treated poorly in different ways, suggesting one is privileged over the other is nonsense. Linking this supposed privilege to one guy talking to one woman in an inappropriate manner is even more nonsensical.
And the ‘brother’ thing was sarcasm. I’d rather not be associated with people who dismiss the concerns of men either, which is why I’m done here. It’s clear that everyone on Plait’s side is an utter hypocrite.
/sigh
I dont hate Dawkins. Im just disappointed.
as a rhetorical device that was an Epic Fail.
All Dawkins needs to do is apolo for his tone, not for his position.
Be honest, he sounds like an Angry White Male in the throes of senile dementia.
you atheo-skeptics are all about fragging people with friendly fire, aintchu?
I thought Rebecca and Dawkins were on the same side.
Andy Beaton : “…who’s really getting the short end of the stick in the modern West?”.
There is no denying that women in the “modern west” get the” short end of the stick”; this just isn’t a good example of that. She was hit on, said “no”…end of story. At least it should have been.
@Messier Tidy Upper
“@1163. pheldespat :
No one assumes the guy was a rapist.
Actually we don’t know for sure. We don’t know who he is or what he really wanted. Neither did RW at the time.”
First off, please don’t misquote me. The “No one assumes the guy was a rapist.” was something I commented on, not something I said. Second. I think we now pretty well he was not a rapist. How many rapists do accept a no? I see that she didn’t like the situation, but when she said “no” and nothing bad happened, that made things quite clear, I gather.
I think I agree with most of what you’ve written in the paragraphs in between.
“But we cannot say for sure. We can’t read minds – nor can Rebecca – but what she knew at the time was that he made her feel “incredibly uncomfortable” by what he did”
Again: That’s correct until the point she said “no” and he accepted it. Then it was pretty clear that “he might be a creep, but he took my no”. See the pattern? Almost everybody here agrees: creep/awkward/insensitive… yes/probably. Rapist? No.
” and that he probably lied when he said he was interested in her talk – because he totally ignored the whole point of it which was don’t sexualise me, don’t hit on me.”
Again, from the article, I gather that’s not how things happened.
“How do you pick a rapist from a socially inadequate putz fan or a tool who thinks he is a cool PUA because he offers all the women that pass by a “coffee” invite? How does RW tell at the time which is which?”
I agree with you. Women should be cautious. But, then again, when she said “no” and the guy accepted it, it’s pretty clear that he’s no rapist. Creep? Maybe. Made her uncomfortable? Yes. And that was all there was to it.
” I think he did listen to her when she said “no”. Where do you get that he didn’t listen to RW?
Oh for pity’s sake, read the article linked to my name. That tells you why.”
No. I won’t read that. Enough of this white woman and her internet “white knights” throwing an over-politically correct tantrum because she felt uncomfortable. Life must go on.
“As for other cultures and customs – true but irrelevant.”
Because you say so, I guess. Besides, it’s not only that there are inter-cultural problems, there are also intra-cultural problems. Over-sensitive people, unbalanced people, people having a bad day, overworked people, tired people, socially awkward people, blunt people, sometimes we don’t understand what the other said, sometimes we misinterpret it… And that leads to misunderstandings, people may feel uncomfortable but, if nothing more grave happens, that is it. And no, I didn’t say that RW is unbalanced or anything. Just general examples as illustration of communication problems between humans.
“In what ethnic culture is EG’s conduct considered acceptable and non-creepy, please tell?”
I gladly tell just 2 examples: Southern Europe and the Caribbean, as far as I know. Yes, now enter the nitpicking about not everybody in those countries accepting that as non creepy. Duh! Not everybody in the US/UK would think it was creepy either! (As we can see from some comments.) But the main issue here –to me– is not the creepiness, –almost everybody here agrees on that– it’s the fuss created from a non-event. I repeat: most people here agree that the guy was a creep/socially challenged/a player/… Does that make what he did a “potential sexual assault”, people? If the answer is “yes”, then that’s it. I’ll accept Christ as my sole savior. If I have to choose between insane Atheists and insane Christians, I may well choose the Christians. At least they can always claim that “the Bible says so” or “The Lord commands it so” for whatever wacky ideas they come up with.
Lastly, enough of this. Life must go on and I think it’s too short and that we all have wasted too much time in this non-event in which nothing bad happened. Many of you will keep arguing here till the server starts billowing smoke. Nobody is going to convince no one. We all know it. Let’s move on. That’s my humble opinion. Sorry if I made anyone uncontainable with my comments. Please do believe that was not my intention. I was merely expressing my views. I may be completely wrong, however. Damn ethical issues!
Peace and love.
@ Alex:
“We die earlier, we retire later, we work longer hours, we travel further to work, we get cut off from our kids, we’re more likely to die violently, we commit suicide more often, we’re more likely to be homeless, we don’t get a fair trial when accused of rape thanks to one-sided rape shield laws that circumvent the concept of innocence until proven guilty, our male children are taught from an early age by female teachers that they’re inferior and poorly behaved, we do more dangerous jobs, we make up 96% of coalition casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have to pay when paternity tests say the kid isn’t ours – the list goes on and on.”
Half the things on your list are things you actually have in common with feminists. More men die in Iraq and Afghanistan? Men have more dangerous jobs? Well, guess who’s fighting to get women into the military, into firefighting and policework and other dangerous jobs? Hint: It’s not Men’s Rights Activists. It’s feminists.
Men don’t get primary custody of their children? Well, guess why that is: because of the stereotype that women are inherently softer and more nurturing. Guess who is fighting against that stereotype? Again, not the Men’s Rights people. The feminists.
Boys are told by FEMALE teachers that they are inferior and poorly behaved? Uh, citation needed. And please don’t give me “I had a meanie teacher once” anecdata.
You don’t like rape shield laws? Then join the feminists in preventing rape victims from undergoing a double assault – first against their body and then against their character. And please take off the delusion that rapists don’t willfully select women they think they can get away with raping (she drinks! she’s not white! she’s been raped before! she’s had multiple sexual partners! she let herself be alone with a guy!). Rapists may be evil, but they aren’t stupid. They know who society is less likely to believe, and often choose their victims accordingly.
It always amazes me when men seem more interested in trashing feminists than in recognizing parts of feminism that might actually be beneficial *to them.*
This thread is like South Park (my cultural bible) come to life.
The war between the atheists and the skeptics, lol, or perhaps the war between the male atheoskeptics and the female atheoskeptics.
oooo! oooo!
the Great Blogwar between the Dawkinsians and the Watsonians.
you guys are riddickulous.
😉
Richard Dawkins was out of line. He should apolo for his tone. Or be immortalized in the History of the Blogverse for this.
its his choice.
but remember, like diamonds and most STDs, teh internetz is forevah.
It is amazingly simple to keep a woman on an elevator, especially at 4am. You press the button to stop the elevator, then you block her access to the panel–easy to do, then you do whatever the hell you want to do. See, easy. I was in that situation on an elevator once, lucky for me, he did not stop the elevator and I was rescued by a person coming on at the next stop. AND it was not 4am, AND I was at work.
@1232. Brian:
Unless his side of the story is that she had slipped him a note that read “Follow me into the elevator and ask me if I want to come to your room for a cup of coffee. *WINK*,” his side of the story is irrelevant.
Well said Pheldespat!!!
@margaret – and you are far less likely to be violently assaulted and/or murdered than us men are. Not to mention being falsely accused of rape.
Related to the original video, one thing that I’ve been wondering about for some time is this whole “objectification” thing. If I think a woman is beautiful and/or sexy, does that mean I see her as an object and I am therefore I creep?
If I see a sexy woman at the gym, I really have no facts to judge her intelligence or personality by, but I can say she’s sexy since I do have facts(well, my subjective opinion) to support that, I make no judgement beyond that because I simply don’t have any reasonable way to do that unless the two of us get acquainted down the line, how is that objectifying her? To me it seems to be the only logical position to take at that point in time.
Incidentally one of the smartest women I have ever met also happened to be by a mile(sorry, kilometer) the most beautiful. I have a tremendous amount of respect for her as a person, and at the same time I think she’s incredibly sexy. Is that me viewing her as an object? Or will it possibly create a universe-destroying paradox?
This reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where Ned Flanders calls reverend Lovejoy panicking because “I think I’m coveting my own wife”.
@Margaret – I’m not going to argue this with you point for point.
The teachers thing comes from a study of the existing gender gap in test results for boys and girls in British schools where most children will not see a male teacher until their seventh year of education. It was found that boys were told routinely to ‘be more like the girls’ and were made to feel inferior to the girls in the same class. It’s not anecdotal, I was lucky enough to have a male teacher at primary school who encouraged me, but that was a long time ago.
As for the rest, don’t tell me that men’s rights activists aren’t fighting these things because that’s just not true.
Anyway, as I said, I am done here. You’re all free to go on thinking whatever hyperbolic, hypocritical nonsense you want about men. It won’t make any of it true.
@Johan – the fact that you think she’s smart suggests you aren’t objectifying her at all. I have the exact same ‘problem’ – the most beautiful woman I know is also one of the smartest people I know.
srsly?
my comment is in moderation?
so much for free speech in the atheoskeptic community.
i said, this thread is like a south park ep.
The war between the atheists and the skeptics, lol, or perhaps the war between the male atheoskeptics and the female atheoskeptics.
oooo! oooo!
the Great Blogwar between the Dawkinsians and the Watsonians.
you guys are riddickulous.
Richard Dawkins was out of line. He should apolo for his tone. Or be immortalized in the History of the Blogverse for this.
its his choice.
but remember, like diamonds and most STDs, teh internetz is forevah.
1249. Shams
Out of line for doing what exactly? What harm befell Rebecca Watson that Richard Dawkins made light of? Did she get raped? Did she get sexually assaulted? Groped? Lewd comments made about her body and things that someone wanted to do to her?
Nothing worth noting happened and Dawkins called her out for noting it.
Is “calling women out for painting non-issues as feminist issues” an attack on women or something?
@ 1227. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
“… advance when he should have known it was unwelcome.
That Rebecca had (as the post my name is linked to tells you) already implied a “NO” in her talk that he claimed he found “interesting” by saying as a lecture topic “don’t hit on me and sexualise me” EG ignored this and her statement that she was tired and going to sleep. That shows a certain lack of respect for her and her boundaries that deserves noting.”
We know little about the talk and the concrete situation, but you are trying from the general theme to discern whether elevator dude was willfully ignoring her. So your point seems to be, that she already said No, that he knew that and that the question was already pressing the issue further.
In principle this is a reasonable line of argument and although we know little, you are at least trying to get a reasonable guestimate.
However …
“He set off her “really bad vibe” detectors – perhaps she was wrong toget that vibe – or perhaps she wasn’t.
…
Once again, whether the woman felt uncomfortable or not is not the point.
Oh wait, YES it *is* the flipping point!”
For Watson, such an argument or rational guestimate does not even seem to be necessary. No justification required. We don’t even need to look at whether she reasonsably felt uncomfortable, because the feeling as such is enough of an argument?
Is this really what you are trying to say?
@Alex – Is women being taught to fear men supposed to make us feel ‘privileged’? There is a very simple word for this – prejudice.
So no woman ever has to fear any man ever? Yeah, right.
Ye, we do have approach strange men with caution, because we have no idea is that strange man wishes to do us harm, and we have to know that just about any given man can overpower any just about given woman. We do know that 99.9% of the men out there won’t, the trick is that we do not know who is part of that .1% that will, so we have to be very careful about our interactions with strange men.
(And if we are not careful and the guy does assault us, there will always be the chorus of people screaming, “Why wasn’t she more careful?”)
In the incident under discussion we have a woman trapped in a steel box, with a man who has been drinking, who makes a pass. At that instant, she has no idea how he will handle rejection, and how far he is willing to go. Will he take it politely, or will he force himself on her anyway, or will he scream and curse at her? The fact that he took politely does not mean the next guy will, and all us girls have to keep that in mind as we go about our daily lives.
The privilege is that men don’t constantly have to walk around thinking these things. it’s not that we get our ya-ya walking around thinking these things, it’s how we get through life without becoming a victim.
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/tom-brady-snl-sexual-harassment-psa/h7nIkQjgII_oYNH7gQfUpA
Sorry, that’s all I can say at this point.
Men – be Tom Brady and everything is fine and comfortable for women. Even in elevators.
Edit: beaten to it by #1163.
@What harm befell Rebecca Watson that Richard Dawkins made light of?
The harm was that she was placed in a situation that could have turned put very, very badly, and, indeed, has ended badly for many women. She got lucky and the guy took rejection well, the next guy may not, you have no way to know. Google “woman assaulted in elevator” and read few of the stories there.
Oh, the Men’s Rights Advocates (MRA). What to say to people who latch onto feminist topics of any kind, in order to try to change the conversation over to men’s issues? Is it too much to ask that all commenters on a skeptical thread would stick to the original subject matter? Apparently it is.
Here’s the situation. One man thought that his right to proposition a woman was so overwhelmingly strong, that he somehow ignored literally *hours* of her own words on the topic. Whatever else we have in this situation, folks, a man so beaten down that he couldn’t still objectify a woman ain’t it.
Later, the object of the failed pass, dares to utter this mild condemnation: “Guys, don’t do that.” For that, she is subjected to the ridicule of major movement leader Richard Dawkins. A man who wasn’t there, but is darn sure he can splain it better than anyone else can: it was just like enduring a nearby gum chewing.
No, Dawkins, it wasn’t.
MRAs, and anyone else who is troubled by the concept of every personal interaction being a ‘potential assault’: read the Schrodinger’s Rapist article. Or even Phil Plait’s original post here again.
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
This is nothing more or less than misandry on the part of Rebecca and her supporters. “All men are potential rapists; therefore, men shouldn’t ask women alone in elevators to join them for coffee because some might take offense or feel threatened.” Well, first of all, not all women would take offense or feel threatened by a man who asks them out to coffee, elevator or not. Some women would have accepted the offer, going to the guy’s apartment for coffee, and then maybe for something else as well. Rebecca’s person-relative feelings aren’t representative of all women.
Secondly, not all men are rapists, and so to go around thinking that all men are unrealized rapists is sexist. This sort of idea is equivalent to running around thinking that all blacks are potential criminals–or that an unattended black man in a store is a theft waiting to happen. Imagine a white person expressing their feelings of being threatened and afraid of a black person walking side-by-side them in an isolated area, because the person believes all black people are “potential muggers” or “potential assailants.”
One final problem is, and this sort of echoes the sentiments in paragraph one, you don’t know how a given person is going to react in a given situation. The man who propositioned Rebecca didn’t know how she’d react; if he did, then he wouldn’t have asked her to join him for coffee at his apartment! The only way you can know for sure whether or not somebody is interested in sex, coffee, or anything for that matter, is if you ask. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with politely asking.
Lastly, personally, I wouldn’t ask any woman out in an elevator who was alone (unless I knew her). Because I know women like Rebecca exist, who unfortunately believe that all men are evil, animals, or are rapists until proven otherwise, etc.
@ 1245. highnumber Says:
” As another commenter noted, no body has even bothered to even think about the man’s side to this story.
@1232. Brian:
Unless his side of the story is that she had slipped him a note that read “Follow me into the elevator and ask me if I want to come to your room for a cup of coffee. *WINK*,” his side of the story is irrelevant.”
I take this that you say, that only the must obvious desculpation will work for the dude, no possibility of a grey area, no misunderstanding, no culture-clash possible?
Only if Watson can be shown to have provoked the whole case and therefore implicitely lied to as all, are you willing to listen to evidence, which the dude might bring forward to put his behaviour into perspective from his point of view?
Lot of white knights in this thread.
@1239 Andy
“Take some advice from an older guy who grew up with the stereotypes: grow a pair and quit whining about how unfair those women are to you.”
Yeah how dare you try to fight minor injustices against you, you should only be fighting against serious things like circumcision or whatever.
Jackass
What the heck is “male privilege”? The privilege to be creepy in an elevator? Yeah, I think in a free country a man should have that privilege. But is the implication here that women do not have the same privilege in our society? If they don’t, I wish someone would tell them that…
@shams
All comments from new members get put in moderation then they don’t.
My guess is it’s a way to fight spam.
@1252. Thorsten:
She felt creeped out. So she tells us. Can you explain how hearing the Elevator Guy’s side could change the fact that she felt creeped out by the way he approached her?
I think we’re setting some kind of record here for highest-velocity wind in a tea-heating device.
Oh well, might as well throw in my $.02.
First, Richard Dawkins said something snarky that pissed people off. Really? This is news? That’s like being shocked at Lady Gaga wearing something really weird. It’s what he does
Second, all the threats Rachel Watson has been getting (both before and after the incident), supposedly from members of the skeptical community: What the hell? I mean, seriously, what the mother-fornicating hot place?? Do we need to get together and have a meeting where we discuss etiquette? Which, it seems, is exactly what Rachel Watson was doing. She didn’t say “OMG, this guy was a rapist!” – she said, literally, “Guys, don’t do this.” To borrow an as of late overused phrase, it was a teachable moment. It wasn’t a sarcastic remark, rather it was a social protip, and one that’s apparently needed by some people. And that’s ok. Let’s be honest, there are lots of socially inept geeks in the skeptic community (I’m one of them, as a matter of fact. I need an air traffic controller to direct me how to ask a woman out for coffee). At the risk of perpetuating stereotypes, perhaps some of use could use a few pointers on how (and when) to approach women. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, I WAS a bit irked at her statement about “Male Privilege” and how Dawkins is a wealthy, white, older man. That should have nothing to do with the validity of his statements one way or the other. IMHO, the very phrase “______ Privilege” is antithetical to the skeptical movement. That’s not to say that perhaps white guys don’t have things a bit easier off then women, but to matter-of-factly institutionalize it is to ask for trouble. How exactly do I KNOW that I have “male privilege”? If I were to ask a Sociologist (or whoever makes these phrases up), she’d likely say that I can’t know the extent of my privilege, since I’m seeing it through the filter of said male privilege. In other words, much like a good conspiracy theory, privilege is unfalsifiable. The fact that you can’t see it proves that it’s there. This seems like a very un-skeptical idea to hold…
@margaret: “And yet, if Rebecca HAD been raped by the man in the elevator, I guarantee that a lot of people would be saying “Well, what was she thinking? Why did she get in an elevator with a strange man at that time in the morning? Why didn’t she wait for the next elevator? Especially since there might have been alcohol involved? She totally had it coming.”
And the people who say those sorts of things in those sorts of situations are WRONG because they’re blaming the victim, and that’s unacceptable.
Just like many, many of the people in this debacle are wrong. I don’t think what RW actually said was particularly faulty, and it’s clear that 90% of the people posting about it never listened to her actual comments. However, Dawkins was wrong, because he gave a tone-deaf Islamophobic jerk’s response to it, which shouldn’t be surprising, since he’s often a tone-deaf Islamophobic jerk. And Phil, to my dismay, was wrongity wrong wrong, because this isn’t a “potential sexual assault” and pretending it is is insulting to actual victims of sexual assault and probably to men, too.
Anyone arguing that Dawkins’s response was fine because the underlying point was accurate and tone arguments never matter … should be ashamed of themselves, because rational skepticism shouldn’t have to win its arguments through that sort of bigoted sophistry.
Anyone arguing that Phil’s response was fine because Schrodinger’s Rapist/rape culture/whatever … should be ashamed of themselves because this WASN’T any of that. And that whole meme is destructive to women anyway, because a people trained to live in a culture of fear aren’t an equal people, and it isn’t like that’s an effective thought process to actually preventing rape, ANYWAY.
And, frankly, most of the people dogpiling the guy should be ashamed of THEMSELVES, too, because — even if we assume that really WAS intended to be a terribly awkward pickup line — the idea that men should somehow learn or practice pickup lines so that they aren’t ever awkward or poorly timed manages to be simultaneously insensitive to people who struggle with interpersonal communications skills, socially elitist, AND encouraging the perpetuation of PUA “techniques” as a net positive for the male community (seriously, please don’t do things to make men think that helps).
Can we all conclude that the skeptical community, for all its rational approaches to ghosts and gods, is incalculably terrible at actual sociosexual issues and move on?
@1254
“Male Privilege” is the concept that you’ve been granted certain rights, opportunities, and immunity from abuse that women systematically suffer by virtue of being male.
Now what are you supposed to do about it? What I gather from PZ, his minions, and their ilk is you should feel ashamed of being a man, always defer to women’s judgement on women’s issues even when they’re being irrational, and generally hate yourself.
Striving for equality is apparently impossible, as being a male has blinded you to your privilege and you wouldn’t know what equality is.
@ 1256. highnumber
” @1252. Thorsten:
She felt creeped out. So she tells us. Can you explain how hearing the Elevator Guy’s side could change the fact that she felt creeped out by the way he approached her?”
I don’t claim that an explanation can retroactively change her feeling.
@1258
[However, Dawkins was wrong, because he gave a tone-deaf Islamophobic jerk’s response to it, which shouldn’t be surprising, since he’s often a tone-deaf Islamophobic jerk. And Phil, to my dismay, was wrongity wrong wrong, because this isn’t a “potential sexual assault” and pretending it is is insulting to actual victims of sexual assault and probably to men, too.]
See here’s what I don’t get. Do you know what Richard Dawkins did with his comment? Bring up all the actual victims of sexual assault at the hands of actual men. How is this Islamaphobic and how are you hating on him by bringing up the very insult which Dawkins addressed with his comment?
@1261: “See here’s what I don’t get. Do you know what Richard Dawkins did with his comment? Bring up all the actual victims of sexual assault at the hands of actual men. How is this Islamaphobic and how are you hating on him by bringing up the very insult which Dawkins addressed with his comment?”
Well, addressing the letter to “Muslima” probably wasn’t in the best taste, to start with. But more importantly, his entire response conflates certain practices with Islam in general (or, at least, makes no efforts to distinguish them). Female genital mutilation is not performed in all Muslim communities worldwide, or even in all Muslim-dominated or Islamic-theocratic nations. Restrictions on women driving or traveling with men and so forth are common in the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East, but are generally not the case in other places, like Indonesia. Dawkins has a tendency to blend together all the wrongs committed in the name of Islam and ascribe them by indirection to the religion and its followers in general. This isn’t really new for him.
Also, while female genital mutilation is unquestionably a literal sexual assault, I’m not sure anyone’s really well-served by tossing it out in a discussion of rape in Western culture (or especially, as in this case, a discussion that only became a discussion of rape because people made it into one). They’re both violence against women. They’re both inexcusable and reprehensible. But they don’t really happen in equivalent circumstances or from equivalent causes, and so tossing FGM into a conversation where it doesn’t belong really cannot do anything but inflame the emotions of the participants.
“She felt creeped out. So she tells us. Can you explain how hearing the Elevator Guy’s side could change the fact that she felt creeped out by the way he approached her?”
Maybe Elevator Guy’s side was: “We were all drinking at the bar till 4 a.m. and one of the women in the group was scintillating. I’m single and was attracted to her. I think she might have been attracted to me. I wasn’t sure, but I decided to go for it. After all, it was 4 a.m., I was leaving the next day, and this would be my only chance with her. I thought it would be impolite to invite her to my room in front of the others at the bar, so I decided to wait until she headed up herself. It would be less embarrassing for the both of us that way. I took a risk, she declined. It was an awkward moment, but no big deal. (3 days later.) O Holy Bat-Sauce, what a big deal that turned out to be!”
Or maybe Elevator Guy’s side was: “I got too drunk and and hit on a woman in the elevator at 4.a.m. Lordy me, I sure am stupid when I get drunk. Why does everyone think I’m a misogynist? I’m just an alcoholic who does foolish things when I’m drunk. Perhaps I should go into rehab.”
@1258 Karen: I was going to quote the bits of your post that I thought were particularly right, but I’d end up simply reposting the entire thing. Layer upon layer of overreaction and ridiculousness going on here.
Can we all conclude that the skeptical community, for all its rational approaches to ghosts and gods, is incalculably terrible at actual sociosexual issues and move on?
Agreed
I am sorry to say that this is the largest piece of garbage I ever read on this blog.
You American are crooked people seriously. Very very crooked, obsessed with sex and sick people.
Either Skepchick had a foundation to her fear, which means you American are insane, or she hadn’t, which means you American are insane.
But IN NO WAY, IN NO CIVILIZED country in the world, would a woman have such a fear, nor a reason to have it.
God protect us if the guy had as much as used the word “sex”.
Hey, acording to your deranged standars, Dawkins may be thick and unsensitive, but, out there in the real world, where women aren’t raped a happily and as often as in your deranged country, that thing is called… oh wait, you don’t even have a word for it!
That explains a lot…
@1263: I could easily see myself doing something like this if I had a few too many to drink and I was all amped up on fun event brain chemicals. Natural social ineptness + alcohol + sleep deprivation is a helluva combination 😛
I haven’t been able to read through the walls of text around this incident – did the guy ever find out what a big thing this blew up into and apologize?
Hearing Elevator Guy’s side might not change the fact she felt creeped out, but it might demonstrate that he was not using “a threatening situation to push for sex” as has been suggested by some of the feminist commentators. It might show that this was not an instance of misogyny or a “teachable moment” for men.
@Karen 1258:
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but if I were to run into you in a bar at a conference, and by some miracle (unlikely at a skeptic conference) I were able to recognize you, I’d be inclined to buy you a drink, not because I was trying to start something, but just because you rock.
To clarify my previous comment, I’m not saying that this would be an OK thing to do. I’d be horrified after the fact, and apologize profusely if I could (preferably via e-mail). I’m just saying that as clueless as this guy acted, it isn’t all that surprising to me.
@ 1262. Karen Says:
“Well, addressing the letter to “Muslima” probably wasn’t in the best taste, to start with.”
As rethoric/sarcastic/polemic tools often aren’t.
“But more importantly, his entire response conflates certain practices with Islam in general (or, at least, makes no efforts to distinguish them).”
As he does address to a group “Muslima”, however the examples need not be interpreted in the way that every example applies to every member of the group, it can also be seen as a list, where every item on the list might more or less apply to specific members in the group.
Say I make a list “Main Professions American Women work in”, it is understood the not every Woman works in ever profession listed.
“Also, while female genital mutilation is unquestionably a literal sexual assault, I’m not sure anyone’s really well-served by tossing it out in a discussion of rape in Western culture (or especially, as in this case, a discussion that only became a discussion of rape because people made it into one).”
He may not be well served, but the intent might be exactly what you describe: If FGM is even worse than sexual assault, than it is an even better pick if you want to hammer the difference between creppy talk and worse things sexual home.
Whether this hammering home serves the discussion well or leads it astray by inflaming the emotions of the participants, I share your concerns. But a bad argument in the sense that it disturbs the discussion by disturbing the all too human participients is still differnt from a bad argument in the syllogist sense.
@Karen 1258: While I can appreciate a lot of what you said, you certainly come off sounding like you have some special insight that makes you qualified to judge everyone’s position. If that’s the case, I apologize in advance (see how easy it is to apologize, Richard?) for the following comments. If that’s not the case, I hope you will seriously think about the fact that most things are not black and white and cannot be fairly judged based on a little bit of information.
The problem with your wholesale analysis is that you weren’t in that elevator. You have no idea what the man’s body language was like, what kind of eye contact he made, whether Rebecca tried giving him “go away” signals that were missed or ignored. His sexual proposition (and please don’t anyone bore us anymore with the “it was only an invitation for coffee” argument) may have been delivered in the most harmless way possible or it may have had a predatory vibe to it. We don’t know and therefore cannot draw any conclusions as to how discomfiting the invitation may or may not have been. All we know is how Rebecca told is it made her feel and that she very benignly suggested that guys shouldn’t behave in that way. To judge how you YOU think she should have felt is not only unfair, it’s drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence, which is the opposite of skepticism.
You said “And that whole meme is destructive to women anyway, because a people trained to live in a culture of fear aren’t an equal people, and it isn’t like that’s an effective thought process to actually preventing rape, ANYWAY.” You’re exactly right – women aren’t an equal people in our culture, and ignoring potentially dangerous situations to convince ourselves we are strong does not make us equal – it only makes us more likely to be crime victims. Equality is an ideal that will never be achieved if we can’t figure out how to talk about these issues with reason and compassion.
@Mrs. BA 1271:
“The problem with your wholesale analysis is that you weren’t in that elevator.”
Let’s actually go to the trouble of reading what Karen wrote, shall we?
“I don’t think what RW actually said was particularly faulty”
She then moves on to focus her criticism in turn on RD, Phil, and a vaguely specified group of commenters. When is Karen second-guessing RW?
@Mrs. BA 1271, I should remind you “that you weren’t in that elevator.” You have no idea what Rebecca’s body language was like, what kind of eye contact she made, whether Rebecca tried giving him ‘ask me to your room’ signals that were missed.
We only have her word that she didn’t invite him with a look or gesture. Perhaps she got irritated at him for not following her quickly enough, or not being smooth enough in the elevator, and so she changed her mind and decided he was a creep after all?
Why did she specifically tell the group she was going to bed? Wouldn’t “I’m leaving now” have sufficed? Or “good night.” Perhaps she inadvertantly licked her lips (and forgot about it) just after announcing she was going to bed, while looking at Elevator Guy, and as she walked away the other guys there might have said “Man, she is totally asking you to follow her.”
Lots of scenarios, which only demonstrate that when you have one person’s version, you can’t be sure they are telling the whole story. They may not even be aware of the whole story from the other person’s perspective.
Did he have a notepad in his hand? Could he have been a journalist of some kind or someone wanting an interview for their blog? It says a lot about you (negative things) to automatically presume he was itching to hump.
Also, since she has clearly mischaracterized Richard Dawkins’ words — when she has them right in front of her for reference — Rebecca has lost her credibility for being trusted completely on remembering something that happened at 4am after hours in a bar. Isn’t it possible she misremembered some slight detail about her story? In fact, as we know about eye witnesses being subject to significant confirmation bias, itsn’t it likely she misremembered some detail about the event?
No, this is rife with Rebecca making mistake after mistake from her position of prejudice.
@Thorsten:
“As he does address to a group “Muslima”, however the examples need not be interpreted in the way that every example applies to every member of the group, it can also be seen as a list, where every item on the list might more or less apply to specific members in the group. Say I make a list “Main Professions American Women work in”, it is understood the not every Woman works in ever profession listed.”
I think that’s probably okay if you’re listing positive or neutral things, but it’s not cool if you’re highlighting moral failings, especially on the scale of FGM or certain Middle Eastern adultery laws. For example, I don’t think it would be intellectually honest to make a list of “Crimes Committed By Black People” and then claim that its okay because, hey, not ALL black people have committed those crimes.
And again, it’s not like Dawkins’s attitudes on Islam are news. Frankly, he’s proud to be an Islamophobe, having declared it “the greatest man-made force for evil in the world today” and at one point using material produced by Bakke Graduate University to illustrate the potential spread of Islam’s “unmitigated evil” in Africa while entertaining the possibility of supporting Christian missionary work there as the lesser of two evils (to be fair: he concluded that no, we shouldn’t).
“He may not be well served, but the intent might be exactly what you describe: If FGM is even worse than sexual assault, than it is an even better pick if you want to hammer the difference between creppy talk and worse things sexual home.
Whether this hammering home serves the discussion well or leads it astray by inflaming the emotions of the participants, I share your concerns. But a bad argument in the sense that it disturbs the discussion by disturbing the all too human participients is still differnt from a bad argument in the syllogist sense.”
No, its a bad argument in the syllogistic sense, too. FGM is a sociocultural problem. Parents take their daughters to doctors to have FGM performed because they wrongly believe that is in their child’s best interests … somehow. I don’t pretend to understand, but that’s WHY it persists in the levels it does. FGM doesn’t even really compare to rape, except maybe when you’re talking about the psychological cost (and even there, I’m dubious), unless there’s a secret plague of American fathers taking their daughters to a very different kind of “rape clinic” and I just hadn’t heard. That, of course, makes comparing FGM to a situation where nothing at all occurred even less of an appeal to logic. It adds “more heat than light” as the saying goes.
I agree with Dawkins insofar as he was trying to tell people that they were being wrongheaded in their reaction to RW’s experience. Many people were, and ARE, being wrongheaded. And, yeah, there’s a place and a time for overbroad satirical arguments, even in the rational skeptical community. That time probably isn’t when its clear that discussions are flaring out of control already. And when you go that way via a bigoted, blunt-force hammer like Dawkins did, you probably do more harm than good. Good intentions and $1.10, after all, get you a soda from my company’s break room.
Sorry Phil, I never thought I’d say this but you are an idiot and Dawkins is bang on the money. You may harbour suspicions that all men are potential rapists but frankly you should keep your self-loathing and misandry to yourself. Have a nice day …
I’m confused. I’m always told women want equality. Should we be treating them like scared children now? This wasn’t some unshaven, dirty man stinking of booze following her down the hallway. She got in an elevator and some guy asked her to have some coffee ,She said no, end of story.
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too…
I can’t believe the piles of weak men I see posting here. Feminism, the cancer, has eaten away women’s souls and seems to have taken men’s balls with it.
GO RICHARD DAWKINS! I think you are brilliant, yes, brilliant and brave and I hope you have inspired some men here to drop the repulsive pandering to whiny Western women’s whims.
Personal disclosure:
I am a woman.
I have been raped, like, really raped, a violent kidnap/ rape I almost didn’t survive—it was certainly not comparable to being talked to by some admiring guy in an elevator! Plus, (and yes, this is a woman talking) I will bet if the guy was HOT, she would have said YES!
Oh and guess what? I consider a man who talks to me and asks me out –is a man with good taste, lol.
Women really feel threatened simply by the presence of a man? I had no idea that my simple presence (and as a bearded 6’2″ youth, I’m probably objectively rapey-looking) would cause discomfort to more than a tiny minority of women. Is rape common enough to justify such concern? I don’t see that asking a woman if she wants to join you for coffee is inherently threatening, in any normal situation. I don’t think the guy was wrong, and the fact that women are apparently threatened by things like this is worrying.
Phil Plait.
It’s hard to enjoy your blog when you insist on posting political pieces amongst your astronomy posts. I think you are 100% wrong on this issue and reading your post made me extremely angry. Are you responsible for my feelings of anger at what you wrote?
….Didn’t think so.
“Words matter. […] You don’t have people constantly explaining that you’re subhuman, or have the intellect of an animal. You don’t have people saying you shouldn’t have rights. You don’t have people constantly sexually harassing you. You don’t live in fear of rape, knowing that one wrong misinterpretation of a couple words could lead down that road.”
You don’t have people telling you how stupid you are because you believe in an invisible old man who lives in the sky.
Oh wait! I forgot –that one is TOTALLY OK, right?
It’s interesting, and disappointing, to see that a not insignificant number of commenters think “please don’t proposition me alone in a lift in a foreign country at 4a.m., it makes me feel uncomfortable” equates to “OMG, NEVAR LOOK AT A WOMAN OR TALK TO HER EVAR, YOU ARE FORBIDDEN YOU POTENTIAL RAPIST!!?!1”.
Seriously, guys? It is you who are overreacting here, not her. She was not attacking you personally, nor males in general – heck, she wasn’t even attacking the guy who propositioned her. She was merely stating that a situation made her feel uncomfortable, and asking people not to do it. And if _that_ offends you, then I think you really do have male privilege and misogyny issues to work out.
The elephant in the elevator here are the facts on rape. Feminists have created a false-rape-accusation-culture which has inflated the the threat of rape in America to ridiculous proportions. While it’s hard to know how often women make false rape accusations, here’s some data that should put things into perspective: last year only 21 homicides in the US were related to rapes. That compares, for instance, to the 53 homicides in which children were killed by their babysitters. So statistically, very, very few women in a country of 300 million people are killed and raped, which seems a bit odd considering how serious and violent the crime of rape itself is and the fact that someone found guilty of committing a rape has essentially just lost his own life.
So why so few rape-homicides while the frequency of reported rapes are so high? Probably because rape has been redefined by feminists to apply to situations which aren’t rape at all, objectively speaking. Also, because women have so much legal power over men whom they have accused of rape. But actual rape-rape is probably very rare in America, particularly in elevators.
So now we have an irrational climate of fear that isn’t helpful for men or women. Thank you, feminists.
Nathan @ 1074 wrote:
@ Karen:
“And the people who say those sorts of things in those sorts of situations are WRONG because they’re blaming the victim, and that’s unacceptable.”
And yet… it continues to happen. You did not read the context of my post, or you did not understand it. I made the point that:
If Rebecca had been raped in the elvator, she would be blamed for “not being careful.” You may not like it, you may think that attiude is wrong, but that attitude is REAL. Ask anyone, male or female, who has tried to report a rape.
But when Rebecca expresses concern about being cornered (and yes, she was cornered, even if the man did not intend to do it), she has been dogpiled and called every name in the book.
My point? We women are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.
“Anyone arguing that Phil’s response was fine because Schrodinger’s Rapist/rape culture/whatever … should be ashamed of themselves because this WASN’T any of that. And that whole meme is destructive to women anyway, because a people trained to live in a culture of fear aren’t an equal people, and it isn’t like that’s an effective thought process to actually preventing rape, ANYWAY.”
Most people who criticize rape culture will be the first to tell you that rape victims are not responsible for preventing rape.
Only rapists can prevent rape, by choosing not to do it.
What you have offered is a strawman. The identification and critique of rape culture is about letting women know that they are not uptight or irrational for prioritizing their own physical and psychological security over a man’s feelings. It’s about about letting women know it is *not their fault* if their precautions fail, and that they did not “bring it on themselves” if they are raped/assaulted. It’s about identifying and validating the many forms rape and assault can take; there are a heartbreaking number of women who vaguely know they didn’t want something, but think they were allowed to say no. Or who did say no but have a hard time coming to terms with exactly how they were violated.
Frankly, you have no basis for saying “the meme is destructive to women.” I doubt you have any empirical studies, and you do not speak for women everywhere. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But please do not discount the actual living rape/assault victims out there who take solace from having their lived experience acknowledged.
“And, frankly, most of the people dogpiling the guy should be ashamed of THEMSELVES, too, because — even if we assume that really WAS intended to be a terribly awkward pickup line — the idea that men should somehow learn or practice pickup lines so that they aren’t ever awkward or poorly timed manages to be simultaneously insensitive to people who struggle with interpersonal communications skills, socially elitist…”
No. You are again missing part of the context. Rebecca had just finished giving a lecture in which she stated she did not like being sexually objectified at atheist gatherings. She literally spelled out, at a microphone in plain English, that she found this kind of treatment unwelcome.
The man in the elevator told her he had been at this lecture, and then *proceeded to come on to her sexually anyway.*
In other words: Rebecca literally got in front of a microphone and stated a personal boundary loud and clear, in front of an entire crowd of witnesses. The Elevator Guy ignored that boundary. This was not an “oops” or poor timing or misspeaking. When a woman spells out for you in plain English that she isn’t interested in being hit on, and you do it anyway – you are sending the message “I don’t care how you want to be treated. What I want from you is more important.”
And it is completely rational for a woman to wonder “If he doesn’t accept the first ‘No,’ what reason do I have to think that he’ll respect a second, third or fourth ‘No’?” And if you are in an enclosed space with someone who has already shown he does not respect ‘No’? Yeah, that’s a big red flag.
As a woman, I have to ask you: How much “social awkwardness” am I supposed to endure from men before I’m allowed to stand up for myself? How much disrespect am I supposed to rationalize away as “poor communication skills”? Why is it that my personal boundaries are constantly up for negotiation, but a man’s “right” to request sex from me is apparently sacrosanct?
“AND encouraging the perpetuation of PUA “techniques” as a net positive for the male community (seriously, please don’t do things to make men think that helps).”
Men are grown-ups. If anyone reacts to a comment thread on the internet by taking solace in PUA techniques, that’s an individual decision. It’s silly to ask people to censor themselves because a few guys might do something dumb.
@ 1271. Mrs. BA Says:
“You have no idea what the man’s body language was like, what kind of eye contact he made, whether Rebecca tried giving him “go away” signals that were missed or ignored.”
True enough. I also have no idea. Neither do I what dude’s interpretetation of his and her body language is.
“All we know is how Rebecca told is it made her feel …”
True enough again.
” and that she very benignly suggested that guys shouldn’t behave in that way.”
We just established that we have only a faint idea what “that way” actually is. “Don’t make me feel fear” isn’t very helpful, because dudes can’t read thoughts and emotions. We need some more practical description. To not disturb the emotions of the other person a guy might even start what he says with a (he thinks calming) “Don’t get me wrong” but that wont help much either.
We face the problem, that every behaviour a nice dude exhibts can be simulated by a rapist as well, so the only option seems to stay out of the elevator and ultimately, because elevators are not the only location where rape happens, to stay away from women at all so as to eliminate any possibilty of misinterpretation.
So … if a man WERE to find himself alone in an elevator with a woman he was interested in, what WOULD the right approach be to let her know without creeping her out?
I consider myself a feminist, but I stand 100% with Richard Dawkins. The notion that a man propositioning a woman in an elevator is sexist is not only extreme, but does a grave disservice to a movement fighting to end ACTUAL instances of sexism. Unfounded speculation about how this was just a heartbeat from sexual assault utterly fails to justify all of these attempts to paint this man – and by extension, all men – as a sexual predator. Sexist much?
Regarding false rape statistics, the American Prosecutors’ Research Institute has actually found that 2-8% of rape claims are false. This is actually about the same rate of false reports of any other crime. From here (http://www.awolau.org/2010/04/05/myth-busters-false-rape-reports/):
” This low figure may shock many readers who have heard claims that over 40 percent of rape reports are false. In the past, errors in police coding procedures have often been a reason for high claims of false reports; many reports categorized as “false” actually should be recorded as “unsubstantiated” (which means that there is insufficient evidence to move forward with the case) or “baseless” (indicating that the claim is considered truthful, but the incident doesn’t meet specific elements of the crime). Some reasons for incorrectly categorizing reports include pressure on police officers to close out cases and make their departments appear successful, difficulties with agencies not tracking and differentiating between “false” and “baseless” reports, and a lack of supervision within and across law enforcement agencies regarding careful training and implementation of accurate coding procedures.
A primary myth about false rape reports focuses on the belief that women “cry rape” because they are seeking revenge on men who have wronged them in some way. However, according to this study, the reality is that the vast majority of false allegations “are actually filed by people with serious psychological and emotional problems.” And notably, people who falsely file claims usually do not name specific individuals, but instead “involve only a vaguely described stranger.” These research findings support the theory that people who falsely allege rape do so not out of desire for revenge against a specific person, but because they seek general attention and sympathy.”
There is a difference between a false rape and an unprosecutable rape. I think most skeptics can understand the difference.
It should also be noted that these are statistics for REPORTED rapes. Rape crisis centers and hospitals see many, many more rape victims than police stations do. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, using government data, have estimated that 60% of rapes go unreported.
“So … if a man WERE to find himself alone in an elevator with a woman he was interested in, what WOULD the right approach be to let her know without creeping her out?”
If he has just watched that woman give a lecture stating that she does not like being sexually objectified at atheist conferences, the man should keep it to himself.
@1280:
tracer – here is your homework assignment:
go. and ask some real-life women that exact question – politely, and in a spirit of genuine interest.
and they will TELL YOU.
because here is the cool part – it’s probably different for every woman! and you know what else is cool, and fun, and amazing? that part of the “game” of attraction is figuring out what the answer is for THAT PARTICULAR WOMAN. And if you pay attention – in a spirit of respect and genuine interest and compassion – then she will tell you.
have fun.
“It’s about identifying and validating the many forms rape and assault can take; there are a heartbreaking number of women who vaguely know they didn’t want something, but think they were allowed to say no.”
That one wins the false-rape-culture prize. How many forms can rape take, anyway?
How many men’s lives have been ruined because feminist society is playing Calvinball with the definition of rape?
@ 1278. margaret Says:
“If Rebecca had been raped in the elvator, she would be blamed for “not being careful.” You may not like it, you may think that attiude is wrong, but that attitude is REAL.”
The question here is by whom? Some hillbilly-KKK-member? I can image this, but what’s the point? Outright idiots as well as creeps are going to stay with us for years to come.
“My point? We women are damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.”
I assume that the pope has a lot to condem about my behaviour in matters sexual but have I to care about this?
“Only rapists can prevent rape, by choosing not to do it.”
Not strictly, e.g. we also have things called walls to confine the persons who choose wrong. Behind theses walls they may make leed comments about rape victims. Quamvis sint sub aqua, sub aqua maledicere temptant. Is this of concern?
“In other words: Rebecca literally got in front of a microphone and stated a personal boundary loud and clear, in front of an entire crowd of witnesses. The Elevator Guy ignored that boundary. This was not an “oops” or poor timing or misspeaking.”
I am elevator dude now and here is my oops: “Did this specifically apply to not being asked today? Oops she must have had explicitly said so, the minutes I was out of the room, to make a phone call.”
“When a woman spells out for you in plain English that she isn’t interested in being hit on, and you do it anyway”
I sometimes have customers who are very, very clear and determined in what they want. Sometimes when I start explaining what it really in the end means what they want, they shut me down with interrupting and insisting on what they want. Nevertheless when coming down to a written contract, it often turns out in the end, that they actually want something differnt.
“As a woman, I have to ask you: How much “social awkwardness” am I supposed to endure from men before I’m allowed to stand up for myself?”
Set your limits. As I noted, i think it’s probably a lost opportunity that she didn’t stand up to the dude.
“Why is it that my personal boundaries are constantly up for negotiation,”
As long as your boundries have consequences only for yourself, you can set them wherever you want.
“but a man’s “right” to request sex from me is apparently sacrosanct?”
I can’t see that it is more sacrosanct as your right to ask (request?) a man – or for that matter a woman – for sex.
“Men are grown-ups.”
I second that. As are women.
“It’s silly to ask people to censor themselves because a few guys might do something dumb.”
I also think it is silly to ask people to censor themselves voicing their arguments and opinion that Watson went OTT, because a few guys might brag she is to blame, if she get’s raped.
I wonder what the reaction would be if she had invited HIM for coffee/sex???
That guy has probably picked up lots of women at 4am like that. The double standard is too much for me.
Feminists dont seek empowerment for ALL people, they just want privileges for their middle class white 1st world selves.
You know what, all the women commenting on this who think the guy was a creep, if the woman had gone to his room and they had sex and she had a great time and he turned out to be a milionaire theyd be jealous and call her a slut.
there is no such thing as “romantic” love. its just two friends who enjoy the shared hobby of bumping gentials.
check out Japanese herbivore men to see what the future looks like when real women = bad porn.
all you women who have sons, whats your advice to men on how to meet women then and find love, happiness and families??? you got nothing…… back to your romcoms
Hey Margaret you kinda sound like a girl I knew from the east coast (also named Margaret). By any chance do you live in North Carolina?
Initially I thought the most relevant xkcd for this post was http://xkcd.com/642/ but now I’m thinking it’s probably http://xkcd.com/386/
By the time the men just asked her a question and didn’t bother her any more, I don’t really see where the potential sexual assault is.
I understand several attitudes can be intensely uncomfortable to a woman, such as being constantly stared by a man. But, I repeat, I don’t think a situation like this occurred in that elevator.
And though I support this viewpoint perhaps because I’m not a woman and I’m not aware of some creepy situations some of them pass by, I think sexism is also in the attitude of those who think a man that speaks to a women in a confined space is a potential rapper. Would you think of a woman talking to a man in the elevator as a potential sexual assault?
But still, one thing is for sure: we’re more or less aware about the situations that are potentially offensive, and thus capable of avoiding them.
If you think I was sexist, please note that I am really NOT and I feel disgusted when I hear people saying, for example, that women are rapped because of the clothes they wear, as if they were inviting rappers to hurt them.
@ 1300. margaret
“If he has just watched that woman give a lecture stating that she does not like being sexually objectified at atheist conferences, the man should keep it to himself.”
I was under the impression, that sexual objectification is to condem under any circumstances, however I still don’t fully understand what this thing actually is and why it is bad. So it is only bad, if you anounce, that you don’t want it?
@1298 Chris
Stand with this then.
@Leon
Dawkins tried to used FGM to shame Rebecca into shutting up on an issue HE decided was trivial.
Dawkins EQUATED Creeper elevator guy with razor blade mutilation of muslim women.
Hes an assclown, and his letter to Muslima will always be accessible on the interwebs.
teh internetz are forevah.
nice legacy for Dawkins.
Just writing to let Mullah Phil (SAW & PBUH) that Richard Dawkins was raped as a child – just thought it help our new ayatollah of identity politics parse Dawkins’s words with a little less self-righteous indignation.
His entire is predicated on the sexist notion that men can’t be raped or were never children who couldn’t be molested – talk about a soap box in the privileged corner.
@Mark (1306): Funny!
“go. and ask some real-life women that exact question – politely, and in a spirit of genuine interest.”
Isn’t one of the main demands advanced here, that man have to make sure that it is not another “elevator situation” before they ask, because in an “elevator situation” the question as such might already be unbearable to the woman?
So we need a list of such situations, which we can look up in advance.
Mr Dawkins seems oblivious to the near universal tactic of oppressive men, even if they’re not assailants, to contrive situations where a woman in confined to a domain of his exclusive control while disingenuously painting it as an act of generosity. Usually this is to quickly remove her from the sight of men with whom he may be sexually uncompetitive, but it’s perfectly plausible that he aims to make sure there are no witnesses to what he plans to do to her.
It would be bad enough if this guy make such a disingenuous offer in public view, but that he contrived to make his offer (of “Coffee”, no less!) in a moment of temporary confinement where there are no witnesses to his manner of picking women up is outrageous.
In contrast, if he had plainly asked her for sex, perhaps with the line “Nice hair! Wanna f**k?”, she would be able to respond with a definite answer or negotiate it from there. The man in that case would have nobly surrendered any chance of being able to dismiss further unwanted attention towards the woman as mere gentlemanly regard against which the woman could have no complaint.
The prudish conventions men use to harass women amount to a Western burka.
@1306 Mark: unfortunately, the commentary thread for http://xkcd.com/642/ wound up looking a lot like this one.
@ 1292. Dr. Curiosity
“She was merely stating that a situation made her feel uncomfortable, and asking people not to do it.”
So it was not even a general advice on etiquette, but a information solely about herself and her own feelings in one special situation? Shouldn’t this than be even more irrelevant for the atheist movement at large, which seems to be Dawkin’s point?
Take a look at the comments above. Here is your atheist/skeptic community, world: a bunch of prepubescent, clueless nerd-male-debaters who couldn’t find their way around the opposite gender with a map.
Grow a pair, you blinkered dweebs.
Issues over real or imagined sexism create a vicious feedback loop: As RW says on her blog, she didn’t start out thinking much about feminism, but once she became exposed to all the sexism in the community she started taking it more seriously. (Perhaps some of the unwanted sexual attention she got had something to do with the sexy SkepChick Calender she produced. Who knows?)
As a man, I can say that I’ve spent most of my life assuming feminists are probably mostly right about most issues, gave them the benefit of the doubt, but didn’t pay much attention to what feminism is about. Now the more I’m exposed to it, the more, I dare say, I loathe the feminist community. I’m tired of being constantly told I have “male advantage”. What am I supposed to do about that? I was once accused of assault by an ex-girlfriend who was angry at me. Did I assault her? No. Was I treated like an innocent man? No.
Just as women go through life fearing a potential rapist, men go through life in America fearing a crazy woman who will accuse him of rape or assault. And this situation has been made much, much worse by all the new interpretations of what constitutes “rape”.
Rape should be strictly defined as physically forced violent rape, not “he made me feel like I couldn’t say no” rape. Ladies, if you feel you can’t say no, stay home. Don’t go out with guys.
Ladies, do you realize how threatening it is to a man when you go around talking about sexism and sexual assault? We are intimidated by you, because we don’t know which one of you is going to go crazy and falsely accuse us of a crime we haven’t committed. Just as a man may wield physical power over you in a confined space, you wield an inordinate amount of power over us in a courtroom if you allege assault or rape.
“She was merely stating that a situation made her feel uncomfortable, and asking people not to do it.”
But her video and her blog tie that incident with the rampant sexism she claims to have witnessed within the community. I’ve got no problem with her saying it made he feel uncomfortable and asking people not to do it. I’ve got a ton of problem with her tying this nuisance into the larger theme of sexist behavior within the community. Elevator Man, however socially inept or even rude he may have been — did nothing sexist. Period. If you start calling every socially inept creepy male (and there are a lot of them in this community) “sexist” because they behave in socially inept manners, you end up alienating a of men because they don’t particularly like being called sexists. It’s bad enough they’ve had to deal with being called nerds their whole lives.
@ 1309. shams Says:
“Dawkins EQUATED Creeper elevator guy with razor blade mutilation of muslim women.”
I doubt that. He wrote to Muslima that she has it easy, only facing FGM compared to elevastor discomfort. So one is not equal to the other but easier to bear, so no equating here.
As this was meant sarcastically, he actually meant much harder by claiming easier. So still no equating.
@ 1313. Daniel Neville Says:
“Mr Dawkins seems oblivious to the near universal tactic of oppressive men, even if they’re not assailants, to contrive situations where a woman in confined to a domain of his exclusive control while disingenuously painting it as an act of generosity.”
Assuming elevator dude had exclusive control, he didn’t use it for more than asking a question.
“It would be bad enough if this guy make such a disingenuous offer in public view, …”
Opinions may differ of whether a woman prefers to be asked in public or private, especially when she might answer yes or want to negiotiate. Thinking this might be the case usually is why one asks in the first place, isn’t it?
“In contrast, if he had plainly asked her for sex, perhaps with the line “Nice hair! Wanna f**k?”, she would be able to respond with a definite answer …”
Which she did to the coffee-question.
People on here agreeing with Richard Dawkins and unable to understand the feminist position and claims of subtle sexism – the same people asking for a LIST of DOs and DON’Ts and GOOD and BAD situations – are sadly using the same kinds of arguments as people who think it should be OK for white people to say ‘n****r’ and don’t understand claims of subtle racism by people of colour.
Why? Because they don’t know what it’s like to be black or female.
That is the epitome of chauvinism.
Richard Dawkins is chauvinist, just like those northern-hemisphere chauvinist astronauts in his book who said: “Just think, back on earth it’s springtime!”
If you’re male and reading this, I’m willing to bet you’re chauvinist too.
Please realise you can LEARN from the skeptic community. I used to be anti-abortion, until it was rather forcefully pointed out to me what a misogynistic view I held.
If you’re SO skeptical and SO not dogmatic like religious people are………. PROVE IT. Raise your own consciousness in THIS instance. Give up the need to be RIGHT. Put your skeptical/humanist money where your skeptical/humanist mouth is..
@shams
“Dawkins EQUATED Creeper elevator guy with razor blade mutilation of muslim women.”
No he did not, he acted like it was worse than elevator guy which is something I think most of us can agree on.
This is one of the most insulting, sexist pieces of writing I’ve ever read. What makes it so awful is that you, Plait, have so eloquently described how terrified, weak, delicate, and helpless I am simply because I’m a woman.
Here’s a cool true story:
A few months ago, while I waited at a bus stop in the middle of the night, alone, a black man with a strong accent and alcohol on his breath approached me and propositioned me for a date. I’m an attractive, unimposing, twentysomething white girl. He had the warmest smile and gave me many sweet compliments, and was even determined to hold my hand — he took it repeatedly, after I said no. He *really* wanted to hold my hand, so I took a second look at the other character traits he presented to me, and decided to allow him to do it.
We talked, and I learned that he’s in town for school, and when he’s finished he’s going back to South Sudan to enter politics, “In the newest democracy in the world.” He was so happy to learn that I knew a little bit about his country, and as we conversed, he ended up forgetting about my hand and letting go. When my bus came, we parted ways with smiles. His affection was more aggressive than I find socially appropriate, but I forgave him, and in doing so expanded my worldview and made a temporary friend.
I refuse to fear strangers. To hell with anyone who tells me that I should.
OK OK ! We get it!
Atheist chicks don’t put out.
Enough already!
One thing that’s interesting is that since this is a complicated story, people keep coming upon it, reading a few posts out of the thousands here and elsewhere, and then responding to whatever bit of the story they took for the whole thing. Then their mistaken assumptions triggers others to respond, resulting in quite predictable and futile arguments occurring every couple of hundred posts…and it happens on every site that mentions the story. I’ve seen it now on a couple of mainstream sites, and it’s basically the same arguments over and over.
It’s a fascinatingly self-replicating kerfluffle. I suppose it will eventually run out of interested people, but not before it drives a ton of people away from the skeptical movement because A) there are too many hyperfeminists in the movement or B) too many predatory uncaring rape-apologist men in the movement. Neither of which is probably true, but impressions are everything.
according to @Ruth (#8)
“According to a (male) magazine editor, I shouldn’t visit male friends in the evening unless I want sex.”
WHAT?!??
What magazine editor was this? He obviously doesn’t get out much. Or he has a twisted sense of humor.
Yes, um, sadly, women are most often raped by acquaintances, but… that’s still a pretty blanket, and idiotic, statement to make.
I, as a man, am sad for guys who express this kind of absurd assertion, and also sad that there are enough bastards out there to give my gender a bad name.
But some of us aren’t rapists, and have no interest in raping women friends who visit us for friendly reasons. HONEST. Am I alone here?
(And yes, I can understand why the situation at 4 am in a hotel in an elevator was creepy.)
To those who keep saying this is a non-issue please consider this analogy.
Imagine you’re driving a car and someone races up behind you, tailgates you and honks their horn in what you think is a really rude manner. Then they race past having made you breifly really worried you’re about to be in a crash. Nothing *actually* happened, there wasn’t any accident but for a few seconds or minutes you felt seriously worried there would be. Whether or not tehotehrdriver had good reason – maybe a pregnant wife giving birthonthe back seat – or was just being a jerk is really immaterial.
Now imagine you mention this on a blog or in a video and say “Yikes, drivers, don’t do that please. Its a jerky thing to do and makes me feel uncomfortable.” Then do you think there’d be all this fuss? All these people saying Nah, you;ve got nothing to worry about and people have every right to drive up as fast as they like and as wildly as they like even if it make sother road users feel threatened! Stuff other road users I’m going to keep driving as badly as I like! If I don’t crash and no-one gets hurt that’s hunky-dory. A non-issue. Fine. Idrive like this allteh time and zero bad has ever come of it.”
Or imagine you’re in a passenger airliner and you look out the window and another aircraft or helicopter seems to be millimeters away. Wingtips almost touching your window. The planes then move apart and don’t collide. Nothing *actually* happens but for a breif second there you thought you were in trouble. You get home and blog : “Wow! I wish the other pilots didn’t come so close, it was a scary situation. Please air traffic controllers don’t let *that* happen again!
Would you call that a non-event? Zero-bad? Would you then expect Richard Dawkins to come and say “Oy vey mate! The Titanic collided with an iceberg and took hundreds of people to a watery grave! The Pequod was sunk by the white whale. You lazy, selfish, hypocritical air travellers! You have no right to complain about anything travel~wise – and, besides, the plane always has parachutes! If there had been a collision you could’ve grabbed a ‘chute and been fine.”
Do y’all see the analogy and comparison I’m making here?
RW did virtually just that – she had a scary near-miss where someone was a jerk. She pointed that out -legitimately. Then the flamegates opened.
If a someone is scared by something its an issue for them and they are allowed to express that. If RW found it bad then it wasn’t zero bad. Not from her POV.
Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.
How is this difficult for men to understand?
To the mens rights mob here :
STOP WHINING! STOP derailing. This isn’t the place.
This isn’t about men’s gender issues. This isn’t about the problems men have. There may well be legitimate issues – but they don’t belong in this particular discussion. They just aren’t relevant to what RW was talking about.
This is about women and how they find the atheist community unwelcoming because of creeps that hit on them even when they’ve been asked not to. IOW, don’t try to change the subject and derail the thread.
@1292. Dr. Curiosity :
^ This! Seconding this.
RW was just saying dont be jerks!
If a woman gives on talk on sexism and says she doesn’t like being hit on and you hear this talk and then hit on her – as a complete stranger to her, at 4 am that night, in a hotel elevator – that’s just a big FAIL. Don’t do it.
It’s not cutting your balls off and putting you in a pink dress to listen to what women say and show them a tiny bit of consideration. It doesn’t make you a mensch, a real man to stand up and attack the woman for giving you a bit of basic advice.
If your masculinity depends on being able to come on to every woman even when she’s made it pretty clear that she doesn’t want you to do that then sorry, but you’re not much of a man! If your manhood depends on putting women in “their place” in NOT treating them with respect then, well, you might be of the male gender but you are hardly a man at all.
Phil, is there any way to paginate these long threads? My t ablet is actually making choking sounds. And crashing. Brand new tab, too.
“RW was just saying dont be jerks! If a woman gives on talk on sexism and says she doesn’t like being hit on and you hear this talk and then hit on her, that’s just a big FAIL.”
My point is that being a jerk and being a sexist aren’t the same thing. And he wasn’t being a jerk so much as he was being socially clueless. This guy wasn’t being sexist. This isn’t about “male privilege” as the title of this post would have it. But this post IS sexist as it invokes this nebulous and insane feminist concept called “male privilege”.
Every time a female is rude to me should I consider it sexist because she made me uncomfortable? No. But if she suggests that I’m acting the way I am due to my “male privilege” then heck yeah that is extremely sexist of her. Phil has shown his anti-male sexist colors in this post.
The updating on this blog seems to be choking, but I’ll try again…
@Jaelithe 1221: “Men who want to have sex with women, listen up […] Ignoring your desired partner’s perspective on your behavior is really, really unsexy.”
Great observation.
@margaret:
“As a woman, I have to ask you: How much “social awkwardness” am I supposed to endure from men before I’m allowed to stand up for myself? How much disrespect am I supposed to rationalize away as “poor communication skills”? Why is it that my personal boundaries are constantly up for negotiation, but a man’s “right” to request sex from me is apparently sacrosanct?”
Similarly awesome.
@ 1295 margaret
I’m picking on margaret because she’s a good example, but many others here have made the same claim: That Rebecca Watson spent all day telling people that she hated being “hit on” and to please stop doing it. But Elevator Guy, the cad, went ahead and did it anyway.
Commenters saying this clearly haven’t seen the “lecture” in question.
For everyone’s edification here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik
All ten minutes of it. You can skip the first 2:15, it’s just introductions.
SPOILER ALERT:
She says nothing about “setting personal boundaries”.
She says nothing about how she hates being “hit on”.
She says nothing about being harassed by men at “atheist gatherings”.
She does say that she receives misogynistic sexually explicit e-mail and it makes her cry.
But supposedly the take-home message that Elevator Guy should have received loud and clear (assuming he was even present – to the best of my knowledge Rebecca has never claimed he was) was that any and all sexual overtures to Rebecca Watson were unwelcome, no matter how politely or respectfully or obliquely phrased.*
Call me a sexist misogynous privileged white male, but I honestly cannot see where she says that or anything remotely like it.
Can you?
* As a reminder, this was Elevator Guy’s infamously misogynistic approach as told by Rebecca:
Well Phil, I’ve been a long time follower of your blog and have enjoyed more than the odd piece or two. Unfortunately, your response that this was a “potential” assault is highly misplaced and based solely on far too many assumptions (something I would have thought a highly regarded scientist would have rid of by now – then again, it is only human [to a degree]).
I hold no bad feelings toward you, you have simply presented yourself, in response, as a person of which I disagree with on rational, logical and critical grounds. In other words, you’re response was too emotional, too much of a knee jerk reaction with clouded reasoning for my taste. As I can not support this type of mentality I am headed elsewhere.
Thanks for all the fish
@Messier Tidy Upper
“RW did virtually just that – she had a scary near-miss where someone was a jerk. She pointed that out -legitimately. Then the flamegates opened. ”
Then the OP made the insulting comment that it’s OK for women to treat encounters with men as a “near miss” if you can’t get away at the moment.
The analogy isn’t the greatest. What you’re talking about is an almost accident, this is assuming the guy wanted to assault you.
Regarding that XKCD (http://xkcd.com/642/), that guy’s thought bubble is pretty much how I feel all the time. Which probably explains why I’m still single and why I’m probably not qualified to comment here 😛 FSM but I love XKCD.
@1322 fellswoop: Exactly! I feel like I’m one of the proverbial blind men arguing about the elephant. Say that the trunk is interesting and someone says “Are you insulting my favorite elephant appendage over here, you smug SOB?”
@MTU: Quite so. I agree that men have legitimate grievances (don’t get me started – or better yet, do, but bring coffee and/or beer), but this isn’t really the place to be bringing them up.
@dirk: I just realized it was Phil who first used the term “male privilege” here, not RW? In which case I should amend what I said earlier about how Rebecca Watson irked me with that term – it was in fact our beloved Phil who did the irking. Though pretty much everyone on this board is irking at least one other person on this board, so I apologize in advance for being irksome.
Anyway, I think one major source of conflict here is that modern academic feminism has gone off and ensconced itself in postmodernist “theory” (which has a very different meaning from the scientific definition of the word). So while many skeptical, science-loving folks like me would probably agree with most everything that your average self-described feminist woman believes, the claws come out when you start using stuff like the “P” word.
Joseph G-
I’d rather Phil just locked this thread, like PZ did his and get on with our lives.
Phil, Rebecca, PZ, Jen, and others- WIN
Dick and all the clueless other dicks- FAIL
It’s even hit the mainstream now and The Atlantic Wire, Gawker and others say Dawkins career is basically over.
He should have listened to Phil’s “don’t be a dick” talk
“It’s even hit the mainstream now and The Atlantic Wire, Gawker and others say Dawkins career is basically over.”
Dumbass on this point though he may be, I have no intention of not recommending his books when people ask about evolution. Don’t really care if some get angry about it, they are simply some of the best explanations around.
His career of being invited to speak at skeptical/atheist events may be over, but I don’t think his next book will be a flop because of it.
@1331 Rift: Perhaps he should at that, but to be honest, I’m bored and lonely and working an all-nighter, and I’d still be posting here if we were discussing the most efficient way to peel potatoes 😀
That the kerfuffle (I love that word) has spread past the blogosphere is surprising to me. And here I thought it was just winding down…
All the MRA crowd have convinced me of one thing here.
They’ve convinced me that women really do have serious problems and face a lot of sexism – that they really *do* have to put up with a lot.
I wasn’t that much of feminist before this thread. Sure Ibroadkly agreed with much of what they said but I previously thought women did perhaps over-estimate, over-egg, the level of sexism in the community (atheist, online and generally) and were maybe exaggerating a bit, cherry-picking some uncommon things and taking them out of proportion. I would never have guessed that there would this much sexism, this much cluelessness and hostility to a smart woman giving people a bit of reasonable advice.
Boy, have I ever learned otherwise.
As the Skepchick herself said in the clip that began all this :
Yup. Although some of the nastier, more hysterical (in several senses of the word!) comments I’ve seen about this incident I’d just like to scrape off my shoe with a stick.
This is one case where I can’t agree with Phil, and instead agree completely with Richard Dawkins. If asking a lady out politely and getting turned down is “potential sexual assault” then I weep for our society, whether it takes place in an elevator or anywhere else.
Hello Phil,
really potential sexual assault? how is that typified? … that really sounds creepy, like the future murder charge of the Minority Report movie.
I agree that sexual assault is a problem, but at this pace you may as well forbid flirting.
If staying alone in an elevator with a man make women feel insecure what can we do? … separate elevators? not getting into the elevator? or getting out of it if a woman comes in?
Sorry, I do not see that really what is so wrong in pointing out that she was overreacting. I would recommend any women to take some self defense classes ….
Can’t we all just get along???
I’m sorry to be dredging this up from the depths but I just wanted to note that (as a male) I felt the point made by Keith at comment 33 was a good way of encapsulating the idea of an implicitly threatening situation. Even if rationally speaking the person probably isn’t going to push the issue if I refuse to give them money, their asking for money certainly opens up the possibility that they might take it by other means. Honestly, I probably would feel a little uncomfortable in that situation, particularly if it was at night, in an unfamiliar area etc.
Unfortunately I think that consciously or otherwise, our culture still endorses this idea of males as the sexual ‘aggressor’ or instigator. This certainly isn’t always the case given that women certainly have the means to instigate a romantic or sexual relationship, and are also required to respect others’ right to refuse. Nevertheless, pop culture seems to relish in the idea that a man cannot possibly interact with a woman without him somehow attempting to bed her. Given that we men might see this as required behavior, it (sadly) doesn’t surprise me that women would be a tad more wary about interactions like the one that sparked this whole issue.
I hope that (as a movement) skeptics/atheists can emphasize their focus on ‘humanism’, a philosophy which presumably entails a balanced and honest approach to how the sexes interact. It saddens me a little that Richard Dawkins was drawn into this affair, but I hope people will forgive me if I continue to follow his work. We humans are an imperfect lot after all, and I think that on a person to person basis RD, Phil, Rebecca et al. could resolve this alot more peacefully than by Internet Battle Royale.
@1325. Messier Tidy Upper
“This is about women and how they find the atheist community unwelcoming because of creeps that hit on them even when they’ve been asked not to. IOW, don’t try to change the subject and derail the thread.”
Is this about creeps in the atheist community or about creeps in general? How does the debate apply specififally to atheist creeps as oposed to, say, creeps in Dublin?
“If a woman gives on talk on sexism and says she doesn’t like being hit on and you hear this talk and then hit on her – as a complete stranger to her, at 4 am that night, in a hotel elevator – that’s just a big FAIL. Don’t do it.”
If she made it absolutely crystal clear from the outset that she didn’t want to be talked to in the elevator, the elevator dude is not only a creep, but outright nuts, because the question he asked was already answered.
So the important teaching for the atheist community here is that you should not ask question, you already know the answer to at least not if you also know that the person has strong negative feelings about being asked, is it?
@margaret:
“As a woman, I have to ask you: How much “social awkwardness” am I supposed to endure from men before I’m allowed to stand up for myself? How much disrespect am I supposed to rationalize away as “poor communication skills”? Why is it that my personal boundaries are constantly up for negotiation, but a man’s “right” to request sex from me is apparently sacrosanct?”
Seconded. Awesome comment and clarity on the issue.
Unfortunately, there’s evidence that “poor communication skills” is often a bad-faith excuse. Research shows men are just as capable at hearing polite refusals as women are, but still there is this narrative that women aren’t clear enough and men make honest mistakes. See the “Mythcommunication” post and its predecessor “Talking Past Each Other.”
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/
@1324. Messier Tidy Upper
This is a nice example as in air traffic they have something called incident control. Knoweing that accidents and mere incidenst are much alike you can learn from incidents how to avoid accicents.
“Or imagine you’re in a passenger airliner and you look out the window and another aircraft or helicopter seems to be millimeters away. Wingtips almost touching your window. The planes then move apart and don’t collide. Nothing *actually* happens but for a breif second there you thought you were in trouble. You get home and blog : “Wow! I wish the other pilots didn’t come so close, it was a scary situation. Please air traffic controllers don’t let *that* happen again!
Would you call that a non-event?”
If it only seemed to be milimeters away, but was in fact miles away it might be an event in the sense that it might for example be an interesting optical illusion to report. However it is a non-event to ground control.
“Zero-bad? Would you then expect Richard Dawkins to come and say “Oy vey mate! The Titanic collided with an iceberg and took hundreds of people to a watery grave! The Pequod was sunk by the white whale. You lazy, selfish, hypocritical air travellers! You have no right to complain about anything travel~wise – and, besides, the plane always has parachutes! If there had been a collision you could’ve grabbed a ‘chute and been fine.”
Do y’all see the analogy and comparison I’m making here?”
Yeah, but it doesn’t seem to work the way you think it works.
What if Dawkins would point out that it was just an impression and that we very well can leave it at that as long as no more compelling evidence for a real near-miss appears on the scence? And that we have real near-misses to worry about and that the energy put into working on them should not be diluted out?
“RW did virtually just that – she had a scary near-miss where someone was a jerk.”
A near miss of what? Someone being a Jerk?
A near miss of rape would to me be something like this: Dude makes advances in the elevator. The door opens and some people come in. The next day you see a mug shot of dude in the papers there it says that he is a rapist who escaped from the asylum the night before.
“If a someone is scared by something its an issue for them and they are allowed to
express that.”
Sure.
“If RW found it bad then it wasn’t zero bad. Not from her POV.”
She can express her views all she wants. So can Dawkins express his views, especially his view on how the atheist community should in his opinion react to this.
I read every post up into the early 100’s and just couldn’t take anymore.
You know, when I first discovered that there even was an ‘atheist community’ (or ‘skeptic community’) online, around 2006 or so, I was overjoyed. I thought, “Finally! There really are other people who approach things the way I strive too. And lots of them.” And it was liberating, and I welcomed their company and input. But after a while I started to notice the same sort of crap among atheists and skeptics as I did with religious and the super-political types I’d grown tired of previously. It’s not all of the skeptics, but far more than I would have liked to believe.
Up until I quit reading these posts, and reactions to this whole thing on other sites, I just get the impression that only a scant few people are saying something to the effect of, “Wait a minute. There’s a lot of information on both sides of this that we don’t know, and we should be careful not to overreact.” The people who are saying that are being drowned out from what I see, out of the segment of people who are speaking out, obviously.
Instead, Richard Dawkins’ career as a prominent figure in the “skeptic community” is (apparently) over; every man might be a rapist, and that guy couldn’t have possibly just been stupid, drunk, socially inept, naive, or have delusions about his status as a “ladies’ man”; women don’t really have anything to be worried about at a place like that so they should stop complaining, no one at a “nerd gathering” like that could possibly have the capacity to rape someone; and many more.
Just keep drifting on out toward the stupid, people.
Any group of people I could conceivably belong to annoys me when I spend enough time around them.
Wow, so many bitter attacks on the many threads.
I’m on Richard Dawkins side. He called it a non-event, but my feeling would be a position based on something slightly stronger.
This event was a compliment even though it wasn’t apparently given particularly well.
I have been lucky all my life. I’m no model, but I’m attractive enough on looks alone to have been chatted up by woman a lot of times over the years. I have been annoyed as well by drunk woman.
My brother, was not a good looking man and could never develop any confidence because of it. I saw the pain he went through, dreaming every day for a girlfriend, suffering all through his teens and his 20s. He didn’t get his first girlfriend till he was 25. He is happily married now, but he had a much harder life in a way that I could never experience.
The crucial point is that I have had the benefit of a lottery of looks where as he did not.
People are accusing Richard Dawkins of abusing his privileged position, but I think he is right and the woman who mentioned what she did in her speech abused her privileged position, of looks.
Any woman that is lucky enough in looks to be attractive enough to be hit on by guys should be thankful for the big picture and not complain about little downsides.
Many attractive woman, and men get a free ride though life on there looks.
There will be millions of woman who have never been hit on by a guy in there lives, because they just got unlucky genes.
Given hindsight, If you could be reborn and actually choose either:
Be really ugly
or
Be really beautiful (But have to deal with occasional pest)
Everyone would choose to be good looking or as high as possible on the scale because the benefits FAR out-way the downsides.
An analogy is like someone who is born lucky enough to have lots of different food available to eat complaining about having a bad meal once in a while, right in front of people who were born staving and spend their lives living on crumbs.
I think this is Richard Dawkins whole point and I agree.
MTU (1223) said:
Erm … 1218 was not one of mine. Did you perhaps mean #1217, or #1220?
Mark (1225) said:
No. Go and re-read my comment (It is now appearing as #1220). As I said there, there’s a wider issue here than a single encounter in an elevator.
To whit: I’m comparing the unrelenting sexual advances (however polite they may be) that Watson complains of to groping and bottom-pinching. Both kinds of behaviour convey the impression that women are seen only as potential sexual partners for the men, rather than as equals.
As Jaelithe (1221) points out, women do not attend critical-thinking conferences in order to meet potential partners (my paraphrase of her comment).
Bigdaddyhen (1233) said:
Interesting. How much less could you care? And why do you care at all in the first place about the opinions of those people?
Or did you mean to say that you couldn’t care less, because you already care not at all for the opinions of those people to whom you refer?
The story is unbelieveable. This woman seems to genuinely think she is entitled to go through life without ever so much as feeling uncomfortable?!
Men have no idea how scared women can be? Are you kidding me? The stats on violence show men are over TEN TIMES as likely to be involved in violence as women. Everyone feels nervous walking home alone in the dark. If women feel disproportionately scared, the reason is articles like this! Articles like this create an environment of fear and mistrust among women.
The was no “potential sexual assault”. Ok, got it. Don’t ever talk to or look at women. Your presence, words and glances are oppression.
You know what makes me feel uncomfortable? Being feared, hated, and demonised for no reason whatsoever.
Leon Ateo (1240) said:
No, she was saying that the fact that this kind of thing happens frequently at these conferences is sexualisation. If this had been an isolated incident, she probably would not have mentioned it. But it exemplifies the behaviour she encounters at these conferences.
It doesn’t seem to matter how polite the propositions are, once a person has received about half a dozen (or whatever), they start to wear, and by the 20th or 25th, they are unpleasant (even if scrupulously polite).
It seems to me that the best way to treat women at conferences like this is to simply talk to them about the same stuff you’d be talking about with a man. If you then find you hit it off, the conversation could range to something more personal (or whatever – this is off the cuff, so bear with me) and maybe subsequently you could make the offer to continue more privately. But to open a conversation with a request to be somewhere private and alone is very likely to be interpreted as sexualising.
To come back to the example of the guy in the elevator, if he had asked to discuss Watson’s talk later in the morning over coffee, that (IMO) is less likely to have made her feel uncomfortable.
Let’s just be clear, there is also a wide cultural context of “come back to my place for coffee” as the “polite” intro to “I want to have sex with you.”
RW had just spent hours talking about how getting random propositions for sex from people you don’t really know in inappropriate settings makes women uncomfortable, and chases them away from many venues and groups when it happens too much.
Then a guy, who claims to have found her “interesting”, does just that.
How much more plainly could one convey the message “I wasn’t listening to what you say, I just want to have sex with you”?
How is that *not* a justification for the part of the statement “…when men sexualize me in that manner…“?
Hard to believe though it seems in a thread of by now 1,335 comments, there is one rather obvious observation missing from the picture. RW related an incident in an elevator, and as far as that situation goes, her reaction and her advice (“don’t do that”) are admirably level-headed and reasonable. She said she thought EG’s behaviour was slightly creepy; I would add that EG, upon seeing that she didn’t take his advance in the way he had hoped, should have apologized for the uncomfortable situation he (in all probability inadvertently) had put her in. And that’s as far as that situation goes, according to RW: she never mentioned danger, assault, or rape. In that regard, all the high-flying rhetoric about “potential rape” as well as “I can’t talk to women anymore” is pretty far off topic, if not completely overblown.
But RW didn’t leave the incident there: she *explicitly* said in her video it was an example of sexism and misogyny (which, just to be clear, means *hatred* of women). And *this* is what RD made reference to, saying that to use the word “misogyny” in the context of the elevator incident was seriously demeaning to any actual victims of actual misogyny. You don’t have to agree with that assessment, but at the very least it deserves a fair and open discussion. That he is being pilloried for lots of things that people think he implied, ignoring his explicit intent, is deplorable.
And regarding the actual elevator incident, RD didn’t even dismiss RW’s discomfort; he said it was on a level of his own discomfort when somebody is chewing gum next to him. Which means he explicitly acknowledges the discomfort. Now, it can be argued that it should go without saying that the situation entails more than just discomfort and that RD’s comparison was thus unfair. But that would have to be *argued*. In particular, the simple assertion that ‘that is what women feel’ is pretty patronizing and is simply shown to be false by the testimony of a significant number of women (in this thread and elsewhere) who do not agree with the assertion. Which fact alone would amount to a pretty strong indication that RD’s comparison is not (at least not obviously) an example of gross insensitivity.
Reading subsequent comments has only reinforced my agreement with Mr. Dawkins. Unintentionally making someone uncomfortable is not necessarily a crime, nor should it be. Some of the feminists on this board plead for equality, but then ask for the special right to never have to bear discomfort. Apparently a man can never proposition a woman (and note that any other interaction, man-man, woman-man, or woman-woman is assumed be ok) in any sort of enclosed space (even though the privacy of that space permitted the proposition in the first place) because rape statistics obviously show that this was a sexual assault in the making. Like it or not, that’s really how your argument is coming off, even to those well-versed in issues of sex and race privilege.
Had “creepy elevator guy” – perhaps now the most maligned figure on the internet, whose identity we don’t even know, and after all the implied rapist accusations, will likely never know – been sweet and sexy (and maybe he thought he was), perhaps his overtures would have been welcomed. In that case, Ms. Watson may have felt pleased instead of uncomfortable. Hence, the entire situation turns on the internal reaction of Ms. Watson, making the issue largely subjective and thus not at all the strong foundation that some think it is in justifying their onslaught against men who talk to women in enclosed spaces.
But what’s perhaps most disturbing from a group of free thinkers is all of the assumptions made in light of a paucity of facts. Was “creepy elevator guy” present and attentive during Ms. Watson’s entire lecture? Did he “follow her” into the elevator or was he merely also returning to his room and saw the opportunity for a proposition? Did he really believe that his right to proposition outvalued her right to be left alone and free of discomfort? Perhaps there have been women who have taken him up on his propositions . . . we simply. don’t. know.
This entire affair is blown largely out of proportion, which I think is the point that Mr. Dawkins was trying to make. Nevertheless, I can guarantee you that I will be condemned as a misogynist or “Men’s Rights Activist” merely because I disagree with the notion that a man propositioning a woman in an elevator is unquestioningly “sexist.”
Shams (1247) said:
Just try heating a diamond up and then dunking it in liquid oxygen. Then we’ll see how long “forever” is . . .
😉
@ 871. Major_Freedom
“You Phil are too frightened of…something…to be able to make a rational argument.”
As much as I respect Phil for his work, I think he is scared to appear critical of women. Just my opinion.
@ ^ daniel I. : Yes, dude. That would be why he has never once said a bad word about Jenny McCarthy or Sarah Palin or Katie Couric or many other women when criticism is warranted. Oh wait, he ‘s done kinda the opposite.
@1336. Nigel Depledge :
Oh these ever changing post numbers! This one :
Answer from this is that clearly we haven’t progressed far enough.
was the one I had in mind there.
Johan (1251) said:
No. IIUC, objectification arises through viewing another person only as a potential sexual partner and not as anything else.
This is not intrinsically a problem. It is perfectly possible to view a woman as sexy and still be respectful. IIUC, in much of Latin America and southern Europe, people are (overall) a lot more relaxed about that kind of attitude than we are (in northern Europe and USA). For example, I’ve seen photos on Flickr where a woman whose native language is Spanish has commented on a photo of another woman that is “muy sexy!” or some such.
I see nothing wrong with this as long as you behave respectfully. Don’t we all wish to be attractive in one way or another?
@1341. Chris Willett : Oh for pity’s sake. It’s about the
CONTEXT!
Say it slowly. Spell it out and look it yup if you need to :
C. O. N. T. E. X. T.
Man alone in elevator with woman – okay
Man propositiong lady for sex in an elevator – Possibly okay depending on other factors. Probably generally seen as a pretty sleazy move by most women.
Man in elevator with woman at 4 am – perhaps something that makes her feel a bit uncomfortabe but no big issue. A polite or considerate person may want to avoid getting in with a woman who is already there to avoid causing her concern but this isn’t obligatory – just nice.
Note here too that it also all depends here on the woman in question – your female friends or family may prefer you along to act as priotection and be there for tehm. Your girlfriend may want to have sex in there with you even. But a female stranger you don’t know – really probably not-so-much.
Man in elevator with woman at 4 am – propositioning her sex – Definitely in dodgy territory and skating on thin ice. Not necessarily wrong but definitely not the most classy approach. (Also NOT one likely to succeed. Besides *4 a.m. – by that time it is usual to be asleep or having consensual sex with someone picke dup much earlier that night?)
Man in elevator at 4am propositiong a woman for sex after she’s just said she’s exhausted and has specifically asked people incl. that man earlier that day NOT to hit on her – Definitely wrong.
Is that really so terribly difficult to follow? Just a little thought, empathy and common sense go along way, mate.
Shams (1253) said:
Yeah. It contained a hyperlink. All comments here that contain hyperlinks go through moderation.
@ Alex – there are NO MEN’S issues. They do not exist. And whatever men’s issues exist (if they do) they’re entirely your own fault. You want child custody? Excellent. You’ll get it when the majority of single parents stop being women because the fathers, pardon, sperm donors disappeared faster than the woman could say “pregnant”. Not to mention that we’re talking entirely about women’s issues here. Stop being such a typical egotist and make everything about your penis, because it isn’t.
@Thorsten You don’t understand what “rape culture” is? Google the words “rape culture”. I assure you it’ll educate you quite well about it. Here’s an interesting fact: 15 out of 16 rapists in the west walk free.
Joseph G (1268) said:
Eh? You have heated teacups?
Gia (1348) said:
This is bigoted.
Or do you have data to indicate that all instances of single-parent family-hood where the lone parent is the mother arose because the man left?
Gia, you are doing exactly the same thing that Dawkins did, but with fewer words, and less use of dramatic metaphor.
Joseph G (1268) said:
Not to detract from any of the foregoing comments, but:
Yes, this also.
Gia (1348) said:
Meaning what? That you are labelling as rapists people who have been acquitted by a jury? Or that 15 out of 16 reported cases fail to find a suspect? Or what, exactly?
@ Karen (1269) –
Agreed, but what does “PUA” mean please?
@ ^ Nigel Depledge : PUA = Pick Up Artist
@1340. Peter Beattie : (namesake of the one Australias former state premiers, btw)
Contempt can be considered a form of hatred in a way. EG massively disresepcted RW – as did RD.
From the ‘Almost Diamonds Open letter to Dawkins’ linked to my name :
EG ignored RW’s clearly expressed wishes and clearly stated boundaries.
We can argue over whether that constitutes hatred for women, contempt for RW personally or just general utter selfishness, rudeness and complete lack of thought. BUt the thing is RW had made it clear already what her answer was going to be – & that was NO.
That is not cool. Not acceptable.
There are a lot of grey areas in male-female communications. There’s a lot of possibility for misunderstandings to arise innocently.
This is NOT such a case. The guy ignored Rebecca Watsons firm boundaries and polite pre-explained requests and hit on her anyway. He knew who she was – at least to some degree because he was at her talk and had been listening.
Dude, feminists who have just given talks against sexism in the atheist movement are NOT good people to then try to proposition in elevators that very same night with no prior conversation taking place. That’s beyond clueless. It is disrespectful and it did predictably make her feel “incredibly uncomfortable” – and perhaps, although she has explicitly said so, in fear of being violated and killed.
Because if a man has already ignored clear ‘NO’ signs from a woman up to the point of being alone in an elevator with his target, when she may well worry will he respect her clear ‘No’?
Luckily at the elevator point he did *finally* respect her clear ‘no’ – but we don’t know enough to say *why* that was and whether he decided to back off becuase he then realised what a goose he’d been or because she looked insufficently drunk and too able to scream and fight back. Or because he just then realised there was a camera in the lift or that witnesses had seen him entering with her.
Rapists are often cowards – the act itself is an intrinsically cowardly thing to do. She got a bad vibe from him, maybe her strong negative vibe was enough to deter him when a less firm resistence, her being a bit slower to speak and slurring her words perhaps could’ve led to something far worse than this firestorm online.
Now I’m not saying this wads the case. Not saying EG *was* a rapist necessarily – but we do NOT know one way or teh other and it is one possibility inkeeping with EG’s behaviour that night. There is a and remains a possible chance that he *was* a rapist – just oen who didn’t get to rape this time. He probably isn’t – but we just don’t know, we can’t rule it out & RW at the time certainly couldn’t know.
Bearing that in mind still : “Guys, a word to the wise, don’t do that.” That’s all RW said about EG.
She didn’t report him to hotel security or the police and have him arrested.
She didn’t name and shame.
She just said “Guys, Don’t be creeps” giving a polite and well explained piece of advice on what doesn’t float her boat and does creep her out and make her feel unwelcome.
Is that honestly something you want to be arguing against? Do you and EG’s other supporters here really not see that you are effectively arguing that gutsys *should* be creeps – and women can’t argue they shouldn’t be?
Adam English (1287) said:
So, did you miss the part where, earlier that day, Watson had given a talk about how few women there were in the sceptic / atheist movement because they always get repeatedly hit on at the meetings? And that the only way to get more women to attend such meetings would be for the guys to stop propositioning them so much?
The elevator incident is such a non-event if taken as an isolated case. In context, however, maybe it was the straw that broke the camel’s back?
@Nigel Depledge There’s no bigotry whatsoever in stating facts, Nigel. Can you prove the opposite?
As for the rapists, my apologies, I quoted incorrectly “15 out of 16 rapists will never spend a day in jail” I am sure that you’ll find big difference between “walk free” and “never spend day in jail”
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
You can check numerous further interesting statistics here. By the way, they are also facts so don’t go around arguing them, it’ll just make you look silly and in denial.
[To come back to the example of the guy in the elevator, if he had asked to discuss Watson’s talk later in the morning over coffee, that (IMO) is less likely to have made her feel uncomfortable.]
I frankly do not care about Rebecca Watson or any person’s comfort level. I want to know how she was harmed. Oh, she wasn’t? Then painting this as a feminist issue is an insult to women who actually are suffering. It was a normal, polite social interaction.
@shams
[Dawkins tried to used FGM to shame Rebecca into shutting up on an issue HE decided was trivial.
Dawkins EQUATED Creeper elevator guy with razor blade mutilation of muslim women.
Hes an assclown, and his letter to Muslima will always be accessible on the interwebs.
teh internetz are forevah.
nice legacy for Dawkins.]
No, he didn’t. He even explained it in his response.
He wasn’t equating Elevator Guy. He was bringing up *ACTUAL* instances of harm being done to women to make light of Rebecca Watson’s harrowing tale of being talked to in an elevator. Rightly so.
@1347
tyvm, Nigel
as this is my first experience of the atheoskeptic tribe, i have to say you accord too much salience to your sages. Im crushingly disappointed in Richard Dawkins.
Is this the same man who wrote the Blind Watchmaker?
Since when does horrific treatment of women in other countries justify creepers and stalkers and angry old white guys like Dawkins here?
Dawkins tried to used FGM to shame Rebecca into shutting up on an issue HE decided was trivial.
That is EMPIRICALLY what he did. He tried to walk it back, and you guys are giving him ideological cover.
its not about being politically correct….its about being human.
@Leon_Ateo: “I frankly do not care about Rebecca Watson or any person’s comfort level. ”
Then you are a jerk.
Or possibly a sociopath, depending on how deeply you meant that comment. Maybe you should stay at home until you can learn to play nicely with other people. Those of us who were born with empathy do care about other person’s comfort levels. That’s how society is able to function.
@1277. Joseph G :
Yes -the smae applies to me also – although I really think I’d have more sense than to hit on someone who’d given a talk earlier taht said “dont hit on me here.” Yes, even drunk and silly – oh & I’d have invite dher for tea not coffee as that’s my caffine posion of choice.
It is easy as men to emphasise with EG. To imagine sympathetis portraits of how he could’ve been. I’m a bookworm and SF writer among other things and it is easy toimagine and tell different stories of this event using only RW’s words – because that’s all we have.
There are many possible charcters we can cretae for him and many genres we can set this.
Like story (A) where the guy is a harmless drunken putz in an unfunny rom-com. He is just drunk, over-tired and clueless with women, sees her going into the lift and decides – perhaps egged on by a friend to ask her out. He stumbles and messes up bigtime. Wakes up the next morning with a whopping hangover and thinks “I did WHAT!?!”
It’s possible that fiction that conjectured backstory and character creation is close to the truth.
But then there’s *also* story (B) where EG is an outright villian and the genre is horror – sub-genre : serial killer. It’s more dramatic and far less likely. In this story EG’s character *is* a rapist and a cold-blooded monster who does target RW for his evil attentions. Back in his room he has a coffee machine and cups, a bottle or two of harder spirits, drugs, ropes and a body bag and a sadistic plan.
In this potential story RW gets a choice of a happy ending where she fights him off and perhaps manages to kill him. Traditionally in a fall or huge fire from which he will emerge for the sequels! Or she coudl be just a bit player, a woman in peril who was lucky, a camera or a person or something made EG- (B) change his mind at the last minute. Or we could write a sad eding – one that turns this blog into an obituary tribute with maybe Richard Dawkin’s writing a moving tribute and how he’d never guessed someone like her would get raped and murdered at an athiets conventionof all places. Where Dawkin’s in his shock and grief realises that women in the West really do have huge cultural problems too. Not as blatant, perhaps not as severe as Muslims face but more than bad enough too.
Or with the same ending we could change the genre again into a crime fiction where the detctives forensically track down and arrest or kill EG.
Now okay story (B) whilst more dramatic is much less likely. But we cannot rule it out. RW couldt tehn a dn we cannot now.
Those stories are fictions, products of my imagination. They’re probably -almost certainly – way different to reality – but then again, maybe one of those possibilties is closer to the truth than we might guess.
All we know is what Rebecca Watson said – that got a bad vibe off him – he made her “incredibly uncomfortable” after all. He also as has been noted ignored her earlier talk and statements. That just ain’t good.
Then there’s the story option (C) where I put myself in there as EG. Well anotehr versionof him as I am or as I would hope I am. How would I act in his shoes? I’m drunk and euphorical and tired. I get in the elevator with her and I’d say, maybe “Thanks. I loved your talk. I’m sorry if anything I ever did embarrassed you. I get that you don’t like to be hit on, I really do now. Sorry.” And because this is another type of story fiction (C) RW smiles and say’s “well usually I don’t but in this case I’ll make an exception!” That’s another type of fantasy fiction again. But I wouldn’t ask her for sex disguised as “coffee” or otherwise. I wouldn’t invite her to my hotel room and if she wanted to hit on me (yeah, I know, not a snowball’s chance on Mercury’s) then she’d have to initate that herself. Because knowing who she is and what she’s said *I* wouldn’t come onto her.
Now these are all stories from EG’s POV. Not to difficult towrite and create. There’s another way of imaginingand emptahising that’s alot more work but also important. Imagine being Rebecca Watson. Imagine writing a fictuional versuion of *her* character from *her* POV.
Now being honest, I don’t know her well enough to do that properly. I may be wa-aay offbeam here but here’s an idea. You start off as a smart girl that loves skepticism and athiesm, get involved and enjoy it.
It becomes your hobby, a sort of work, as you write your blog. A big part of your life. You get men all around staring at you and oggling you. You get romantic (or less than romantic) passes all the time, every time you appear and talk. At first you are flattered. The first hundred times or so. But then you start to weary of it. People looking at your body not listening to what you say. Even people you admire, seem more interested in your gender than your thoughts. Men crowd and buzz around you like a thousand flies – all ready to unzip the moment you catch their eye and smile.*
It doesn’t take long before you start to see the lust you attract as something less flattering and more annoying. There’s anaggibng thought that while people want to see you and feel – dircetly touch and pres up against – you they don’t want to hear you or quite respect you. People’s eyes talk totyour chest not your face and your legs and clothing get more attention than your arguments. This gets really bad. After a whiel tehfrsuitarion builds and you give an impromptu talk on this sexism, the way this makes you feel one conference.
(For me, this is the hardest thing to imagine of all. Any talk that I give is very carefully and methodically planned! 😉 )
Then you have a fun evening, most peopel get it. Youstay drinking inthe bar then feeling tired you go and have that incredbily uncomfortable encounter with EG. You are scared maybe – briefly but enough to shock your system and spoil your night. Or maybe you just shake your head, not afraid so mucha sjust disgusted. Not again. Not for the one millionth time right after a talk saying don’t do this.
So you blog about it and then ..well all this happens.
Imagination combined with empathy. Put yourself in RW’s shoes. Its diffcult. I’m sure its something I get wrong and one reason I tend to avoid writing from the female POV in my stories. But itsure doens’t hurt to try.
————–
* Line vaguely stolen form a John Brunner novel btw. He did a great job of cretaing sucha charater inone of hsi novels – forget which one now.
I haven’t been able to read through the walls of text around this incident – did the guy ever find out what a big thing this blew up into and apologize?
Rebecca was being sexist when she felt awkward because a man followed her into the elevator — it was fear based on his gender. She wouldn’t have felt fear if a woman had joined her.
Rebecca was being heterosexist when she presumed the man was a heterosexual propositioning her — that is based on her stereotyping what gay men are like, and this guy didn’t act that way to her (I guess she believes she has good gaydar and can tell). She wouldn’t have felt fear if the guy was wearing an “I’m gay” t-shirt.
Rebecca was being oversexualizing when she automatically presumed the offer of coffee HAD to be sexual in nature.
Rebecca is being a hypocrite for any complaints about sexism or talking from privilege because she started this by being sexist and talking from privilege.
@ 1268. Joseph G it is to ask for trouble.
“How exactly do I KNOW that I have “male privilege”?”
It get’s worse. Chances are that if you pose this and other questions, you are told, that you have no clue, you don’t get it, you don’t listen etc. however anything resembling a direct answer to the question is unlikely to be forthcoming. This disregard for critical analysis I expect from cults, not from a social movement based on rationality.
Thorsten is confused about what “critical analysis” means. Someone telling you that “you have no clue” isn’t stating a fact, only an opinion.
The people claiming “you don’t get it, you don’t listen, etc.” refuse to accept that people DO get it, ARE listening, but simply disagree.
Yes, you are definitally confused about what critical analysis is.
Typos and grammar etc .. corrected and more added. Ran out of editing time, sorry. Mea culpa.
************************************
@1277. Joseph G :
Yes – much the same applies to me also – although I really think I’d have more sense than to hit on someone who’d given a talk earlier that said “dont hit on me here.” Yes, even when I’m feeling drunk and silly – oh & I’d have invited her for tea rather than coffee as that’s my caffine poison of choice. 😉
It *is* relatively easy as men to emphasise with EG. To imagine sympathetic portraits of how he *could’ve* been. I’m a bookworm and SF writer among other things and it is easy to imagine and tell different stories of this event using only RW’s words – because that’s all we have to go on.
(Oh and, yes, I’ll take her word and account as being accurate until given good reason to do otherwise.)
There are many possible characters we can picture for Elevator Guy and many genres we can set such stories in all still keeping to RW’s account :
Like story (A) where the guy is a harmless drunken putz in an unfunny rom-com. He is just drunk, over-tired and clueless with women, sees her going into the lift and decides – perhaps egged on by a friend – to ask her out. He stumbles and messes up bigtime. Wakes up the next morning with a whopping hangover and thinks “I did WHAT you say!?!”
It’s possible that fiction that conjectured backstory and character creation is close to the truth.
But then there’s *also* story (B) where EG is an outright villian and the genre is horror, sub-genre : serial killer. It’s more dramatic and far less likely. In this story EG’s character *is* a rapist and a cold-blooded monster who does target RW for his evil attentions. Back in his room he has a coffee machine and cups, a bottle or two of harder spirits, drugs, ropes and a body bag and a sadistic plan.
In this potential story RW gets a choice of a happy ending where she fights him off and perhaps manages to kill him. Traditionally in a fall or huge fire from which he will emerge for the sequels! Or she could be just a bit player, a woman in peril who was lucky, a camera or a person or something made EG- (B) change his mind at the last minute.
Or we could write a sad ending – one that turns this blog into an obituary with maybe Richard Dawkins writing a moving tribute in his late friend’ honour and about how he’d never guessed someone like her would get raped and murdered at an atheist convention of all places. Where Dawkins in his shock and grief realises that women in the West really do have huge cultural problems too. Not as blatant, perhaps not as severe as Muslims face but more than bad enough. Or with the same tragic ending we could change the genre again into a crime fiction where the detectives forensically track down and arrest or kill EG.
Now okay story (B) whilst more dramatic is much less likely. But we cannot rule it out. RW couldn’t then and we still cannot now. Not the version where she’s a bit player and doesn’t get killed after all anyway.
Those stories are fictions, products of my imagination. They’re probably -almost certainly – way different to reality – but then again, maybe one of those possibilties is closer to the truth than we might guess.
All we know is what Rebecca Watson said – that got a bad vibe off him – he made her “incredibly uncomfortable” after all. He also (as has been noted) ignored her earlier talk and statements. That just ain’t good. Character flaws and mistakes whether EG’s character is a putz or a killer.
Then there’s the story option (C) where I put *myself* in there as EG. Well another version of him as I am or as I would hope I am. How would I act in his shoes? I’m drunk and euphorical and tired. I get in the elevator with her and I’d say, maybe “Thanks. I loved your talk. I’m sorry if anything I ever did embarrassed you. I get that you don’t like to be hit on, I really do now. Sorry.” And because this is another type of story fiction (C) RW smiles and say’s “well usually I don’t but in this case I’ll make an exception!” That’s another type of fantasy fiction again!
But I wouldn’t ask her for sex disguised as “coffee” or otherwise. I wouldn’t invite her to my hotel room and if she wanted to hit on me (yeah, I know, not a snowball’s chance on Mercury’s) then she’d have to initate that herself. Because knowing who she is and what she’s said *I* would NOT come onto her. She’d have to give a very clear and active ‘Yes’ before I’d assume she had any interest in me beyond at the very most polite non-sexual conversation.
Now these are all stories from EG’s POV. Not to difficult to write and create. There’s another way of imagining and empathising that’s a lot more work but is also important.
Imagine *being* Rebecca Watson. Imagine writing a fictional version of *her* character from *her* POV.
Now being honest, I don’t know her well enough to do that properly. I may be wa-aay off beam here but here’s one idea.
You start off as a smart girl that loves skepticism and athiesm, get involved and enjoy it. It becomes your hobby, a sort of work, as you write your blog. A big part of your life. You get men all around staring at you and oggling you. You get romantic (or less than romantic) passes all the time, every time you appear and talk. At first you are flattered. The first hundred times or so. Then you start to weary of it.
People are always looking at your body not listening to what you say. Even people you admire, seem more interested in your gender than your thoughts. Men crowd and buzz around you like a thousand flies – all ready to unzip the moment you catch their eye and smile.*
It doesn’t take long before you start to see the lust you attract as something less flattering and more annoying. There’s a nagging thought that while people want to see you and feel – directly touch and press up against – you they don’t want to hear you or quite respect you. People talk to your chest not your face and your legs and clothing get more attention than your arguments. This gets really bad. After a while the frustration builds up so much that you give an impromptu talk on this sexism, the way this makes you feel at one conference.
(For me, this is the hardest thing to imagine of all. Any talk that I give is very carefully and methodically planned! 😉 )
Then you have a fun evening, most people there get it. You stay late drinking in the bar then feeling tired you go and have that incredbily uncomfortable encounter with EG. You are scared maybe – briefly but enough to shock your system and spoil your night. Or maybe you just shake your head, not afraid so much as just disgusted and sick to the gills of it. Not this *yet* again. Not for the one millionth time, right after a talk saying don’t do this.
So you blog about that and then ..well all this happens.
Imagination combined with empathy. Try to put yourself in RW’s shoes.
Yes, its difficult. I’m sure its something I get wrong and one reason I tend to avoid writing from the female POV in my stories. But it sure doesn’t hurt to try.
If so I haven’t heard about it yet. If it does happen I expect it’ll be fairly big news & we will all hera about it quickly given the hubbub and sturm und drang over this incident. It would’nt surprise me if he’s eventually tracked down or comes forward and gets to put his side – or if he never does and remains anonymous forever either. I’m not sure what he can say now that will really change things.
————–
* Line vaguely stolen form a John Brunner novel btw. He did a great job of creating such a character in one of his novels – forget which one now.
Margaret (1295) said:
I take it you have numbers to back up your statemenmt? Care to share them?
No, not dogpiled. She has been defended in equal measure. It is true that some of the responses have been out of all proportion, but you are exaggerating here.
You have yet to make a convincing case.
@ MTU (1354) –
Thanks for that!
@ margaret:
“But when Rebecca expresses concern about being cornered (and yes, she was cornered, even if the man did not intend to do it), she has been dogpiled and called every name in the book.”
In case you missed the point of things I’ve written upthread, I AGREE with you. RW said this guy’s behavior made her uncomfortable and suggested to the world at large not to behave like he had (specifically: “Guys, a word to the wise, don’t do that.”). That’s ALL she said. She didn’t say she felt trapped. She didn’t say she thought she was going to be raped. She didn’t say that she wished men had a different freaking elevator they had to take than the one she was on. She said, hey, this isn’t the best way to have a conversation, full stop. People who dogpiled her for that are wrong.
“Frankly, you have no basis for saying “the meme is destructive to women.” I doubt you have any empirical studies, and you do not speak for women everywhere. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But please do not discount the actual living rape/assault victims out there who take solace from having their lived experience acknowledged.”
Um, but, NO. Schrodinger’s Rapist isn’t about having the experience of sexual assault victims acknowledged. Reforms of police and legal procedure that make it more likely that rape is reported, investigated, and prosecuted would be about having the experience of sexual assault victims acknowledged. Victims of either gender, for the record (or the men in the thread); as under-reported as M/F rape is, I suspect that M/M rape may be, by percentage, the least-reported major crime in America. There ARE cultural changes that need to occur. Those cultural changes do NOT include teaching women (or men) that all men might be rapists any more than we should reduce theft by teaching that all blacks might be muggers.
Or, directly to the point, that all Arabs (or able to be mistaken for one) are terrorists. Rape is terrorism, actually. Both of them are power crimes. One is on the individual level, and uses sex as its medium of assault. The other is generally on a larger scale, and uses nonsexual violence as its medium of assault. But both are power crimes that are intended to invoke discomfort and enforce inequality.
A couple months ago, I flew on business with a coworker of Middle Eastern descent. Fun experience, let me tell you. Do you, margaret, think that the current airline security theatrics (breaking news: terrorists might have UNDETECTABLE bombs INSIDE THEIR BODIES! –thanks, CNN) is constructive? The racial profiling that goes with it? Do you think that all actually helps, or makes us safer?
Schrodinger’s Rapist is exactly as helpful and healthful a philosophy to adapt as Schrodinger’s Terrorist. That’s not to say that there are not things women can do to lessen the chances of being a victim, or that some of those actions are sensible. But the idea that “all men might be rapists” is no more constructive than “all brown people might have a bomb”. Neither attitude is right, neither attitude is healthy, and neither attitude is conducive to the development of legitimate equality.
Also, speaking of “not speaking for” people, I AM a woman and an “actual living rape/assault victim,” thank you kindly. Nor would any amount of “rape culture” attitude, save I guess total gender segregation, have prevented that crime. I was raped by someone that I knew and believed was trustworthy. That’s actually the way most rapes happen, not in hotel elevators or dark alleys.
Here’s a secret. There’s only so much we — women, men, white, black, brown — can do to make ourselves safe. As long as there are people willing to commit crimes, there are going to be victims. There are reasonable precautions, yes. But there can be unreasonable precautions, too. We’ve made it really hard, although not probably impossible, for terrorists to blow up a plane. So what happens if someone walks a bomb into the stands at a sporting event? Cavity searches at the baseball stadium? If we exult in a culture of fear, whether white people of brown people, or women of men, we’re CREATING inequality, not overcoming it.
“As a woman, I have to ask you: How much “social awkwardness” am I supposed to endure from men before I’m allowed to stand up for myself? How much disrespect am I supposed to rationalize away as “poor communication skills”? Why is it that my personal boundaries are constantly up for negotiation, but a man’s “right” to request sex from me is apparently sacrosanct?”
Freedom has its drawbacks. The right to speech means that, yeah, men are going to hit on me, or make comments about my body, or proposition me for sex. Sometimes they’re going to do it in places and in contexts where I really, really wish they wouldn’t. But, in turn, we always — always — have the right to stand up for ourselves. If I do so, and they persist, that’s not speech anymore. RW declined the offer, the guy stopped, and that was the end of her story with the guy on the elevator.
And to be fair to men — and, hell, to us, too! — its not like anyone “teaches” this sort of thing. There aren’t any “rules” to courtship anymore. I’m glad for that, actually, because it was a fundamentally inequitable system and a generally terrible idea; if I want to hit on a random guy, I should be able to do that. Indeed, I can. And the guy has the same right to tell me to stop that I have to tell guys to stop. And, indeed, they have (note to self: check left hand for rings before flirting).
But it means everyone, especially we women, have to put up with dumbassery. Eventually, I’d hope there’s some educational reform that will teach a future generation of children how to be better at TALKING to other people, and not just about sex. People… aren’t very good at it, as a general rule. But, right now, we don’t. So there are women who don’t express the interests they have, and there are a LOT of men who express the interests they have too loudly or in the wrong contexts. We’re not equals. Not yet. But it’s progress.
@Margaret 1295, “Cornered”? Really? It was a rectangular elevator in all likelihood. If he had stayed as far away as physically possible with his face to the wall, you could still call it “cornered.”
As I asked earlier, don’t elevators in Dublin hotels have an alarm button, or a fire button, or a security button? If he followed her in, doesn’t that mean she went in first, and isn’t she determining where she stands? Could she have not been standing with her hands on/near the buttons, ready to press one if there were a problem?
Is it even possible that she completely misremembered what he said? (mumble mumble coffee? mumble mumble.) Is it even possible that she was feeling the effects of 4am after being in a bar for hours, and might have felt creepy had she been alone?
Not considering possibilities in a rush to judgment isn’t being skeptical, it is being prejudiced. Doing so while accusing someone else of being prejudiced for the same thing is being a hypocrite.
Steve (1333) said:
Apparently not, by the looks of this thread.
@ Peter Beattie (1340) –
Ahhh … more food for thought. You make a seemingly sensible point. Now, can everyone else please stop commenting while I take some time to think about this … ?
No? Oh, well.
Nigel Depledge 1338
Maybe I used the phrase wrong, or maybe you are misunderstanding me. But lets put it this way. I don’t care about their thoughts or opinions at all.
@Karen 1367 — Brava! Extremely well said.
I, too, am an actual living rape victim who has chosen not to remain a victim for the rest of my life. I do not presume every situation with a man is a ‘potential sexual assault’ (shame on you Phil for making such an incredibly stupid remark). I do not presume every request for coffee is sexual in nature. I do not believe every person out there wants to harm me. I do not presume every panhandler is a drugged-up or crazy person who will kill me for my pocket change.
I do not live my life in constant fear, keeping people at arm’s length (or further), presuming they are trying to hurt me. I do not interpret every negative thing that happens as discrimination for some aspect of who I am (they fired me for being an atheist).
As I don’t consider myself a superbeing, I’m pretty sure there are lots of people who are just like me. In fact, I think the number is growing.
I’m actually shocked at the number of responses to this. I would have thought just a few dozen at most. I can’t believe there are over a thousand comments and growing.. and that’s just on this blog alone.
Personally I think it’s a mountain out of a mole hill situation. I see RW point and why it made her uncomfortable. I didn’t see anything wrong with how she put it.. which was more or less “Hey guys, this was uncomfortable and a little creepy.. for future reference, don’t hit on women like this.”
We have absolutly no idea what the guys intensions where. We don’t know how he asked, his body language.. nothing. The guy simply dropped the subject when RW said no.
The story should have ended there. I see RD point about there are much worse things out there than this. This situation is insignificant by comparison. He probably just shouldn’t have responded in such a sarcastic way.
But then the topic should have dropped there, which is why I’m shocked at the number or responses.
But, being a man, I also see why a lot of men are defending the guy by saying things such as “Ok.. he shouldn’t have done this.. but, oh come on? really? “potential sexual assult”?”
In a much more “general” manner, this reminds me of the saying “If a woman is attracted to a man, it’s flirting, if she’s not.. it’s sexual harrasement”. Now while that saying is more tounge-in-cheek than any kind of claim of fact, most guys are going to have enough personal antidotes to find a morsel of truth in that statement. Enought to make it sting a little (or a lot).
Since most of us are skeptics and adhear to the scientific method. Would this not make for an interesting study? I would love to see this tested. Of course you couldn’t do this without the entire study being called “creepy”. But if someone would do it.. I would love to see the results.
Recreate this situation. Have a guy get into an elevator in a hotel with a women late at night, just the two of them, and have him chat her up and more or less do the same thing that happened in this situation.
But repeat the senerio at least 300 times with 300 different single women (not knowing they are part of an experiment), and 3 different guys. So each guy is tested with at least 100 women. 1 guy being the non-threatening average joe (beta-male), 1 guy being a more intimedating average joe (bigger in stature, deeper voice, rougher around the edges, etc.), and 1 guy being the hot, very good-looking, confident, alpha-male. All three guys following a script, more or less saying the exact same thing.
Then the next day telling the woman she was part of a study/experiment and asking her how she felt when it happened?
Anyone want to bet on what the results might be? Who knows.. but my guess would be that average joe get’s rejected 99% of the time, with 75% of the women claiming they were made to feel uncomfortable/intimidated. I’m willing to bet that the more intimidating average joe gets rejected 99% of the time with 99% of the women claming they were made to feel very uncomfortable/intimidated.
Now comes the interesting part. I would bet that the really good-looking alpha male might only get rejected 25% of the time. Now I’m not saying that 75% of the women would go back to his room with him, but that there could be a siginificant number of women who flirtly refuse to go back to his room, but leave the door open by offerening something else… like giving him her number and telling him to call her sometime. Now what percentage might go back to his room vs. giving him her number (or something else along those lines) I do not have a clue. But then I wouldn’t be suprised if only like 10 to 15 percent of the women might claim that they felt uncomfortable/intimedated.
Now my numbers (biased guesses), I’m sure are way off base.. BUT what I would bet almost any amount of money on is that there WOULD be a significant differences in results between the 3 types of men.
And I believe this is at the heart of what a lot of guys are being defensive about this discussion because they know there are 1000 beta-males on this thread saying “Oh come on, really?” Meanwhile there are 1000 alpha males who will never ever run across this thread or any other forum discussing a topic like this because they are too busy having sex/going out on a date (that will probably lead to sex) with a woman they just met in an elevator.
lol
So in the grand scheme of things.. we all need to try to see things from the other’s point of view. Guys.. don’t hit on a woman in a situation that might make her uncomfortable. Women.. try to see how hard it is to approach someone you are attracted to (in ANY situation), and putting yourself out on the line where the chance that you are going to get rejected is critically high, while still stinging from the umpteen other rejections over the last few weeks/months. If we really want equality.. women should approach men more often.. let’s spread the rejection around a little.
lol
@ 1194. margaret Says:
“Rape culture is the way in which the constant threat of sexual assault affects women’s daily movements.”
So rape culture is measured by how women behave. Rape culture ist therfore rampant if women are very much affected, independet of the actual risk of rape? If probabilty of rape goes down, but fear of it and the resulting behaviour goes up, than rape culture goes up?
“Rape culture is telling girls and women to be careful about what you wear, how you wear it, …”
Who does the telling here? Is it sufficient if a small minority of people of people voice crazy opinions for ?
“always be aware of your surroundings and never let your guard down for a moment lest you be sexually assaulted”
Isn’t this how folks here argue that it was rationally justifiable that Watson was in great fear: because it is rational to be in fear of rape in the surroundings of an elevator more so than in the open?
“and if you are and didn’t follow all the rules IT’S YOUR FAULT.””
If rape culture is simply to state that there are peolpe out there who have or voice such disgusting opinions, than to say “Be aware of the real danger of rape culture” is no more than to say “Be aware hat you may be raped and and some idiots might think this is just find to them”? It does not seems to be a very helpful concept than, just a name we could well do without. Especially there does not sems to be an independent and unadressed “argument from rape culture” here, as all has been already addressed without using the term “rape culture”.
1359
I’m not a sociopath. Comfort level is irrelevant. Someone could be bothered by my appearance, what in the world am I supposed to do about that? Or if someone is having a terrible day, maybe something I say to them makes them more uncomfortable than otherwise. How was I supposed to know?
I would not want to cause any actual harm to anyone, but making them uncomfortable isn’t harming them at all. If they are so neurotic that discomfort does cause physical distress, then they need a psychological evaluation. I don’t want to live in a society where you have to worry about discomforting others with your words.
@ MTU (and others).
I keep seeing the issue that she gave a speach earlier in the day brought up not liking to be “sexualized” as part of the discussion, making it seem as though this guy got a premptive “no”, but still persisted to ask anyway. Do we know this guy was even a part of the conference? Do we know if he attended that part of the conference where she gave her speach? I am not able to watch the video here at work, but from the recounts I have read (which may be 2nd or 3rd hand), he simply stated that he “found her interesting” (this in from Phil’s original post). Are we implying from this statement, and the fact that he was at the hotel to take that he attended this conference, and her speach in particular? Maybe he was just a dude staying in the hotel that overheard her conversation with her friends in the bar? Would this change the “creepienss” or “sexist” outlook of folks if we found out this guy had no idea who RW was, other than he saw her in a bar? I will say I do agree approaching a stranger for possible sex at 4am in a hotel elevator at 4am is still creepy (which I have said all along), but maybe it was not quite has bad as some are making it out to be. If we are looking at context, we need to know everything (the actual truths, not assumptions).
I think it would also be helpful to know what the guy was thinking, or to get his take. It obviously will not change RW impression of the event. But maybe this was just some random guy in a hotel bar overhearing a girl talk. He liked what he was hearing (and seeing). And maybe he thought he was getting some signs from her. Maybe she wasn’t sending them, but maybe he thought he saw them. Does this make him less of a creep (from his side, not hers) if he thought there was “something there”, rather than it just being a situation where there had been no interaction what so ever?
1375
Further reasoning why adjudicating comfort is impossible and stupid. How “uncomfortable” a person will be in reaction to an event relies as much on the person’s sensibilities and current mood as the event itself!
@ 1345. Nigel Depledge Says:
“No. IIUC, objectification arises through viewing another person only as a potential sexual partner and not as anything else.”
I wonder whether this is all about sex. Objectification = sexual objectification?
Is there intellectual objectification if I want a discussion and nothing more? Is it business objectification if a see a businesspartner simply as such, not caring about his feelings during the transaction?
@Thorsten 1381, I apologize that I did not read your post clearly enough. I’m sorry. I was wrong.
@ 1374. Leon_Ateo Says:
“Comfort level is irrelevant.”
As a starting point I agree. However if someone asks me to not behave in a certain way or not use certain wording and it doesn’t cost me an arm an a leg, than so waht? I tend to oblige.
@1400
Painting being made uncomfortable as a feminist issue (which PZ Myers did when reposting the video, which Phil Plait did with this blog post, what RW did herself in the followup) is the problem.
It marginalizes the feminist movement, and trivializes actual harm done to women, which was Dawkins’ point.
@ 1399. gr8hands Says:
“@Thorsten 1381, I apologize that I did not read your post clearly enough. I’m sorry. I was wrong.”
No problem.
From your comment “The people claiming “you don’t get it, you don’t listen, etc.” refuse to accept that people DO get it, ARE listening, but simply disagree.” I suspected as much, that we basically agree.
@ Messier Tidy Upper:
“To the mens rights mob here :
STOP WHINING! STOP derailing. This isn’t the place.”
Getting a little ticked now, eh? Good. Get used to it. Men are waking up to the absurdity of feminist dogma all over the place, and they are not taking the abuse lying down any more.
You can write another 50 billion words on this thread. You can throw every insult in the book out at us. You and your little buddies can give all the snarky mentions of “teh stupid” you want. You can flail your arms in exasperation, jump up and down, run around in circles – whatever feels right. Go have a ball, but get this through your head:
We will never shut up. Not here, not anywhere.
We are not giving in anymore. Each and every day, more and more men are abandoning their support of what initially looked like a sensible doctrine because of the histrionics of folks like Rebecca Watson. You are doing a fine job of following in that tradition, and you have convinced me to continue spreading the message far and wide.
Thanks.
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”
ANY woman?
There are so many different unstated assumptions being made here by various parties in the conversation that it’s unsurprising how little understanding there is between those who see the circumstances differently. However, even some the explicitly stated assumptions are regrettably poor generalizations.
This is not true of “any woman,” though it is certainly understandable why it could potentially make many women feel uncomfortable.
Hello, I am a potential rapist, would you like to come to my room for some coffee?
Rebecca Watson knew perfectly well that being in an hotel at 4AM, as a single women, in another country, would expose her to annoyances (such as what happened), and to potentially much worse.
Why did she willfully choose to expose herself to those? What if the guy had been a person with criminal intentions? Is she a responsible person? Does she protects herself correctly? Did she take self-defense courses? Was she ready to protect herself if the guy had been violent?
Rebecca instead decides to entirely blame someone else for her unwanted feeling. To be fair, this guy at the very least has been clumsy, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that she should really address the issue at the root of her fear: the fact that she is indeed disadvantaged physically relatively to most men.
I really cannot take her criticism as seriously as if she had used efficient means to REALLY increase her security. Instead she chooses to ask people not to do something in order for her to FEEL more secure, but without ANY BENEFIT FOR HER REAL SECURITY.
Rebecca, do you homeworks.
The thing is, Ollie, Rebecca didn’t get histrionic. She simply said “this happened” as an ironic anecdote and has since been vilified, with further reactions all over the web taking polar extremes.
Oh yeah, by the way, here are some correspondingly empty phrases:
potential rapist: potential false-rape accuser
mysoginist: mysandrist
patriarchy: feminism (wannabe matriarchy)
Example: So, Rebecca, are you a mysandrist?
I’m not saying these words should be part of the strongest arguments in the debate, but they can definitely help frame the debate in a different light.
There does seem to be some confusion between expressing sexual attraction to somebody and “objectifying” that person. It seems to be fuelled by a cultural bias, that having sex with somebody without a long courtship ritual beforehand automatically means a lack of “respect.” If sex equalled objectification, then every intimatge couple on the planet would be guilty of objectifying each other.
Of course, in Rebecca’s case, there was another dimension to it: At 4 AM alone in an elevator, there was a safety/security issue involved as well, which makes the issue of whether or not the guy in the elevator with her was “objectifying” her comparatively less important.
This may have already been mentioned in the slew of comments preceding mine, but this man FOLLOWED her onto the elevator; he knew who she was and wanted to engage her – in a tiny space alone from others. Why didn’t he approach her in the bar? In my mind, that ups the creep factor and sense of danger immensely.
Dear Phil,
Whaaaa?! As a 30 year old female, working in a male dominated field (science), skeptic, atheist and feminist I feel that every aspect of my afore mentioned characteristics is deeply insulted by your post, Rebecca Watsons comments and actions, and the resulting furore.
The man – who I totally agree with ‘Alex’, has yet to be asked for his version of events, asked her if she wanted to have a cup of coffee in his room (whatever this translates as), she said no, he left it alone. It was finished.
I fail to see where the threatening behaviour is. According to Watson’s (and many others) interpretation of feminism all men are guilty of possibly commiting sexual assaults and therefore should be judged and should behave as such. That doesn’t sound very equal to me. Surely the essence of equality is exactly what happened, he asked her out, she said no, he respected her decision. Why on earth are you people villifying this man and his actions on the basis of that?
As a women, and feminist, and scientist… blah blah blah, my wish is to be treated as an equal, and to be judged by my actions and intellectual merits, regardless of my gender or whatever pigeon hole is being used. What Rebecca asked for is ‘special treatment’ – women can hit on men, and only then can men do the same. Really? Is this how far we’ve come. Affirmative sexism?
I have read her posts and comments and she has publicly misinterpreted the actions and statements of this man. According to Watson, by asking her out he ‘sexually objectified’ her. How is asking someone for a coffee/ carnal business / chat, in private, accepting the declination with no further response objectifying her? She has also blatantly misinterpreted the statements of Dawkins. In this matter, she has not conducted herself with the intellectual honesty, openness and forthrighness she preaches, that is a crucial component of the skepticism she claims to hold dear.
Finally, as pointed out in a comment on Watson’s own thread, Watson and her fellow ‘skepchicks’ have sexually objectified themselves in the past, many times. ‘Skepchick’ calender anyone?
http://skepchick.org/calendar/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/01/02/skepchick-calendar-preview/
and her frequent innuendos on SGU podcast, frankly make me cringe, she has ‘sexually objectified’ the co-hosts many times. Oh right, but that’s okay because she’s female. It doesn’t count. But if a man does that however then it’s a mortal insult and a impingement on the rights of all women.
You know what, if you pose naked on a calender and sell it to the public, guys might ask you out.
Stop treating every man as a potential rapist, stop misinterpreting the behaviour (and implying the actually unknown intentions) of the man involved, get off your soap box and start injecting some rationality into this debate.
Oh, and cutting off Dawkins, refuting his entire body of work as a scientist and atheist because he said something that you don’t like, is that rational?
Replying to tracer:
“There does seem to be some confusion between expressing sexual attraction to somebody and “objectifying” that person. It seems to be fuelled by a cultural bias, that having sex with somebody without a long courtship ritual beforehand automatically means a lack of “respect.” If sex equalled objectification, then every intimatge couple on the planet would be guilty of objectifying each other.”
Incorrect. Objectifying someone is ignoring their agency, feelings, and rights as a person. It just happens a lot in the service of sexual attraction. For other contexts, see enemies in warfare, patients in healthcare, or employees during layoffs. “My goals take precedence over treating you like a human being” is the general idea.
@StandsWithAGist 1410, I’m certain you meant to say Rebecca LEAD him onto the elevator; she knew he was from the bar and wanted to engage him — in a tiny space alone from others. She even clued him in by saying she was leaving to “go to bed” (perhaps while looking directly at him). Why didn’t she approach him in the bar? (Maybe it was hearing him speak that made her say “ick” inside and change her mind.)
Or hadn’t those thoughts occurred to you? Why not? Why only look at the one negative interpretation of the same events which puts the man in the worst possible light? Isn’t that sexism on your part? If you don’t think so, why not?
We do not know if he was already leaving for the elevator and Rebecca brushed past him to get inside ahead of him. In fact, she may have started leaving only after the guy started leaving. That would certainly give a different impression, right?
@Pteryxx 1411, how is finding someone attractive — or telling them you find them attractive — “ignoring their agency, feelings, and rights as a person” (per your definition) and therefore objectifying them? It sounds like you have a very skewed sense of what sex or conversation is about.
And before anyone gets their underwear in a knot, I am not suggesting that she is ‘asking for it’. My point, to clarify, is that this man WAS NOT sexually objectifying her, he simply asked her out. And that is all he did, he asked her out, she said no, he left it alone. He did not do or say anything threatening. It is not fair to talk of ‘could’ or ‘might’, he DIDN’T.
Again, surely equality means that Watson and co. have the right to publish the calender and not be judged, a person (regardless of sex or orientation) has the right to politely ask another person out and not be judged, and a person being asked out has the right to decline and not be judged.
Lets strive for some rationality and equality people
@Keith Bowden 1407, actually, if you go to Rebecca’s website, you’ll see that she has gotten quite histrionic. Lots of examples of her overreacting to this situation, to Dawkins, and to the people who have posted there. (In all fairness, some posters have gone over the top, including one who made threats, and she wisely posted his DNS info.)
I do not, however, expect her to apologize. Rebecca’s too busy being in the full flush of self-righteousness within her echo chamber. It does not seem to enter her supposedly skeptical mind that she might be wrong, even in the slightest. Note that Dawkins not only admitted the possibility of his own error, but politely asked for instruction on why. (Perhaps she should change her blog name to reflect accuracy, or just put the skeptical part in quotes so that people would know not to take that part seriously.)
@MTU: Those stories are fictions, products of my imagination. They’re probably -almost certainly – way different to reality – but then again, maybe one of those possibilties is closer to the truth than we might guess.
All we know is what Rebecca Watson said – that got a bad vibe off him – he made her “incredibly uncomfortable” after all. He also as has been noted ignored her earlier talk and statements. That just ain’t good.
That’s true. And that’s more or less why I said what I said about not being surprised – there’s a big audience for RW’s statement.
Imagine *being* Rebecca Watson. Imagine writing a fictional version of *her* character from *her* POV.
Now being honest, I don’t know her well enough to do that properly. I may be wa-aay off beam here but here’s one idea.
You start off as a smart girl that loves skepticism and athiesm, get involved and enjoy it. It becomes your hobby, a sort of work, as you write your blog. A big part of your life. You get men all around staring at you and oggling you. You get romantic (or less than romantic) passes all the time, every time you appear and talk. At first you are flattered. The first hundred times or so. Then you start to weary of it.
That’s probably why I have a hard time putting myself in her shoes (besides my large feet), or indeed any woman’s shoes. I have no clue what it’s like to be hit on by members of the opposite sex, or to be sexually objectified. I’m fairly, er, “aesthetically challenged,” so that presents a major barrier to understanding.
That said, I see RW’s point and think she handled the situation well, even if I can’t imagine myself in a similar situation.
@Maug And I believe this is at the heart of what a lot of guys are being defensive about this discussion because they know there are 1000 beta-males on this thread saying “Oh come on, really?” Meanwhile there are 1000 alpha males who will never ever run across this thread or any other forum discussing a topic like this because they are too busy having sex/going out on a date (that will probably lead to sex) with a woman they just met in an elevator.
lol
Much as I hate to admit it, you’re probably right 😛 Dang, we’re not doing the stereotype of the geeky, socially inept sausagefest any favors here, are we?
@ gr8hands 1414
Nope. Watch the video that sparked it all. She’s somewhat incredulous about the guy’s behavior and almost laughing at the situation. She didn’t go into overdrive until the posts yelling at/blaming her came in. When you’re caught in a firefight, most people fire back.
Funny. I didn’t know Phil was a woman.
@Keith Bowden 1416.
Nope. Her post http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ clearly starts off ranting. Here are the 2nd and 3rd sentences:
This demonstrates that she has poor reading comprehension, as Dawkins never told her to “just shut up” — in fact every point she makes in the 2nd sentence is wrong. I would say that her post starts off snarky and quickly goes into histrionics — which is defined by Websters as “theatrical performances” and “deliberate display of emotion for effect.” (Perhaps you just didn’t know what the word “histrionics” meant.)
When you light a fire and keep pouring on gas, the fire grows.
Jeremy (124): Thank you for your comment. Rebecca: Grow up.
“Paranoia (feminism) strikes deep, into your life it will creep…”
@gr8hands 1413:
You’re ignoring the situational context. Someone who uses polite words *in an inappropriate situation* is more likely to be a threat than someone who keeps their distance. Calling it a compliment is just an excuse to rationalize away the threat factor.
Telling someone they’re attractive isn’t necessarily a threat. Telling someone they’re attractive as a stranger, in an enclosed space, coupled with an invitation to go to an even LESS secure place, when speaking to someone who has said plainly in many ways that she doesn’t want to be hit on, is ALREADY a threat because he’s ignoring all of that to focus on the chance of sex for himself. Ignoring the other person’s safety, preference, privacy and ability to make her own choices, is objectification.
I’d also point out that when you suggest Rebecca might have touched him, stared at him, or welcomed him somehow, you’re accusing her of lying. We don’t have a statement from Elevator Guy as to his intentions. We DO have Rebecca’s own statement that she does not want sexual advances and specifically did not want this one. Therefore I think you’re arguing in bad faith.
It’s a myth that women give mixed signals and men just misunderstand them. This has been demonstrated: see the research in “Mythcommunication” here:
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/
Rebecca’s story underlines why I tend to go right home after dinner at conferences, and I no longer participate in the late night drinking sessions. I would consider myself to be a “fun” girl normally, and enjoy spending a night out having drinks with friends. But often, when these late night drinking sessions include male colleagues things eventually get weird. I think this is really unfortunate, since sometimes professional collaborations or lasting friends can be made over a few drinks. But I just really hate it when things start to get unprofessional. Plus it makes me feel very uncomfortable. It makes me jealous that the guys can just go out drinking after a conference, but the problem is, once a few drinks have been consumed, they never seem to get when they’ve crossed the line. Unfortunately I think it’s best for my career and for my emotional well-being to not put myself in these situations.
Nigel Depledge said on July 8th, 2011 at 8:33 am:
Thanks, Nigel. Even if the waters here will probably not part for you, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Ms. Watson probably felt uncomfortable because no man has ever asked her out before. I mean all the dude did was ask her for coffee, is it somehow bad for a man to ask a woman out? Dawkins was in the right here because this girl is complaining about something so trivial, and blew things WAY out of proportions, while their are woman out there who are really suffering from misogyny. Stop being a white knight Phil
Response to “Messier Tidy Upper,” post 1364:
QUOTE: “A polite or considerate person may want to avoid getting in with a woman who is already there to avoid causing her concern but this isn’t obligatory – just nice.”
RESPONSE: So, in order to be polite or considerate, a man should avoid getting into an elevator with a woman if she is alone at a late hour? Do you want to be treated as an equal or as a princess? Should we segregate elevators by sex? Or should I just take the stairs in the future? Don’t you think it’s just a bit sexist to suggest that men who take elevators with women in them are impolite and inconsiderate because, after all, the woman might be scared that he’s a rapist? Should black people stay out of elevators because white people might be afraid of them? The position you are advocating is neither equality nor respect for women; you diminish women by portraying all of them as frightened beings unable to defend or stand up for themselves. And as a bonus, you insult men – presumably even the gay ones! – by painting them all as sexual predators.
QUOTE: “Man in elevator at 4am propositiong a woman for sex after she’s just said she’s exhausted and has specifically asked people incl. that man earlier that day NOT to hit on her – Definitely wrong.”
RESPONSE: Yes, wrong, stupid, insensitive, or whatever. NOT *by definition* sexist. Not *by definition* misogyny. Not necessarily even an example of “male privilege,” as alleged by some who claim to be the “feminists” in this debate. And certainly NOT a heartbeat away from sexual assault, as implied by those dragging in rape statistics to justify initial overreactions in the comments with more extreme overreactions the farther this debate progresses.
QUOTE: “Is that really so terribly difficult to follow? Just a little thought, empathy and common sense go along way, mate.”
RESPONSE: Questioning the intelligence and compassion of your opposition will not win you this debate or any other. Indeed, it simply makes you appear more extreme and less likely to have an open mind concerning what anyone else has to say. I don’t appreciate the petulant remarks, especially coming from an anonymous source, and I’m certain that others don’t also – especially when those remarks are coming from the same people who pilloried the honorable Mr. Dawkins (and hope for the end of his career!) for being too harsh!
I’m tempted to respond to other comments too, but it’s apparent that I’d be here all day, arguing with extremists. A perfect example is this gem from gia, post 1366: “There are NO MEN’S issues. They do not exist. And whatever men’s issues exist (if they do) they’re entirely your own fault.”
Honestly, I’d expect this kind of speech from the religious zealots I debate, not from those who call themselves “rational.” Some of those dominating this debate are so emotionally invested that they bite back with such speed as to make their posts are almost unintelligible. We can do better than this.
@Messier Tidy Upper 1383: if you write a blog, I want to follow it.
This talk about “male privilege” makes it seem that feminism has reached the point of debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If it makes me a misogynistic male because I’m skeptical of the existence of those angels, then:
1) I guess I am.
2) Don’t ever talk to me if you are a feminist, in an elevator or otherwise.
Ms. Watson should see her physician and get a pregnancy test immediately.
That horrible, wretched thing called a “man” might have defiled her in the elevator via osmosis.
Yes, dirk, following your posts you are a misogynistic male. Along with Alex and a few (fortunately a minority, if somewhat vocal minority) of posters including some women)
And does that apply to feminist males too? Because don’t ever talk to me either. And you should probably reword that because it sounds like a veiled threat.
As a man I actually find it galling that guys actually find Rebecca’s rather mild request insulting.
Things she DIDN’T say as far as I can tell.
All men are guilty of rape.
Seduction is forbidden.
Asking someone out for coffee is offensive under all circumstances.
Her tale about what happened in the elevator is an attempt to equivocate her situation to women in extremist Islamist regimes and/or cultures.
I just wish that all of these oversensitive MEN out there would drop their silly victim complex and realize that she wasn’t accusing anyone of an actual crime, frankly as a man, it’s embarrassing!
“And you should probably reword that because it sounds like a veiled threat.”
You should probably reword that because it sounds like a veiled threat.
It’s been established that Elevator Guy was in a position to hear Watson as she held forth on the topics of concern. It’s been established that he followed her from there to the elevator. And then after she was isolated, with no witnesses, asked her to his room. That means he was ignoring her clear communication of ‘no’ in order to pursue his own intent, and that is a problem, folks. That is sexual objectification in a nutshell.
Watson then had the courage to say to the larger community, that this was a problem. And in response, she was attacked for speaking up. Not simply attacked by just a few outliers, but attacked by people throughout the movement. People who seemed (and still seem) to be bending over backward to ignore Watson’s actual experience, while excusing or justifying Elevator Guy’s behavior. And then Dawkins came out of right field to add his voice to this chorus of ‘women, shut up and take it.’
Dawkins’ chosen words were so off base, it makes the decision for me to withdraw my support for him, as one fallible human, easy. But I identify with the goals and ideals of skepticism and atheism too much to abandon this community. I will not abandon it to the reactionary ‘men’s rights advocates,’ or to the women (young or otherwise) who so proudly declare their ability to parse Watson’s experience for her. Fellow women, Watson is making us all safer by speaking up.
Enough men on this thread – starting with Phil himself – have expressed great empathy with the experience of another human, even though she happens to be a woman. I will be happy to ride in elevators at 4am with all of them. Up to the safety weight limit, of course.
I posted a link to Rebecca’s talk from ElevatorGate day in an earlier comment, if anyone’s interested. Currently comment 1335.
I only mention it again because while it sat in moderation it may have been buried in the comment avalanche!
nevermind, I’m man enough not to rise to the bait.
Is it just me, or does it seem like the people in /r/mensrights want equality more than the feminists do? They both call for equality, but the feminists for the most part seem sexist from another angle. The guy complements her and asks for coffee, but sexual innuendos get projected on him, because he’s a male. That’s sexist. That’s misandry. If sexual innuendos were placed on a woman (she asked him for coffee because she wanted to get laid), all of the feminists here would call that misogynist in a heart beat. Double standards does not do much for equality.
And about the “male privilege” thing. It reminds me of the time I verbally corrected a kid at Walmart that was running around wild, knocking stuff off the shelves and such. His mother overheard me, told me to mind my own business, and then asked in that special tone, “Do you have kids?” as a means of saying, “If you don’t have kids, your opinion doesn’t matter anyway.” That’s what this “male privilege” stuff relates to. It’s saying, “Because you don’t have a vagina, you just wouldn’t understand”. That’s sexist, and a poor logical argument in general.
Tracer (#1297)
> So … if a man WERE to find himself alone in an elevator with a woman he
> was interested in, what WOULD the right approach be to let her know without
> creeping her out?
Never. The situation is highly contrived.
Your question might as well have been:
“So if a man WERE to find himself in a position or formal power over a woman, as an employer of a economically disadvantaged woman against whom he could easily arrange constructive dismissal, what WOULD the right approach be to let her know his interest in her without creeping her out?”
@1432. Julie said, “Dawkins’ chosen words were so off base, it makes the decision for me to withdraw my support for him, as one fallible human, easy. But I identify with the goals and ideals of skepticism and atheism too much to abandon this community.”
…………………………………………
Julie, I’m not sure if there is a community anymore.
I’ve come away with a strong personal distaste for the opinions of the many who’ve been unable to see Rachel’s perspective. I don’t like the thought that these people are unsympathetic and are totally unwilling to make any effort to understand how Rachel (and by sex association, their wife, their mother, their sisters, or female friends) would feel under similar circumstances. (As an aside, I wonder if they would react in kind if the woman in the elevator was one of those women?)
These 1400+ comments have clearly shown a community that is divided with absolutely no shared understanding of whether or not women have the right to FEEL secure or whether a woman has the right to talk about a situation that made her uncomfortable without being attacked personally. This is a community in which there is no shared understanding that the actions of the male were inappropriate, or even WHY his actions were inappropriate. As well, this is a community in which the disagreement has become personal.
I am also upset that we, as a community, helped one of our brightest (Richard Dawkins) destroy himself. Rather than simply looking at his comments and acknowledging them as lacking in understanding and empathy (a human mistake), we let emotion rule and we actually start boycotts against him.
No, I’m not sure if there is a community.
Cheers
I also wanted to add, that since the Elevator Guy has been reduced to a potential rapist, when it’s entirely possible that he just jumped at the chance to talk with a semi-famous conference speaker and youtube, making his only crime tact, … what would happen if he surfaced? It’s all over the internet now; do you think he’s watching? Do you think he would ever get the chance to tell his side of the story, since all were going on is hearsay? Skepchick’s initial words weren’t even bad, and seemed pretty fair, “it’s creepy, don’t do that”, but we’re beyond that. You’re calling the guy a potential rapist now. Would it matter if he surfaced and gave his side? Do you think calling him a potential rapist invalidates anything he would say anyway, since now he has to fight that characterization? I would bet that he’d agree that it was not tactful to approach a woman at 4am in an elevator. He might say, “Yeah, I saw her and liked her speech and her youtube videos, and I just didn’t think of the other variables, sorry.” But you’ve all gone beyond that. His crime is relational to spotting a celebrity that’s trying to spend off time with family, and asking for an autograph, which the celebrity with family finds annoying. Anything other than that is projected and sexist.
@ 1422. Pteryxx Says:
“You’re ignoring the situational context. Someone who uses polite words *in an inappropriate situation* is more likely to be a threat than someone who keeps their distance.”
Any evidence that this is always so? To me this seems ambigous.
“Telling someone they’re attractive isn’t necessarily a threat.”
To quote from above: “He said he “found her very interesting”, and would she like to get some coffee in his hotel room?”
“Telling someone they’re attractive as a stranger, in an enclosed space, coupled with an invitation to go to an even LESS secure place, when speaking to someone who has said plainly in many ways that she doesn’t want to be hit on, is ALREADY a threat because he’s ignoring all of that to focus on the chance of sex for himself.”
How do you know he didn’t find her interesting in more/other than a sexual way?
“I’d also point out that when you suggest Rebecca might have touched him, stared at him, or welcomed him somehow, you’re accusing her of lying.”
It is sufficient if elevator dude felt himself invited, invited not to sex, but to asking a question.
For his feelings, to turn out to be correct predictions is not required, as we also do not require that Watson’s feeling of immanten danger of rape has to be correct.
“It’s a myth that women give mixed signals and men just misunderstand them.”
The link you give seems to argue from casustics. Even if there would be more sound statistical reasoning, I doubt, that this will help much, because here we have a single case. You seem to need a much stronger argument, something along the lines that people practically never misunderstand one another. This however does not seem likely to me.
I am comfortable with words meaning what they mean. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and an invitation to coffee is an invitation to coffee.
I’m never going to talk to a woman in an elevator again
re @1436. Ron1
I did it again. I said Rachel when I meant Rebecca. God knows I should know the difference.
Sorry.
@ 1432. Julie Says:
“It’s been established that Elevator Guy was in a position to hear Watson as she held forth on the topics of concern.”
Can we be sure that he concentrate on her every word and that he did understand anything in the way it was intended?
“It’s been established that he followed her from there to the elevator. And then after she was isolated, with no witnesses, asked her to his room. That means he was ignoring her clear communication of ‘no’ in order to pursue his own intent, and that is a problem, folks.”
I still doubt, that everything was clear to him. Was there clear communication that to be asked with no witnesses is worse?
“People who seemed (and still seem) to be bending over backward to ignore Watson’s actual experience,”
I can’t see, that I am doing this.
“while excusing or justifying Elevator Guy’s behavior.”
As anyone, he deserves the benefit of doubt.
“Fellow women, Watson is making us all safer by speaking up.”
How is this? It was pointed out that Watson did not even deal with safety, but just feelings of safety, i.e. did point out her lack of those.
@ 1435. Daniel Neville Says:
“Your question might as well have been:
“So if a man WERE to find himself in a position or formal power over a woman, as an employer of a economically disadvantaged woman against whom he could easily arrange constructive dismissal, what WOULD the right approach be to let her know his interest in her without creeping her out?””
E.g. telling her. A No is a No and a “Whatever you decide, will have no effect on your employment” is a “Whatever you decide, will have no effect on your employment”.
Most to many of the comments on this subject are indicative of a race and culture that has reached an apex and apotheosis of cultural preeminence and victory ——-and now have absolutely nothing whatsoever substantial to fret about, so go on and on and on about the politics and deconstruction of vague and sometimes even hypothetical social gestures and interactions.
Life kills; there are a 1001 reasons to be fearful if you choose to be.
@Ron1 1436, No intent here to knock your despairing state of mind, because I’ve been there in my life. But after my initial shock of outrage at Dawkins’ cruelty, I’ve been feeling strangely euphoric . I know we’ve been reading some epic displays of anti-empathy from peers this week. Heck, I’ve been hearing them my whole adult life. But when someone with Dawkins’ visibility says it, the problem gets exposed to the light of day for all to see. And we still have PZ Myers, Phil Plait and plenty of others standing up for basic decency, and good, old fashioned class.
If Richard Dawkins thinks he can use women or “women’s issues” as a mere prop, then we are truly better off without him. The mantle of leadership should not be held when it can’t be honored by the wearer.
I hadn’t considered the angle that we might have pushed Dawkins over some kind of edge. But now that you raise it, I must disagree. He certainly posted that first screed on entirely his own initiative. And he kept coming back with more. Now he has as much opportunity to read our words, and embark on a little adult education, as anyone else. He did, after all, ask for somebody to explain it to him.
I recommend A Letter to Professor Dawkins from Victims of Sexual Assault, at http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/07/letter-to-professor-dawkins-from.html.
I’m actually willing to listen to him again, if he starts coming around. However I have a certain skepticism about that request for dialog. Dawkins finished his third comment with characteristic snark: “I will gladly apologise if someone will calmly and politely, without using the word [&@#!] in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.” So the person who had no problem going straight to the personal with Watson, initially ridiculing the “chick” in Skepchick, now expands his contempt to everyone in the community, deigning to dictate the proper tone for communication. Does that make you feel valued? Maybe the best way to preserve our community is to expunge such a spokes model for uncontrollable venom.
@ 1393. Maug :
I agree with that.
I think it does happen occassionally and should be happening more and I think some feminist women agree.
I think it would be fair and good if anyone who likes somebody can ask them out regardless of gender – provided this is done in a reasonable non-creepy way. I don’t think its truly all that hard to work out when something is or isn’t creepy either.
@1417. Joseph G :
I’m in much the same situation myself. Honestly I reckon I find it easier to write from the perspective of an alien character than a female one – but its amazing what a bit of imagination can do! 😉
@ 1427. Julie : “@Messier Tidy Upper 1383: if you write a blog, I want to follow it.”
I don’t write a blog but I do say thanks for that Julie. Much appreciated.
Men have been taught by society to not be too sensitive. I won’t make a judgment of that except to point out that some of the comment above have claimed that “men are being too sensitive here”.
Fair enough. Except that strikes me as profoundly sexist.
I read the parable about “male privilege” and I get it, I think. But I think women don’t get “female privilege”.
How often are females falsely accused of sexual assault in America compared to men?
Do women not understand that? Well, you don’t understand that because your privilege is showing. You don’t understand what it is to be a male in America and to deal with the constant threat of some crazy, psycho woman you might have gone out with a few times accusing you of assault because you told her you didn’t want to see her anymore and she went crazy and called the cops and accused you of sexual assault.
You don’t believe me? Well the whole point of “privilege” is that you are not in a position to understand and therefore should take my word for it, right? At least, that is how I have read the word “privilege” to have been defined. It is about taking the other’s word for it. So take my word for it. Women lie about sexual assault in court. Men do not have that privilege.
And despite my being classified here as a “misogynist” by other commenters, I don’t believe I am. I love women, I just don’t like the subset of women who call themselves “feminists”.
The reason so may of us non-misogynistic males have an issue with your complaining about getting hit on in awkward circumstances is that us awkward males are merely trying our best with women and however horrible our attempts may be it doesn’t quite seem fair to add insult to injury by not only rejecting us but also calling our lame attempts to socialize “sexist” into the bargain.
As I’ve read, what males don’t get about “male privilege” is how uncomfortable it makes women to be hit on in awkward situations because as males we simply can’t relate to it and therefore should simply take females’ “word for it”.
Well, how about taking “our word for it” since you can’t relate to us? For most of us Skeptic/scientist geeks hitting on a girl in any situation is incredibly uncomfortable and awkward. It doesn’t come natural for us — who are geeks — and maybe by the time we’ve psyched ourselves up to ask a girl out, the timing isn’t as good as it should be. For instance, maybe we sat at the bar too long and decided to make our move in the elevator. Completely socially retarded — I agree. But why make it a sexist issue? What does it have to do with misogyny? These guys are probably the last guys in the world to be misogynists. They are just uncomfortable dorks.
With the concept of “privilege” in the air — which as I understand often refers to something which one doesn’t often understand until it is explained to them how things are. Here is a female privilege: having a guy hit on you and you getting to decide whether you like the guy or not. Males don’t usually get that. They have to take a risk. Women don’t usually like shy guys.
Most single guys have to deal with rejection often. That’s reality. It’s uncomfortable and awkward — but it is social reality. Attractive women cannot conceive of existing in that reality. That is their “female privilege”. You don’t understand because you can’t understand. But — as you say — listen and take our word for it.
As a guy who is relatively short and not some champion weightlifter, I’d probably feel more than a little uncomfortable if some guy who was bigger than me (and most guys are) started making advances to me while alone with me in an elevator. I don’t mean that in a homophobic way, but merely that as a heterosexual male, I would be 100% not interested and I’d wonder why someone had to get me all alone to make their moves on me. It’s not like I haven’t been hit on by guys before but generally it wasn’t in some creepy way when no one else was around, and they generally took it good-naturedly when I thanked them and was flattered, but had to disappoint them by stating that I was straight. ;P
There’s a difference between being asked out at some party or at a poetry reading, and being basically cornered in an elevator (i.e. no witnesses, no quick and easy escape route or help nearby.)
Also, while some women are bigger, stronger, well-versed in the art of self-defence, or otherwise just more assertive than others, and some have more experience turning down guys (whether politely or rudely), there are many women who aren’t comfortable with being hit on, so for Richard Dawkins to belittle the feelings of a woman who clearly was uncomfortable with some guy trying to pick her up in an elevator is not cool. I mean, how would Lalla Ward feel if I cornered her in an elevator to try and chat her up? I’m sure she’d feel totally creeped out and trapped in an elevator with some guy she doesn’t know making unwanted advances on her.
I believe in a male-dominated society the onus is on the guy to make the women around him not feel uncomfortable in vulnerable situations: for example, if I’m on public transit late at night and get off at the same stop as some woman, and find I’m headed in the same direction as her, I do my best to pointedly not walk behind her so as not to give her the impression that I’m following her. If I’m in a hurry I’ll go ahead of her, or if I’m in no particularly hurry, I’m going to stop, take a rest, whatever, so that I’m not right behind her so she doesn’t think some creep is following her to find out where she lives or worse. Ditto for if I’m walking at night and a lone woman is coming towards me on the same sidewalk I’ll cross the street to show I have no designs on her. Sure, this may seem kind of stupid especially if you don’t have any real reason to cross the street, but it doesn’t kill me to do it so why not, if it’ll make the woman walking alone at night feel safer.
That being said, I think women do need to be proactive about these things, and to take the necessary steps to try and ensure their own safety, such as taking self-defence classes or not walking around late at night alone. I know, in an ideal world, women shouldn’t have to be wary like that but reality is far different from an ideal world and better to be safe than sorry. And I think men should recognize this to and encourage their mothers, daughters, sisters, girlfriends, wives, etc. to be aware, and to be prepared, instead of belittling and scoffing at women’s feelings regarding personal safety.
I might add that I’m starting to think Mr. Dawkins is suffering some delusions of godhood himself.
@ 1335 Silent Bob
“* As a reminder, this was Elevator Guy’s infamously misogynistic approach as told by Rebecca:
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?”
You got a source for that? That is news to me.
I am a 26 year old atheist female and I find this whole situation to be ludicrous.
The question here is not whether the invitation for coffee was a proposition for sex or not, because men and women BOTH can and do get propositioned for sex. It’s whether this woman was ever in a position where she could not REFUSE said proposition. And clearly, the fact that she didn’t go back to this guy’s hotel room and get raped is proof enough that yes, she had a choice.
This isn’t feminism. This isn’t an issue of equal rights. This is an issue of a privileged status for women; no man could make a similar claim about being asked for coffee in an elevator by a woman and get nearly this amount of attention. Men can and do get sexually assaulted and raped – by women. And the issue is hugely under-reported because no one – not even law enforcement – takes a man seriously when he says that a woman had sexual contact with him against his will. The fact is that this would have been a non-issue had the roles been reversed or a non-issue if it had been a woman who asked her for coffee.
Women who agree with this nonsense are allowing themselves to be part of a culture of victim-hood. This thread and similar across the blogosphere are full of women who claim “you don’t know what it’s like to be a woman, I do “x” “y” and “z” so that I mitigate my chances of sexual assault.” First of all – WHY do you think every man you walk past in the evening wants to sexually assault you? To me, this is an illogical demonizing of the male sex. Just because the majority of assault – sexual or otherwise – is perpetrated by men doesn’t follow that every man who you encounter is simply biding his time until you come around in the dark. Why revolve your life around something that MIGHT happen to you? We, as women, are socialized into these irrational fears of bad men in the dark – so we’d better just stay home, like good girls, where we’re safe and nothing bad can happen. It’s a lovely self-perpetuating mechanism of societal control. This whole victimization of women is akin to the hysteria surrounding child abduction. Look at the statistics – the odds of your kid getting abducted are 1 in a million. And if your kid IS abducted, the most likely abductor is someone you know. But everyone is taught to fear the strange, creepy guy with the candy.
I agree with Richard. The fact that women in Western culture can cry about – and be showered with undue attention for – being asked to have coffee with someone (regardless of the implications) shows just how privileged and out of touch with the rest of the world we are.
So, what have we learned today?
1) Some gals get spooked by guys. Nice to know. Probably a good idea to open all conversations with anxious-looking women with “Hello, I’m not a rapist” or some other nonchalant line that would allay all female worries. Then again, maybe not.
2) Richard Dawkins is quite funny. Well, nothing new there, really.
3) Some people are all too eager to discuss any event in the context of sexism. Can’t blame them too, 1500 comments? Quite an achievement for what is essentially a troll thread.
4) I really have to read up on modern feminism theory. Since it apparently proves that as much being in the same building with a woman is basically rape it’s bound to be a great read. You know, in a morbid, Hexenhammer sort of way.
So many people in the various comment threads are like “but he didn’t rape her!!! What are people treating him like a rapist!!!??!?”
Well, frankly, because he was ACTING like a rapist. Not that long ago, I was at a BCA conference on Missing and Unidentified persons, and a psychologist who works with sexual predators gave a talk that included a good twenty minutes of footage of sexual predators explaining their techniques to get the target to participate as much as possible in her own victimization so that 1) she’s easier to attack, 2) she’s less likely to report, and 3) she’s less likely to be believed/viewed as sympathetic.
Elevator Guy’s behavior was classic for this. It SHOULD have set off warning bells: 1)Ignoring obvious boundaries – a whole day spent saying “don’t hit on me for casual sex” in a variety of ways. 2) Compressed time line (coffee now at 4:00 in the morning, not coffee tomorrow or at a more appropriate time. 3) Isolated location – choosing a situation where the target will feel vulnerable, and appearing to give the target control while working to move her towards a situation of less control.
He was ALSO acting like a guy who was using PUA techniques to get laid (find and exploit weakness to reach your goal, without concern for what the target wants)…
… AND like a socially inept clueless guy who just literally managed to ignore the whole point of the public speaking that his object of desire had been doing ALL DAY LONG, and chose to do everything she described as a turn-off in a blatant attempt to get laid by her.
While only one of these possible explanations for his behavior is criminal, none are exactly desirable…and MOST guys I know understand this and manage to behave in non-creepy ways almost all the time. For those who don’t get it, it might be helpful that Ms. Watson spoke out and said something. It just seems like ordinary clueless guys would appreciate information on how not to look like a textbook rapist, or like a smarmy lounge lizard.
As for the women who say “I don’t understand what the big deal is…the guy just asked her for coffee”…I really hope that their naivete does not cause them to end up packed in Mason jars in some guy’s garage in Milwaukee. I really really do.
The big winners here are the anti-vaxxers, the faith healers and the global-warming deniers. The “skeptical movement” as we knew it is dead, replaced by 2 weaker, mutually exclusive movements: the “rape apologists” and the “manhating feminists”. As I refuse to completely agree with either. I and many others will just drop out and do our best to continue to spread rational thinking on our own.
I’ve turned down 3 people who wanted to sell TAM tickets, and have no regrets. I’m done with this idiocy.
I am not the only one.
Ms. Watson shouldn’t blame her elevatorphobia on the innocent man who was riding to his room. He made pleasant conversation, which she misinterpreted. Watson sexually harassed herself by making it all creepy in her mind.
“[…]Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent. But when he hits on her? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to sexual assault; […]”
It could also have led to the man being pepper sprayed.
It could also have led to the man being kicked in the balls.
It could also have led to the man being knocked over the head by a heavy purse.
It could also have led to the man having to defend himself in court over an alleged claim of sexual harassment, which he’d lose due to bias of the court.
It could also have led to… nothing, which incidentally is what happened.
“[…]Rebecca, apparently, handled this situation with aplomb, and I’m glad. She turned it into a useful lesson for men on how not to treat women. […]”
Yes, don’t hit on her you silly boys. Two months from now, she will speak at a conference about how no men is approaching her or have the balls to invite her for a cup of coffee.
By the way, it’s ironic how many people claim to “lose faith” in Richard Dawkins, at least I got a laugh out of you.
It makes me sad that this is what we’ve come to as a race.
yup. this is my first taste of internecine warfare in the atheoskeptic community.
i am unpersuaded.
There have been other tussles, but it was always obvious that the disagreements were not permanent. This fight is much worse, and no one will admit any fault. Truly sad.
Perhaps we are not quite the superior intellects we have imagined ourselves to be. It doesn’t necessarily mean we are wrong, but we may want to hold off awarding ourselves medals for our Vulcan-like elevation of reason over emotion.
This one will turn out to be a repost, but it loks like no/slow moderation on weekends…
@Ron1 1436, No intent here to knock your despairing state of mind, because I’ve been there in my life. But after my initial shock of outrage at Dawkins’ cruelty, I’ve been feeling strangely euphoric . I know we’ve been reading some epic displays of anti-empathy from peers this week. Heck, I’ve been hearing them my whole adult life. But when someone with Dawkins’ visibility says it, the problem gets exposed to the light of day for all to see. And we still have PZ Myers, Phil Plait and plenty of others standing up for basic decency, and good, old fashioned class.
If Richard Dawkins thinks he can use women or “women’s issues” as a mere prop, then we are truly better off without him. The mantle of leadership should not be held when it can’t be honored by the wearer.
I hadn’t considered the angle that we might have pushed Dawkins over some kind of edge. But now that you raise it, I must disagree. He certainly posted that first screed on entirely his own initiative. And he kept coming back with more. Now he has as much opportunity to read our words, and embark on a little adult education, as anyone else. He did, after all, ask for somebody to explain it to him.
I recommend A Letter to Professor Dawkins from Victims of Sexual Assault.
I’m actually willing to listen to him again, if he starts coming around. However I have a certain skepticism about that request for dialog. Dawkins finished his third comment with characteristic snark: “I will gladly apologise if someone will calmly and politely, without using the word [&@#!] in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.” So the person who had no problem going straight to the personal with Watson, initially ridiculing the “chick” in Skepchick, now expands his contempt to everyone in the community, deigning to dictate the proper tone for communication. Does that make you feel valued? Maybe the best way to preserve our community is to expunge such a spokes model for uncontrollable venom.
Daniel Neville (#1435):
> “Your question might as well have been:
>
> “So if a man WERE to find himself in a position or formal power over
> a woman, as an employer of a economically disadvantaged woman
> against whom he could easily arrange constructive dismissal, what
> WOULD the right approach be to let her know his interest in her
> without creeping her out?””
Thorsten (#1440) replies:
> E.g. telling her. A No is a No and a “Whatever you decide, will have no
> effect on your employment” is a “Whatever you decide, will have no
> effect on your employment”.
And that is supposed to like, not creep her out immensely?
When you’re being pursued by the police robots of THX-1138, do you believe them when they say “Do not be afraid. We are here to help you”?
“I recommend A Letter to Professor Dawkins from Victims of Sexual Assault.”
Let’s accompany this with A Letter from Males Falsely Accused of Sexual Assault.
Or does that somehow make me sound like a so called “rape apologist”? Are we supposed to believe women every time and never believe men? Are we supposed to believe that only men are evil in this world and that all women are on the side of angels?
Dirk,
Excellent idea. I’m sure that there are behavioral markers of women who falsely accuse men of sexual assault, and well-documented behavioral cues that men can learn to codify to avoid such women.
Let’s hear about them. Perhaps a seminar, like the ones women have to take in order to recognize behaviors that should trigger their defensive responses, would be useful?
Although once again it seems fitting to point out that creepy elevator guy was NOT accused of being a rapist…merely of being indistinguishable from one due to his behavior bearing many markers that should tip off any safety-conscious woman. And which, if Rebecca HAD ignored them and was raped, would have been cited as evidence that she was “asking for it”.
@wallace (#1457)
>The “skeptical movement” as we knew it is dead
the “skeptical movement” has always been an oxymoron, just like the Egoist Commune and the Solipsist Society. You don’t get a pre-defined set of subjects to be sceptical about; moreover, skepticism does not equate to intelligence, or even common sense.
@Stop the Misandry (#1458):
>Watson sexually harassed herself by making it all creepy in her mind.
This, I really like.
“Go sexually harass yourself, you misandric son of a person”
“I’m sure that there are behavioral markers of women who falsely accuse men of sexual assault, and well-documented behavioral cues that men can learn to codify to avoid such women.”
I don’t know of any. My sense is that you’re trying to be sarcastic, but I don’t get it. My sense is also that whereas you would be horribly offended by someone making light of actual sexual assault or rape, you have no problem making light of the fact–or being completely dismissive of the idea — that many men’s lives have been ruined due to false rape claims.
Or do you believe that women never lie and that only men are capable of evil behavior?
“And which, if Rebecca HAD ignored them and was raped, would have been cited as evidence that she was “asking for it”.”
By whom? The socially inept dorks at the conference? Let’s vilify all socially inept nerds as misogynists.
I frankly don’t appreciate being called a misogynist and THAT is my issue with RW claims — as well as the amplified claims by this blog and others — that Elevator Dude was a sexist and all of us men who might have done something equally socially clueless are somehow sexists.
Long time reader first time poster.
I’m 6’4″, 25, and a pretty strong guy. I could easily overpower most women. So let’s pretend that I am that guy at the moment just before I enter the elevator. Just by being me, by stepping into that elevator I have created a potentially hostile environment, one which might make Rebecca uncomfortable. So should I wait for the next one? Should she gets off when I get on? Should we both just ride the elevator knowing she might be uncomfortable?
Other than my frame my appearance isn’t a menacing one, I smile a lot, I don’t have tattoos, I’m clean-shaven and so forth. While walking home late at night I have seen lone women cross the street so as not to pass by me on the same side. As a response to this I started just crossing the street first in an attempt to put their minds at ease. But I always have a few questions that nag at my mind about things like this. Who’s responsible for a woman’s comfort? And then, if the answer is men, how far do we have to go? Let’s say that I’m waiting for that elevator at 4am with a woman I don’t know, how far away should I stand to not make her feel threatened? Keep in mind that as far as I know she could have been raped the day before. This is not a hypothetical question. I’m looking for an answer in feet because I honestly do not know.
I try to treat women the way that I would want my little sister to be treated. But it’s difficult to not notice that my friends who are aggressive and douchey get a lot of action. Rebecca might have responded negatively to his offer, but some women would have taken him up on it. I have seen with my own eyes men act far more aggressively than that and end up not just sleeping with, but dating the girl. I’ve read feminist blogs, they might be “right” morally, but I can tell you that by doing the things they suggest that single men do we would all be abstinent, or damn close to it. I’ve also read blogs like Citizen Renegade, and while I’m positive that he’s wrong morally, I can also tell you that single men who do what he recommends will get as much action as they want. Up to and including long term relationships if that’s their goal.
If for some reason someone would like to have this conversation through e-mail mine is Taylorseim@gmail.com.
Dirk,
You take an invitation to elaborate and provide your evidence and reasoned argument as “making light”?
Being falsely accused of rape is terrible, and even if exonerated, you have a cloud of doubt hanging over you forever.
If it is a bigger problem than I am aware of, I am interested in knowing the facts about how prevalent it is, what sorts of things cause it, and possible solutions.
You’ve asserted that the problem is widespread. Therefore, there must be facts and figures and issues to be seriously discussed.
I’m puzzled by your defensiveness…
as well as how you could possibly make the leap to accusing me of believing that women never lie.
“By whom? The socially inept dorks at the conference? Let’s vilify all socially inept nerds as misogynists.”
No…well, perhaps, but also by the general public. When women are raped, it is almost always considered their fault. She shouldn’t have dressed that way, she shouldn’t have accepted a drink from a stranger, what did she THINK he meant when he invited her up to his room for coffee at 4:00AM, etc.
It is well documented that women should be wary of men who ignore boundaries, have a short time-line for “moving in” on the objects of their desire, try to isolate women, etc. hours and hours of footage of rapists describing their tactics make that clear.
“You’ve asserted that the problem is widespread. Therefore, there must be facts and figures and issues to be seriously discussed.”
There are:
– 40 percent of complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred in a 9-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin. (Source: Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994)
– 50 percent of accusers recanted their rape charges in a study of two large Midwestern universities by Kanin.
– More than 25 percent of rape accusers admitted — either just before they took a lie detector test or after they had taken and failed it– that they had lied about the charges in a 1985 Air Force study of 556 rape accusations. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.
Kanin’s studies have been widely criticised. He focused on small populations where the rape accusers were known by all and where the accused tended to be “popular” (such as on the local football team), and he made absolutely no attempt to discern where the accuser came under pressure from friends, family or local law enforcement to withdraw their accusations — even though that phenomenon is widespread and well documented.
Similar for the Air Force study, which carefully left out of account pressure by superior officers.
@1335 thats actually not the correct video. the one that is being discussed is actually not up at CFI yet.
…Further on Kanin: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/
I am amazed, and profoundly disheartened, by the number of people who have rewritten this entire episode in their heads and who somehow seem to miss the explicit points made at pretty much every step.
1. RW spent close to a day talking about how she (and many other women) didn’t like being continuously hit on by people they didn’t really know at skeptic/atheist conventions, especially when this seemed to happen to the exclusion of their being listened to as equals. It made the situation uncomfortable for her and she thought for others.
2. After having spent hours talking about this, after having said “I’m really tired and I want to go to bed now”, a guy follows her into an elevator (a small enclosed space in which people have, unfortunately, in documented reality, found themselves the victim of a sexual assault — and that metric is genuinely not far from many women’s minds) and uses a line which is most common, culturally, as an invitation to later sex.
3. RW posts a video saying, quite mildly, “this kind of thing makes me uncomfortable. Guys, please don’t do that.”
4. McGrew characterised what Watson posted as both anti-sex and man-hating.
5. RW used this comment as an example of how the same silencing tactics from overtly anti-feminist and misogynist societies infiltrates even “friendly” spaces. The statement about “people who have been subject to sexual assault [and thus have reason to be wary of propositions in elevators] may feel like you’re not willing to back us up” is then taken by many to mean “you wouldn’t help rape victims” rather than the overt intention of “we don’t feel you are being supportive of our concerns [and the request that men be aware of how they come across].”
6. Dawkins jumps in with the comments that Phil Plait quotes in their entirety above. (I am still personally at a loss as to how to interpret them in any other way than “RW has no right to ask men not to do things which she thinks are creepy/you are merely pretending to be a victim/your concern is not valid.”)
This then goes on to become the current s…torm.
Here’s a few snippets I would like to reiterate:
In the context of our culture, of things like the Mike Tyson rape trial especially, “what would she be doing in his room at 4am if she didn’t expect sex” would be the only general response if RW had been silly enough to go to the guy’s room. No amount of speculating about EG’s actual motivation wipes out the cultural fact that an invitation to someone’s hotel room — for “coffee” or any other stated word — is seen as a proposition “come sleep with me.” Apologia for socially awkward men does not make this fact disappear.
RW had just spent hours saying that she felt uncomfortable being propositioned in this manner. So then the guy does so. Her response was simply to refuse (there was no hint that she ever accused him of assault) but then to say “guys, this is creepy. Please don’t do this.” It’s creepy not just because it comes across as a sexual proposition, but ALSO because it demonstrates that he didn’t feel it was important enough to take on board anything she had been saying. Perhaps if he had entirely benign intentions and had been listening, he could have said something like “would you like to get a coffee in the cafe in the morning? I’d like to talk” or “I would like to have a conversation, if you we don’t have a chance here could I get your email address?” He didn’t do that. What he did is kind of creepy. Really.
Saying “this is not the approach you should use” is NOT anti-men and NOT anti-sex. But claiming that it is, is quite commonly used to put forward the argument that women ought to be open to being spoken to by men in any fashion at any time, because otherwise it obviously just disadvantages men too much! (See comments in this thread for illustration.)
McGrew seems to have taken that tack, unfortunately. This is precisely the problem that RW was calling out. Whether or not RW “unfairly disadvantaged” McGrew by explicitly naming her in a presentation is a different problem, but perhaps a relatively minor point in the storm of misinterpretation going on.
And, finally: Dawkins explicitly requested in his final comment that he be given a politely worded explanation of what he “didn’t get” and got wrong. This has now been given in multiple places. And, in response, I note that a number of people are saying it is a “hateful” campaign to “tear him down.”
Seems like the women speaking up for the right to be heard and to feel safe in a “friendly” environment aren’t being heard for what they are saying so much as they are being drowned out by the voices in various people’s heads. I’m afraid my increasingly sarcastic reaction is running along the lines of: Gosh, poor victimised misunderstood disadvantaged men. Women should just stay quiet instead of being so mean. Amirite?
The point that doesn’t seem to be getting across is that RW — re-watch the video if you need to — ties the elevator incident to the pervasive “sexism” in the community. Her main evidence of the “sexism” is the frequency she is hit on. This frequency probably has something to do with the fact that she has sexualized herself in the SkepChick calender and in podcasts. She has become a bit of a celebrity and now she receives a lot of unwanted attention due to that celebrity. But that unwanted attention, however annoying, is not a symptom of pervasive sexism in the community. As a parallel, watch the movie a Hard Day’s Night. Are the young women chasing the Beatles through the streets of London being sexist because they won’t leave them alone?
@ Julie
“I recommend A Letter to Professor Dawkins from Victims of Sexual Assault.”
Dawkins is one himself.
And RW’s example of the fact that instead of being listened to and taken seriously ONE LONE CREEP didn’t get the message. She didn’t say that after she got off stage fifty guys immediately hit on her and that clearly nobody was listening. Or that while hanging out in the bar till 4 in the morning guys just kept hitting on her. No. ONE GUY didn’t get the message and THEREFORE MISOGYNY IS RAMPANT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE DAMN COMMUNITY.
@1420. gr8hands
No, that was her response to the attack. Check out her original video post that mentioned the conference, which Richard Dawkins responded to, igniting this flamewar throughout the internet.
Just wanted to let you know Phil that I will no longer be visting your blog after reading your comments on this issue.
“This was a potential sexual assault.”
Because all men all potential rapist. This can’t be said enough.
Bye, z3ddicus!
Yeesh. “Oh, the big bad feminazis are out to gets us! Oh whatever shall we poor defenseless men do?”
Grow up and grow a pair, guys.
Here’s a mind game we can all play: If you deny sexism exists in your social group then you are a sexist because anyone who denies sexism is a sexist. So you must admit that sexism exists in your social group because not to admit it exists causes it to exist.
dirk, I point you again to my comment at #1357.
Dirk,
So…five studies?
Five studies that are claimed to negate hundreds of studies and decades of scholarly work…and fail to address known and established factors that can account for the discrepancy. This doesn’t make the case that it is a wide-spread problem.
OTOH, maybe it doesn’t have to. Perhaps just teaching guys to “look for the signs” that a woman might “falsely accuse them of rape” will get them running in the other direction and save some women some trouble.
For instance, be on the look-out for women who probably wouldn’t give you a second glance, but is just drunk enough that she could probably be brought home and bedded if you just put a little something extra in her drink without her knowing. She just might “falsely accuse” you of rape.
Of if you get the feeling that a woman is adverse to confrontation and afraid of violence, and if you just manage to manipulate her into going somewhere less public you can turn threatening and get her to crumble…turn around and run. She might “falsely accuse” you of rape.
Or if you’ve had sex with a woman a few times and she has a headache, but you’re pretty sure that she just doesn’t want to have sex with you anymore and is using the headache as an excuse and she stops resisting when you get visibly irritated and start throwing things and threatening her…run the other way, because continuing to try to elicit sex from her might result in a “false accusation” of rape.
or if a woman has really huge breasts and you know for a fact that she’s slept with half a dozen guys you know, and you think she’s just playing hard-to-get so that you won’t think she’s a slut and if you just keep at her long enough she’ll give in because she really wants it. I mean LOOK at her, it’s not like she’s a virgin, and freaks out when you tell her that you don’t believe her when she says no …leave immediately because she might make “false” accusations of rape if you keep trying.
And we still have the fact that creepy elevator guy was NOT accused of rape. His behavior was merely pointed out as creepy because it is exactly the sort of behavior that women have to look out for if they don’t want to be accused of “encouraging” their rapist.
Once again, it was the woman’s job to telepathically guess whether the guy was a rapist testing the waters to see if he had a potential victim on the hook, whether she was just dealing with a creepy lounge lizard PUA-type who was playing on rape fear to get compliance, or a socially awkward guy who simply does not understand boundaries.
And my feeling is who the hell cares if he was intending to force his way past clear boundaries, sleaze his way across clear boundaries, or merely blundering harmlessly across clear boundaries??
The operative thing here is “crossing clear boundaries”. He hit on a woman who repeatedly and publicly asked not to be hit on. Immediately after she asked not to be hit on, and clearly stated that she was ready for alone time and sleep.
Failure to miss that isn’t just “awkward”. It shows a complete disregard for another person’s boundaries. Calling it out is appropriate, and NOT an accusation of rape.
Why I stand with Dr. Richard Dawkins:
The skeptic community is embroiled in an acrimonious debate concerning whether “Elevator Guy” was obtuse and harmless or sexist and harassing in his overture to Ms. Watson in an elevator in Dublin. When I arrived to this debate, quite late, “Elevator Guy” had been repeatedly insulted and his motives thoroughly debated (in commentary long on assumptions and emotional intensity and short on facts). Some “feminists” derided his actions as sexist and emphasized the potential for sexual assault, citing statistics and research on rape. Others, siding with Dr. Dawkins, argued that this perspective constitutes “hysteria” (admittedly a sexist term) and serves not to elevate women, but to demean men by presupposing that they are all potential rapists. Some “feminists” shot back by accusing their opponents of ignorance on issues of sexism and male privilege.
While I certainly do not doubt or have any desire to minimize the experiences of Ms. Watson and other women who repeatedly receive unwanted sexual advances (and threats), I believe that the entire issue is overblown.
First, I disagree with the notion that this event was unquestionably an act of sexism:
Sexism is the belief (and more importantly, the differential treatment that results from such belief) that one sex is superior to the other. In the American historical context, men have long been (incorrectly, obviously) regarded as superior to women. (Undoubtedly, Christian doctrine played a large part in promoting this view.) It is clearly apparent that “Elevator Guy” dismissed Ms. Watson’s statements concerning her discomfort with unwanted male pursuit and her intent to retire for the evening. He is thus rightly chided for being obtuse, selfish, and disrespectful. Concluding that his actions were sexist, however, requires demonstrating that he disregarded Ms. Watson’s stated intentions because of her sex. While there is certainly a long history of men ignoring women’s preferences concerning sexual advances, I am not convinced that the fact of this history alone is sufficient grounds to state with certainty that “Elevator Guy” is sexist or misogynist.
I also resent the assertion that my position is patently callous or sexist. I recognize that I not only enjoy male privilege, but that I also experience what could be termed “double male privilege” due to my sexual orientation. As a gay man, I do not relate intimately with women and thus am unaware of the personal concerns that they may express only in the privacy of their romantic relationships. Nor must I heed such concerns when pursuing romance, since I pursue men. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that merely believing that this issue is overblown makes me (or Dr. Dawkins) ignorant or insensitive concerning issues of sex inequality.
Certainly men must recognize the legitimacy of female discomfort in enclosed spaces. But when some “feminists” suggest that “polite” and “considerate” men decline opportunities to enter an elevator in which a woman stands alone, I do not see an argument promoting respect and equality for women. Instead, I see a rather insulting assertion that women are frightened, helpless, victims-in-waiting unable to defend themselves. This perspective also limits men – presumably even gay ones like me – by implying that a woman’s right to not feel any level of discomfort, whether justified or not, transcends a man’s right to ride in the elevator. This is not equality; this is a reversal of who has privilege.
Second, and much more importantly, I believe that Dr. Dawkins has been unfairly pilloried:
Dr. Dawkins entered the debate shortly after it began, sarcastically comparing the incident to the appalling oppression of women in fundamentalist Islamic societies. I believe he intended to express that the incident hardly merits the attention it has received. After his comment was widely panned, Dr. Dawkins clarified his position, requested additional information, and acknowledged that he could be mistaken. Whatever your opinion of his tone, a close reading of his three comments does not reveal him to be the domineering misogynist he has been made out to be.
But I am no longer chiefly concerned with my ability to convince others of my perspective on whether or not the elevator proposition was sexist. A much more pressing matter is the extreme, divisive reactions that Ms. Watson and some of her supporters have recently posted on Skepchick. In “The Privilege Delusion,” Ms. Watson refers derisively to Dr. Dawkins as a “stinking rich” “wealthy old heterosexual white man,” states that she will boycott his work, and thanks her supporters for “bravely battling [Dawkins] and the hoards of clueless privileged people who didn’t get it.” The open letters to Dr. Dawkins are more severe: “I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn,” wrote Mindy, who concluded with “you don’t get a second chance.” Another letter opened with “Dear Dick” and accused Dr. Dawkins of making the skeptic community “blatantly unsafe” for women.
Language such as this, dripping with negative emotional reactivity, eclipses the legitimate perspective the writers wish to express, reveals as hypocrites those who have targeted Dr. Dawkins for his tone, and threatens to split apart a movement that already has more than enough challenges. (Dr. Dawkins now faces retribution in the actual press.) Further, the ferociousness of the accusations of sexism and misogyny directed at Dr. Dawkins and others only serves, rightly or wrongly, to provide ammunition to the real “men’s rights activists” out there who believe that feminism is about revenge rather than equality.
We can do better than this. The first responsibility of any skeptic is to be skeptical of his own perspective. That ability, along with a healthy dose of modesty and humility, has been abandoned in recent days. It is long past time to let this issue go.
“the ferociousness of the accusations of sexism and misogyny directed at Dr. Dawkins”
oh, baloney, Chris.
Dawkins made an ass of himself. He tried to use the horrific practice of FGM to shame Rebecca into shutting up about an issue he thought was trivial. And then he clumsily tried to walk it back.
Dawkins came off as an Angry White Male in the throes of senile dementia.
And so do you assclowns that are trying to defend him.
i was a bigtime Dawkins fangrrl myself.
Now im not so sure.
And another thing.
I’m a girl in Math/Physics.
What Rebecca says is true. It’s pretty fucking wearing.
In my graduate department I’m usually the only female in the class.
You make eyecontact with one of these socially challenged nerdboiz and you are starrring in their eyelid pornos the rest of your life, and god forbid you treat them like a human being because then they will instantly be sending email marriage proposals and passionate declarations of eternal love.
Thank you Rebecca for drawing attention to the problem.
@Teresa,
Your privilege is showing.
“You make eyecontact with one of these socially challenged nerdboiz and you are starrring in their eyelid pornos the rest of your life, and god forbid you treat them like a human being because then they will instantly be sending email marriage proposals and passionate declarations of eternal love.”
How horribly sexist of them! Ladies, head that warning not to treat the nerdboiz like human beings!
@Taylor 1473: You sound like a pretty darn good person already. I doubt that you need to adjust your behavior around women on the ‘threat’ questions, although people who actually know you would give you better advice on that.
I have a disagreement with how you’ve characterized the Dublin incident that Watson initially spoke of. You have distilled it to, “Just by being me, by stepping into that elevator I have created a potentially hostile environment…” That fails to take into account important contextual clues: ‘Elevator Guy’ was listening to Watson at the bar/lobby/where ever, as she spoke about wanting to be treated as more than just an object; he followed her to the elevator and she recognized that; while on the elevator he didn’t just make small talk, he propositioned her.
So by merely stepping on an elevator that contains a lone woman, you are not in violation of any social rules of Western culture that I know of. As a self-identified feminist, I have no desire to make the men of the world wait for my pleasure to ride an elevator, or walk down the sidewalk. You should feel free to ride elevators that also contain a lone woman. The whole goal is mutual respect and equal rights.
Teresa’s post #1456 contains an excellent explanation of why the context of Watson’s situation contained some recognized potential danger signals. But it is also important to note that most women (and men) are not educated about formal risk factors like “compressed time line.” What everybody does have is gut feel. Instinct, education and experience, put to the test in myriad social situations. What if instead of the Skepchick herself, a random non-feminist woman was in that situation, and later wanted to speak out. She would be feeling demeaned, but lacking the vocabulary to express quite why. What kind of reception would her tale get? Would her friends tell her she was just too sensitive? Would they rationalize all the context from only the male point of view? Because after all, most people truly don’t want to imagine monsters among their fellow humans, even strangers.
My personal beef in this online fight, is the number of people who want to smack Watson down for *daring* to say, quite mildly, that she felt uncomfortable and “guys, don’t do that.” Richard Dawkins was clearly cruel in his trivialization of Watson’s point of view. But those who are jumping in to deny or ‘reinterpret’ Watson’s experience with nicer language, are also adding to the chilling atmosphere.
@ Dirk,
Yes, it is clearly “privilege” to suggest that maybe it isn’t all women’s responsibility to understand basic social and legal issues surrounding rape. You are absolutely right. Please mansplain it to me some more.
Perhaps you have some more discredited studies you would like to reference?
@ Shams,
Yeah, I hear ya. If you are lucky, they keep it behind the eyelids. Sheesh…after a few stalkers, it gets old…after one of them trashes a whole dormitory floor and breaks a couple of people’s bones…well, those boundaries, and having them respected becomes pretty important pretty fast.
@ David 1477
OK, if that’s true, I apologise.
But the video I linked to clearly is the panel discussion that Rebecca refers to in the same video in which she describes the “elevator incident”.
She mentions such details as AronRa and Richard Dawkins being on the panel, the topic being “Communicating Atheism”, disagreeing with Paula Kirby, and the “strawperson” joke.
And she says, “… all of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because at the bar later that night, actually at four in the morning…”, and goes on to describe the elevator incident.
She doesn’t refer to any other talk she gave at the conference in the video.
Speaking of the video…
@ Father Time 1453
Yes, the source is a video by Rebecca Watson titled About Mythbusters, Robot Eyes, Feminism, and Jokes.
I don’t want to link to it because it will put this comment in moderation, but just go to YouTube and search on the title.
The relevant bit is about 4:30 in.
Being in an elevator with an elderly man (the guy is seventy years old!) is not a threatening situation. Being asked to a married elderly man’s room for a bit of coffee and conversation is not an indecent proposal. It takes a severely warped worldview to reinterpret such actions as inappropriate or sexist, the sort of warped fringe attitude that has driven normal women away from the feminist brand in the last several decades.
As for the claim that all men are potential rapists? I shall reply that all humans, male or female, are potential murderers. Nonetheless, going through life looking at every person I share an elevator with as an assailant would be a terrible and self-destructive way to live.
@Shams
I majored in Physics/Astronomy and we rarely had any women in our classes. I was waiting out side one class waiting for the previous class to end. A guy in my class, someone I hardly knew was standing with me. The class ended and the students filed out. The guy said “That must be an easy class there are way to many pretty girls in it.”
I smiled at him but thought “What a dick.”
@Dirk, you seem like a nice guy. You aren’t the type of guy that rapes people. You aren’t they type of guy that is accused of rape. You don’t have anything to fear. You just don’t understand how horrible women have had it since agriculture and still have it. Thousands of years of being conditioned that they are the inferior sex. Dawkins was being a dick. He’s at the pinnacle of our society and he made a major faux pas and was rightly called out for it. I haven’t liked Dawkins for a very long time, he is always a dick. But this even surprised me. And I was there from the start, reading PZ’s blog even before he posted his infamous post. At first I thought it was some snert going by his name. When PZ verified it really was Dawkins I couldn’t believe it at first, and I’ve thought he was an ass for a long time.
We males STILL have it much easier than any woman. You need to let this drop. You are still much more privileged than you think.
I’ve been accused of sexual harassment (which was stupid and quickly dismissed, it was revenge because she was fired by someone I was related to, I didn’t work directly with her and had a single conversation with her) and I still don’t have the hatred you seem to have. I know first hand being accused of sexual harassment is not nearly as bad as being sexually harassed, and being accused of rape is nowhere near as bad as actually being raped.
Have you even seen the video that Rebecca mentions this at? It was nothing and did not deserve the treatment Dawkins gave it. She only said “Guys don’t do this.”
Perhaps I don’t understand because I’m not the type of guy that propositions totally strange women, or even women I only know a little bit.
I am engaged to a wonderful woman. Most of the guys that are backing Rebecca,: PZ, Phil, Josh Rosenau, and others are also in happy relationships, most with children. We have listened to our women folk and understand their plight.
The guys backing Dawkins seem to be those of low self esteem, low social aptitude, and single. Most women backing Dawkins seem to be too young to know better.
This speaks volumes.
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/bringing-even-more-people-to-tam9/ someone over at Skepchick just noticed that someone they invited to TAM is herself “anti-feminist”. Will they begin to purge SK of undesireables? I also very much want to know if Phil will boycott Dawkins. I think it’s important to know just how closely he supports them.
@ ^ Rift : “Most of the guys that are backing Rebecca,: PZ, Phil, Josh Rosenau, and others are also in happy relationships, most with children.”
I’m a single man. FWIW. LOL @ #14206
@1425. Chet : Ms. Watson probably felt uncomfortable because no man has ever asked her out before.
For pity’s sake – she’d just given a talk complaining about being hit on all the time by blokes and you post that?! Really WTF?
@1403. Ollie Says:
At you and those others talking of the ebbull feminist agenda and how the Men’s Rights Activists are going to keep on fighting it : A little more info please :
1. What in particular do you see as evil feminist dogma?
2. How far back would you like to wind back the clock? To the point where women aren’t in the workforce? Tothepoint where a husnband can legally rape his wife? To the point where women don’t get the right to vote? To the point where a woman like a dog becomes the property of the males-fathers then husands who own her?
3. Is it reallya feminist issue that people generally don’t behave like creeps? Does anyone always have the right to hit on someone who has stated they don’t wish to be hit on?
@ David 1477
Oh, by the way David, silly me, but in my last response (@ 1497) I forgot to ask:
If the video that’s being discussed hasn’t been released yet, how is it that so many commenters here are discussing it’s contents?
Were they all in the same hotel in Dublin on the same day?
@ ^ Silent Bob : The video that sparked all this is :
June 20th, 2011
I won’t link it to avoid going into moderation – it’s also available on Youtube. The key section with her ED encounter starts at about the 3 minute 30 second mark.
@1426. Chris Willett :“Do you want to be treated as an equal or as a princess?”
LOL. 😉
Dude, I’m a man.
To answer the actual question there – I believe in treating everybody equally but also in keeping the context / circumstances in mind and showing a bit of empathy for other people. Whether male, female, gay, straight, whatever. As someone who trieds (not always successfully I grant) to be a decent person I try to think about others and not be a selfish jerk.
IOW, I try to be polite and think about other people rather than treating them badly. Or as Phil would put it – I try not to be a dick.
Yes. If the gentleman in question doesn’t know the lady in question and has reason to think she may be uncomfortable then its better to catch the next lift or take the stairs. If a lady gets in the lift with me, then I won’t get out but I wouldn’t ask her back to my room for “coffee” (ie. sex, duh!) either – certainly NOT without some very strong and unnambigiuously clear signals indeed that she is receptive to that. If a girl asks me NOT to hit on her, I won’t.
@1472. dirk :
I’m NOT calling you misognist but the key thing here that you seem to be missing is that earlier that day RW had given a talk about sexism in the athiest community saying “Please, guys do NOT hit on me at these conferences or sexualise me.” Elevator Dude totally ignored that and disrespected her by NOT listening and doing exactly what she’s stressed she didn’t want people don’t. We know from accounts that he was there – he said himself : “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?” His words as quoted BY RW indicate he knew it could be taken the wrong way and seen as inapropriate -and sure enough that happened.
RW explained why breifly and clearly :
That was it those less than a 100 words in one videoblog mostly about something else. Words that, in essence, can be summarised as “don’t be a creep.”
But just look at the reaction its sparked and the meltdown that’s exploded out of it. Wow.
@ Messier Tidy Upper 1503
Messier, you persist in talking through your posterior.
Please see my comment 1335 (and 1497) for why I say this.
A simple demonstration of interest by a man has been construed as a precursor to rape.
Have any of you thought of how humiliating that is for men?
Women who do not understand the male experience are not liberated.
Here’s the talk that launched one thousand, five hundred blog comments here alone! Click on my name for the original source.
@ Messier Tidy Upper 1503
Messier, I know it’s getting confusing here with all these comments, but you have misundestood which video David (presumably) and myself are referring to. It’s not the video about Rebecca’s talk, it’s the video of Rebecca’s talk.
Again, see comment 1335 for clarification.
I think both acted immaturely and this trivial event is being blown out of proportions. She seems to be benefiting with all the new found attention (for a person that didn’t originally didn’t want attention) and I challenge her to outdo Dawkins in the body of works he’s created; that will show who the better person is. As for him, he messed with a person who plays the Gender card, more often than Fox News claims it’s “Fair and balanced”.
OK Lets see this. To me the error appears because , and every one agrees, that both of them are seeing this in a different way. Now we do know that we homo sapiens tend to react more to the perceived threat rather than actual threat. This is direct consequence of our evolutionary past. First we have to remember that most of the time intentions can only be ascertained by words. So we need to ask a question and the answer will determine the intention. Clearer the answer clearer the intent. Now switch to what happened. The confined space (Lift), being alone and history of males normal behaviour towards lone woman implies a high perceived threat from Female perspective. Then asking for Coffee at 4AM to his ROOM was unpardonable. Why not coffee shop. Hence the perceived threat went up quite a notch. Now as in the end every thing went fine one possible conclusion could be that the actual threat was minimal. This is what Dawkins understood. His comparison to an imaginary Muslim women is one indicator.and ihis obtuseness. Clearly both sides are in an emotional state continue to harangue ( I think the debate time is over) and each is holding his/her perspective to be more correct and both do not try to clearly spell out and understand the perspective. So RD she is right in making her perception and intent of woman clear and yes and to confuse the perceived with actual would be wrong in the long run.
I think this is why fundamentalists have such strict rules about where women go, when, with whom, what she can wear, etc. That way, there can be no doubt about whether a particular encounter was a (a) “potential sexual assault”, (b) an actual sexual assault, or (c) an acceptable social contact.
@ ^ 1506. Silent Bob : Okay, yeah, that isnt confusing and unclear.
Not sure where that one is online althougfh apparently it is online somewhere. I do know that it is referenced in her later video that I have now linked for y’all :
Total overreaction by RW. Using this as a platform to further her name and pretend it’s about sexism. Dawkins can be considered foolish for a poor misjudgement of the situaution. However Rebecca should grow up. She is a grown woman, I cannot believe women view men as predators. I had no idea women were so terrified of us talking to them on a one to one basis. I find it incredible throat our species has survived given this new information to me.
More editing time needed. Sigh. TAKE II for clarification, typo fixing and expansion :
***************
@ ^ 1506. Silent Bob : Okay, yeah, it is confusing and unclear. Now I’m with you. Not sure where that one is online although apparently it is online somewhere. I do know that it is referenced in her later video that I have now linked for y’all :
The context there makes it clear that her talk was saying “don’t sexualise me or hit on me” – that she didn’t like it when people did that – and that EG ironically (if that’s the word) just didn’t get it.
@1467. dirk :
Well I hate to be the one to say, but yeah it kinda does at least a little.
From what I understand (& yeah I could be wrong but you’d need to show me strong evidence to convince me otherwise) False rape *accusations* are extremely rare while actual rape is, sadly, all too common.
Honestly, how many signatures do you think you’d get for such a letter if one was put online?
Besides, this just isn’t about that. False rape accusations are a diversion and are NOT relevant here to this specific instance. That’s simply going off-topic.
I doubt EG was worried about false rape accusations or he wouldn’t have propositioned a girl he already knew (or should have known) didn’t want that.
She, OTOH, was worried about the prospect of being raped or just having this creep hit on her in the elevator. We know that because she said so – she said his approach made her “incredibly uncomfortable” and asked guys politely not to do that whilst thanking the many guys who did get her point.
For flips sake : NO! Of course not. Nor do the reverse either.
You look at rape / sexual assualt / sexual harrassment cases same as others – on their specific merits as assessed with the evidence available.
We are supposed to look at the evidence and assess it on the usual grounds.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary and with some eyewitness evidnece in favour of it doesn’t it make sense to say RW’s account is reasonable and should be tentatively accepted until there is good reason to do otherwise?
Burden of proof *legally* is on the prosecution and there is the presumption of innocence. Nobody here is talking about changing that. But this isn’t a legal case. Fortunately for everyone.
In practice, this means that when it comes down to a “he said” versus “she said” instance rapists often fail to be convicted because while the evidence may be strong it isn’t beyond reasonable doubt. Just as OJ Simpson lost a civil case – decided on the balance of probabilities – but got aquitted from murdering his wife and her lover in the big criminal case.
Our legal systems openly states that it lets criminals who are guilty go free rather than convicting those who might be innocent. This means rapists are walking the streets, guilty of rape even charged with rape but in cases we’re their lawyers are better and teh prosecutors lawyers are not good enough. Or where the evidece while powerful just wasn’t strong enough to convict or if it was strong enough the jury didn’t get to hear it. Same applies to murderers too by-the-by.
What’s more court cases tend to be traumatic with rape victims getting the usual Rape Apologists blaming the victimaand trawkling over her sexual history as if taht’s somehow relevant. Her reputation – even if she did nothing wrong – will often get trashed in the process of trying to convict her rapist. Knowing this whole problem (and many others) a lot of rape survivors don’t even bother taking it to court or reporting it to the police in the first place. I’ve seen it suggested that 60% of rapes in fact go unreported.
Which is a pretty scary reality and very harsh on women although I’m not sure how it can be changed.
In this case we have RW relating the story, numerous possibilities and some uncertainties.
Without having good reason to do otherwise I accept RW’s account of what happened. Are you calling her a liar or something and, if so, on what basis?
No.
But some men are evil rapists, a lot more are annoying sexist creeps and all women have had to learn to worry about this.
All RW said was “Guys don’t do this.” Don’t be creeps. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in for some here?
@ Messier Tidy Upper 1508
Messier, you can be a little exasperating at times. Has anyone ever told you that before? 😉
Please do me a favour.
Please read my comment at 1335. That would be the comment I have already referred you to two times previously.
The video you are referring to is not lost in cyberspace somewhere with nobody knowing where it is.
It is linked to right there in my comment number 1335.
Got that? Number 1335.
Please watch it.
While your there you might even read my comment (that would be number 1335).
Then watch the “Robot Eyes” video you keep referring to again.
You will clearly see that the talk I have linked to (that would be in comment 1335) is the very same one referred to in the “Robot Eyes” video.
Not maybe. Not perhaps. Definitely, unmistakably, and without a shadow of a doubt.
You will then note that the talk in question does not include a single, solitary request from Rebecca Watson asking men to stop “hitting on” her.
Then perhaps, you will stop perpetuating the disinformation that Rebecca Watson gave a talk on the very day of “ElevatorGate” asking men to stop hitting on her.
Thanks.
PS. The comment I would like you to read is number 1335.
Let’s make it simple. Agree with Rebrcca 100% or get lost. The position of the leaders of the movement is clear. If you think The Skepchicks have gone too far, you are no longer welcome. If Dawkins is tossed out after what he’s contributed there certainly should be no place for those who have said even worse.
Wow, what a not at all laughably hypocritical position for an ostensible skeptic to take on a controversial issue: “agree with us or GTFO”. That’s fantastic.
If you think Skepchick has gone even a millimeter too far in smearing Dawkins as A RACIST, A DICK, A PIG, and “LOOKING FORWARD TO WATCHING [his] LEGACY CRASH AND BURN”, well then you should just shut up and get lost!
Beautiful.
You know, I wish dogmatic, impetuous fascists like YOU would “get lost” from the skeptic movement. We’d be far better off for it.
@1509. Silent Bob : Okay, thanks I’ve seen your comment #1335 now.
It wasn’t clear before that you were *providing* a link to watch there yourself – in fact I’d thought you were actually *asking* for one. Seems we’ve had (yet another) failure to communicate.
Confusing yes. So many durn comments on here. Yes, this whole debate is exasperating. I’m trying to keep my temper and argue reasonably and I hope and wish for others to do the same.
I would argree that this whole thing has exploded wa-aay out of all semblance of proportion. Indeed that’s a point I’ve made (or tried to make) quite a number of times on this thread already.
@ 1510. Samwise : I’m not saying folks have to agree with Rebecca 100% and I’m NOT telling anyone to get lost if they disagree. (I have asked that people don’t go off topic or derail it into “mens rights” but that’s different & I think reasonable.)
FWIW, I don’t think the BA is either.
Things in the comments on this – not just here but elsewhere too – have certainly got unbeleivably heated and Over-The-Top. There seems to be an awful lot of misunderstanding and a lot of straw-demons and trolls blazing away. (Not saying or meaning timply that that means you personally or naming any names on this.)
Messier Tidy Upper: All RW said was “Guys, don’t do this.” Don’t be creeps. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in for some here?
And how many times does someone have to point out that that was not all she said, but that she explicitly made the elevator incident an example of *misogyny* (i.e. the *hatred* of women), which is exactly and again explicitly what RD referred to with his sarcastic comment?
RW herself did not talk about rape or even being afraid. That is just not the issue, so you can all safely let it go. She said it was slightly creepy. She advised men not to do it. Perfectly fine and reasonable. But then, and this is a separate issue, she said the incident was an example of sexism and misogyny. And that is what RD reacted to: the characterisation of a (by all accounts) harmless incident as representing *hatred* of women. Which use would devalue the term, as he highlighted with his sarcastic comparison with “Muslima”, and he would be loathe to see the term devalued.
Would it be asking too much to actually address this?
@1500 Rift
I did my undergrad at u michigan.
the conventional wisdom is– 9 out of 10 girls are pretty, and the the 10th one goes to U of M.
😉
@dirk 1493
yeah, because we wanna be treated like humans. is that too much to ask?
i happen to think its my human right to not be constantly virtually felt up by creepers like you just because i wanna take quantum chromodynamics. Its dicks like you that make life miserable for high IQ skepchicks in the hard sciences that don’t look like Janet Reno clones, which was THE POINT of Rebecca’s talk that Creeper Elevator Guy had JUST ATTENDED.
Try treating girls like human beings instead of potential sexual targets, and than perhaps we xx can actually classify the nerdboiz as human, instead of as sub-sapient motile penii with ball sacs.
@1513 Peter
no, Dawkins tried to shame Rebecca into shutting up about an issue he decided was trivial. The truth is, women need to trust their instincts, and Creeper Elevator Guy made Rebecca uncomfortable.
Dawkins’ barking islamophobia clouded the issue and failed as a rhetorical device.
A lot of people are going to remember this.
I sure will.
@ 1285. Karen Says:
“For example, I don’t think it would be intellectually honest to make a list of “Crimes Committed By Black People” and then claim that its okay because, hey, not ALL black people have committed those crimes.”
Actually just making such a list would be ok with me, because facts are just facts and a collection of them is just that. From there it depends on the context, you use it in. If you conclude from the list: “… therefore blacks are a menace to society.” I’d answer something along the lines of “You are absolutely right – as well as whites, reds, yellows, name your color. Homo homini lupus. We kinda already knew that, so what’s new pusscat? Can we now go on with our lifes?”
So 1. No attac on the list as such here.
And 2. Also note my veiled, vile and vitriolic polemics by understatement “kinda already knew”? After giving a latin phrase? Pfff …
“And again, it’s not like Dawkins’s attitudes on Islam are news.”
I’ll take your word for it, as to me Dawkins is just one of many names I know and one of the people I’v read a bit of their work.
Of course thenever one uses examples in order to make a point, one’s personal history tends to show through, i.e. will more likely use examples from a field you are familiar with – that is familiarity not necessarily objectivity.
“and at one point using material produced by Bakke Graduate University to illustrate the potential spread of Islam’s “unmitigated evil””
Just to myself hammer home the “data is data”-point: I’d us data from fundamentalists, commis, nazis, the devil himself as long as I can reasonably assume that the data is good data.
“No, its a bad argument in the syllogistic sense, too.”
Let my try to state more clearly where exactly I see syllogistic value. As he later explained he wanted to demonstrate, that it is a zero-evil thing to him. Now I don’t agree on the exactly zero quantification, but in principle the following is a worthwhile syllogism: Let’s assume that there is a one dimensional scale from zero to very bad on which you can put (potentially) evil things. As such one thing on that scale is only one point of data, at best you can tell if it’s zero or not. Now if you want to make the point that this one thing is practically zero, that it pales in badness compared to over things which are real and therefore deserve our attention, you are well advised to populate that scale with things wich in comparision are in deed very, very bad. It also is preferable that theses are things are so evil, that everybody agrees to their enormous evilness. That’s just for economic reason of advancing the discussion quickly: If you’d use examples those evilness could be doubted at first (even if you can finally prove it), you’d first had to argue that point. The more you established that the scale of bad is well populated at the very high end, the closer (relatively!) to zero your little-bad-thing is. So formally I think this is way to argue is ok as far as it goes. Less formally, it’s called putting things into perspective.
“FGM is a sociocultural problem.”
The point hee isdt that FGM is not the point at all. It doesn’t matter what it is as long as it is agred upon bad and real.
Sorry, have to stop now. Maybe more later.
Rift @1500
“The guys backing Dawkins seem to be those of low self esteem, low social aptitude, and single. Most women backing Dawkins seem to be too young to know better.
This speaks volumes.”
I love this. This blind assertion is quality I tell ya.
I’m 43 and if you described me as having low self esteem or having low social aptitude around here, you’d be laughed out of town. My 38yo abuse survivor wife would tell you to do some homework before making ridiculous claims like this. Your sloppy thinking speaks volumes. Why so desperate for an easy out? Looking for a neat little box to put us in so that you can justify ignoring our view.
shams: Dawkins tried to shame Rebecca into shutting up about an issue he decided was trivial.
Which, as it is contrary to the evidence of a sarcastic example explicitly about misogyny, is so far nothing more than a prejudiced personal interpretation of what RD said. I mean, you do understand that sarcasm involves saying something that you do not take to be literally true, don’t you? Your interpretation, though, depends on a literal reading.
The truth is, women need to trust their instincts, and Creeper Elevator Guy made Rebecca uncomfortable.
It is certainly true that EG made RW unconfortable. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny, as RD’s example was designed to show.
I’m sorry, one moment please.
Hitting on a woman in anything other than a brightly-lit and heavily populated lobby is now misogyny? -Any man- who enters a lift is not just potentially, but -so likely- to be a rapist that any woman must immediately put one hand on her pepper spray? Has it occurred to anyone that the gent in question was a bit tipsy, or genuinely shy? Of course not, that would imply that he’s something other than a monstrous predator, just waiting for an opportunity to rape and abuse any woman within reach.
The double-standards and misandry on display both here, and everywhere else this is discussed(or rather, was discussed, because apparently dissenting views are no longer welcomed on blaghag, pharyngula, and elsewhere) is truly astonishing.
I hesitate to use the term “feminists” in a blanket fashion, but for this it will suffice; feminists love to -talk- about challenging preconceptions, about battling stereotypes, but their actions tell a different story; when a stereotype is regarding how terrible men are, that is fine. When a preconception is based on ignorance, but the target is a man, that is fine. If a man gropes a woman in a social setting, she should(rightly so) be indignant and call it harassment, yet is the reverse occurs, and a woman gropes a man, you will -never- see a (generalised for simplicity)feminist support a man’s right to claim the same, to feel uncomfortable and harassed. Instead, you will find vague mumblings about “asserting womanly power” or how men enjoy it.
Frankly, it’s not Richard Dawkins who’s out of touch, it’s you lot.
The misogyny comes in when she is punished for speaking up and reasserting boundaries that she has an absolute right to set. The comments to a simple request for men to try to avoid acting in ways that are “creepy” (in this case, ignoring clear boundaries, and doing so where there is nowhere to escape to) do show a deep and pervasive misogyny in the community.
I’ve never thought of myself as a feminist at all (in fact, most of the women who I’ve known to call themselves feminists have irritated the crap out of me), but the idea that claiming the right to assert boundaries regarding her own sexuality and body makes a woman a “feminazi” is disturbing as hell.
If you don’t want more women in the skeptic community, then I guess there isn’t a problem…but if you do, then don’t shoot the messenger.
@Pteryxx 1422:
Please provide the evidence Elevator Guy said Rebecca was attractive. You are confusing “interesting” with “attractive.” That is just part of the problem. You keep repeating it over and over, as if that somehow adds legitimacy to the false claim, and base a lot of your venom on it.
There is no evidence Elevator Guy was hitting on her — that is YOUR sexualized interpretation, not what the evidence itself shows. I certainly hope you aren’t in a field where discernment is a requirement.
Suggesting that “Rebecca might have touched him, stared at him, or welcomed him somehow” is NOT accusing her of lying — you are terribly confused about what the word “lying” means. It could be she forgot that she did it, as it may have meant nothing to her. It may be that in fatigue (remember, this is at 4am after hours in a bar) she simply forgot. It isn’t lying to accidentally leave out what you feel are meaningless details. Again, YOU are jumping to a false conclusion and then running with it.
I’ve been to lots of conferences (including most of the TAM meetings in Vegas), with lots of after hours gatherings. I have frequently suggested going for coffee or pie (I’m not much of a drinker) afterwards if there’s been a person I wanted to speak with individually. I guess since I’m not in the habit of sexualizing every situation, I came to a different natural conclusion. Your conclusion (and Rebecca’s) speaks poorly about you.
Just because YOU feel that every spoken word by a man is a come on, doesn’t make it so.
These posts demonstrate that far too many vocal people desperately want to live lives as potential victims, viewing the world from abject fear, taking every chance to interpret actions with their worst possible interpretation. What a sad way to live. Read my post @1391.
Oh, and the “mythcommunication” article you referenced just gave example after example of women who purposely gave mixed signals. (i.e. “I’d love to, but I can’t right now.”) It does not present women in a very good light, which is why I disagree with it. I do not believe women are the weak victims the study plainly states — “‘No’ is hard, and it’s particularly hard for women” — rubbish, and demeaning to women.
@Keith Bowden 1483.
If Rebecca had not done her flaming histrionic thread attacking Dawkins, I am pretty sure we would not be posting now.
You are also mischaracterizing the Dawkins post as an “attack” — his post did not mention her, link to her video/blog, etc. He made his satirical post to put someone’s feelings of a non-event into the perspective of real events.
I would say PZ and his sychophants ignited this flamewar throughout the internet. Phil then jumped on the bandwagon with an incredibly stupid comment — “potential sexual assault” — and poured gas on it. They demonstrate they are unable to have a skeptical, intelligent discussion on the topic without letting their emotions overrule their intellect.
Thank you Silent Bob for your post of 1335 where you gave the link to the video of Rebecca’s talk — where she clearly did not say the things she claims she said.
Pteryxx, I suppose THAT is where someone could conclude Rebecca is a liar, as she repeatedly makes claims that are contradicted by the facts. Above all people, she should know what she said in her talk. (As an aside, if she can’t even get her own words right, she is completely untrustworthy in regards to what someone else said.)
I notice that NO ONE has decided to discuss the video of her actual talk (aside from Silent Bob) which clearly show Rebecca has not been telling the truth about it all along (Messier Tidy Upper, why no comment about the video?). That alone is very telling. So hard to throttle back the vitriol once you’ve made a complete [fill in the blank with a self-deprecating term] of yourself on the Internet.
Here’s a really good suggestion to those who jumped on Rebecca’s bandwagon (which includes Phil and PZ): go to my post @1399 and read the last two sentences as a guide for what you can do at this point. Read them, and post them. I’ll quote it for you:
“I’m sorry. I was wrong.”
Can I provide a charitable interpretation of Dawkins here, without being an apologist for him?
While I agree that Dawkins’ statements shows he has a fairly poor understanding of how women experience the world — even in the West, I think those who are justifiably outraged should potentially try and see that Dawkins’ heart is probably in the right place.
His comments shows how outraged he is by the misogynist treatment of women in fundamentalist religions. Most people have who have followed him, have even seen him get emotional about it. In that context, is it not possible that Dawkins is blinded by his own good intentions?
I’ve seen this same sort of mentality play out by many. An activist against anti-semitism may come to see hatred towards Jews as of paramount concern — and show little interest in other forms of discrimination. An animal rights activist sees and feels most strongly against animal suffering — a hurt cat tugs at their heartstrings more than a suffering human.
I’m not trying to disparage any of this. But it’s typical of human beings to become selective in this way. It’s a limit of the mind. Like a Dunbar Number for moral cause.
In this sense, Dawkins has merely fallen victim to what most of us do when we become passionate about something: we prioritize, compare, and contrast.
@Peter Beattie 1518: Wrong.
Rebecca may have felt uncomfortable, but Elevator Guy wasn’t the cause. If Rebecca has claustrophobia, it wouldn’t be the elevator’s fault. This is yet another example of blame being automatically put onto Elevator Guy, starting for being a guy, which is sexist.
Agreed with Richard Dawkins 100%
It was out of line for Rebecca to characterize an innocent advance on a poorly chosen woman at a poorly chosen time with hatred of women. RD’s criticism was harsh but necessary. Save the drama for something worthy of such a reaction and stop being so quick to demonize men.
@ 1285. Karen Says:
Sory for the fast shutdown in my last post. Here is the New! Improved! Version. Now with 50% less fat and errors in spelling!*”
“FGM is a sociocultural problem.”
What FGM is doesn’t matter at all for the syllogism I see. for this it’s sufficient that it is a bad thing. Additionally it as a women rights issue. So it shows that even if you concentrate only as women rights issue the syllogism still works.
“It adds “more heat than light” as the saying goes.”
Considering the heat we see here, this may very well be the case.
“you probably do more harm than good.”
Again: This may very well be the case.
“Good intentions …”
Good intentions are not good deeds, sure. However in my view with Dawkins it’s a bit more than solely good intentions (which we may assume): There actually is a syllogism there. (I’m not claiming here that good intentions plus a syllogism automa6ticall make good deeds, just setting the record as I see it)
* Percentages are artists impressions and not actually guaranteed to be accurate.
As Silent Bob’s link at 1335 shows, RW never said at the panel that she did not want to be hit on by guys at the conference. In fact, in her recent response, she even wrote:
“And I got messages from women who told me about how they had trouble attending pub gatherings and other events because they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men. They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. ”
So some women mind getting hit on at conferences and some don’t, some do at some times and don’t at others, some think they have communicated that they don’t appreciate it when in fact they have not.
The elevator incident was clearly a non-incident, which was exactly RD’s point. Feminists, male and female, please misdirect your rage elsewhere.
@ 1466. Daniel Neville Says:
“And that is supposed to like, not creep her out immensely?”
That’s supposed to be a start. There is not guarantee and I’m open for suggestions.
Inside the law and outside of agreed upon rules of professional conduct say between MD/patient things start at the level of anything goes. If you want (more) rules of conduct, I’m not against them in principle, however I’d like to talk them over first.
Also I prefer to attack the possible problem of dependency of the employee on the employer from another angle, more like this
It is we who wash dishes, scrub the floors and clean the dirt,
Feed the kids and send them off to school – and then we go to work,
Where we work for half men’s wages for a boss who likes to flirt.
But the union makes us strong!
http://deu.anarchopedia.org/Solidarity_Forever
“When you’re being pursued by the police robots of THX-1138, do you believe them when they say “Do not be afraid. We are here to help you”?”
Watching a movie often comes close to being a deist god of the fictional universe: You are extremely well informed, but will not influence a thing. As I don’t believe to be a deist god of the actual universe, I don’t quite know, what your example wants to tell me.
@ 1534 dirk
“So some women mind … and some don’t, some do at some times and don’t at others, some …”
Little has changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEh6L-dZVvo
So without asking individually how are we supposed to advance in knowledge?
The best answer for a female is to be a lady in all circumstances.
@Thorsten: “So without asking individually how are we supposed to advance in knowledge?”
In the case of Rebecca, you could listen to her, when she spelled out loud and clear for everyone in earshot whether she minded or not.
–
So in that vein, unless you are in a pick up bar or a brothel, do not approach a total stranger and in 30 seconds or less ask them to have sex with you.
Solution: more legal brothels.
There. I fixed the world again. You’re welcome.
@ 1539 Andy Beaton
“In the case of Rebecca, you could listen to her, when she spelled out loud and clear for everyone in earshot whether she minded or not.”
How clear this was especially whether it was clear for the elevator dude before he asked is however in doubt (see e.g. # 1529). Judging form what he did after he had the declining answer, i.e. nothing i.e. not pressing the issue i.e. not asking again, is it unreasonable to assume, that he didn’t get it?
@ 1518 Messier Tidy Upper
“There seems to be an awful lot of misunderstanding …”
Which is why it is often a good idea from the outset to cut guys and gals some slack.
@1524
look, im not the only one that was shocked. Dawkins made an ass of himself.
and then he tried to walk it back.
and now the Dawkins apologists are trying to walk it back further.
next time he needs to remember his sarc tag.
he SOUNDED like an Angry White Male in the throes of senile dementia.
For all the suggestions that EG had missed the point of the RW talk which he had just left, please review the following from Phil’s article:
“After her talk and a late evening of socializing with attendees at the bar, she got on an elevator to go to her room.”
She finished her talk, she stayed up in the bar chatting with people until 4AM, and then she got into the elevator. How late do conference talks run? Past midnight?
FWIW, it makes perfect sense for someone visiting Dublin from North America to stay up to that hour. They’re all jetlagged.
lol disgusting beta males whose only experience with women are encounters with broken hags that have caustic personalities and who view everything in the entire universe as an assault on the womanhood. face it, this girl was too ugly to be raped. the guy was probably a socially awkward nerd who hadn’t the slightest idea of how to approach women to show romantic interest and came across as a “creep.” it’s funny and fitting that the only male interest these “feminist” hags can ever attract are social maladroits
I get it.
When I am walking on a sidewalk in NYC late at night and just by coincidence I find myself walking behind a woman who is alone I will speed up my pace and pass by her at a wide berth. I do this because it occurs to me that as a woman it may be unsettling (even terrifying in some cases) to have an unidentified man walking behind you alone at night.
I don’t know why I think this way. I don’t know why it occurs to me. It just does.
To recap why we’re all here: A man with unknown intentions transgressed a clearly spoken boundary. The fact that he prefaced his proposition with ‘Don’t take this the wrong way’ shows that he knew he was on shaky ground. Watson responded to this with a very mildly delivered corrective: “Guys, don’t do that.”
The fact that many people then pounced on her, for something as basic as standing up for herself, is indicative of a problem. She told her own story. The number of people then willing to deny her experience, or ‘reinterpret’ it for her, is shocking to me. And apparently this was also troubling to Phil, inspiring him to write this blog entry.
In any given situation, you don’t have to feel the same emotions as another person, in order to respect the fact that their emotions matter. And the possibility that their experience, precisely because it differs from yours, can tell you something useful about the human social world and your place in it.
Just to answer the people who wondered how on earth a poor man can EVER speak to a woman if propositioning her for a late night screw in a confined space is creepy, here’s a cluebat:
If he’d asked her to have coffee with him IN THE HOTEL BAR (neutral, public space, complete with witnesses), that would have been far less creepy. If he’d asked her to coffee at some future date, also in a public place, okay. It was the asking her to his ROOM (his space, not public, no witnesses) that makes it feel like who knows what he’s got in mind.
C’mon people, this should be obvious.
It occurs to me that maybe some of these guys accusing us of “demonizing all men” don’t realize that getting grabbed in the crotch or the breast or the butt, or being called a “bitch” for not accepting an “invitation to coffee” by random guys just walking down the street or in your place of employment or in school or in a bar is a common experience.
Not to mention that just being too nice and not re-asserting boundaries when they are transgressed is seen as an invitation to stalk and harass you.
So when a man ignores personal boundaries, and a woman says that is “creepy”, it sounds judgmental to them, rather than an actual valid recognition that those sorts of behaviors usually presage an attack of some kind.
When a guy violates personal or professional boundaries, you HAVE to tell them they’ve done it. You’re not being “whiny” or “hysterical” or “sexist”. If they ignore these boundaries, and you try to be nice about it, you could be encouraging a potential stalker or rapist. You just have to be blunt. “Guys, don’t do that” is a good response. Any nicer or more ambiguous than that, and they might not get it.
Most men understand personal and professional boundaries. There’s the occasional guy who doesn’t understand them, but does after they are explained. We’re cool with you guys. Really.
But if you really honestly incapable of understanding personal and professional boundaries, even after they are explained to you, and you get angry at the people who want you to follow them, get professional help. You need to figure this out. It’s a basic social skill. You probably violate other men’s personal boundaries too, like coming over and drinking all their beer and never chipping in, or inviting yourself to go along on a romantic walk that your buddy had planned with his girlfriend, or maybe your friend’s wife said you can’t come over anymore because it creeps her out that when you visit you spend most of the time hanging out with their kids and playing video games rather than talking to people your own age, or whatever…
…if it really IS innocent cluelessness there’s a cure for that and it isn’t calling the person with the personal boundaries names.
Oh for crying out…!
You know I have long feared that the atheist movement, especially in its feminist incarnation, is a dead-duck-walking. Now it’s been proved.
Did we see this sort of an outcry when the law against honor-killings was struck down in the UK? Did we see it when Theo van Gogh was killed? Did we see it when Ayaan Hirsi Ali was driven to exile? Did we see it when Shariah courts were introduced?
Of course we didn’t. But we do see it over this total non-issue.
We’re doomed. We are officially doomed. If the defense of scientific, rational civilization is in the hands of this lot, we may as well quit now.
Now, excuse me, I am off to fill out my Jesuit application form.
Asking women for a cup of coffee in a elevator is potential sex assault? I shall refrain from doing that then. And I suppose I shall refrain from asking a women out in a car, bus, small room…
Hugo,
The reason we didn’t see this sort of outrage against against the anti-honor killings law being struck down is because everyone in the community agrees that honor killings are bad.
If Rebecca Watson had been talking about honor killings, and Dawkins had said “Oh Christ, you’re mad about THAT? Please, what about …the bruhahah would likely have been much bigger.
No, what we have here is a controversy because people disagree that women have a right to speak up when they are made to feel unsafe.
Or take for instance the FGM thing. Recently, a female blogger did a post about FGM, and she was attacked by a bunch of male skeptics screaming about how she was sexist because circumcision is JUST AS BAD, and she didn’t throw men a bone in her post.
And now we have this, where REbecca Watson talks about a very real issue for many women, and men come along and say “Silly lady, you’re being a sexist for being creeped out when a man acts like a potential rapist in an elevator, and anyway, why should you be creeped out just because a man displays complete disrespect for you and disregard for your wants and needs, and follows you to an isolated place to do it? There are women with REAL problems out there.”
If this guy had acted like someone who understood and respected the rules for basic decency towards his fellow humans, there wouldn’t be an issue. If Dawkins had acted like someone who understood and respected the rules for basic decency for his fellow humans, there wouldn’t be an issue. If a huge segment of the skeptical community had not piled on and called real problems and issues “non-issues” there wouldn’t be a problem.
There also would not be a problem if women just ignored the warning signs and evidence that certain behaviors (ignoring/violating clear boundaries/ social cues/norms to see if she’ll stand up for herself) are signs that a guy might be grooming them for a sexual attack, didn’t stand up for themselves, didn’t ask to be treated with the same basic consideration that guys reserve for their male counterparts, and just quietly left the skeptical community.
Just so you know, lots of women who are skeptics are here because they are skeptics…NOT because they think it would be groovy to sleep with skeptics. So treating them as sexual targets whenever they should either going to get them to stand up for themselves and say “guys don’t do that”…OR it will get them to quietly leave and all you boys can play with yourselves.
If they say “guys, don’t do that” and you pile on them and call them “whiny” “hysterical” “over-reactive” “bitchy”… and say their objections are “non-issues”…
…You’ll probably fit in very well with the Jesuits.
I’m a woman, I consider myself quite feminist but I think this Rebecca is a paranoid. The guy found the woman interesting and maybe he found that the lift was a good place to talk to her since nobody else was there. Maybe he was being concerned with privacy and found it better to make a proposition in the lift than among other people. Even if the reason he approached her was only sexual desire. It’s natural to feel attracted by other people and if people cannot be spontaneous, the future of human relationships will be only dating sites. He asked for a coffee, he was discreet and polite. If she isn’t interested she can simply say no and it’s over. Maybe other women would find it exciting to meet someone in a lift and have a sex date. Most times when unknown men flirt me in public places I’m not interested and say no, I normally think that the guy must be a little stupid to be trying to approach me this way, but I never feel harassed. I agree with Dawkins that it’s easy to leave a lift and I think that nowadays all lifts have cameras to control what is happening inside them.
Fry 1550,
No…ignoring clear signs and statements that a woman doesn’t want to get hit on, following her into the elevator and hitting on her means that if she has had ANY training in personal safety at all…or even watches the news or talks to girlfriends that have been raped, she knows that she has to now treat you like a potential rapist because there’s a chance that you could be one.
Most rapist don’t jump out of the bushes. That is too dangerous for them, and too much work and risk. It is easier to start slow by violating the boundaries of good taste and gauge how the woman reacts, gradually ramping up the level of transgressions until you know whether or not this woman is an easy target, or if a better opportunity arises.
So a guy who talks to you or even hits on you is not the problem. A guy who KNOWS that you are not receptive (because you just said so) and ignores the fact that you are not receptive, follows you to the elevator and propositions you for immediate sex (pressure situation) IS a potential problem.
This guy could probably have made himself a LOT less threatening by introducing himself BEFORE they got in the elevator, and by making the proposition for coffee at a later date n(when it could actually be interpreted as being an invitation for coffee)
If you don’t want to be seen as a potential problem, you might want to know that you are acting like one, so you might appreciate a woman saying “guys, don’t do that.”
@1550
Did we see this sort of an outcry when the law against honor-killings was struck down in the UK? Did we see it when Theo van Gogh was killed? Did we see it when Ayaan Hirsi Ali was driven to exile? Did we see it when Shariah courts were introduced?
lol, nope.
Because its not our bidness, and we cant do a damn thing about it anyways.
Do you know why Dawkins is in pantswetting fear of Islam?
Because America just spent 8 years, five thousand soldier lives, and 4 trillion dollars to build one tiny church in Kirkuk. the number of xians in Iraq is down to 400k, and the number of muslims in Iraq is the same as it was pre-invasion. Dawkins remembers what an uninvadable CSS is.
He just wont talk about evo bio and evo theory of religion and how it applies to the Epic Fail of the Manifest Destiny of Judeoxian Democracy in MENA.
Eva,
The guy found Rebecca interesting…Rebecca did not find the guy interesting. He clearly knew that he was overstepping boundaries because he said “Don’t take this the wrong way…”
She could say “no”…but she’d already made it clear that she wasn’t there to get laid and wasn’t interested in being propositioned for sex. He WASN’T polite, because he ignored clear signals that his advances were unwanted…and pursued her anyway.
It’s natural to feel attraction to other people, and it is natural to want to flirt, and yes, maybe some women would enjoy that interaction…but he was not in the elevator with “some woman”. He was in the elevator with a specific woman who had made it clear she did not want that type of interaction, and he attempted it anyway.
In other words, he showed clear signs that what HE wanted Rebecca to do was much more important to him than what SHE wanted to do.
At that point, she is no longer a person, but an object to be acquired. Which is damned creepy and saying so isn’t an over-reaction.
Teresa,
But not too bad. Not bad enough to protest about it. Not bad enough to complain when a law to help combat this monstrosity is struck down for being ‘too controversial’. Not so bad that one need actually do something.
Watson being offered coffee is another matter, obviously. That’s why everyone is so ticked – because he has hit the nail on the head. It does you lot no good to protest that, of course you’re against FGM and Islamic misogyny in some abstract, theoretical manner. It’s what you do that counts. And it is quite clear by the reactions of what you do and do not protest that you rate the offer of coffee to one of your own as a rather more grievous offense.
I understand why Professor Dawkins is so ticked with this. He works alongside the bravest, and most determined radicals in the struggle against the worst sort of oppression and then this is treated as some sort of world-shaking crisis.
It’s pathetic. As I said, if we have to rely on this to defend civilization from clerical barbarism, we’re stuffed and will be better off debating which clerical faction will give us a better deal in power.
Final thought: Everyone here has convinced whoever this guy is was a probable rapist. It’s interesting that this is concluded solely on the line ““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?” which convicts him of nothing more than poor social skills and an obsessive personality (and, gee – might those traits appear at a geek convention?). If you really think this, then why don’t you take it to the police?
Also, not all cameras in elevators work, and not all are monitored.
@1542. Thorsten :
Agreed. I try to do that – and have been trying to here.
@1550. Hugo Schmidt :
I would’ve considered this a non-issue too -and yet clearly its hit a lot of nerves and caused a lot of ruckus. I am amazed and appalled by the whole (over-)reaction by so many to something I consider a quite simple piece of advice on basic manners regarding showing respect for others.
But here’s the thing – giving this sorry episode attention does NOT mean we ignore other issues. It is possible to both criticise Islamic oppression of women and also simultaneously criticise sexism in the atheist community too.
Saying we must only focus on one set of problems and ignore all others is a logical fallacy. I am baffled why someone as smart as Dawkin’s committed that fallacy and attacked someone so harshly when he was sitting next to her on the panel. Dawkins knew RW gets death threats and rape threats and emails that sexualise her in a way she hates. I sure he gets plenty of his own death threats – probably few if any rape threats or sexual emailed fantasies in his case. Why did Dawkins then launch such a scathing, contemptous attack on Rebecca Watson? Wish I knew.
Yes, we all have our problems in life.
Muslim women have FGM, honour killings, the burka and so much much more. Their lives are made incredbilby bad and often are cut short brutally. Yes we should act to change this. I’d love to see a de-islamicised world myself.
Western wormen get sexism, sexual harrassment, rape threats and unwanted sexual advances ina culture that does cause them some seriosu problems and issues.
Rebecca Watson gets atheist fans hitting on her and sexualising her. These cause her problems and make her life worse. She isn’t alone in this. Feminists do struggle to get a fair hearing and when a powerful leading figure in the athiest movement jumps in with hob-nailed boots to try and shut her up using a non-sequiteur about other worse problems other people have – that’s just wrong. Logically, ethically and socially.
The EG incident has been done to death – covered from all possible angles by now really. I agree entirely with what (#1554.) Teresa has just posted above.
Which will help things how?
We’re not yet doomed. There are major problems that this has both exposed and exacerbated. This has hurt the atheist movement and hurt both Rebecca Watson and Richard Dawkins. It’s a really unfortunate episode. But it is just an episode. It’s not exactly a non-issue but its hardly a death blow either.
This “rebeccapocalpyse” (a hyperbolic term for an over-hyped tale of woe) will hopefully mostly blow over with time although, yes, it has damaged some reputations and created rifts that will cause problems until they are healed. Perhaps it will be resolved – Dawkins will apologise and will talk things through rationally with the Skepchicks and we’ll all have learnt. Perhaps Elevator Guy will come forward, get outed – or just possibly be arrested – and we’ll learn more on his perspective and nature. I don’t know. If nothing else its certainly raised a few issues and got some people shaken up and thinking of things they wouldn’t have given a passing thought about before.
Messier,
You write well and clearly, so I will do my best to equal that.
In theory, certainly. In practice, however…. This was the first I’d really heard of this nonentity. When it comes to really fighting the Islamic oppression of women, the “skepchicks” have been worthless. Who defends Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Or Phyllis Chesler? Or Wafa Sultan? It’s almost invariably some part of the political right, and often the religious right. When Sam Harris launched the AHA security fund, it was Pastor Rick Warren who immediately signed on – in great contrast to, say, the whole bloody, wretched, worthless Scienceblogs crew.
This isn’t about theory, it’s about practice. It isn’t about what people might be able to do, it’s about what they actually do. I am convinced that any movement that manages to issue only the most cursory complaints about Islamic misogyny but goes to full-out hysteria over this drivel will be useless when it comes to a real threat.
I wish I was wrong about this. I really do. But I have been surveying the scene for a long, long time and it has always been the same. With the exception of the atheist elite – Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc. – the atheist movement simply lacks the principles and the passion to be any good in a real fight.
I despair.
…And this place is SITLL overrun with the guys listening to the made-up stories in their heads in preference to the very clear explanations being given to them by women. Cripes.
WRT the anti-honor killing law being struck down in the UK — go f*** yersel’ Hugo, some of us WERE out there sharing our outrage with our MPs. Didn’t bother sharing it with you because you were not the people who could make a difference. Unlike, say, now.
Hugo,
Controversy comes from disagreement. Are you seriously implying that in order for people to show they care, they have to argue about something that everyone agrees on? The reason people are arguing is because they disagree. I don’t understand why you would want people to argue over something they all agree on to show that they care???
Second, everyone does NOT think that they guy is a PROBABLE rapist…only that he put Rebecca in a position where she had to assess whether or not he was a real threat because he clearly didn’t respect boundaries, or her wishes, and illustrated that by saying “don’t take this the wrong way (in other words, “I know this looks creepy, but I’m going to do it anyway because I don’t really care if I creep you out…I just want to get laid too much to let that stop me.”) In other words, he was acting like a potential rapist. Does that make him a rapist? No…but pointing out that he was giving off rapist signals is different than accusing him of rape. It’s giving him helpful information that could be useful.
People then went on to say “Hey Rebecca, it’s sexist and wrong for you to be creeped out”.
Other people said “No, it’s not wrong, because that’s what they teach you look for if you don’t want to be raped, and it is creepy and guys should probably not do it”
Then a bunch of guys said “If we don’t act creepy we can’t get laid!!! You hate us all!!!”
Yes, the guy was probably displaying poor social skills and an obsessive personality, which are geek traits…you know what are ALSO geek traits? The ABILITY TO LEARN FROM MISTAKES, and an ability to be open to other perspectives and exercise theory of mind to see a situation from an alien perspective.
I’m a geek chick, I go to conventions regularly. Most of my friends are geek men. Guess what? Most of them understand why Elevator guy was wrong, and why Rebecca was justified in being creeped out and calling out such behavior as creepy. Also, most of them are either married, or get laid a lot at geek conventions and have never been accused of being creepy or accused to rape. Why? Because they learned how to talk to women without being creepy.
It is a mistake to hit on a woman who has made it clear that she does not want to be hit on, and to do it in ways that make it hard to tell you apart from a rapist. It is also a mistake, when she tries to educate you about it, to act like she’s completely out of line. It is also a mistake to persist in failed behavior and get mad at people for following basic personal safety guidelines like voicing their personal boundaries.
Nice way to skip over my points entirely. You don’t, say, show where there was any kind of similar movement in the skepchick scene against Islamic misogyny – because no such movement exists. You cannot prove that the skepchicks will be able to stand up against a real threat – because no such evidence exists.
Now in order to try to salve many well-earned senses of inferiority, everyone is lining up to spit poison at Richard Dawkins, who has done more for science and skepticism and atheism than most of us could ever dream of doing. Cute. Nice work. Hope you’re happy.
I fail to see how the fact that there are even worse losers amongst the male skeptics argues against my point. If anything, it underlines it.
We’re doomed.
So, in other words, you want her to shut up about how a situation made her uncomfortable, because there are So Many More Important Things To Worry About. And when she dares to speak up for *herself* she gets the whole “ugly, paranoid bitch trying to compensate for her inferiority” treatment from various people.
…And then people wonder why there aren’t more women joining in the atheist/skeptic movement. Way to prove our point, dude.
@1529. gr8hands : Messier Tidy Upper, why no comment about the video?
Real Life. I’ve had to work and had family committments. Please be patient. I’ve seen the video and I will be responding on that.
@1560. Hugo Schmidt : Messier, You write well and clearly, so I will do my best to equal that
Thankyou.
I do see what you are saying there & to a certian extent I agree with it.
But only to a certain extent.
Please note that just because you don’t hear of something doesn’t mean its not happening.
I’m pretty sure that RW has, for instance, attacked Female Genital Mutilation by Muslims and Arab cltures – and even been criticsed for doing so with men apparently saying she should attack circumcision for men instead. As if removing the foreskin is as bad as some of truly horrific mutilations the Muslims do which leave women without any sex drive and often in enormous lifelong pain or so I gather. Removing the foreskin is one thing, removing the clitoris along with much of the vagina often done by poorly trained people with unsterilised *very* dodgy amateur equipment is very different.
(EDIT : As I just see has already been raised. Oops. Oh well.)
I also agree with what Teresa has just posted at # 1562. (July 11th, 2011 at 8:48 am in case of changing comment numbers confusion.)
There is a valid case to be argued that atheists should speak out more against Islam and misognist Islamic practices.
That doesn’t mean that we should ignore or attack RW raising the different set of issues related to how the atheist movement treats its own female members and wider issues of sexism in society and the negative effects of sexism and misogny on our society generally. Or just that we adopt some basic manners and standards like, well, not propositioning women in elevators at 4 am.
@1563. Hugo Schmidt :
I’m not “spitting poison “at Dawkins. I think he’s wrong and I’m very disappointed in him. I think he should’ve known much better. But “spitting poison” at him? No.
One last time, for the benefit of the comprehension-impaired:
Rebecca is entitled to feel whatever she wants to. What I am saying, however, is why the hell is the community so mobilized when it is so completely somnolent about real threats? And if it is only capable of rousing itself for non-issues, what good is it? What’s the bloody point of it?
Relevant… unfortunately.
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/get-a-lawyer-before-courting-34-precautions-before-risking-sex-with-a-woman/
Messier,
It’s just eaten my comment. I will rewrite it in time.
In fact, I was just at CONvergence, and here’s another thing that someone might say “guys, please don’t do that”.
I was waiting in line for the Masquerade when a guy that I have worked with on a couple of theater projects saw me. He smiled and waved, and left the line and moved back down the line to stand with me.
I thought this was odd, because in all the time I’ve known him (two years), he’s never spoken to me unless he absolutely had to. In fact, he won’t make eye contact, and will leave a conversation as soon as I join it. It was explained to me by more than one person that it is because I’m a married woman 10 years older than him, and thus “useless” in his mind (in other words, not a likely sexual target). I’m not a person to him, and not a sexual object, so any interactions with me are a waste of time.
But here he was giving up a better place in line, making eye contact, and moving back in the line to talk to me with a big welcoming smile on his face. We chatted amicably for a while (about him and his big-shot plans and projects), and when we got into the ballroom and were seated, he immediately began chatting up the (very) young lady I had been standing in line with, and ignored me like he always does.
Ah. He had used me to gain access to her, thinking that she and I were friends.
I discretely informed the young lady of his creepy behavior as we left the ballroom, and that he and I were not friends, and that he had simply turned on the charm with me so that he could get a chance to hit on her.
Was this “sexist” of me? Richard Dawkins would seem to think so. If I could prevent a genital mutilation, I should certainly do so in his view, but to prevent a young woman from being treated as a sexual object and manipulated into giving someone the benefit of the doubt on false pretenses? He would no doubt think that was a “hysterical” reaction as well. But the young lady I was with didn’t seem to think so.
I think a lady should know when a guy uses women as objects rather than relating to them as people with independent and individual needs.
Is he a rapist? probably not. He’s probably just an awkward guy who doesn’t know how to talk to women effectively… but he certainly objectifies women and doesn’t see them as people…but as targets to be manipulated and used. Which should set off anyone’s warning bells. His attitude towards women and his ability to use people without remorse makes it difficult to distinguish him from someone who is capable of rape.
More importantly, if he understands theory of mind enough to know that being seen chatting in a friendly manner with someone she knows will make a woman view him more favorably, and can manipulate a social situation like that to his advantage…he is probably CAPABLE of learning how to talk to women without being creepy. He just doesn’t see the point. In other words, he sees such things as “non-issues”.
One more time then – hope it’s not eaten.
Messier,
Elevator guy obviously has poor social skills and a lack of a sense of what is appropriate or not. That’s all he’s convicted of – in fact, it reminds me a lot of Harlan Ellison who described his fans following him to the bathroom and the urinal. Fans are… obsessive. So, to take the original comment by RW, I had no complaints about it – this chap obviously needed a little guidance.
But that is not where it stayed. No one elevator guy became a symbol of the Entrenched Sexism of the Atheist Movement, and The Amazing Meeting, oh-so-innocent-at-first-glance is actually a Festering Den of Potential Rapists (come to think of it, I’ve had my share of male attention there – but I digress). Following this circus, Richard Dawkins made a sharp, apposite point. And out came the cyber-pitchforks.
Cyber-pitchforks that are never, ever mobilized when there is a matter of real importance.
That is my point. Can you, Messier or anyone offer me any evidence that the skepchicks and the rest of the movement will do anything similar when push really comes to shove, when there is a real threat? I don’t believe it, because I have seen crisis point after crisis point pass with all but the elite too busy staring at their toes.
I wish I was proved wrong about this. I really do.
Now, note that I mentioned the elite there. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens etc. all have sterling records on this subject. So, if it comes down to Richard Dawkins versus the whole of the skepchicks, it is not difficult for me to make my choice.
@Hugo,
“What I am saying, however, is why the hell is the community so mobilized when it is so completely somnolent about real threats? ”
1. Because people ALWAYS get more het-up and indignant about something that may, even parenthetically, be a criticism of themselves.
2. I note your classification of Islamic mistreatment of women as a “real” problem (no argument), and continuing cluelessness towards communicating with, working with, and treatment of women in the atheist/skeptic movement here as not a “real” problem. This is, believe it or not, part of the problem. (So terribly nice of someone who is not on the receiving end of the behaviour in the existing cultural context to decide that there isn’t any real problem. )
Again, as has been pointed out by numerous people in multiple ways, we don’t have to ignore smaller problems at home just because there are bigger problems elsewhere. But the verbiage, which you have yourself contributed to, is backlash against the assertion that there is a problem here.
Oh, and of course, one non-celebrity female blogger just isn’t as important as Richard Dawkins. So therefore Dawkins shouldn’t get called out for being a dick. Or something. I guess.
cat,
Thanks. That’s all I wanted to know.
So twelve honor killings a year in the UK alone and several thousand forced marriage is as nothing, nothing compared with the offer of coffee to One Of Your Own.
Thank you. That really is all I wanted to know.
Way. To. Miss. The. Point.
Do me a favour, eh, and don’t ever have the gall to accuse anyone else of selective attention or comprehension impairment, given the particularly egregious example you have just given all of us, above.
Attempting to shame a woman for speaking up in defense of herself, is very much a community activity. As such, it demands a community response, if it is to be combated. I mean community in the general sense of the word; in specific situations it might mean a high school, or a small town, or a faith group, or another ideological community like the skeptics. For an example, a girl in a small Texas town was repeatedly gang raped, yet some members of that town are rationalizing for the adult perpetrators. Horrifying.
I’d like to think, that all of the people calling Watson’s story a ‘non-event’, ‘ non-issue’,’paranoid’, ‘hysterical’, etc. would in the future defend an actual assault victim, if – IF – these people could be convinced that an assault actually took place, and that the victim was ‘worth defending.’ However, history shows us that in many, many cases of even egregious assault, there are community members who STILL try to explain away the victim’s – the object’s – point of view.
Where do these fully monstrous apologists come from? I fear they are largely a subset of the same group of people – women and men, young and old, rape victims themselves or not – who would enter our current argument about the right to publicly expose creepiness, in order to call it a non-issue. To trivialize a point of view that is in fact well supported by studies of human-on-human predators.
Which just proves Watson’s original point all the more: if we want to make the skeptical and/or atheist community more welcoming to women, we should be speaking up about, and to, the Elevator Guys among us.
Julie,
I have, in fact done so, and I would do so again, and I routinely try to raise some level of awareness about the horrors that go on under Islamic misogyny. Whereas you and your community – as cat has so honestly just said – consider gang-rape, forced marriage, FGM, honor killings and the rest of it as of secondary importance to the offer of coffee, if the coffee was offered to One Of Your Own.
And if you want to make the skeptical and/or atheist community something other than an exercise in narcissistic solipsism, you might for once try to direct this level of ire at a serious and dangerous target.
Hugo 1567,
“Rebecca is entitled to feel whatever she wants to.”
One reason why this “non-issue” is exploding so badly is that large segments of the comments on various blogs DENY this very fact. You don’t deny that she has a right to feel however she feels, but vast swatches of the comments (including Dawkin’s comments) do this very thing.
” What I am saying, however, is why the hell is the community so mobilized when it is so completely somnolent about real threats?”
And once again…men who ignore boundaries and objectify women ARE real threats.
“And if it is only capable of rousing itself for non-issues, what good is it? What’s the bloody point of it?”
And if it calls the very root of the causes of most problems suffered by women (including FGM, honor killings, etc) “non-issues” what the hell good is it? Seeing women as sexual objects is the root of both what happened in with Elevator Guy, AND FGM AND Honor killings… Calling it a “non-issue” is nonsensical.
Don’t put words in my mouth or on page that I did not say, either, dear little Hugo.
“Whereas you and your community – as cat has so honestly just said – consider gang-rape, forced marriage, FGM, honor killings and the rest of it as of secondary importance to the offer of coffee, if the coffee was offered to One Of Your Own.”
If you wanted to solidify your reputation as a creepy liar, congratulations, you have just done so. I don’t think you could possibly have told more of a really nasty and vile lie than you just did, there.
(Incidentally, something I suspect you didn’t grasp, that “people get more het-up over criticisms of themselves”? I was referring to the hot-running male indignation over the idea that they might be subject to criticism for how they treat their female colleagues.)
cat, you can be as catty towards me as you like, but the record is there for everyone to see.
Teresa,
That statement about root causes is so willfully ignorant about the realities of Islamic misogyny, so narcissistic and parochial that I really do not know where to begin. You clearly have never bothered to read a single serious work on the subject. Ever.
I note that nobody – nobody – can meet my challenge of providing some evidence of any similar effort against the aforementioned. Because you can’t. Because you know and I know, and you know I know that you are not capable of it.
@1573
so what? we can do NOTHING about that, and we CAN educate our own community.
You are as stupid and terrified as Dawkins. Are you also an Angry White Male in the throes of senile dementia?
FGM has NOTHING to do with Creeper Elevator Guy.
Since when is “those other guys are worse” a winning argument?
the record is there for everyone to see. Very good. I hope they do. Point out, if you would, precisely where I said that “gang-rape, forced marriage, FGM, honor killings and the rest of it as of secondary importance to the offer of coffee, if the coffee was offered to One Of Your Own.”
Was that where I said people spend more verbiage in indignation where they come under criticism of their own behaviour? Like what is happening with the men here? Or was that where I said “we don’t have to ignore smaller problems at home just because there are bigger problems elsewhere.”
Cripes, but you are being a troll. I haven’t decided what level trolldom you’ve managed, yet. (Nice conflation of propositioning someone in an unsafe environment with simply being offered coffee, by the way, despite the clear and unambiguous explanations of how this works which are here in black and white. That’s a classic touch.)
@1573
and if you DON’T believe that we can do nothing about that, consider this.
America just spent 4.4 trillion dollars and 8 years to build one miserable little xian church in Kirkuk.
And then Iraq is planting a boot in America’s ass in December.
It is not possible to terraform islamic culture by scolding. We couldn’t do it even with a decade of invasion and occupation.
where I said “we don’t have to ignore smaller problems at home just because there are bigger problems elsewhere.”
those arent our problems Hugo.
creeper elevator guy is our problem.
@1335. Silent Bob [July 7th, 2011 at 10:11 pm] :
Okay, you are correct – technically. She didn’t specifically state right there that sexual overtures are unwelcome and that people shouldn’t hit on her at the conference in the lift at 4 am.
However, – 9 minutes in – she’s says that some of the emails she gets are misogynist because they explicitly suggest sex.
Then too eleven & a half minutes in she notes :
So if EG had been paying attention during her talk he’d have known that she gets rape threats all the time and that even fans who think they’re flattering her by sending her graphically sexual emails are “horribly misogynist.” even if they don’t realise it themselves.
She did say she finds rape threats incredibly damaging.
You hear a woman say that then you corner her in an elevator at 4am and think your sexual advance willbe welcomed? Come on!
She does say she think getting atheist supporters emails that involve explict sexual fantasies of her are “horribly misogynistic” (even if they don’t realise it), that these emails from her supporters make her uncomfortable and cause discomfort and laughter just by mentioning them.
Is that a woman who sounds like she wants strangers approaching her for “
coffee” sex at 4 am in hotle elevators? Oh puh-leese.Methinks that while those precise words were Not there, that message is pretty heavily implied still.
Plus Rebecca there refers to earlier panels and a talks which I haven’t seen where, just perhaps, just perhaps, she expanded on things more and did explicitly say “don’t hit on me guys.” There are a lot of Q&A videos, a lot of other talks referred to and online.
If you had been at that talk, listening to what she said and what her comments implied, would your response be to imagine that RW was a woman who wanted to be propositioned in a lift at 4 am? Really?
Was she have been utterly absolutely explicitly clear in that one video that she didn’t welcome unsolicited sexual advances? Guess not enough. Is it still pretty clear even from that one clip of the wider talks and panels that ‘NO this isn’t a woman that you should fairly crudely invite back to your hotel room for coffee / sex at 4 am whilst alone in an elevator?” I’d say it is. ‘Spose YMMV.
Plus note from the comments on the “Robot Eyes” clip :
There RW specifically said she’s been “talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to.” Perhaps that one clip didn’t reflect that adequately but that’s obviously how she sees it and, I tend to think she has a point still even if she obviously didn’t talk about it non-stop enough.
Dirk: “Most single guys have to deal with rejection often. That’s reality. It’s uncomfortable and awkward — but it is social reality. Attractive women cannot conceive of existing in that reality. That is their “female privilege”. You don’t understand because you can’t understand. But — as you say — listen and take our word for it.”
I’m sure that over some period of time that it probably does become, from the woman’s perspective, “oh-brother-not-again” when some guy makes some introduction to a woman with the intent to hit on her. I’m sure at some point that it gets tiring. But heaven forbid that a guy finds a woman attractive and trys to get her attention knowing that full well he’s most likely going to get rejected, yet that’s his lot in life. It’s especially painful for the guys who only hit on/approach/ask out the women that they are truely interested in (sometimes painfully so) and yet immediatly get lumped into the same batch of guys who hit on everything they lay their eyes on (shootgun approach).
I would like to do a roll reversal. Women.. imagine a world that you can’t even remember the last time that a guy even so much as smiled at you, for any reason. Imagine that every time you walk into a room.. no one notices. Imagine that no guy checks you out.. EVER. Imagine if men don’t even know you exist (at least in any kind of sexual/romantic way). Imagine that if any guy ever actually approaches you it’s to ask something benign as “Do you happen to have the time?”, and truely that’s ALL they want from you, and once you tell them, then you go back to being invisible. Imagine you lived in a world where men rated 80% of women “below average” when it comes to their looks (like women do men: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=eharmony+study+80+percent+of+men+below+average&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bb9a4fba297be287&biw=1532&bih=658). Imagine a world where you can have a dry spell (forget about sex.. just going out on a date) that can last not just days, not just weeks, not just months, but YEARS. Imagine a world where you see/meet a guy you are incredibly attracted to, so much so that your heart leaps to your throat.. and you can hardly speek and your only chance to try to get to know them better is to make an awkward, unfortunate pass at them and not only do you get rejected, but you find out that you made the guy incredibly uncomfortable and he saw you as a creep and then in later discussions people see your attempt as a potential sexual assult. Imagine a world where the only way to catch a man’s eye is to win the genetic lottery and be in the top .1 percent of incredibly good looking women, and if you’re not.. your only second chance you have to catch a man’s eye is to be unbelievably confident. And you have to develop this confidence.. considering the world that you live in as described above (not remembering the last time a man ever smiled at you.. and so on).
It’s easy to be confident when memebers of the opposite sex are throwing themselves at you (or hitting on you 10 times a day)… try to be confident if that was all taken from you.
I could go on and on.. but I think you get what I’m saying.
Now I’m not trying to say that living in that world would be worse than being sexually assulted/raped, but what I am saying is that I believe that if rolls were reversed like that.. that inside of a month, most women would beg to go back the other way where they get hit on 10 times a day.
But just like we have to “take your word for it” on this issue.. you have to take our word for it that it’s not a bed of roses on this side either.
@Luna 1581: Whatever classification we give to H-troll, it needs to include selective quotation and false quotation!
@shams 1582: Good observations about what things we might hope to change through internal community discussion or not.
Messier,
I hardly disagree with you there {1584}; yet none of this addresses my basic challenge. Let me make it a bit more concrete.
There are many areas in London, and in other British cities, and throughout France’s suburbs, where going out uncovered is a Very Bad Idea if you are a woman. Now, the men who enforce this are not the types who are going to be cowed easily.
Now, what I want to know is, what, exactly, do the skepchicks propose to do about this when it spreads, as it will, mark my words. Will we see anything or will we just have them first covering, then burka’d?
There’s a corollary to this, which is that I am absolutely certain that Richard Dawkins will resist this garbage, and does do so. So, if the choice is the skepchicks under the bus or RD under the bus….
Oh, quite. Classic touches, but I’m not sure yet that it rates beyond a 2.
Hugo,
So…Islamic men who do honor killings don’t view women as objects? Please, enlighten me. And I’ve contributed to a number of charities that work to empower women in Muslim countries. You can pretty much take your imaginary version of me our of your head right now and stuff it, thanks.
@1586. Hugo Schmidt : [July 11th, 2011 at 10:55 am]
Preferably, *neither!* I’m not a fan of throwing people under buses metaphorically – or literally either! 😉
I think Richard Dawkins was wrong to attack RW for expressing a basic piece of etiqutte and explaining how she felt.
I’ve never been the world’s biggest Dawkins fan – in fact one reason among several why I call myself an ‘agnostic’* rather than an atheist is to avoid being put in his camp by some of my friends who are religious – and this certainly has lowered my view of him. He often comes across to me as too one-sided and too-aggressive, too intolerant but that’s his style. He argues well sometimes – but this isn’t one of those times.
Would I boycott him or call him names? Refuse to go to his talks? No, I wouldn’t do that. I’d like to see him apologise not see him driven away.
I hope he picks up the phone to Rebecca Watson or meets with her face to face and they talk this out between themselves.
(Assuming here Dawkins *isn’t* himself the Elevator Guy! 😉 )
I hope he reconsiders his position and concludes that, yes, he did get it wrong in this case and learns from that and comes back better.
———————
* Some of the other reasons are a long story and a personal one and one that is irrelevant here anyhow. I’m certainly not a fan of organised religion but nor am I entirely convinced by the “New Atheism” either. I don’t know a lot and I’m willing to admit I don’t know a lot. Even after reading about, talking about and thinking about the whole God question a lot. I hate it when organised religions try to force nonsense upon others and will vigourously fight that – but I’m also respect people’s rights to believe in and follow religions if they are willing to do so privately and without hurting or threatening or deliberately annoying folks.
Here’s one for Hugo:
http://www.equalitynow.org/
I am waiting to hear how this is a crappy organization and contributing my FB to promoting it, advocating it to my friends and giving it money proves what a horrible person I am who doesn’t care about “Real issues”.
There’s also an underground girl’s school in Afghanistan that I have contributed to, but I suppose that doesn’t count because education for girls is probably one of those “non-issues” that only stupid feminists care about…
And supporting Greg Mortinson’s efforts probably doesn’t count either, I suppose.
I look forward to more of your “mansplaining” of how I don’t understand violence against women and “real” women’s issues.
I’m sure that you can do a much better job of explaining it than the experts who presented the material at the BCA conference that I recently attended on missing and unidentified persons (as part of the ongoing training that I receive as part of my work to prevent the abduction and sexual exploitation of children) . I bet you could give the BCA expert on the psychology of sexual predators a thorough debunking. That would be fun to see.
Messier,
I should say that I am sticking to this thread only to chat with you.
Preferably. But look at the fevered denunciations of him, the venom, the insults, the call to blacklist – er, sorry boycott – him. Above all look at the way those who owe either a great deal or all of their reputation to him – P.Z. Myers, Steve Zara – are now going “I know thee not, old man”.
It’s disgraceful.
Then there is the fact that no one answers my challenge. There’s just this repetition that, in theory, there is nothing to stop people complaining about this and standing against the horrors perpetrated by Islam. They never answer the point that, in fact they do no such thing.
I agree with @Paul
36. Paul Says:
July 5th, 2011 at 11:13 am
I know it’s a stretch, but what if the person in the elevator was a white man being asked for spare change by a black man? Would they be justified in sending a message to all black men asking them to refrain from this, due to fear of mugging?
hey Hugo.
Do you know why im pissed at Dawkins?
Because he KNOWS what EGT and an uninvadable strategy is.
Because he INVENTED the term CSS.
He KNOWS its impossible to scold and/or invade/occupy Islam into behaving more like xianity.
He KNOWS why America epically failed to spread missionary democracy in Iraq and A-stan.
And he prefers to demagogue the issue with barking islamophobia.
One has to wonder why……
@Messier 1584: Before you give folks in this thread too much wiggle room on the question of whether Watson was ‘explicit enough’ in her spoken words throughout the day, consider this. In a blog post titled “Mythcommunication” (…yesmeansyesblog[dot]wordpress[dot]com…), blogger ‘Thomas’ sites some research showing that men routinely can and do correctly interpret the nuanced ways that ‘no’ is routinely communicated in Western culture (not only in regard to sexual interactions).
For a hypothetical example, imagine a male acquaintance or even a stranger, invites you to his party. It would be hugely rude to say bluntly, “I don’t want to go.” Instead, you are much more likely to hedge your answer, saying “I’d love to go, but I have a prior engagement which I can’t break.” Despite the fact that part of what you literally said is in direct opposition to what you meant, he understands your meaning just fine.
I truly appreciate your attempts to persuade folks not to trivialize Watson’s concerns, because I share them. You’re working every detail, and that’s more patience than I have! But as a feminist, I don’t want to let people get away with playing ‘communication dumb’ in the specific arena of sexual attraction. The whole ‘no means no’ campaign is being linguistically twisted back around on victims, making it ‘their fault that they didn’t say no clearly enough.’
@1579
And you, Hugo, obviously dont read the news. There is nothing we can do about “islamic misogyny” as you call it.
We have been trying to spread missionary democracy in Iraq and A-stan for nearly a decade at a horrific cost in blood and treasure and there just aren’t any takers, dude. 10 years ago A-stan was 99% muslim, today A-stan is 99% muslim. 8 years ago Iraq was 97% muslim, today Iraq is 97% muslim and Muqtada and Allawi wanna sue the US for reparations.
But we CAN call out problems in Our Own House and seek to solve them.
@Hugo
i just took your challenge, man. Now cowboy up and defend your position or yield.
Granted, you dont know any better.
But Dawkins does.
@Messier Tidy Upper 1584 — Ah. I see you responded to the video. Too bad it wasn’t more accurate.
Rebecca lied about having spent all day telling people she hated being “hit on.” You simply refuse to publicly state that video-proofed fact. It seems you are desperate to find some contorted way to view the evidence in a way that indicts EG and absolves Rebecca.
Complaining about email and fan mail is completely different from complaining about being hit on in person at atheist gatherings — don’t you think?
You continue to put forth the false meme that an offer to coffe is sexual, which is only evidence of you sexualizing things. Project much? Here’s an idea: don’t do that. See if that completely changes your perspective about this non-event.
You point out there were a lot of panels. Can you guarantee EG saw any of them? Perhaps he only saw her in the bar. And you can guarantee that EG had no distractions during an entire Rebecca presentation — not even going to the bathroom — so you can guarantee he heard it all. Oh, and thought that it applied to him.
That’s really important — you see, I am not a rapist or misogynist, so I wouldn’t pay as close attention to people talking about how they don’t like getting misogynist or rape threats, because it doesn’t apply to me, as I have a lifetime of working to address those problems.
You (and others) also continue to foist off the idea that EG “cornered” Rebecca. She never said that. You made it up, or repeated what someone else made up.
The Rebecca quote you provided at the end is interesting:
That seems to clearly state that part of her complaint is that EG didn’t talk with her enough before inviting her to coffee. Yes . . . interesting. What do you think she meant by that?
It’s also interesting that you use the phrase: “she didn’t welcome unsolicited sexual advances.” Could you define what a solicited sexual advance from Rebecca would be? Could you then explain how this would be any different from what she is accusing EG of doing? (note: this is where the word ‘hypocrisy’ might enter the picture.)
look gr8hands
It was 4 AM in a closed space. who wants coffee in a strangers room at 4 AM?
Only clueless teenaged girls in slasher flicks that are about to get whats coming to them.
Rebecca felt uncomfortable.
I might have also, it depends on the environmental parameters.
If Creeper had a clue, he would have said, I loved your talk, and made a joke of ostensibly not hitting on her while hitting on her, and asked her out for a coffee in the morning.
@Eva 1591: Short answer is ‘no’. I feel that Paul’s hypothetical has unfortunately oversimplified Watson’s situation, into merely ‘men vs. women’, ignoring the all-important context. It is then more amenable to the substitution of ‘black vs. white’, but it’s unrecognizable as what actually happened to Watson.
Quick recap of Watson’s situation: Man was listening to her at the hotel bar, talking about the issue of objectification by women of men at conferences. Man deliberately follows Watson to elevator. Man propositions Watson, in direct defiance of her literally spoken words. Thereby sending Watson a very clear signal that she is only an object, whose words can be ignored. Watson, because she’s been treated this poorly numerous times (hundreds? thousands?) puts out a fairly mellow message asking her peers to be on the lookout for this sort of creepy, rude behavior among themselves in the future. She does NOT accuse ALL men of being rapists, or even creeps. Nonetheless, backlash ensues.
There is not a tight analogy between racial differences and hetero gender differences, in this situation. In Paul’s hypothetical, you are assuming that a person’s race is closely tied to his asking for change. I greatly disagree – we would have to know one heck of lot more context before claiming that. We’d also need a consensus body of scientific research into this issue, and if I’m not mistaken, research points to most crime being intra-racial.
In Watson’s actual elevator situation, Elevator Guy’s straight maleness is central to his behavior. (We also don’t know what race he was!) We have a solid body of research into the methods that male sexual predators use, and the ways in which society provides ‘cover’ for these techniques, because they are after all just extensions off the continuum of what is socially acceptable. Western women are generally pressured to be polite, while Western males are encouraged to be aggressive go-getters.
Also, in the racial hypothetical, would a peer in your own community panhandle you? That’s another big difference. In the highly improbable instance that ever happened to me, I’d criticize the person for being rude, but not black, or white, or any race differing from my own.
So I’ll repeat, since I got a little wordy here – I feel that Paul’s hypothetical has unfortunately oversimplified Watson’s situation, into merely ‘men vs. women’, ignoring the all-important context. It is then more amenable to the substitution of ‘black vs. white’, but it’s unrecognizable as what actually happened to Watson.
@shams 1597,
When I travel to foreign countries for conferences, I frequently have coffee with people at all hours of the day/night — I take offers of coffee at face value. We know we’ll only be face-to-face for a little while, which is so much better than email/phone/Skype, so coffee is perfect.
Your continued use of “creepy” only shows that you’re part of the echo chamber. Note that Luna_the_cat has started using “creepy” on Hugo Schmidt — and they may not even be in the same country. I suppose you’ve diluted the word “creepy” to not mean much when you use it.
You also continue to show your oversexualizing of events by claiming he was hitting on her, when the evidence is only that he invited her for coffee.
When I was younger and performing all over, do you know the number one thing fans wanted from me if they got a chance to be alone with me? They wanted me to listen to their performance/music/song/lyrics. Not sex. They wanted affirmation that they had “it” and could be successful. Not sex. They wanted someone “in the biz” who wasn’t a local, that would give them an honest appraisal. Not sex. They wanted hope. Not sex.
If Rebecca felt claustrophobic, would that be the fault of the elevator? Or her?
whoever you are.
tough titty.
Maybe this will help.
It is Rebecca’s RIGHT to refuse awkward propositions that make her uncomfortable.
It is not Creeper’s right to proposition Rebecca, no matter how disadvantaged he is.
For example it is my RIGHT to take Differential Topology if I want.
However I do not have to pretend to enjoy being virtually felt-up by the socially-challenged guys in the class to avoid hurrting your fee fees, and i don’t have to pretend that i think its ok.
Its rude.
This is a Problem in the Community.
The right kind of discussion would be awesome, but instead you atheocrackheads wanna talk about feminazis, hypothetical muslimahs and Islam.
@Julie 1600, sorry, but your heterosexism is showing. There is no evidence that Elevator Guy is straight. Gays and bisexuals also ask people for coffee.
Also, there is no evidence of what Rebecca said at the bar.
gr8hands
so….you’re an axeman?
but i digress.
Like i pointed out THIS HAPPENED IN THIS COUNTRY….in this timezone.
IN THIS COUNTRY only clueless teenagers in horror movies go to strangers hotel rooms for “coffee” at 4AM (where they promptly get made into lamb patties.)
YOU WERE NOT A STRANGER.
you were someone your fans already knew.
I didnt say he was hitting on her. I don’t know what he was doing. But he made Rebecca UNCOMFORTABLE.
It is her right to feel uncomfortable.
And anyways anecdote is not data. Dawkins was arguing from authority(because SHUT UP is why)– i think we’ve had enough of that.
I disagree that science cannot be applied to learn about emotions. You can apply scientific rationality to investigation of why certain actions are interpreted differently by yourself than others.
I feel like it is the _lack_ of scientific scrutiny that leads to people refusing to acknowledge the feelings of others. Is it possible for others to be rational and feel differently than you? Science says yes.
shams: Are you also an Angry White Male in the throes of senile dementia?
Why would you even bring race into this? You felt some need to dial the dehumanization level up to 11?
If RD had used more gangsta lingo, and tossed a few “hos” in there, would that have been better?
We might as well get something interesting out of this festival of male entitlement and denialism.
Why a coffee isn’t just a coffee, via Ophelia Benson:
http://youtu.be/3-son3EJTrU
And, of course, there is the fact that if RW had gone to EG’s room “for a coffee” and had gotten raped, the very first thing these same guys would be saying is “why would she have gone to this guy’s room at 4am if it weren’t for sex?”
(And by the way, I do know that men are not all like this thread’s current gems, and may I just extend a large “Thank you!” to those of you who are willing to admit that they get it.)
Shams, I’m sorry, I was under the impression that this non-event happened in Dublin, which from my vantage point is in a foreign country.
Even if it happened in the USA it doesn’t change my point, as I have gone out for late night/early morning coffee here in the States as well.
You just aren’t being honest that you’re guilty of oversexualizing the scenario. You’re lying when you say “I didnt say he was hitting on her” after writing about how he propositioned her. Unless you somehow think they are different things.
You are also guilty of low reading comprehension. Please provide the evidence that Dawkins told Rebecca to “SHUT UP” — and then apologize for lying about it when you fail to find it, because he never said any such thing to her.
Maybe you’re just confused because in your alternate universe when Dawkins sarcastically told “Muslima” to shut up, that somehow that meant Rebecca. In our universe, reasonably intelligent people can see the difference and aren’t confused. Particularly after he explained it.
You’re also confused about what “arguing from authority” means. I suggest you use a better dictionary.
Also, for the record, I am a stranger to my fans and vice versa. They don’t know me.
I note you didn’t respond to my last two questions, so here they are again: If Rebecca felt claustrophobic, would that be the fault of the elevator? Or her?
Your answer will say a lot about you.
Thank you Phil! I think what Rebecca said was blown way out of proportion, because I would be creeped out too. I love how all these men are getting offended by this “potential sexual assault.” You don’t get it. The reason that women are always on high alert when we’re around men we don’t know is because our alertness is our first line of defense. I’m military, and I was on a training mission not too long ago. We had separate sleeping areas and bathrooms, on multiple occasions males were in our bathrooms in the middle of the night. Were they going to attack any of us? Probably not. Did I carry mace with me into the bathroom, you bet your ass I did. Men just don’t seem to get that it’s better for us to err on the side of caution. Besides, if you guys are really that offended that women may view you as a threat, maybe you should be more offended that we have to view unknown males as a threat.
@grimoire — you’re behind the curve, race got brought into this early. By comment #36, in fact.
But, having said that: “Angry White Male” is a Type — one of the recognised types for Male Rights Activists, who is also generally tied up with harping on how disadvantaged white guys are compared to minorities, or at least bemoaning the pain of withdrawal of racial privilege.
When RW brought up the whole “Old Rich White Man” thing with Dawkins, I think the point was NOT to equate him with this, but more to point out that he is not generally in a position to have to worry about being physically sexually assaulted (after all, poverty is a predictor of victimhood, as is youth, as is ethnicity, as well as gender). But that whole “white guy” thing being out there, now, it does set the tone for the Angry White Male meme to be cropping up.
how did i do that? i said i didnt know what his intent was– and neither did Rebecca.
All i know is the guy empirically presented as a Creeper, a social maladroit. Are you seriously arguing that Creeper has some intrinsic right to invite Rebecca to a stranger’s hotel room at 4AM?
Angry White Male is a demographic, not a race.
@gr8hands
It did happen in Dublin, and having been there as well as living other places in the UK, a coffee in a hotel room at 4am no more means just a coffee there than it does anywhere else. I have a comment hung in moderation with a link which goes into more depths on that.
RW was not “claustrophobic in an elevator.” She was in a small space with a single door where a man can corner someone with relative ease, with a man she didn’t know who had just expressed an interest in sex. This is not entirely non-threatening to many women, honestly, and “how will he react if/when I turn him down” would HAVE to be part of any woman’s calculations in that setting. The argument about hotels being “public” and “well-populated” also does not generally hold true at 4am even in Dublin. At 4pm it might be different. But that was not the context. I know you think that we should replace all the actual known detail with hypotheticals instead so as to completely lose the point, but sorry, we do not agree with your doing so. And she didn’t even call him a potential rapist or an attacker or even a harasser; she just said “it’s creepy, don’t do that.” Learn from this.
And Dawkins’s post to the fictitious Muslima was quite plainly and overtly a sarcastic note to RW to STFU about things that ‘aren’t as important.’ If you don’t see that, you must pretty much be the only one, and I am astonished at the level of communication you must regularly get wrong.
plz. they know who you are, they know your name.
Dawkins tried to shame Rebecca into shutting up about something HE decided was trivial.
Then he tried to walk it back, and his apologists took it from there. The horrific treatment of muslim women has nothing to do with what happened to Rebecca. Islam just makes Richard cuckoo-bananas.
Like i said to Hugo and others, FGM has NOTHING to do with what happened to Rebecca.
Dawkins whole entrance into this discussion is argument from authority.
He is the atheist in chief.
It is the fault of the situational parameters.
read Megan’s comment above.
i said i don’t know if i would have felt threatened. Does Rebecca have claustophobic genetic tendancy? was the elevator small and dark?
What i do know is Rebecca has a RIGHT to feel uncomfortable.
@Luna_the_cat 1610. You might want to clue in shams, who is terribly confused about a great many things in this blog.
I have to say that you, as well, are guilty of oversexualizing and heterosexism (because a gay man would never have said he found Rebecca interesting or asked her to have coffee with him. No, it had to be a straight guy, and it had to be sexual. No possibility, however remote, that it could have been a genuine request for coffee. No possible way.).
You bring a lot of emotional baggage to the table when you suggest that Dawkins putting perspective into the mix was “overtly a sarcastic note to RW to STFU about things that ‘aren’t as important.'”
Me pointing out that you are wrong is not telling you to STFU. You are completely empowered (not by me, but in your own right) to keep spouting your inaccurate bile. I’m just pointing out that you are wrong. If you choose to mis-interpret that as “telling you to STFU” then it is you who have the problem, not me.
The rest of your paragraph demonstrates your low reading comprehension level, so I will simply ignore your rants.
You will probably start labeling me as “creepy” soon anyway, if you stick to your pattern.
@shams 1611 wrote:
QFT.
Elevator Guy knew Rebecca’s name, so I guess you were wrong/lying about her being a stranger to him? We don’t know if Rebecca knew his name, but if she indeed spent hours in a bar with him (where she claims he heard her talking about how she hates being hit on at conferences), there’s at least a chance she had some kind of introduction.
You are still confused about “argument from authority” because you are using the phrase incorrectly. Too lazy to look it up?
And you still refuse to answer the question about whether the elevator makes Rebecca feel claustrophobic or whether it comes from within herself. Whether it is small and/or dark isn’t the issue. “Situational parameters” is avoiding an answer. (A fire spreads warmth to you. An open freezer door spreads cold to you. A rattling rattlesnake is warning you. An inanimate elevator is doing nothing to anyone.)
Your silence is revealing. (You clearly do not want to say that the claustrophobia is entirely within Rebecca, because you seem to be worried that it will naturally point to the “uncomfortableness” also being entirely within Rebecca.)
“who is terribly confused about a great many things in this blog.”
name one besides the timezone.
answer my question, since i answered yours.
what do you think Dawkins was trying to do here?
It sounds to me an’ most others like he was trying to shut Rebecca up on an issue he decided was trivial.
i answered your question above. i guess you are the one with the reading comprehension problem.
😉
1. I didn’t accuse you of telling me to STFU. Where do you think I did that? Is this simply a reading comprehension fail on your part?
2. Is it “bile” to call out posters who lie about what I’ve said? Or to explain where a situation is being deliberately misrepresented? Oh dearie dearie me. However shall I be nicer.
3. Your reading of Dawkins’s messages as NOT being an overt message to RW is….unique.
Ah, but now you will “ignore my rants.” Funny how perfectly polite posts discussing the subject matter logically are now “rants.” Full of “bile”, no less. Hm. Couldn’t possibly be a fallback position to cover the fact that you aren’t up to discussing this matter in good faith and logically, and you don’t like having the distortions clearly pointed out. And that is not transparent at all. Of course. (<–By the way, this is sarcasm. I thought I should spell it out, since you seem to have a problem spotting that kind of thing.)
@shams 1614
Name things you’re confused about? How about:
1. A timezone is one thing, a different continent/country is something else entirely.
2. Argument from authority. You still haven’t looked that up. When you do, you’ll see you have been confused.
3. Request for coffee ≠ request for sex. That should be obvious, but somehow isn’t.
4. Dawkins did not tell Rebecca to shut up. He pointed out perspective. Big difference.
5. You’re confused about my interest in schooling you.
As for “answering your question” look at #4 above.
Note that I do not tell anyone to shut up. I point out their errors. You are fully free to keep spouting your errors. I would just hope that you’d learn from having your mistakes pointed out. Keep speaking. Please. (As an example, Luna_the_cat can continue to rant until the cows come home, and I will not suggest she stop. I, however, will ignore her.)
No. First, go to YouTube and search for “RSA Animate – Language as a Window into Human Nature”.
Then, consider the plain fact that, if RW had gone to EG’s room and had been raped there, you would probably have been among the people saying “well, why would she have gone to a guy’s room at 4am if she didn’t expect sex?” In the cultural context which includes things like the Mike Tyson and Kobe Bryant rape trials, this is what most people think straight off. Your obstinate literalism does not make culture go away.
And, as I said in my very first comment on this post, let’s just be clear, there is also a wide cultural context of “come back to my place for coffee” as the “polite” intro to “I want to have sex with you.” This is also a widespread and well-understood part of our culture — and the YouTube RSA Animate video I recommend to you above should explain how this works to you, since you seem to have a hard time accepting this.
(As an example, Luna_the_cat can continue to rant until the cows come home, and I will not suggest she stop. I, however, will ignore her.) –Translation: ::sticks fingers in ears:: LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEEEEAAAAR YOUUUU
*sigh* Wow. Sad. Ok, kind of funny. In a sad way. But still sad.
“Dawkins did not try to have Rebecca shut up. He pointed out perspective. Big difference.”
Right, “quit whining about nothing!” isn’t at ALL a silencing tactic. According to gr8hands, anyway.
@shams 1614
One thing does stand out to me, though. You accuse Dawkins of considering Rebecca’s non-event as “trivial” — so how would you rate it in comparison to beatings, rape, FGM and murder?
Seriously. On a scale of 0 to 100, if murder/beatings/FGM/rape are a 100 and sitting peacefully alone is a 0, where would you rate Rebecca’s non-event? Remember to include in your deliberation actual sexism, butt-pinching, denial of job based on gender, being called names, and every other negative thing that happens to women. You put it in perspective, and let us know.
Don’t forget that you have to account for if EG had actually tried to corner her, or if he had actually said ‘I want sex’, or if he had actually threatened her. Those would certainly have to rate as higher than what she actually experienced.
dude.
they are not on the same scale, that is Dawkins islamic strawman.
murder, beating, rape, and FGM are all illegal in western countries, right?
and its not my scale or your scale …..its Rebecca’s scale that counts. He made her uncomfortable.
You and Dawkins are saying she has no right to be uncomfortable.
i see you came in late to this convo.
It doesnt matter what westerners think about Islam, FGM, hijab, stoning and shariah law.
Because we cant do anything to change it.
America just spent 10 years, 4.4 trillion dollars and 7k soljah lives attempting to terraform islamic culture in Iraq and A-stan, and all we are getting out of it is one measly christian church in Kirkuk.
heh.
A four trillion dollar church.
And that is all we will have to show for the Grand Misadventure of the Manifest Destiny of Judeoxian Democracy in MENA….because Iraq is planting a boot in America’s ass in December and we dont even get to keep the lovely airbases we built them.
If invading and occupying islamic countries for years doesn’t net any converts to judeoxian-freemarket democracy, severe scoldings from Richard Dawkins sure won’t.
My beef with Dawkins is that he knows all this, and he also knows what an uninvadable CSS is. He invented the term. He prefers to demagogue Islam for some reason.
Like on PZ’s post.
/shrug
gr8hands: Yeah, all these other things are worse! How DARE she speak up and say this made her uncomfortable! And how DARE she react angrily to someone who hadn’t even experienced it telling her she should just be quiet because it wasn’t important! DOESN’T SHE KNOW THAT THE PERSON WHO TOLD HER TO BE QUIET IS A FEMINIST?!
Yah, I’m just doing this for a kind of twisted amusement now. Goodnight all, it’s getting late here.
@Rebecca 1577,
“One reason why this “non-issue” is exploding so badly is that large segments of the comments on various blogs DENY this very fact. You don’t deny that she has a right to feel however she feels, but vast swatches of the comments (including Dawkin’s comments) do this very thing.”
Taking her to task for accusations of misogyny and trying to push a deeply distorted and unhealthy worldview are not bad things. How she feels is her business alone right up until she starts broadcasting it to the world, at which point the world can (and in this case should) talk back.
Claims of “silencing” are a typical feminism smokescreen. The implicit feminist position is that anyone should be able to say anything without any criticism, and that any negative response not only lacks merit but is an attempt to strip the speaker of dignity, rights, or somesuch. This is a disgusting position to take, try applying your “silencing” rhetoric to something like the vaccination/autism crowd.
@shams 1622
Another thing you’re confused about. Dawkins didn’t invent the term CSS. He used the phrase “evolutionarily stable strategy” in The Selfish Gene. But it was already in use. Evolutionarily stable strategies were defined and introduced by John Maynard Smith and George R. Price in a 1973 Nature paper. (“The logic of animal conflict”. Nature 246 (5427): 15–8. Bibcode 1973Natur.246…15S. doi:10.1038/246015a0)
The scale I suggest, and which you are refusing to use because it shows that Rebecca’s non-event is trivial even in your eyes, is not about Islam. Women are murdered in Western countries. Women are beaten in Western countries. Women are raped in Western countries. Women do experience FGM in Western countries. (You can forget about this one if it makes you focus on Islam too much.) They represent the worst that can happen, hence a 100, the top of the scale.
Where do you put Rebecca’s non-event in comparison? My guess is you put it way down near zero, but don’t want to admit it publicly.
You are also confused that I “came in late to this convo” — I just didn’t post right away, wanting to see what people were saying first. A listener is still part of the conversation.
@Dyne 1624
Excellent post!
@gr8hands
sry, you are the confused one.
Maynard-Smith tributes Dawkins with the invention of both CSS and DSS ( Culturally Stable Strategy, Developmentally Stable Strategy) in chapter five of Evolution and the Theory of Games.
i dont care about your scale. It is Rebecca’s RIGHT to be uncomfortable.
there is no acceptable scale level of harrassment that she should have to put up with.
Like Dawkins, you seek to trivialize the situation.
@shams 1627
No, you are confused and just repeating something from another site that they got wrong. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy where you can see for yourself that Smith and Price came up with it in 1972, while Dawkins didn’t use it until 1976. Which for the rest of us is coming afterwards.
As for “rebeccas’s RIGHT to be uncomfortable” . . . read Dyne’s 1624 post. Yes, of course she has a right to be uncomfortable. But when she choose to express that to the outside world, we have a right to comment on it, and disagree with it, and to disagree with the causes of it.
If I claim that your post is making me feel uncomfortable, just how much are you going to change in your actions? How much should you change?
You are also confused about what Dawkins and I are doing — we are not “trivializing the situation” (which is making it smaller than it is) — we are pointing out that it is trivial.
As an analogy — and not to say that it is equal to anything else, smacking your thumb is important and painful to you, but trivial to everyone else in the world.
@ 1577. Teresas who said: “One reason why this “non-issue” is exploding so badly is that large segments of the comments on various blogs DENY this very fact. You don’t deny that she has a right to feel however she feels, but vast swatches of the comments (including Dawkin’s comments) do this very thing.”
Dawkins statement did the opposite: “”If she felt this behaviour was creepy, that’s her privalage…” He’s acknowledging her right to feel that way. Read what he said, not what people are saying he said.
Also @ 1577. Teresas who said: “And once again…men who ignore boundaries and objectify women ARE real threats.”
Rebecca Watson ‘objectifies’ / ‘sexualizes’ people in her blog: http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/ I’m not saying she’s wrong to do so, but if she says it’s wrong, one would think she should live up to her own standards and not do it. If you think it’s wrong, you should apply your standards fairly and condem her as well for doing it, not just men.
@shams 1627,
“i dont care about your scale. It is Rebecca’s RIGHT to be uncomfortable.
there is no acceptable scale level of harrassment that she should have to put up with.
Like Dawkins, you seek to trivialize the situation.”
Nobody is claiming that Rebecca wasn’t uncomfortable, she’s the only reliable arbiter of how she feels or felt. Many are claiming that her response to her discomfort was unreasonable, which to my mind it was. This was a trivial situation, make no mistake about it.. there were no threats, no innuendo, no harassment, and no harm done.
Further, Rebecca’s discomfort was self-inflicted, the result of an extremely unpleasant worldview in which she (by all appearances) looks so hard for patterns of misogyny that she finds them where there is none. She took offense where none was given, made an issue of it in a public forum, and Dawkins, not being the type to shy from controversy when assailed, responded. His actions were not unreasonable, and he correctly pointed out just how trivial the whole damned thing was.
Just because someone feels a certain way, does not make their actions in response to those feelings appropriate. There is no sovereign privilege granted by the sensations of fear, rage, or any other.
I’m a third of the way through reading every entry. IMHO this is a case of ‘contempt of liberals’. Nothing more.
Here’s a nice general definition I’ve found: “A troll is a common Internet term for a participant in a discussion who is saying things for the sake of getting an angry reaction from other participants or to damage the atmosphere of a community.”
The folks who are here speaking up in favor of Watson have the goals of keeping women safer, of applauding the fantastic men who do treat us well, of making the community more welcoming to women, of giving socially awkward guys some direction about how to communicate, of keeping male-female interaction fun for all parties concerned. In other words: in feminist skepticism, nice guys can and do get laid.
What were the goals of Dawkins, in making his comments? Well, here’s what he did. He introduced religion as a boogeyman, which was not part of the relevant discussion. (And in doing so, he further alienated any American women who are Muslim.) He called out the chick in Skepchick, in scare quotes. (Was he trying to denigrate the female nickname in general? Would ‘Skepwoman’ have soothed him? Or was he trying to say, ‘anyone who calls herself chick voluntarily shouldn’t be respected on other levels?’) He set up an irrelevant juxtaposition between the atmosphere of a Western-style intellectual conference and a Saudi-style women drivers ban.
The effect of his whole sarcastic letter was to belittle and demean Watson for speaking up. That letter was an epic attempt at silencing. And I, for one, say NO. We must have better leadership than this.
However, you’ve got to give Dawkins this much: he restrained himself from engaging in other classic troll behavior such as quoting out of context, making up quotes, grossly exaggerating Watson’s vlog and misusing feminist terminology. But don’t get too relieved – his apologists here seem only too willing to jump into that breach for him.
@Julie, 1632
“The effect of his whole sarcastic letter was to belittle and demean Watson for speaking up. That letter was an epic attempt at silencing. And I, for one, say NO. We must have better leadership than this.”
For “silencing” to be a bad thing, the words being silenced must have merit. Rebecca’s words do not. Her attack was based on distorted perceptions and was rightly met with a counter-argument that her complaint was grossly exaggerated. She belittled and demeaned herself when she chose to post that tripe.
@1628 look guy….. I HAVE THE BOOK.
how dare you cite wikipedia at me.
Dawkins tried to trivialize the situation. You are trying to trivialize the situation.
the reality of the situ is that Rebecca has the RIGHT to be uncomfortable. It is even wise to be uncomfortable in that situ.
Creeper has NO RIGHT to be offended because he creeped her out, and you and Dawkins have no right to champion him.
Dyne,
“Distorted perceptions?” No, her perceptions were not “distorted”. It is not only perfectly reasonable to be creeped out in that situation, it is foolish to not have it trigger defensive mechanisms…and a lack of that sort of sense is a predator’s best friend.
Listen, I think that after this, I’ll be uncomfortable if anyone rides an elevator with me. I think that they ought not to do that, out of respect for my feelings, which have value and shouldn’t be trivialized.
@ 1635. Teresa
“… it is foolish to not have it trigger defensive mechanisms…and a lack of that sort of sense is a predator’s best friend.”
Assuming the problem was the question, not the sheer presence of a man, what sense makes a “trigger defensive mechanisms” which sets in an that moment? Are rapists guaranteed to first ask nicely?
@Teresa, 1635
““Distorted perceptions?” No, her perceptions were not “distorted”. It is not only perfectly reasonable to be creeped out in that situation, it is foolish to not have it trigger defensive mechanisms…and a lack of that sort of sense is a predator’s best friend.”
Looking at half your species as potential criminals.. potential felons, potential rapists, is the distortion I’m talking about. Only in the most literal and context-free parsing of that position can it be considered reasonable.. in the same way that one could say every woman is a potential child-abuser, or every human is a potential murderer.
These are not useful positions because they are overgeneralized… but there’s something else, too. The casual feminist use of the “potential rapist” position, whether literally or implicitly as Watson did, is a tool used to paint men in general with the stigma of rape, though only a tiny fraction of us commit this crime. It’s a means of demonizing men and driving them out of any discussion of gender politics.
If it isn’t obvious yet, allow me to spell it out: I am not a rapist and it is offensive to imply that I am inclined to rape!
@1638 Dyne
and you too bucko.
You have no RIGHT to be offended because Creeper wierded Rebecca out.
She has EVERY RIGHT to protect herself in that situ.
my advice to you, gr8hands, and Dawkins and all the male privilege advocates on this thread, is that Creepers will act creepy, and they will get called creepers.
And no matter how much you trivialize and false equivalence the situ, you are still wrong.
@1639 shams
I have every right to be offended by whatever I damned well please. This does not necessarily make my perception of offense reasonable, healthy, or useful, but saying otherwise is rather silly when you’re raging in same paragraph about the sanctity of Watson’s perceptions.
There’s a reason that feminism has slipped out of the mainstream and now lives mostly in “safe” echo-chamber communities on the internet. Your conflation of a come-on and an attack is typical of feminist disassociation from reality. We are a gendered and highly sexual species, this behavior is in fact normal.. it’s how we get together. You don’t get far as a man waiting for women to hit on you, if you want a relationship or sex, you need to take the initiative. Treating normal behavior like this as an affront is whack, and smacks of American Conservative style frame-pushing.
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent”
I understand you argument Phil but your comment above?
Essentially it’s offensive to be a man in an elevator with a woman (read potential victim) now? Even if that man is silent (and I assume averts his eyes to the floor in shame)
I don’t know why the woman is an atheist as feminism is clearly a fundamentalist religion
So many great thoughts throughout this thread that deserve highlighting. Here’s one.
Teresa 1456 said: “Well, frankly, because he [EG] was ACTING like a rapist. Not that long ago, I was at a BCA conference on Missing and Unidentified persons, and a psychologist who works with sexual predators gave a talk that included a good twenty minutes of footage of sexual predators explaining their techniques to get the target to participate as much as possible in her own victimization so that 1) she’s easier to attack, 2) she’s less likely to report, and 3) she’s less likely to be believed/viewed as sympathetic.
“Elevator Guy’s behavior was classic for this. It SHOULD have set off warning bells: 1)Ignoring obvious boundaries – a whole day spent saying “don’t hit on me for casual sex” in a variety of ways. 2) Compressed time line (coffee now at 4:00 in the morning, not coffee tomorrow or at a more appropriate time. 3) Isolated location – choosing a situation where the target will feel vulnerable, and appearing to give the target control while working to move her towards a situation of less control.”
jaysus-h-keerist-inna-handcart
it was not “normal behavior” if it set off instinctual alarm sensors in Rebecca.
American Conservative style frame-pushing? I’m a flaming liberal and i worked on Barack Obama’s campaign.
Do you know what American Conservatives actually do push?
Barking islamophobia and xenophobia.
Just like Richard Dawkins.
One person’s “instinctual alarm sensors” are not the arbiter of what is normal behavior. It’s no accident she has alarms going off in her head after delving into modern feminism and surrounding herself with people who look at men as “potential rapists”. Say and hear the same vile propaganda often enough and it takes root.. and instead of people you start seeing predators.
Train someone to live in fear of any group, and they’ll often find themselves scared by perfectly normal and unthreatening members of this group.
@shams: The trolls will say anything to try to get an emotional response. Don’t feed the trolls.
These poor souls seem terrified of a world where men don’t have their traditional extra advantages. I mean, a society in which women have the ability to get birth control without a permission slip from a male is only one blog post away from anarchy, right? (Hint for MRAs: this is sarcasm.)
Meanwhile, the reality still stands that Watson’s elevator experience was creepy, and she did do the right thing by speaking up about it. Please see Phil’s original blog entry, above, for clarification.
Dyne 1638,
Half the species does not do the things that EG did that should trigger a protective response. MOST GUYS DON’T ACT LIKE EG did…and therefore do not trigger a protective response in women.
Most guys know how to ask a lady for coffee without looking like a creeper. Most guys don’t approach a request for coffee in a stalker manner.
Most guys respect cues about when their company is welcomed, and when it isn’t, what timing is appropriate, and what isn’t. It’s not appropriate to hide EG behind all guys. It’s not right for you to pretend that all guys act like he acted. Most guys are decent, sensitive, and smart enough to know when they are about to go over the line, and refrain.
He’s not all guys. He’s a guy whose behavior SHOULD trigger a protective response from any woman who has any understanding of personal safety.
In fact, even EG has not been called a rapist. Only someone whose behavior had to be considered threatening. If he didn’t know that he was behaving in a creepy way, he would benefit from knowing that.
Dyne, @ 1640
Quite right. Incidentally, one of the people whom RW called to her defense? Amanda Marcotte, last seen saying that a gang-rape, in public, in the middle of a crowd, where no one bothers to intervene, says nothing about the culture in question. Before that, she was saying that it wasn’t inappropriate for a man to mail pictures of his genitals. Before that, it was a defense of FGM.
Do the rest of you get it now?
I’ll just defer to my friend, Mr. Deity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAO_ieeqTo&feature=player_embedded
1645 dyne
“One person’s “instinctual alarm sensors” are not the arbiter of what is normal behavior.”
sure they are. Like I said, in contemporary culture, the only people that go to have coffee with complete strangers in hotel rooms at 4AM are clueless co-eds in slasher movies.
Sadly, women in the 21st century have to be waaaay more cautious than that.
You Dawkins apologists keep frantically moving the goalposts.
Don’t your backs hurt yet?
From carrying that ass?
I agree with Dawkins. Why would that girl even bring that up? Are American women so overly sensitive these days that you can’t even invite them for coffee anymore? Does something so simple offend their sensitivities? Is this what feminism has done to the women of this country?
I’m sure looks had a lot to do with it. I’m pretty sure if the guy looked like Brad Pitt she wouldn’t have been so offended. After all, isn’t strange awkward encounters like that what most of the “chick flicks” women fantasize over consist of?
Skepchick needs to get over herself, and so do the people supporting her pseudo-victimization.
@shams 1639 wrote:
Which apparently contradicts the numerous posts where shams wrote:
Double standard?
Oh, on your post 1634, since you have the book, please reference the page where Dawkins is credited with creating the phrase Evolutionarily stable strategy. I am sure it will take you a very long time.
EDIT: Please provide the page where Dawkins is credited for “inventing the term CSS”.
I also note that you appear too lazy to check out my link, and too lazy to check the definition of “argument from authority.” I think I’m noticing a trend about you.
i never said that. i said Dawkins invented the term CSS, so he knows perfectly well what an uninvadable strategy is. Islam is an uninvadable strategy, and that is why we are gettin’ kicked out of Iraq with nothing to show for it except one tiny 4 trillion dollar church.
you cannot read apparently, except for wikipedia.
what don’t you understand about this?
@Julie 1646 wrote:
There. FTFY.
Hugo:
Hugo wrote:
“Quite right. Incidentally, one of the people whom RW called to her defense? Amanda Marcotte, last seen saying that a gang-rape, in public, in the middle of a crowd, where no one bothers to intervene, says nothing about the culture in question. Before that, she was saying that it wasn’t inappropriate for a man to mail pictures of his genitals. Before that, it was a defense of FGM.
Do the rest of you get it now?”
I get that your powers to misperceive and misinterpret at will exceed the current situation.
For the men on this thread who are offended at being considered potential rapists, from one non-raping man to another:
Yes. Yes, this is offensive. However, it is a situation that we, as men, have a responsibility to do something about.
We participate in a culture that gives us a great deal of privilege. Part of that privilege is not worrying about being assaulted (which makes us unaware of what it’s like for women).
Privilege also comes with certain maintenance requirements. This takes the form of not rocking the boat — men are expected to tacitly accept other men’s objectification of women, treatment of women as tools for sex, and so on. Oh sure, it’s just “locker room talk” that’s “just between guys” and 99% of men don’t take that seriously. But it influences all of our thoughts to some extent, and 1% of 6 billion is a PRETTY BIG NUMBER.
How many men are rapists? One in forty? One in fifty? One in two hundred? Okay — it’s the pretty rare woman who hasn’t met at least two hundred men. And you’re upset that they don’t trust every single one?
The fact of the matter is that it’s only a pretty small minority of men that rape. And yet they rape over and over again. We have not stopped this behavior in our own gender — we do not call out sexism among ourselves, we do not disown men who talk about rape-spectrum behaviors, and we continue to be willing participants in a culture that lionizes sexual conquest. So long as that is the case, we’re going to be tarred with their brush, because we all participate in a culture that is actively threatening to women.
Instead of getting upset about caution and mistrust from the women you meet in your life, ask yourself about the men, and what you’ve done about them lately. If men aren’t speaking out against rape and rapists, not just in nominal ways but by risking our social standing to confront dehumanization and rape-spectrum behaviors in other men, then the only male voices left speaking will be those of the predator and the rapist.
Don’t tell women not to listen. Start changing what they hear.
[ps — obviously there are female rapists and male survivors. Apologies if my speaking to the normative case marginalizes anyone else’s experience; not my intent, just not what I’m talking about right now.]
1654 Teresa
Hugo, Dyne, gr8hands, Dawkins etc are male privilege apologists. Their argument to Rebecca collectively boils down to “because shutup is why”.
FGM is just radar chaff in this situ. That is why they are dragging Marcotte and Islam into the discussion.
@shams 1655, you’re making some assumptions about my gender. Oh, and basing your responses on that assumption (even if it turns out to be true) is an example of . . . sexism?
Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite? You should look up the definition of that word in case you’re confused about it. Basically, it is criticizing someone for doing something that you yourself do.
None of the people you referenced – Hugo, Dyne, gr8hands, Dawkins – have told anyone to “shutup” regardless of how much you feel that pointing out errors “boils down to” that.
And I notice you didn’t provide the page number. I also notice you didn’t look up “argument from authority” and admit you had been using it incorrectly. You seem to have a real problem admitting when you are wrong. That says a lot about you as a person — and it isn’t complimentary.
no dude, you are WRONG.
Page 54 Evolution and the Theory of Games
I also have the Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman book on cultural inheritance, which is the foundation of evo theory of culture and evo theory of religion, and which i’m pretty sure Dawkins has read…
wikipedia sukks ass, dude….how hard is that to understand?
you cant build an argument on wikipedia.
You are just digging deeper.
The Dawkins apologentsia are building a forest of strawmen; FGM, rape, stoning, Amanda Marcotte– wtf does any of that misdirection have to do with Rebeccas Creeper in the Elevator?
Nothing.
That is why im saying all your arguments can be succinctly and elegantly summarized as “because shutup is why”.
Why was it creepy for the guy to ask her to a cup of coffee in an elevator? He asked, she said no, that was the end of it. If he had persisted, or made some kind of physical advance, or anything of that nature, then sure, that’s creepy. But by all accounts nothing like that happened.
If that was creepy, you have some serious social issues. I think that is the point that Dawkins is trying to make. There was nothing creepy about that encounter. Skepchick, if anything should feel flattered. You’re not a cave troll, a guy found you interesting and attractive enough to ask you for coffee, why act like a victim when at most you were the victim of a compliment.
Get over yourself. We can’t live in a society where women find anything a man does offensive. As Dyne mentioned, we are a highly sexual, and social species. If a man cannot so much as ask a woman to join him in a cup of coffee without feeling like a sexual predator, then how far are we from becoming Saudi Arabia, where men and women aren’t allowed to mingle if they are not wed or family members?
Question: Am I allowed to enter an elevator with an alone woman at all or is this also to be considered as a threat to her sexual health?
I mean, do I become a danger if I talk to the woman or if I am near the woman? If the former, what must I say to become a danger? Will it help if I strongly clarify, in no uncertain terms, that I am not interested in raping her, or would that also be considered a threat to the woman?
I am really confused by the argument Phil presents, so could someone please clarify?
To shams,
I have made no argument to Rebecca. I have made an argument to you lot.
To Teresa,
At the outset I said that those willing to whip up a frenzy about this non-event would never raise a fuss about real threats. You responded by saying, on the contrary, it was only those willing to take the small things into account who would do anything.
Well, I have provided yet another piece of evidence for my view. You still have to materialize one for yours.
Shams 1657,
Yes, to put it another way “I don’t care what you are talking about. I want to talk about what I’m talking about. So I’ll just hijack your issue and graft mine over the top and then claim that YOU are trivializing ME.”
Kind of like Creeper Elevator Guy…”I don’t care what you want from this evening. I’ll just make you deal with what I want from this evening, and cover that fact with the “Don’t take this the wrong way” fig leaf.”
@Teresa
yup.
The Dawkins apologentsia.
what real threats? FGM in Dublin? Shariah law in Tennesee? Amanda Marcotte at the head of a battalion of militant feminazis bent on hijacking our culture?
Dawkins needs better apologists. you guys just got p’wned.
Peter Beattie (1358, but was 1340 when I first saw this comment) said:
Agreed.
It may be that he was put off by the rapidity with which the storm blew up.
Or he may have done it by private email and asked RW not to share it? (Just guessing here.)
I agree that there’s been a lot of exaggeration and rhetoric.
Interesting thought about the sexism – I can’t help but wonder if RW has ever asked a man out. If so, then she is unusual. If not, then she herself is being sexist in expecting men to always make the initial advance. It seems to me that – in general – women do tend to expect the man to make the initial advance. I know at least one woman who doesn’t / hasn’t, but I think women who are prepared to proposition a man they find attractive are indeed in the minority.
So, given the situation men often find themselves in (i.e. the near-certainty that a woman won’t proposition them even if that woman finds them attractive), is it sexist to proposition a woman you find attractive? Obviously, the circumstances here are a bit special (RW having that very day given the talk in which she asked men who attend these conferences not to hit on her so much), but I would be interested in hearing the reasoning behind the label “sexist” for Elevator Guy’s proposition.
I agree that it isn’t misogyny, though. I believe that the term “misogyny” can also encompass a belief that women are inferior without hatred needing to be involved, but even so, the elevator incident still isn’t misogyny.
RW’s follow-up was perhaps the start of all the exaggerations and rhetoric.
Hmmm … I was considering RD’s responses as a response to RW’s initial comments about the incident, not to the follow-up video. This may have been an error on my part. I still think that RD’s chosen approach was wrong, but underneath that he may have had a point. The elevator incident (should I capitalise this now?) was not an example of misogyny – at least, not unless it was Elevator Guy’s intent to make RW uncomfortable or uneasy. If it was, as it appears to be, a pathetically clumsy and inappropriate chat-up attempt, then it certainly ain’t misogyny.
Since he published that book, Dawkins gets pilloried for breathing.
However, I agree that the vituperation directed at Dawkins is way, way out of proportion to Dawkins’s perceived offence. To be fair, RD could have expressed himself a great deal more cleraly than he did, because it turned out that his response was all-too-easily seen as a belittling of RW’s feelings in the elevator.
Yeah, I think some people have done this, but that reasoning seems to have got swamped by other stuff.
I’m not sure I agree with this.
RD’s phraseology was unpleasantly dismissive of RW’s discomfort. Now, in light of the points you’ve made, I can see that he was probably contrasting the unease RW felt with the abuse suffered by victims of real misogyny, but this is not clear in Dawkins’s own comments. So, I think that RD’s initial comments were indeed insensitive – if not to RW’s feelings about the elevator, then to the potential impact such an approach would invoke.
Something that seems to be overlooked here is that body language was involved. We can only speculate as to what kind of message the body language added to the words, but we can be fairly certain that it accounted for a lot more of the total message than the words. Relatively few people seem very consciously keyed into body language, but we’re all pretty damn good at using it and reading it precisely because it speaks so much more effectively and clearly than words alone (it’s also the lack of body language and inflection and tone and such that create a lot of online strife). Body language can also tell on us, particularly if we’re not very aware of it. Elevator dude may have genuinely intended to be careful not to pressure Rebecca, for a purely speculative and vague example, and in the way he communicated it accomplished precisely the opposite.
The initial incident and Rebecca’s commentary just don’t seem worthy of anything remotely like the reaction that’s followed (and I’m only aware of it all secondhand, through comments about the “controversy” rather than the “controversy” itself). There’s no need to judge Elevator Dude for being a letch. He’s understandably a product of this society. Those who know him have their own opinions, those who don’t have no need or any real reason to form them. We can give both Rebecca and Elevator Dude the benefit of the doubt here. So why do we vilify either of them?
Here’s a bit of perspective from “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin de Becker:
“You’re in a hallway waiting for an elevator late at night. The elevator door opens, and there’s a guy inside, and he makes you afraid. You don’t know why, you don’t know what it is. And many women will stand there and look at that guy and say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to think like that. I don’t want to be the kind of person who lets the door close in his face. I’ve got to be nice. I don’t want him to think I’m not nice.’
And so human beings will get into a steel soundproof chamber with someone they’re afraid of, and there’s not another animal in nature that would even consider it.”
Women shouldn’t only feel perfectly okay with not being nice, but the ability to flat out be a bitch if necessary should be valued and encouraged. Personally I tend to see it as strength of character (unless it’s just simple nastiness … actually even then in some cases). It’s a horrible thing to teach people to violate their own basic sense of self-preservation.
@shams 1657
From page 54 of the book:
Note that it doesn’t say he coined the phrase. In fact, the link I provided you demonstrates that they were in use for years before Dawkins used them — which is why he used them, because they were known phrases.
Perhaps if you had actually gone to the link, rather than ignore it, you might have learned something.
Again, you’re using sexist language to reference me.
There. FTFY.
Gr8hands (1653) said:
FTFY?
lol
wikipedia couldn’t find the source, so you needed someone who had read the book to get the page number.
Dawkins is the first person credited with CSS and DSS in my reading. And I actually have read the literature, Mr. Wikipedia.
you SAID i credited Dawkins with inventing ESS. That is untrue. i never said that.
Again, you are trying to discredit my argument with adhom.
a teabagger tactic, actually.
One More Time, FGM, stoning, Amanda Marcotte, all strawmen erected by Dawkins and his fanboi apologentsia to shut Rebecca up by trivializing what happened to her.
you got p’wned by a gurrl, Angry White Males.
@Nigel Depledge
FTFY: Fixed That For You.
@Byron Smith 1666,
By all means, don’t get in the elevator — but call that what it is: sexism, because it is based on gender, and heterosexism, because it is based on the presumption that the man is straight. If the man was from another ethnic group, it would also be an example of racism.
Guess what? It’s still okay not to get in the elevator. If you are claustrophobic, don’t get into the elevator. If you are allergic to fragrance and the elevator reeks of perfume, don’t get into the elevator. Feel empowered not to get into the elevator.
Just don’t blame the man just for being there. That has too many -isms. If one is to be honest about it, that is.
shams, your frequent hypocrisy is duly noted for the world to see.
But, please continue to make posts. No one is telling you to shut up — we’re just pointing out your errors and your hypocrisy.
Gia (1374) said:
True, but you were stating an opinion. You referred to fathers of single-parent children as “sperm donors” and you implied that all of them “disappeared”. You failed to back this up at the time with any data. Treating all people with a certain characteristic as being the same is bigotry.
For example, how many single-parent children had fathers who died between the child’s conception and the child’s birth? I have no idea, but there must be some. So your derision of fathers of single-parent children is disrespectful in the extreme of those fathers who died. By treating these paople as being the same as fathers who left, you are a bigot.
That is a fact.
One can postulate a handful of other scenarios in which a father is absent for much of a child’s early years without it necessarily being that father’s fault (e.g. armed forces posted to Iraq or Afghanistan; institutionalised for some mental disorder; hospitalised and in a coma following some kind of accident; and so on). Are such people also deserving of your scorn? Are they also merely “sperm-donors”?
I don’t need to. You made the claim, the burden of proof is yours alone.
You did actually say “walk free”.
Gia (1348) said:
To which I had replied (1370):
I notice that, rather than answer a simple question, you have posted a shedload of links. Is this because you are too lazy to support your own argument or because you cannot? As it happens, I cannot follow those links from work because of our draconian web-filter. Perhaps you could instead simply answer the question I posed?
BTW, I won’t follow your links from home because I’ll be too busy being a father for my 11-week-old son.
You also accuse me of “arguing against facts”. Perhaps you could cite exactly where I did this?
1671. gr8hands,
Wait, are you implying that RW made a conscious choice to have Creepy Elevator Guy follow her into the elevator and make an unwanted proposition?
Because, in order to be accurate, you would have to say “If you don’t want to get unwanted propositions in an elevator, get out of the elevator every time a man follows you in there”
Are women responsible for not being anywhere a man might proposition them if they don’t want to be propositioned? Do men bear NO responsibility for understanding when a proposition is a appropriate or not?
Maybe you are suggesting that the Muslim way is, in fact best. After all, apparently guys bear no responsibility at all for their behavior, and if a woman doesn’t want inappropriate and unwanted propositions made in an enclosed space, she should assume that every man who follows her into an elevator is incapable of basic social skills, and get out.
’cause that wouldn’t be sexist at all.
@1672
oh Mr. Wikipedia, you just got p’wned by a gurrl.
try to be more gracious.
@Teresa 1674
No, I am not implying anything of the sort. I was responding to Byron Smith’s quote.
(…to have
CreepyElevator Guyfollow hergo into the elevator and make anunwanted proposition?offer for coffee?)There. FTFY.
And since people are still asking why it’s creepy to be propositioned in an elevator —
Imagine that, for whatever reason, you’re in the drunk tank overnight. Nobody else is around but your heavily tattooed fellow inmate Spike, who’s 6’9″, 315 lbs. He asks if you want to cuddle.
Still feel safe?
1676. gr8hands:
Well, when you take the situation that actually happened, and then describe it as a completely different situation, you certainly make it so that my days of not taking you seriously are coming to a middle.
As has been addressed before: “coffee in my room at 4:00AM” = sex
“Coffee at a coffee shop at 4:00PM tomorrow” = coffee
See, one is a clearly socially appropriate approach (the second one)
And the other (in combination with the fact that he acknowledged that he was overstepping clear boundaries and recognized that his proposition might be unwelcomed) forces the woman to decide if the person making the proposition is a sociopath, or just socially awkward (knowing that he was making a socially awkward proposition that violated clear boundaries leans him toward the predatory end of the scale).
Since the stakes are very high, a sensible woman should assume he’s a socio-path…
Asking any men who are capable of understanding this to not put women in that position is a reasonable request. Obviously, you are not capable of understanding this, but please don’t offend the rest of the male gender by acting like they are all as dense and incapable as you are.
I’ve probably met and interacted socially with several hundred guys in my 43 years.
Of that number, probably around hundred of them have initiated interactions that were clear violations of interpersonal boundaries and came in spite clear signals and cues that such behavior would be unwelcome.
Among them were a child sexual predator, a rapist, and around thirty or so sexual attackers (groping/grabbing/verbal sexual threats), and two stalkers. Most of the time, the approach is indistinguishable from a slightly awkward violation of good taste and sense…but the goal is to wait for or create opportunities for an attack.
The rest probably just didn’t understand boundaries. But they are indistinguishable from the predators up to the point that the predators reveal themselves as such…at which point, the public opinion that told you you had to “be nice” to the poor unfortunate dears turns on you and tells you that it is all your fault for “encouraging” them.
The minute a guy shows that he doesn’t care what you want, and is only going after what he wants…or convinces himself in spite of the evidence that he can make you want what he wants, you have to begin to defend yourself. First by re-asserting boundaries, and by insisting that they be honored…and you have to be prepared that it will probably lead to a physical fight for your life.
If you don’t want women to respond to you that way…learn a better approach.
@Tiercelet 1677
“And since people are still asking why it’s creepy to be
propositionedasked for coffee in an elevator . . .”There. FTFY.
1680. gr8hands Says
“@Tiercelet 1677
“And since people are still asking why it’s creepy to be propositioned asked for coffee in an elevator . . .”
There. FTFY.”
No,
“Asked for coffee at a time when it is generally assumed it doesn’t mean coffee, but actually an immediate engagement in meaningless sex, and asked back to a place that is even more isolated and less secure and safe than the elevator, and when the person has made it clear enough that they are not interested in being propositioned that you feel you have to cut their legs out from under them by prefacing your offer with “don’t take this the wrong way.”
Your failure to understand these things will probably cause you serious problems some day, if it hasn’t already. Seek help.
Once again, Creepy Elevator Guy may not have realized his mistake…but the stakes are low for him. The worst thing he suffered for his naivete, if that is what it was, is that he didn’t get laid, and he’s now anonymously known as “creepy elevator guy”.
The consequences for a woman who is that naive is that she will probably eventually end up in serious physical danger of rape and/or murder.
@1680
Oh Mr. Wikipedia, still you persist, much like a teatard or a stubborn STD.
“And since people are still asking why it’s creepy to be asked to a stranger’s hotel room at 4AM for coffee in an elevator . . .”
There. FTFY.
@Teresa 1678
There. FTFY.
I’m sorry that @1679 your related history includes “groping/grabbing/verbal sexual threats, et al.” No one should have to suffer that.
It seems clear that because of your past you are going to look at everything through the filter of ‘men are a threat’ — and there is nothing wrong with that. As long as you can admit you are doing the filtering, and it isn’t necessarily the men who are ‘doing’ anything.
The problem is that you are doing more than that, but constantly – in spite of the evidence – using words and interpretations of direct negative action by EG. That is inaccurate.
My saying that isn’t an attempt to diminish or minimize your past in any way. It isn’t an attempt to tell anyone to STFU (regardless of how many posters attempt to say that).
You wrote:
What actually happened was EG and RW got in the same elevator, RW got in first. EG asked her for coffee, RW declined. Everything else is supposition, with far too many automatically jumping to the negative, sexualized, “creepy” interpretation without.
That is a bit hypocritical of you, as you have constantly ascribed all manner of terrible things to EG.
No, he made no such acknowledgement. That is your sexualized, negative interpretation of it, based on your ‘men are a threat’ filter.
Imagine EG was wearing an “I am gay” t-shirt. Seriously. Imagine EG was clearly gay. Using the exact same dialog, would there have been any perceived sexual threat? Why not? (I think you may begin to see how the perceived sexual threat is blatant heterosexism.)
Teresa, you should probably read my post 1391.
@1683 “gr8hands” <– scare quotes
oh Mr. Wikipedia, i think you should give up. this is obviously a fumble on your part.
See? its still creepy even without the elevator!
FTFY.
shams, you did see where I presented you with the text of page 54 from your source, and it does not say what you think it said, right?
@1671. gr8hands Says:
> By all means, don’t get in the elevator — but call that what it is: sexism, because it is
> based on gender, and heterosexism, because it is based on the presumption that the man
> is straight. If the man was from another ethnic group, it would also be an example of
> racism.
I see a few problems with that take. First, the potential threats related to maleness are about aggression and strength (power), less about sexuality, and if we don’t jump ahead of the situation as it developed we shouldn’t even be at sexuality when we’re talking about getting onto the elevator. That didn’t present itself until later. Call it sexism if you feel the need for whatever reason, but the fact of the matter is well summarized by the Gavin de Becker quote–gender may be a factor, but it wasn’t about a man getting onto an elevator inappropriately, it was about an inappropriate proposition. So you’ve had to change the parameters of the issue under consideration in order to call it sexism.
Also, there’s quite a lot of good evidence that suggests there’s at least some risk involved in a woman getting into an elevator with a man. That’s just the way it is, for obvious reasons. Most guys aren’t going to take advantage of the situation, but most women are at a significant disadvantage should they get into the situation with a guy who does, so she’s inherently forced to either trust the dude to some degree (play the odds), or opt out (get out of the elevator, or choose not to get in, depending upon the timing, and that puts her at odds with conventional social etiquette).
Finally I don’t think you buy into the idea that people should have no problem getting into a fairly soundproof metal box, where exit may be denied, with someone who has the power to do you harm and deny you that exit. That’s pretty basic self-preservation, and if you or I were in a society where we were inherently threatened (say, at least in my case by the virtue of my atheism) we would understandably experience some hesitation in getting into an elevator with two or three or four people (enough to present a significant power/tactical advantage should such a situation arise) who share similar characteristics with those who have, in fact, been known to assault atheists. This should be no different for women. It’s an equation with “risk the potential of slightly offending someone” on one side, and “be assaulted and potentially serious harmed or killed” on the other. We can argue over the specific odds and variables that should accompany those two sides of the equation, but those factors aren’t going to go away as a result.
> Guess what? It’s still okay not to get in the elevator. If you are claustrophobic, don’t get
> into the elevator. If you are allergic to fragrance and the elevator reeks of perfume, don’t
> get into the elevator. Feel empowered not to get into the elevator.
Absolutely. The issue at hand isn’t inappropriately getting into the elevator, it’s making an inappropriate proposition once there.
> Just don’t blame the man just for being there.
Again, absolutely (see above).
> That has too many -isms. If one is to be honest about it, that is.
Too many isms? Are you sure? What’s the count? I haven’t been keeping score, personally.
@Richard L 1661: The answer is yes, it is fine for you to ride elevators with lone women. The context – there’s always context – from Watson’s situation that made it creepy was: he followed her from the bar to the elevator; he said he’d found what she said interesting, which means he was listening to her talk about not wanting to be sexualized; then he propositioned her anyway, showing her that he was ignoring her clearly spoken boundaries.
To any listener with at least one antenna up, Elevator Guy was saying, ‘I heard you, but I don’t care what you want. My want is bigger.’
It’s not always bad to talk to someone in an elevator, but considering that it’s kind of awkward and everyone is everyone else’s captive audience, it’s not a classy place for a cold pickup, even under circumstances where you didn’t stalk her to the elevator because you just ‘had to talk to her alone.’
Comment 1456 by Teresa has a nice description of how Elevator Guy’s behavior falls in a danger zone of possible precursors to assault. And because most women are in a state of more or less constant vigilance about their personal safety, in a way that most men simply don’t have to know, Watson was totally reasonable to have been creeped out. (I think this is part of Phil’s argument.) It might be helpful to think of all possible man-woman interactions as being on a continuum, with Elevator Guy nearer to the acceptable end, although not quite there.
Dawkins’ attack on Watson was not shocking merely because he disagreed (although that is a problem too, IMO), but because he was so condescending and so quick to trivialize another person’s point of view. I submit that Dawkins simply has no idea what it is like to live under the threat of being aggressively hit on, or groped, or catcalled, or ogled, or told to look happy (yes, some men think they can even control our emotional state), every day of his life the way most women do. What Dawkins is doing is defined as “silencing:” a woman has spoken up to ask for equal respect to how male peers are treated at conferences, and in response Dawkins is saying, ‘shut up take whatever men give you.’
“Teresa, you should probably read my post 1391.”
And how does that change the fact that you can’t understand the importance of respecting personal boundaries, and that it is appropriate to ask men to not put women in situations where they have to try to figure out if someone is a potential rapist or not?
You CHOOSE to ignore the lessons of your experience, as well as the advice of consensus science on abnormal psychology regarding predators, as well as the testimony of predators themselves about how they operate.
You do this because you think that the only alternative to this conscious naivete is fearing an entire gender (as opposed to understanding clear behavioral markers)…and argue that letting guys know what’s going on is some sort of reverse sexism.
And I assume that you referred me back to this post to refute the idea that this inability to appropriately deal with information might cause you problems?
Lady, you’ve got issues.
@shams 1685
They were both staying in the same hotel, going to the same conference, and had already been involved in some kind of conversation for hours (according to RW that she’d been in the bar, and that EG had also been there able to hear her and possibly spoke with her. RW didn’t say he introduced himself in the elevator, so that must have happened back in the bar.).
This wasn’t random stranger off the street interacting with RW for the first time. This was someone who had been at the conference, and at the bar for hours afterwards. We have no idea how much interaction they had at the bar, but it was clearly not anything negative because she didn’t retreat from him as being ‘creepy’ when he first got into the elevator.
The idea of continuing an ongoing conversation isn’t “creepy” regardless of how many times you use the word in your posts.
@1683
Yes, yes, the sexualization was all entirely the muddled female mind. Sure.
Now you didn’t answer my question from #1677. Spike’s twice your size, you can’t get away, and he asks you to cuddle.
Do you feel safe? Honestly, would you feel completely at ease? He only asked you to cuddle (it’s not like he said he wants sex!) and surely he’ll respect your no — right?
@Byron Smith 1687
Sorry, but the Gavin de Becker quote clearly starts with sexism — the woman fears the man simply because he is a man. I wonder why you won’t admit that?
Agreed. Some risk. Do I have to point out that women get into elevators with men millions of times every single day — yet you’d have to do some fancy Googling to come up with a single story of a woman getting accosted in an elevator every day. You might have more luck with stories of a woman shooting another woman in the elevator.
“Too many isms? Are you sure? What’s the count?” I would suggest that even one -ism is too many.
1690. gr8hands Says:
“They were both staying in the same hotel,”
So now we imply permission for anyone who stays in the same hotel as us to hit on us?
” going to the same conference,”
As well as anyone attending the same conference as us. REmember this ladies, if you go to a conference, you are giving the implicit message that you are fair game for anyone with a conference badge or a hotel key.
“and had already been involved in some kind of conversation for hours (according to RW that she’d been in the bar, and that EG had also been there able to hear her and possibly spoke with her.”
And this goes double for anyone engaged in a general group conversation in a bar, whether you actually personally talk to them or, if they are just hanging out on the fringes listening to you.
” RW didn’t say he introduced himself in the elevator, so that must have happened back in the bar.)”
The assumption is, that if you stay in the same hotel, attend the same conference, and engage in a group discussion, this serves as a personal introduction, or an introduction must have happened at some point.
“This wasn’t random stranger off the street interacting with RW for the first time. This was someone who had been at the conference, and at the bar for hours afterwards. We have no idea how much interaction they had at the bar, but it was clearly not anything negative because she didn’t retreat from him as being ‘creepy’ when he first got into the elevator.”
If you don’t notice somebody being creepy in a crowded bar where you are in a general conversation, you can’t identify his behavior as creepy when he gets into an elevator alone with you.
“The idea of continuing an ongoing conversation isn’t “creepy” regardless of how many times you use the word in your posts.”
Even after you explicitly withdraw from the conversation, someone who may or may not have spoken to you directly can expect to continue the conversation regardless of your clear wishes to the contrary.
Got it. Everybody understand now? Gr8hands has explained proper human interaction for us. Everyone bow down in gratitude.
@Tiercelet 1692,
I didn’t answer your rhetorical question because I would not be in the drunk tank with Spike for any reason.
Why did you add the words “muddled female mind” to this discussion? No one said or suggested that. It sounds like a self-esteem issue that you’re projecting onto others.
For that matter, why aren’t you criticizing shams for writing things like: “you just got p’wned by a gurrl”? I’m not into being the tone police, but I point out the hypocrisy of using sexist language in a post complaining about sexism. Or do you think it is okay for women to use misogynistic language?
@Teresa 1695
There. FTFY.
Mr. Wikipedia, aka “gr8hands”
Chapter five says exactly that. Do you want to see Dawkins initial papers on CSS and DSS?
You can google them, you know.
I’ve read the literature– you obviously have not.
Wikipedia is apparently the limit of your search-fu.
You said i claimed Dawkins invented ESS– i never claimed that.
Again, Dawkins introduction of FGM and stoning are obvious strawmen designed to get Rebecca to shut up, like Hugo’s introduction of Amanda Marcotte. And you are the last hold out of the Dawkins apologentsia, still furiously moving goalposts and whining about sexism and hypocrisy.
You seem to be arguing that men have some sort of intrinsic RIGHT granted by their biology to harrass women with unsolicited attention. Is that what you are saying?
Because its extremely difficult to tell.
@shams 1698.
You are wrong. I supplied the actual text of the section on Dawkins from Chapter 5. It does not say Dawkins coined the phrase CSS and DSS.
Please feel free to supply the text of or link to the initial papers on CSS and DSS. I would suggest you read them first.
You seem to be arguing that women have some sort of intrinsic RIGHT granted by their biology to harrass men with unsupported accusations of misogyny and creepiness. Is that what you are saying? Because its extremely difficult to tell.
and, Mr. Wikipedia.
If you recall, I said that Dawkins understands that Islam is an uninvadable CSS in EGT terminology, and that he also understands pitching a fit like he did in his “Letter to Muslima” can do nothing to solve the oppression of muslim women. If 8 years and 4 trillion dollars can only net the US one measly xian church, severe scoldings from Richard Dawkins are not going to make a dent in islamic intolerance and oppression of women.
That is why I agree with the majority that Dawkins introduced Islam into a convo that has nothing to with islamic culture inorder to trivialize Rebeccas post.
Mr. Wikipedia
“You seem to be arguing that women have some sort of intrinsic RIGHT granted by their biology to harrass men with unsupported accusations of misogyny and creepiness. ”
nope.
FTFY
read the chapter and learn something, Mr. Wikipedia. do your searches yourself.
then perhaps you won’t look so much like the two-digit i suspect you are.
Gr8hands,
Thanks so much. Unfortunately for you, simply using HTML Strike code can’t fix change reality.
Otherwise, you would have it nailed, for sure. Better luck in the future.
Well, I’m off to real life. Bye all, and stay safe.
you know ….its the third comment that really gets me too.
Why?
Why would Richard Dawkins say that?
Given that he knows full well that Islam is an EGT uninvadable strategy, and severe scoldings are not going to turn any muslims into atheoskeptics or help any oppressed muslimahs….why introduce FGM and stoning except to trivialize Rebecca’s issue?
@shams 1701
Your refusal to admit you were wrong about the direct quote I provided from Chapter 5 of your source is telling. And again, it doesn’t say anything complimentary about you.
Your constant restating of the 4 trillion dollars getx only one xian church non sequitur as if it is making some kind of point, only shows you have a tenuous grasp on reality at best.
As an aside, peaceful people, working directly with the public, are much more likely to “make a dent in islamic intolerance and oppression of women” than are soldiers. Don’t you think? — wait, I bet I know the answer to that.
Your argumentum ad populum is duly noted. I would also disagree with your analysis of what “the majority” believe.
However, keep posting, because none of my posts are in any telling you to STFU. Pointing out your errors, your logical fallacies and your hypocrisy is not telling you to STFU.
can you answer the question, Mr. Wikipedia?
praps there’s a wiki on it.
Given that Dawkins knows full well that Islam is an EGT uninvadable strategy, and severe scoldings are not going to turn any muslims into atheoskeptics or help any oppressed muslimahs…indeed, 8 years of occupation and 4 trillion dollars have not converted any detectable number of muslims….why introduce FGM and stoning except to trivialize Rebecca’s issue?
Guess what people?
No one has the right to never feel uncomfortable in public.
That really settles this issue once and for all. I’ll gladly take well meaning and respectful advice such as “watch your surroundings and be aware of the situation from the other persons pov”. That’s fine , though of course there are people who mean well but are clueless. However b.s. about never getting in elevators, don’t introduce yourself unless you know someone socially, cross to the other side of the street…forget that crap. Equal is equal, and as a man I have more to fear on the streets anyway. If words like “misogyny” and half understood silencing tactics like bringing out good ol alleged male privilege were left behind this conversation would have been far more productive and already over with.
As for the White Knighting… I have no use for it.
Bye Teresa. I hope you are able to get professional help to overcome your victim worldview. Until then, you are wasting too much of your life in fear — which is really a waste, since you seem like a reasonably nice person.
Bye shams. You’re part of the problem, not part of the solution, and that’s a sad way to live.
However, keep posting, because none of my posts (or those of Dawkins) are in any way telling you to STFU.
@1696
“I didn’t answer your rhetorical question because I would not be in the drunk tank with Spike for any reason. ”
How fortunate for you, to live in a world where no one’s ever imprisoned by mistake or under false pretenses. [1]
In any event, the question was not really rhetorical — My goal is to get you to imagine a situation where you might feel the way most women are socialized to feel around most strange men most of the time, and affirmatively answer that you can understand that situation. But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised a want of imagination and a want of empathy traveling together.
Since you asked, I don’t really have a problem with mildly misogynistic language used for ironic effect. I’m not getting involved in your conflict with Shams because, frankly, who’s got the time to read a 1700-comment thread; y’all are getting boring on that front, and I’ll sit it out thanks.
[1] http://consumerist.com/2011/07/chase-gets-man-thrown-in-jail-for-fraudulent-check-except-the-check-is-legit.html
@shams 1705. Since it appears you are learning impaired, I will repeat myself again:
Rebecca’s non-event was trivial. Dawkins was merely pointing it out using an extreme example in a sarcastic way.
However, keep posting, because none of my posts (or those of Dawkins) are in any way telling you to STFU. In fact, many of your posts are instructive examples of why most women refuse to call themselves feminists.
However, keep posting. I, however, will no longer be reading. Be sure to look up argument from authority so you can post how you were wrong about its meaning. And the other errors I pointed out to you.
well….anyone can answer since Mr. Wikipedia is retiring.
I would especially love for Richard Dawkins to answer my question.
I have not used the eff word even once.
here is my question.
I would gladly hear some other reason, if there is one.
If not, perhaps you, Richard Dawkins, could apolo for your tone at least.
1694. gr8hands Says:
> Sorry, but the Gavin de Becker quote clearly starts with sexism — the woman fears the
> man simply because he is a man. I wonder why you won’t admit that?”
I won’t “admit” that because I’ve read the book and that’s in fact NOT what the quote is about. It’s about how the woman’s intuition (i.e. real fear rather than worry or anxiety) gave the her reason to feel threatened (” … he makes you afraid. You don’t know why, you don’t know what it is … “). That’s a lot of what “The Gift of Fear” is about. But the point I used that quote to make was that it was quite understandable for Rebecca to behave as she did if she felt threatened in that situation. Context matters, and that comment did depend upon some familiarity with de Becker and, ideally, “The Gift of Fear”. I could have been more clear about that for sure, so hopefully this has taken care of that.
>> Also, there’s quite a lot of good evidence that suggests there’s at least some risk involved
>> in a woman getting into an elevator with a man.
> Agreed. Some risk. Do I have to point out that women get into elevators with men
> millions of times every single day — yet you’d have to do some fancy Googling to come up
> with a single story of a woman getting accosted in an elevator every day. You might
> have more luck with stories of a woman shooting another woman in the elevator.
Yup, and probably the large majority of those men who didn’t accost women in elevators also didn’t hit on them. When you look at only -pertinent- cases the odds will change, I suspect dramatically, given the stakes. Note also that predators who initially engage their victims in elevators aren’t limited to act in those elevators, so such a Google search would have to be rather less than casual in order to be very useful in addressing this case.
—
My entire initial point was that Rebecca’s behavior is ABSOLUTELY understandable, and that it’s a terrible thing to teach less powerful, more preyed upon members of society to suppress their basic self-preservation. That accounts for a lot of what “The Gift of Fear” is about, which is why the quote occurred to me (besides the whole elevator schtick). Also I was trying to stress the fact that body language and all sorts of signals and messages and nuance and environmental/security factors are completely absent from a purely textual or even verbal account of a given incident. Those are the things that people need to learn to read and respond to, and more than likely also the very things so many are scolding Rebecca for reading and responding to.
I think it’s pretty absurd that there’s so much second-guessing imposing the burden of doubt upon Rebecca here. In a healthier society we would have taken Rebecca’s point and moved on as it seems she was set to do. We weren’t there, and there was no impetus to vilify anyone. Hopefully Elevator Dude would have taken her point and moved on as well. But this aftermath is clearly demonstrating we don’t live in such a healthy society.
The stupid thing is all the people saying “He just asked her to join him for coffee” and “Can I no longer ask a woman out for coffee?” and “How is asking her to join him for coffee creepy?”
He did not just ask her to have coffee with him. He asked her to join him for coffee in his room at 4 o’clock in the morning. Whether he attended any of her talks, whether he paid attention to them or her conversation with others at the bar, that was a pretty senseless thing to ask someone who doesn’t even know him.
That was the original point Rebecca made, for which she’s been excoriated. Yes, she’s subsequently upped the ante since then. Regardless.
The point is it was a stupid question (hey! there really are stupid questions after all). Period.
Everything else – ascribing motivations to the anonymous Elevator Guy, of innocence or violent potential – is irrelevant to the initial comment and point.
He wasn’t just invitng her for coffee. He was hardly even pretending to be inviting her for coffee. (My mother used to say “Ignore everything before the ‘but’.”) Hotel-room coffee? (Plunger at best.) Come on! They were in a lift at 4am. It probably only had one set of buttons and he could have stood in front of them.
(In his defence, he was probably just a nerd, maybe borderline Aspergers; her response was approriate and proportionate to that. Skeptic and atheist gatherings get more than their share of us.)
I think the fact that after nearly 2000 posts some men still don’t Get It indicates that something deeper is going on here. Are men biologically programmed to be unable to understand women’s resistance to their charms? Or even to understand their explanations of their resistance?
Witness yet another example: in modern Canada, not only is prayer being had on public schools, but the menstruating girls are kept apart as being “unclean”. Will this riff-raff raise an outcry over this? Of course they won’t. They won’t because they can’t. Because they have all the use and value of – actually, I’ll block that metaphor.
I think what the women here don’t get is the fact while it is certainly true most men do not have to fear sexual assault, they must be aware of the potential of other serious physical assault almost constantly. Almost any interaction with another stronger male is being constantly evaluated for the potential to escalate into physical attack especially if alcohol has been consumed or the man is a stranger. Men do not go around wining about this and women, as men’s equals in all areas of life, are similarly expected to endure the odd uncomfortable moment and keep calm and carry on.
@Hugo
didn’t we just establish that your and Dawkins barking islamophobia is irrelevant to the context of this discussion?
Dawkins is correct on this issue:
If we become hypersensitive about everything, we demean the true instances we should worry about.
A woman in an elevator with a man can say NO.
A woman being subjugated by force cannot.
Feminists damage their own cause with hyper-sensitivity and other drama.
In other news, with the liberal reforms of the 1960s, not only has rape skyrocketed but so has divorce, autism, infidelity and other dysfunctions of the family.
What is good about feminism again? It doesn’t seem to help women, and from this thread, it appears feminists are just man-haters.
@Hugo
let me try to explain this, both for you and Dawkins. Canada has a representative government with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There is nothing you can do about Canada.
Like in the US where muslims can build a mosque ON ground zero if they can buy the land to build on.
In islamic culture, there is also nothing you can do about islamic FGM, stoning, hijab, defense-against-proselytization reflex, anti-blasphemy laws and harsh penalties for apostasy.
Because Islam is an uninvadable strategy.
So what is your purpose in introducing Islam in this discussion?
Can you answer my question?
Hey Hugo, back in your 1592 comment, you said you were only staying to talk to Messier Tidy Upper. Looks like we can add duplicity to your list of crimes against reason: quoting out of context, misquoting and misusing terminology to suit your own ends.
The fact remains that Watson was creeped out for justifiable reasons, none of us who weren’t there can second guess her, and if we lived in a sexually respectful society, she could have spoken up – quite mildly – about her concerns without setting the internet on fire with backlash against her. Your trolling serves to prove her point.
Bringing in religion, when the relevant topic is gender relations, is classic “derailing.” Hey look at that; another definition for you to abuse.
@the atheoskeptic community
Again, why did Dawkins introduce Islam into the discussion?
Dawkins is one of the foundational theorists of evo bio and EGT. He knows perfectly well that Islam in situ is an uninvadable strategy (Maynard-Smith), and impenetrable to both severe scoldings and invasion and occupation. This is empirically obvious in Iraq.
Dawkins “letter to Muslima” is just radar chaff, introduced to shame Rebecca into shutting up about an issue that Dawkins decided was trivial.
Like Julie said, classic derailing tactics.
@1719
No, Dawkins is WRONG.
If we dwell on issues that we can SCIENTIFICALLY, EMPIRICALLY do absolutely nothing about, we lose the chance to improve the human condition in practical ways, in ways we can actually achieve progress.
Dawkins knows we can do NOTHING about islamic FGM and stoning. He only raised Islam as an issue to trivialize Rebecca’s situation.
Because HE feels it is trivial.
Dawkins contributed nothing beneficial to this discussion.
If he really was a scientist he would be scheming clever ways to penetrate EGT uninvadable strategies with mutant strategies like tolerance and free speech and equal rights for women.
But instead, on this thread, he presents as just another Angry White Male with barking islamophobia.
@1719. Brett Stevens Says:
> Dawkins is correct on this issue:
>
> If we become hypersensitive about everything, we demean the true instances we should
> worry about.
Quite right.
No one should be having any issues at all, much less still a week later (ish?), simply because a woman told men she doesn’t appreciate being hit on when alone in an elevator at 4:00am on her way to her room to go to sleep. Those who are so upset about this really could stand to take stock of what the hell’s got them all up in a wad … absolutely. A lot of people really seem to need to work on their sense of perspective. I guess the histrionic political climate in the US may have something to do with it–seems as if it’s normal to throw tantrums and carry on with much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over virtually nothing these days. We’ve gotten so delicate that a simple rejection seems to pose some kind of frightening threat to hordes of people.
-So- fragile … very strange.
Dawkins is correct on this issue:
>
> If we become hypersensitive about everything, we demean the true instances we should
> worry about.
Quite right.
nope, quite wrong.
freaking out about things we are powerless to change and ignoring things we can change is stupid.
Dawkins raised the irrelevant issue of islamic FGM to shut Rebecca up on an issue he decided was trivial. we cannot do anything about uninvadable strategies, as Iraq spectacularily demonstrates. We can, however, raise online awareness in the atheoskeptic community about what happened to Rebecca Watson.
You are another apologist for a dishonest Angry White Male, aka Richard Dawkins.
@1726. shams:
You may wanna read the rest of #1725 …
Byron, you gave us the quote from The Gift of Fear. You’re cool with this feminist. (Well, what do you know, I don’t hate all men…
)
PZ Myers has written a post about the bad arguments he’s been seeing (“Two awful no-good terribad miserable arguments”, on Pharyngula). One of his picks also gets my vote for most hilarious: ‘it’s a natural imperative, so if men can’t pursue sex aggressively, they’d never get laid at all!’ To repeat what I said in #1633: in feminist skepticism, nice guys can and do get laid.
Another argument from some women, that saddens me greatly, goes something like this: ‘acknowledging a general imbalance in risk between men and women in our society, would make me feel weak or look weak. I’m not weak, or fearful, so stop insulting me!’ Here are some of my answers to that.
If you’ve never personally felt threatened or pressured, that’s great! But your experience is not identical to everyone else’s. Please don’t assume that anyone who has had different experiences than you is paranoid, hysterical or weak. In other words, don’t deny their experience. When another human being tells you something about their distinct emotional experience, first believe them. Don’t reinterpret, rationalize, or explain it back to them. They lived it; you didn’t.
Speaking of reinterpretation, looking at a situation (like Watson and EG) in hindsight, and declaring it trivial based solely on outcome, is a bad road to take. Watson didn’t know the outcome in advance; none of us would have. That denies all kinds of context and emotional reality, which can never be known by those of us who weren’t there.
Recognizing external pressures does not reflect on your character in any way, and therefore does not make you weak or fearful. In Western society, despite whatever advances we’re made, women are generally far more likely than men to be aggressively hit on, or groped, or catcalled, or ogled, or told to look happy, or see highly sexualized images of women in ads, every day of their lives. And it would also be a rare woman indeed who has never heard/read multiple news stories about a female assault victim who is now being blamed for her own assault (wrong place, wrong clothes, too drunk, etc.). Acknowledging all of these constant risks doesn’t make you hysterical, it makes you realistic.
Interviews with predators who are now imprisoned, has confirmed that ‘bad guys’ actively masquerade as regular guys, when trying to snag potential victims. (My source for this is Teresa’s discussion in #1457.) This puts rational backing to the traditional ‘gut feeling’ that all people use in social interactions all the time, to decide if we ‘like’ someone or not: a person who sets off your personal alarm bells may only be pushing the envelope a wee bit, but it’s still pushing.
If you want your right to set your own limits respected, you have to acknowledge the right for others to set their own limits too. Attacking a woman for calmly describing her concerns and saying, “Guys, don’t do that,” is not merely difference of opinion, it’s lack of support that you yourself might want reciprocated someday.
If everyone had simply taken Watson’s vlog in the spirit of civil communication, instead of condescendingly explaining her own experience back to her, we wouldn’t be two weeks into a war.
Thanks Julie. I feel PZ’s pain re: the fact that Rebecca’s mild rebuke should be a non-issue, and that the fact it’s STILL being hotly debated is just absurd.
At any rate I can understand why Shams would miss the context of #1725 though, even if she did read the rest of it. All the nonsense can be frustrating, and my agreement with Brett’s words -in the pertinent context- may still appear to be -actual- agreement if you don’t read carefully. And when you’re understandably irate because of the nonsense and you’ve seen 14 knuckleheads arguing -precisely- what it looked like I was arguing before the context correction, it could be pretty easy to misread from there.
Shams … I think we all agree with Brett’s -actual- words in that first sentence. The real problem is that it was meant in a strategically shifted, histrionic context (a fine example of #3, projection/flipping here: http://tinyurl.com/3mtmdz6 ), so my point was to put the comment back into the appropriate (pertinent) context and illuminate this slight of mind maneuver, which is to argue something innocuous and obvious and safe by changing the actual context of the subject. That way your position seems innocuous and obvious, and perfectly reasonable. It would be absurd to argue with it … except, of course, that it’s out of context.
I haven’t been reading this discussion through entirely, but I’ve got to say I do not really know what to think. As a woman, I’ve experienced this type of approaches many times, but never really thought they were wrong. I took it for granted, that it happens, and actually went on thinking there was something wrong with me, if a man didn’t make a move in such situation. Granted, I’m pretty old, and had my young days in the 90’s… So maybe it’s just a question of generation, young women of today get to experience more violence or a threat of it so they find situations like this as a potential assault. And maybe that’s the case with Mr. Dawkins as well, he’s plain too old, still living in the world where suggesting sex to a woman in an elevator 4 a.m. does not necessarily lead into a sexual assault.
So, could we just forgive Mr. Dawkins and concentrate in heavier problems women have to meet, like being forced to work as prostitutes or acting in violent porn films by the mafia, or being beaten up by their men in homes, or actually “honour killed” out of their men’s jealousy…
Good topic tho and worth discussing, just don’t make Mr. Dawkins into a Third Antichrist he is not…
@Byron
You may wanna read the rest of #1725 …
i did. nothing to see there.
Dawkins raised an irrelevant issue to shut Rebecca up because he decided her issue was trivial to him. you are doing the same thing.
You may not know any better, but Dawkins does.
Islam is an EGT uninvadable strategy. Severe Scolding from Dawkins is not going to make a dent.
8+ years of occupation and 4 trillion dollars havent made a dent either.
Comparing islamic FGM to western cultural issues is just a way to belittle Rebecca’s issue and derail the discussion into the Horrors of Evuul Islam and the infinite cultural superiority of the West.
/spit
@Twigs 1731: Bonding moment: my younger days were also in the 90’s! I also haven’t experienced personal violence, but I seriously doubt that’s an age thing.
Regarding age-to-attitude links, I haven’t discerned any age trend among the women bloggers and commenters. It’s just that some women would have been personally creeped out, and some wouldn’t. But I definitely think that Watson’s position of being made to feel uncomfortable is easily defensible. After all, she had been literally saying “don’t sexualize me” all day, and he ignored her to push his own agenda anyway. (Since my mind is still on it, check out post 1457 from Teresa on this point.)
Ponder this fabulous quote from margaret 1296:
Regarding Dawkins, I’m not forgiving until he shows some empathy. He came down like a ton of bricks, heavy on the snark, and made a rotten argument to boot – that even though he wasn’t there and has no idea what it’s like to live Watson’s experience, he has the authority to declare the issue unimportant. Such a condescending attitude from a leader in the movement will serve to suppress other women trying to follow Watson’s lead and stand up for themselves, unless we in turn stand up to Dawkins.
1732. shams Says …
>> @Byron
>> You may wanna read the rest of #1725 …
>
> i did. nothing to see there.
Well, try 1730 then (bottom line, I didn’t defend RD, nor did I agree with Brett). Besides 1730 the context you’re not seeing is best summarized after the double dash in 1712.
And while you lot have been whining, there’s been twenty people killed and who knows how many injured by a real threat.
Since you lot have made it clear you will never do anything about this stuff, and since shams has said – in so many words – that there’s nothing you can do, and since this stuff is spreading like weed, I can offer an exclusive preview pic of the Skepchicks, circa 2040:
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/burka_graduation.jpg
1731. Twigs Says:
> So, could we just forgive Mr. Dawkins …
I’m inclined to agree, but RD opened up with the unnecessary posturing, so he kinda made it into a full blown, side-taking conflict, unfortunately. Hopefully cooler heads will soon prevail, but it’s not looking good.
Wow! All you nerds need to get a life!
Guess what happens all the time when clubs and bars close every weekend? Plus, what makes her think she’s anywhere hot enough to be worth the trouble of a guy actually trying to rape her in a hotel elevator. Deluded much?
Reminds me of 1984 with the Thought Police enforcing against sex for members of the Party, while the proles just do whatever and get state-created porn.
@1466. Julie
Sorry for taking so long to reply. However …
You’re right about Dawkins — screw him! He did it to himself. Progressing the rights of women is far more important than him.
In the end, the skeptical/atheist movement will survive and we will thrive as equals.
Cheers
………………………………………………………………………..
@1466. Julie Says:
July 9th, 2011 at 9:27 am
This one will turn out to be a repost, but it loks like no/slow moderation on weekends…
@Ron1 1436, No intent here to knock your despairing state of mind, because I’ve been there in my life. But after my initial shock of outrage at Dawkins’ cruelty, I’ve been feeling strangely euphoric . I know we’ve been reading some epic displays of anti-empathy from peers this week. Heck, I’ve been hearing them my whole adult life. But when someone with Dawkins’ visibility says it, the problem gets exposed to the light of day for all to see. And we still have PZ Myers, Phil Plait and plenty of others standing up for basic decency, and good, old fashioned class.
If Richard Dawkins thinks he can use women or “women’s issues” as a mere prop, then we are truly better off without him. The mantle of leadership should not be held when it can’t be honored by the wearer.
I hadn’t considered the angle that we might have pushed Dawkins over some kind of edge. But now that you raise it, I must disagree. He certainly posted that first screed on entirely his own initiative. And he kept coming back with more. Now he has as much opportunity to read our words, and embark on a little adult education, as anyone else. He did, after all, ask for somebody to explain it to him.
I recommend A Letter to Professor Dawkins from Victims of Sexual Assault.
I’m actually willing to listen to him again, if he starts coming around. However I have a certain skepticism about that request for dialog. Dawkins finished his third comment with characteristic snark: “I will gladly apologise if someone will calmly and politely, without using the word [&@#!] in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.” So the person who had no problem going straight to the personal with Watson, initially ridiculing the “chick” in Skepchick, now expands his contempt to everyone in the community, deigning to dictate the proper tone for communication. Does that make you feel valued? Maybe the best way to preserve our community is to expunge such a spokes model for uncontrollable venom.
Really? Every time a woman is alone with a man she’s in danger of being raped?
@Hugo
“And while you lot have been whining,there’s been twenty people killed and who knows how many injured by a real threat.”
a real threat to who?
you are the whiner. don’t you get it?
Islam is an uninvadable strategy.
You and Dawkins can piss and moan for the next 10 years and nothing will happen…except by then 1 out of 4 humans beings on the planet will be muslim.
Its genetic and memetic reproductive fitness in action.
Do something you can do, and stop your stupid bloody moaning.
@Julie
He certainly posted that first screed on entirely his own initiative.
yes. Shorter Dawkins: i dont give a sh*t about your concerns, Rebecca, because my barking islamophobia is overriding my basic human decency.
it boggles my mind.
i started to read phil plaits take on this and couldn’t continue after the first argument.
it goes like this:
“women get raped in elevators all the time.
there is something about being alone in an elevator with a women that triggers a man’s innate predatory instincts to rape. women are rightly cautioned.”
wtf?!?!?!
seriously?
yeah ok, i’ll buy it.
whenever i am alone with a women in a cramped space i do feel the urge to get my rape on.
it’s just my manly nature i guess.
@Carlos 1739: Potentially in danger of assault, potentially. Sad but true. Until somebody invents ESP, you can’t tell for sure up front. Even if the risk were low, if it could be calculated objectively for a given situation, the potential harm is so great that it makes good sense for women to maintain a certain level of constant vigilance.
Not that relative danger is necessarily a conscious thought all the time. But most women are subject to constant invasions of various kinds: the ogling, the catcalling, the groping, the demands that they pay attention to random men who feel free to invade their space and chat them up any time. Some women like some of this attention, but it can also be exhausting or downright threatening. Constant external pressure like that is bound to affect anybody’s level of vigilance when they are approached by yet another stranger.
That said, as you’ve probably noticed, many man-woman interactions happily go just fine. In contrast, Elevator Guy did several things wrong: he followed Watson from the bar; he propositioned her in confined space; he propositioned her in direct opposition to what she’d been literally saying all day (don’t sexually objectify me at conferences). That ratcheted his individual creep factor way up. Ignoring (or not being able to escape from) warning signals like that has made many a woman the next day’s crime statistic. We have the interviews with sexual predators to back that up (see comment 1457 from Teresa).
@Julie 1742: I’m starting to think I’m surrounded by super-women because NONE of them regard being alone with a man as a potential rape to occur. I honestly feel for you if you live your life thinking that every man you encounter is a potential rapist.
Would anyone be called anything but a racist if he/she said “Whenever I encounter a black guy I get nervous because I’m in potential danger of robbery and assault”?
I’ve noticed what women find creepy/outragous and what women find romantic is directly linked to how attractive they find the guy doing it. (Twilight anyone ?)
As for you Phil, continuosly saying “potential sexual assault” is hilarious.
What does that even mean anyway.
I’m having to be wary of all these people at work, they’re all potential murderers!
He tried to chat her up a bit, it happened to be in a lift. WOW
Tbh I think Dawkins response was kneejerk because he tried it on, got turned down and then she spoke about it, without name.
To make a huge deal about the original incident, which I’m not sure she actually did, would be pretty mental.
Now it’s just the snowball
My response to the local lowbrow shams and to the many here who think like him is this: Then shouldn’t we better get ready to surrender then? Isn’t EG then very good training for RW’s future, and for the rest of the skepchicks? Shouldn’t they start then getting used to being confined to Kinder/Kuche/Kirche and put away any other thoughts and aspirations?
After all, you have admitted in so many words that you won’t oppose a real threat because you can’t. So, what’s the point of you? What’s the point of any of you?
> 1743. Hugo Schmidt Says:
>
> My response to the local lowbrow shams and to the many here who think like him is this:
If you’re talking specifically to lowbrows for some reason I guess they would probably be mostly wrong, and likely not very responsive to criticism or correction. Do you really want to focus your participation in this discussion on lowbrows?
> Then shouldn’t we better get ready to surrender then? Isn’t EG then very good training
> for RW’s future, and for the rest of the skepchicks?
Surrender? “Good training”, if I’m reading you right, would mean, essentially, knucklehead training–training on how to deal with them. Sounds like behavior that’s appropriate to rebuke, just as Rebecca did. So why all the fuss?
This is pathetic. At least now I know that simply approaching a woman and propositioning her which is what males of all species have done since the beginning of infinity will be rejected as creepy and a potential assault scenario. As far as it being at a bar in Ireland at 4am, does anyone here have a social life what-so-ever? You all seem to be completely vexed and confused by what is normal human behavior. Pitiful.
Hugo, I have patiently tried to explain to you why Dawkins interjection is both dishonest and irrelevant to Rebacca’s issue.
I believe Dawkins understands full well evolutionary theory of culture and EGT.
Islam is an uninvadable EGT strategy. Severe scoldings from you and Dawkins will have no effect.
8+ years of invasion and occupation and 4.4 trillion dollars of American taxpayer money had no effect. American efforts to spread/promote missionary democracy have resulted in statistically zero converts.
OTOH Islam is not a threat to western women in free speech societies. Shariah law cannot “take over” as the wingnuts fear.
Its all about the consent of the governed.
> 1742. Julie Says:
>
> Elevator Guy did several things wrong: he followed Watson from the bar; he propositioned
> her in confined space; he propositioned her in direct opposition to what she’d been literally
> saying all day (don’t sexually objectify me at conferences).
And I think even if we dudes just imagine ourselves in that context, it’s really pretty obvious -all- those things just aren’t cool. They aren’t necessarily serious, but some of the potentials to which they allude -are- very serious. Still, a knuckleheaded attempt to pick up on a woman who has given every reason not to try and pick up on her is just a social fumble in and of itself–worthy of -precisely- the kind of corrective rebuke Rebecca offered (I know I’m not disagreeing with you there Julie, just reiterating).
I’m curious how Elevator Dude has taken all of this, but I certainly wouldn’t expect him to speak up or to reveal himself if he has–maybe in time. Hopefully he took it for what it was, learned something, corrected it, and has moved on. It would also be ideal if Rebecca could do the same, but we’re still clearly not there yet as a society, unfortunately (not even some of its more “socially evolved” elements). It would seem that if a woman “dares” to voice her disapproval of a man’s social/sexual behavior, even when directed at her personally, she will have to deal with being second guessed and more aggressive social reprisals. That just seems pitiful to me. How delicate we are to find such offense from the slight touch of disapproval … by proxy I suppose. Maybe if we feel that way it should tell us something–eh?
Byron,
I have been asking, for some time now, why we never see any such mobilization when it comes to trying to fight the appalling menace of totalitarian Islam, especially with regard to women’s rights. The only response I have received is from shams who is both more honest and more crude than the rest, who says that it’s because there’s nothing they are able to do. A flat out admission that they cannot stand up to any real threat of problem. Now – because contra this nitwits assertion, Islamic misogyny is a very serious problem even in the West, one that grows worse daily – that means that ultimately people like RW had best start getting fitted for burkas and so on. We have just had it admitted, in some many words, that they will not stand up for women’s rights when there is a real fight on. So what is the bloody point of them? What’s the point of you?
Or, to state the converse case, since you lot are willing to turn your back on my sisters under the veil, why should I not turn my back on you and your poster-girl?
> 1747. Hugo Schmidt Says:
>
> I have been asking, for some time now, why we never see any such mobilization when it
> comes to trying to fight the appalling menace of totalitarian Islam, especially with regard
> to women’s rights.
Sure we do. In fact it’s gotten to the point of being organized and everything. The ICAHK is one of my personal favorite such organizations ( http://www.stophonourkillings.com/ ).
But to this situation and your question I can speak for myself, and in my case the primary reason I’m even aware of it is that it’s going on right here within the “atheist/skeptic community” … such as it is. The other primary factor, I’d say, is the shear blatancy and liberally applied boldness of fallacy and just sorry thinking that’s going on from so many (apparently–I haven’t exactly followed this thing very closely). As I’ve seen others note, it’s exposed some ugly true colors, again, right here in My Community … such as it is. When you suggest someone stop doing something annoying and the response is a full-fledged adult two-year-old tantrum complete with threats and Hitler and the End of the World As We Know It that tends to command some attention. Granted those like me will dismiss and ignore the more histrionic types, but just as when the TEA Partiers amass, this collective freak out has drawn attention for many of the exact same reasons. When anti-reason gathers, bad things happen, usually to good people.
> Now – because …Islamic misogyny is a very serious problem even in the West, one that
> grows worse daily – that means that ultimately people like RW had best start getting
> fitted for burkas and so on. We have just had it admitted, in some many words, that they
> will not stand up for women’s rights when there is a real fight on. So what is the bloody
> point of them? What’s the point of you?
I wasn’t aware I had to choose between noticing the absurdity and the Dark Side of the freak out over Rebecca’s mild rebuke of inappropriate behavior and saving the West from fundamentalist Islam …
> Or, to state the converse case, since you lot are willing to turn your back on my sisters
> under the veil, why should I not turn my back on you and your poster-girl?
If that’s how you feel I’d invite you to do just that … rather than personally helping with the metaphorical stoning.
Dawkins should just not have said what he said about the Skepchick elevator event. It was hurtful to Rebecca and might disourage women from getting in to Skepticism or Atheism. I love Richard Dawkins, but think he could use a course in sensitivity.
@Carlos 1743: If you’re going to ignore the context of Watson’s situation, then you’re not being honest to Watson’s argument, or Phil Plait’s, or mine. The bogus ‘afraid of all men’ meme is an oversimplification of what we’re saying. Don’t resort to straw men; very uncool.
You might also be interested in my reply to fellow women at 1729. And it sounds like you didn’t read Teresa at 1457, where she describes how sexual predators deliberately pose as regular guys, and Elevator Guy was indistinguishable.
The comparison to race has already been covered in this thread. A few times over. You might want to put in the basic Ctrl-F legwork here. And it suffers from the same oversimplification problem.
@Hugo
Islamic misogyny is a very serious problem even in the West, one that grows worse daily
oh bah-loney.
Like I explained, just as missionary democracy cannot penetrate islamic culture because of the injunction against proselytization, shariah law cannot penetrate free speech societies.
shariah is incompatible with free speech.
in free speech societies that have some modicum of separation of church and state, shariah cannot exist, except as cultural practice, much like jewish dietary laws, for example.
cut out the histrionics. you sound like a teabagger.
now that is pretty effing hilarious, given that im a muslim revert and a girl.
tl; dr: http://imgur.com/8xYYJ
Every point of view is subjective.
No exceptions.
Here’s what I’m seeing, Hugo:
World War Elevator
Characters: Rebecca, Elevator Dude, Richard Dawkins, EveryMisogynist, the Feminist Kingdom, Hugo, Byron (I think I’ve got a role for Shams too, but I’ll refrain)
In a Hotel elevator @ 4:00am … R, RD, H and B are tired:
ED: Hey Rebecca, how about we go back to my room, and later we can have breakfast? Eh?
R: Seriously? Don’t do that. I just got done talking, pretty much all day, about how uncool and creepy that kind of thing is … don’t do that.
RD: [absently] Oh, aren’t you just so special, there, Ms. Skep-Chick? I suppose we should all throw our coats down so you can walk over the blood of all the Middle Eastern women being raped and murdered without getting any on you!? [yawns]
R: What!? I just told ED to leave me alone. [pause] I’m tired. leave me alone.
EM: Woah now! Just what are you saying? Who do you think you are!?
R: Huh?
FK: Leave her alone. She just told that creepy little prick ED over there he needs to back off. [addressing the other guys] All you other wannabe EDs might learn something from actually paying attention here … get your tiny little minds out of your pants once in a while.
EM: YOU’RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING NO MAN CAN EVER HAVE SEX AGAIN!!!
[everyone pauses and looks at EM incredulously]
EM: [quietly, sheepishly looking at his … shoes] What the hell are we supposed to DO then?
[pause]
B: WTF man? Sweet Zombie Jesus. Leave her alone and don’t be a dick. This isn’t hard. Why the hell are we even still talking about it? “Don’t do that.” We’re done. Deal with it. Damn!
Hugo: Why are you rushing to Rebecca’s defense while other women are being killed and maimed and raped and honor killed!?
[pause]
B: Really?
Hugo: Yeah, really!
R: Hugo, don’t be a dick. Leave me alone. And by all means go defend other women … -please-.
B: How does that have -anything- to do with this, here, now, Hugo?
Hugo: You’re rushing to Rebecca’s defense while other women are being killed and maimed and raped and honor killed!
B: Jeezus H … what say we go defend other women against being killed and maimed and raped and honor killed and such -after- we get out of the elevator. Eh? … Tomorrow.
Hugo: Why should I help you defend Rebecca while other women are being killed and maimed and raped and honor killed!?!?!?
B: [perturbed pause] Dunno. How about you don’t then.
The verbal combat rages on …
I am quite sympathetic to Rebbecca’s unease – it can’t be at all pleasant.
However, your repeated and, in my view, hyperbolic characterisation of the lift incident as “potential sexual assault” is complete nonsense of ‘though crime’ proportions. Your argument lost all credibility with me at that point.
@1466. Julie, Who said:
“If Richard Dawkins thinks he can use women or “women’s issues” as a mere prop, then we are truly better off without him. The mantle of leadership should not be held when it can’t be honored by the wearer.”
Dawkins pointed out serious issues of sexism for perspective, to an event that wasn’t sexist, while respecting Rebbeca’s right to feel as she wants. Richard Dawkins is no leader. He’s a writer with many ideas that many people see make sense.
“I recommend A Letter to Professor Dawkins from Victims of Sexual Assault.”
Richard Dawkins is a victim of sexual assult.
Byron,
I will thank you not to put words in my mouth. It is not my problem what you “see” – I repeat: Why do we not see anything on this scale whenever there is a large scale threat? You haven’t answered that; you have not even tried.
Incidentally, reading Asharq Alawsat, I notice that Anjew Choudry and his cohorts are planning to create hardline Shariah controlled zones in the UK – which will have predictable consequences on women’s rights. Outcry from the skeptic/atheist community = Zero.
So, it is very clear what is happening. The likes of Julie and RW know they can’t stand up to a real threat. They don’t have the principles. They don’t have the knowledge. They don’t have the courage. But they can pretend they are worth something by smearing and slandering someone who does more in a week for reason and science than they do in their whole pointelss lives, added and squared. It’s disgraceful. It is absolutely disgraceful.
Time for today’s recap of why we’re all here. A man with unknown intentions transgressed a clearly spoken boundary. The fact that he prefaced his proposition with ‘Don’t take this the wrong way’ shows that even he knew he was on shaky ground. This is the first problem: how much crap should women in the community, or even in society in general, be asked to take?
Watson responded to this with a very mildly delivered corrective in a vlog: “Guys, don’t do that.” The internet then starts to simmer with people eager to reinterpret Watson’s experience for her. Many sadly predictable straw men appear: she is afraid of all sexual innuendo, she hates all men, etc., etc. This is the second problem: why should a woman simply standing up for herself, using moderate language to deliver a nuanced message, be subject to this much second-guessing and judgment?
After Myers expresses empathy with Watson in his blog, Dawkins crashes in with epic condescension and a series of bad arguments. Coming from such a prominent leadership figure, this harmful attitude can no longer be written off as a side issue – Dawkins’ nastiness illustrates that women still face tremendous obstacles to being treated with full respect in the community. This is the third problem: if Dawkins, a person who apparently thinks of himself as compassionate to women, can nonetheless be so contemptuous of a very common concern among women, what do we as a community do about it?
> 1760. Hugo Schmidt Says:
>
> I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.
That was what’s called a “fictional dialog” or a “play” (short). It’s quite clear you didn’t write the part of Hugo in that dialog, so you don’t have to worry about anyone thinking those are actually your words. Didn’t do that–won’t do that–couldn’t do that. I’m not a hacker.
> It is not my problem what you “see”
Nope … unless of course I’m seeing something accurately here, in the proper perspective, that’s a problem for you.
> I repeat: Why do we not see anything on this scale whenever there is a large scale threat?
> You haven’t answered that; you have not even tried.
Yup, in fact I did. 1751–first two paragraphs.
I also illuminated why that’s an UTTERLY impertinent issue here (in the skit). It’s also the equivalent of taking out a grenade in a pillow fight … which frankly doesn’t exactly indicate the grenadier is terribly brave or working from a very strong tactical platform (it’s about what you think you need in order to handle the threat you perceive).
@Julie 1753
You’re the one saying that every time a woman is in the presence of a man she’s in “potential” danger of assault. So you’re not really saying that “all” men are rapists, just “potential” rapists; and somehow you think this is different than a racist uttering “I’m not saying *all* blacks are muggers, just *potential* muggers”.
> 1759. Karl Johanson Says:
>
> @1466. Julie, Who said:
> “If Richard Dawkins thinks he can use women or “women’s issues” as a mere prop, then
> we are truly better off without him. The mantle of leadership should not be held when it
> can’t be honored by the wearer.”
>
> Dawkins pointed out serious issues of sexism for perspective, to an event that wasn’t
> sexist, while respecting Rebbeca’s right to feel as she wants.
Sounds more like RD kinda stepped on it a bit because he’d gotten impatient with Rebecca. If true his perspective may be entirely warranted–I really don’t know–but he still kinda screwed up. I just hope most of us can find the character within ourselves to equitably and generously apply the benefit of the doubt to all involved rather than to impose it’s burden upon the “other side”. We’ll all be much better off if we can work this out without investing in too much nastiness and divisiveness, and without too many unnecessary casualties.
> Richard Dawkins is no leader. He’s a writer with many ideas that many people see make
> sense.
I think it’s pretty obvious he’s a leader–a spokesman, and he’s generally been a very effective one.
I think all the female commenters on this blog are very interesting and intelligent women, and sight unseen, I’d like to have coffee and conversation with each one of you. I hope the constraints of this webspace don’t make any of you feel threatened, especially if it’s 4 AM in your time zone as you read this.
Phil. RD is and was right, because everyone, from Rebecca on, has assumed guilt on the part of the fellow in the elevator.
Yes, YOU MAY NOT SPEAK TO A WOMAN YOU DO NOT KNOW IN AN ELEVATOR. YOU ARE GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IF YOU DO.
For the rest of this: TL;DR.
But to hell with you if you presume guilt of me. Further, I suggest there is something wrong with you to do so.
@ Carlos 1763: Are you willing to read any other sources, to learn more about this, or are you only interested in straw men? Because you seem to be taking this as a personal insult, instead of acknowledging that there are whole groups of people in this world, whose experience of life is very different from your own. I’d go so far as to hope that nobody wants to hate or fear you sight unseen; they just don’t know you yet.
Also I’m still not hearing anything from you about context, or interpersonal behavior. Are you saying that when you’re in elevators or bars or anywhere, you never notice if another person stands too close to you, or smells of too much booze, or smiles too widely at you, or looks at you intently, or strikes up an oddly personal line of conversation for a stranger? Because that sort of situational awareness is what I’m talking about, layered in with the cold reality that the stakes for women are scary high.
Suppose that a man sees an attractive woman in an elevator after seeing her give a very intelligently delivered lecture, and he would like to get to know her better. Is there any way he can make an advance without creating a threatening situation or a “potential sexual assault”?
Not when she’s spent a whole panel discussion beforehand saying, specifically, how much she hates being hit on and sexualized at these conventions.
Not when it’s four in the morning and she’s SAID SHE’S TIRED.
In other words: Quit looking for ways it’s “okay” to treat a woman like a fickle orgasm vending machine instead of an actual person with feelings and preferences of her own.
That does require more emotional work on your part than, say, just wagging it at everything female, but the results are better for everyone.
The analogy isn’t the greatest. What you’re talking about is an almost accident, this is assuming the guy wanted to assault you.
And what, pray tell, would YOU assume about a person who won’t listen to your wishes? Might that not indicate a person who has the potential to continue to breach your boundaries? In an elevator, late at night, alone?
Duh.
> 1766. Radwaste Says:
>
> Phil. RD is and was right, because everyone, from Rebecca on, has assumed guilt on the
> part of the fellow in the elevator.
Guilt in the sense of an inappropriate come on, sure, but I don’t think most are taking it beyond that. What many are trying very hard to get across isn’t rocket surgery, but for some reason a lot of people have managed to trip all over themselves in an apparent effort not to grasp, is that Rebecca was vulnerable to a potential assault in that situation. Elevator Dude turned out NOT to be a sexual assailant, but Rebecca had every reason to have that potential in mind when she dealt with him. If we’re very aware ALL of us have the potential for violence in mind in similar tactical situations. Women just have to be more aware than most because they’re far more often targeted. It’s really very simple and intuitive.
> Yes, YOU MAY NOT SPEAK TO A WOMAN YOU DO NOT KNOW IN AN ELEVATOR. YOU
> ARE GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IF YOU DO.
Please.
> But to hell with you if you presume guilt of me. Further, I suggest there is something
> wrong with you to do so.
What seems much more psychologically significant to me is the presumption of the presumption of guilt. It’s EXACTLY like when believers freak out when a critic points out that Christianity, for example, can enable some very nasty behavior. WHAT!? YOU’RE SAYING ALL CHRISTIANS ARE GUILTY OF GENOCIDE!?!?!? Well … er, no, not quite.
To be fair though I expect there are some saying that the proposition was actually a sexual assault, and I’d agree that’s rather extreme. Some of that is just genuine extremism, but a lot of it right now is pure rancor and battle posturing–choosing up sides and hurling stones and all that fun stuff. Just like the worst of the church splits (well, it’s -exemplary- of church splits, anyway–we’re probably not gonna need the National Guard on this one like the Southern Baptists did at their annual convention about … what … 20 years ago?).
But if enough of us ignore that nonsense maybe we can get past it … eh? Why would we respect irrational opinions in the first place, and if we don’t respect such an opinion, why would we be emotionally or psychologically effected by it?
I propose we address valid issues and ignore rancor until it goes away.
> 1763. Carlos Says:
>
> @Julie 1753 – You’re the one saying that every time a woman is in the presence of a man
> she’s in “potential” danger of assault. So you’re not really saying that “all” men are rapists,
> just “potential” rapists; and somehow you think this is different than a racist uttering “I’m
> not saying *all* blacks are muggers, just *potential* muggers”.
We all think this way, actually, unless our cognitive faculties are suppressed–you’re just putting it into extreme terms because you think that suits your needs right now.
If you took a real time overhead snapshot of everyone in your immediate area and discovered someone right behind you, you’d feel the need to check that out. Why? Are you presuming whoever it is intends you harm? Or is the potential just something you need to address because people do get mugged, identities get stolen, and people prey on other people on a pretty regular basis? We know this is the way reality operates. We don’t generally want to think ill of others, but unless we’re rather naive we don’t presume we can trust everyone either.
So, yeah, because there are potentially significant repercussions involved, we in fact -do- think others are, in general, potential abusers of the basic trust we all invest in each other in order to get along–the social contract (to translate your comment into more sober terms). We just may not be very aware of it until something is noticeably amiss. When we’re paying attention we call it preparing for the worst while hoping for (or even kind of expecting) the best, or hedging. If your self-preservation is intact you take certain precautions to minimize (not eliminate, minimize) the potential that you be prematurely turned into a statistic. How intact our self-preservation is and how effectively we translate it into actual reality varies a great deal, of course. We try to control the variables that can dictate our well-being to the degree we’re aware of such matters and at which we find a comfortable balance.
The fact is that women are generally more vulnerable to being turned into statistics by predators than men, and men are in fact responsible for the VAST majority of the predatory … conversions. If you’re not naive that’s always in the back of your mind. We lock our doors, keep valuables out of plain site when we park our cars, look both ways when we cross the street, (Does that mean we think all drivers are trying to kill us?) and we all have our personal space we protect. It doesn’t mean you live in fear to be conscientious and proactive about all of this (to maintain a state of readiness and awareness of your immediate environment), it means you’re aware of how reality works and you have an interest in not being taken advantage of, whether trivially or mortally or anything in-between. It also means you’re interested in what’s going on around you and you’re conscientious about the space you occupy–whether you’re functioning as an obstacle or otherwise imposing upon others … that sort of thing. It’s simply awareness. Not fear or the presumption that everyone is out to get you.
“Dawkins pointed out serious issues of sexism for perspective”
no, this is just a lie.
Dawkins ONLY demagogued islamic FGM and muslims women’s rights issues. He didnt talk about universal womwns rights at all. He only pointed out “serious issues of sexism” in islamic cultures, which he KNOWS is irrelevant to Rebecca’s situation.
You can agree with Dawkins that Rebecca’s situ is trivial, and that islamic oppression of woman’s rights is bad, but forging some link between islamic FGM and social maladroits like creeper elevator guy is irrational.
Dawkins is a barking islamophobe that should know better.
He showed his ass on this thread.
Well, we now know that shams is either another “gay girl in Damascus”, or is a superstitious bumpkin who has no place in any discussion of what is and is not appropriate to the skeptical community. I mean, this is someone who says that a totalitarian system cannot invade a free one – what does one say to such a person?
As to you Byron, you should spent more time reading closely and less time saying what you would like your opponent to say. You showed that you have some knowledge of what is going on, and do something about it – for which I commend you. However, that is a far cry from saying that this is widespread in the skeptic/atheist community, and is also a far cry from showing that there is an equal or equivalent outcry to this current one.
Case in point – it’s recently been the International Day against Stoning, something that neatly coincides with this non-event. Now can you seriously say that there has been anything equivalent in the community? I think that’s a very good, very serious test.
It is precisely for this reason, that you have people like the honorable old lefty Nick Cohen asking where, exactly, the militant atheists were when you needed them.
> 1773. Hugo Schmidt Says:
>
> As to you Byron … You showed that you have some knowledge of what is going on, and do
> something about it – for which I commend you. However, that is a far cry from saying
> that this is widespread in the skeptic/atheist community, and is also a far cry from
> showing that there is an equal or equivalent outcry to this current one.
You’re disagreeing with priorities, but that’s not the issue here. Refusing to accept that these are separate issues only deflates your credibility–indicates dogmatic thinking, the more you refuse the more/deeper dogmatism you demonstrate. Either that or it’s an ego thing.
> Case in point – it’s recently been the International Day against Stoning, something that
> neatly coincides with this non-event. Now can you seriously say that there has been
> anything equivalent in the community? I think that’s a very good, very serious test.
>
> It is precisely for this reason, that you have people like the honorable old lefty Nick Cohen
> asking where, exactly, the militant atheists were when you needed them.
Taking your position a step further, we should fix on the worst crisis on the planet at the moment to the exclusion of all others, and to indulge any other is to trivialize the worst. In short, it’s highly unlikely you really buy into your own alleged position here.
@1767
@1771
The reason I stick with this point is because you keep trying to sweep it under the rug and move on with the conversation as if nothing happened.
Since you refuse to acknowledge the point when racism is involved, let’s use something closer to home. Suppose you’re in a conversation with a guy and he says “The thing is that all women are potential whores”. Would you be so nonchalant about it because he inserted the word “potential” in the middle of the sentence? Would your reaction be “Well, I guess all women really are potential whores.”?
I’d be happy to move the discussion forward as soon as you address this point.
that is not what i said. I said Islam is an EGT uninvadable CSS. Dawkins knows what that means, even if you don’t. And empirical data proves my thesis. America has spent 8+ years, 4.4 trillion dollars and 7000 soldier lives without converting any muslims to missionary democracy.
why would you say im a guy impersonating a girl? because i use multisyllabics? because i like differential manifolds and strange matter and evolutionary games theory more than clothes and makeup?
wow that is sexist.
Or perhaps you just want to discredit my argument?
Like Dawkins sought to denigrate Rebecca to discredit hers?
> 1775. Carlos Says:
>
> @1767
> @1771
>
> Suppose you’re in a conversation with a guy and he says “The thing is that all women are
> potential whores”. Would you be so nonchalant about it because he inserted the word
> “potential” in the middle of the sentence? Would your reaction be “Well, I guess all
> women really are potential whores.”?
You’re attributing a position to me that I didn’t address or defend here, I gather that’s about your other individual discussions in here. In any case I’d personally accept the “a woman is in danger of ‘potential’ assault any time she’s in the presence of a man” only in the most technical sense (i.e. the ‘potential’ isn’t zero, basically). I think making that into an issue would likely be confusion between the idea that in most cases a man is physically -capable- of overpowering a woman, and thus carrying out a successful assault on her. I’d also stress there are a -lot- of exceptions (the idea of a small woman who’s a kick-arse martial artist and beats the absolute -fork- out of an aspiring assailant is a scenario that always makes me particularly happy, too). A woman is also ‘potentially’ safer with a ‘potential’ ally, and men can do that too. I’d argue that’s probably a good deal more likely in fact, and is often a benefit provided while the woman and man in question aren’t aware of it (criminals avoid detection and witnesses as well as apparent formidability), and it’s true for men and women alike, and on both sides of the equation. Simply put, there’s strength in numbers/don’t go out alone at night, etc.
The way that applies to the situation at hand … turns out we don’t need to worry about being more safe, only less. We may not notice when there’s nothing trying to eat us, but suddenly we get all tense and focused and such when something is–we’re [strangely- biased that way. That’s why the “whore puzzle” above doesn’t address the issue at all, unless prostitutes develop a statistically significant tendency toward assaulting and mugging people on the streets (not just Johns) so they warrant a significantly higher degree of wariness than they do now.
Bottom line though …
Sexual assailant = threat
Prostitute = not a threat
That’s the primary difference between “potential assailant” and “potential whore” that your choice of analogs avoids. Potential -danger- is the issue here, -clearly-, not the potential for temptation or revulsion or exposure to unfortunate fashion choices. If someone pointed out a potential assailant to me I’d be on guard–prepared for a physical confrontation. If someone pointed out a potential whore I might say “Uh huh.” and continue going about my business. So “all men have the potential to assault other people” means something of definite and immediate import, “all women have the potential to be whores” does not, at least not in the same sense, or even close. There are clearly significant and immediate consequences to my well being that may be violently imposed upon me in the former case, nothing remotely like that in the latter.
An analogy that makes sense would be “all dogs are potentially biters” and I’d agree that they should be approached that way. It doesn’t mean all dogs have to be feared or hated or muzzled, it means you have to respect that potential, because it’s simply reality. You learn to read dogs and you can manage the risk and enjoy them. All guns should be presumed loaded until/unless prove otherwise is another good example of a perfectly valid safety rule. This -really- isn’t that hard.
@ 1768:
“Suppose that a man sees an attractive woman in an elevator after seeing her give a very intelligently delivered lecture, and he would like to get to know her better. Is there any way he can make an advance without creating a threatening situation or a “potential sexual assault”?
Not when she’s spent a whole panel discussion beforehand saying, specifically, how much she hates being hit on and sexualized at these conventions.”
My reply:
During the panel she said she had a problem with people sending her unsolicited messages with detailed descriptions of the sexual acts the writiers would like to perform on her, and she said she had a problem with the rape threats and statements that she should be raped. (I agree both of thoses, especially the latter, are of concern.) I didn’t see her he didn’t say she had a problem with being asked. If Rebecca Watson doesn’t like being “sexualized” she probably shouldn’t have set an example by doing that herself has on her blog (http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/). I’m not objecting to her doing it, I’m just noting that she holds others up to a different standard than she applies to herself.
@1777
Wow, I use an example where there’s a “potential” threat (blacks being potential muggers) and you don’t acknowledge that it’s a racist thing to say (a social no-no), I use another socially unacceptable thing to say and your response is basically “yeah but a whore is not as threatening as an assailant so it’s not a good analogy”.
The point, if I wasn’t clear enough, that Julie and you don’t (want to?) acknowledge is that she finds it perfectly acceptable to say “men are potential rapists” because she’s inserting the word “potential” in there, yet at the same time she would be horrified if a commentator on TV says “women are potential whores” or “blacks are potential muggers”.
This -really- isn’t that hard.
> 1778. Carlos
Whether it’s intentional or not, Carlos, you’re imposing the context you prefer upon what other are writing rather than dealing with what’s actually there, and I’m not interested in the perpetual corrections/dismissals pattern that tends to characterize discussions when one or both parties are doing that.
Frankly Phil, I am starting to think you’re a bit daft sometimes. I think you take PC too far because you want everyone to like you. Plenty of people will agree with you here though, because paranoiacs are more vocal than the rest of us.
Personally, I wouldn’t hit on a girl in a lift. But it isn’t a manoeuvre worthy of particular condemnation (and condemnation of anyone who doesn’t think it is). Consider the possibility that not all women think that men should act like timid guilty little boys for fear of making someone feel uncomfortable. People make each other feel uncomfortable every day, and what makes one person uncomfortable may not have the same effect on another. This is just everyday normal life.
This all sounds to me rather like the paranoia surrounding paedophilia that makes people afraid to smile at a child. Rape exists, and paedophilia exists too. But there has to be some sense of perspective.
Think about all the things that people would have to refrain from doing if they pussyfooted around each other in this way. I guess I should stop going for walks in the evening just in case I come across a woman in a secluded area.
@1779 Byron
I disagree that I’m imposing a context or misinterpreting her words. I asked (sarcastically I admit) if every time a woman is in the presence of man she’s in danger of assault; to which she corrected me by saying that they’re not in imminent danger of assault, just in *potential* danger of assault.
……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….……/
………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
,,_……….}.>-._……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,__……`,……………………………
……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
…………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._……….._,-%…….`
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`
@Carlos 1775,1778: I always like to start by reminding myself why I’m here commenting; I’ll do that out loud this time. A woman briefly described a situation of gender relations that made her uncomfortable, and asked quite reasonably that her clearly spoken boundaries be respected in future. She then began to be verbally attacked by people, simply for standing up for herself. Defending the perspective of this woman, including from straw men like ‘she fears all men’, is a worthy goal and one that I’m striving for.
Regarding your hypothetical of choice, ‘all [other race people] are potential muggers’:
1) I don’t agree with that statement, on grounds of factual reality. I have neither personal experience nor data to support that any one “race” is inherently more criminal than my own. And I would require Sagan’s proverbial “extraordinary evidence” before changing my mind on that.
2) In contrast, the subject of violence against women is studied extensively. And the overwhelming majority of serious violence against women comes from men. A bit of situational awareness is not a dislike of all men; it’s more like the air we breathe, like it or not.
3) As near as I can tell, you are feeling personally insulted (or trying to claim the mantle of righteous anger) because I stated an unpleasant but true generality, which is commonly understood among those who work around various aspects of violent crime. So I will restate: the realization that the intentions of a stranger are unknown, and hence the threat potential is always there, is not a personal insult. It’s also not an extraordinary claim.
4) Another problem with your hypothetical, is your assumption that race is automatically any mugger’s biggest motivator. What about economic status, or gender, or cult membership, or drug addiction, or a psychological disorder? We would have to know more context. In contrast, looking back to Watson’s situation, getting propositioned narrows the choice of factors considerably, leaving maleness (in this case, hetero) as our obvious top contender. So we can see how the analogy requires oversimplification, even to be proposed.
5) Whenever any strangers approach each other, they are complete unknowns to each other. The logical consequence of that is, they are both potential attackers. The moment they begin to interact, they can start putting more rational bounds on this potential. But the fact remains that every new stranger is a potential threat, no matter how small or large. This is what I was trying to illustrate in the second paragraph of 1767: you, personally, also assess strangers for potential threat (and I bet it’s overwhelmingly only the men), as a normal part of your life. It’s not some paranoid thing that only women, or feminists, do.
6) If you haven’t heard of the concept of “Schrödinger’s rapist”, I highly recommend looking up the article containing that phrase on kateharding.net.
7) I’m honestly disturbed by how easily you chose ‘black people’ as your ‘other’ of choice. Why not any other group? I fully understand that you are trying to paint me in the worst possible light – but why is ‘black’ the worst? I’d ask that you consider all of the black people who may be reading this thread, and keep this space as inclusive as possible. The main beef I have on this thread, is with un-empathetic people. (Dawkins being the case study.)
Regarding your next hypothetical, ‘all women are potential prostitutes’:
8. Interpreting in context – there’s that word again, context – if I thought the speaker was a social researcher discussing the lifetime potential for any random woman to go into prostitution, I’d hear that message. If I thought the speaker was trying to personally insult me, then I’d hear that message.
9) Once again, your intent appears to be at least partially to inflame emotion, which I don’t find helpful. I’ve been quite accommodating in repeatedly explaining to you that I’m not attacking “all” men. For that matter neither is Phil Plait or Rebecca Watson or Byron.
10) I second what Byron said about prostitution not being a typical threat, and hence not a good analogy for the actual topic at hand: Watson’s reasonable request to have her boundaries respected.
(Site tip – The numbers on our comments can change, if comments that have been held in moderation ultimately get approved after delay, so it’s helpful to include names if you’re addressing specific people.)
most non-muslim woman don’t know what it’s like to be thought of as a racist, sexist, xenophobic, genocidal, terrorist supporting, genital mutilating prick. I am not even muslim, yet as a person of middle eastern descent, i am subjected to the very prejudice, every muslim in the western world is subjected to everday. when I am with my parents on an airplane pepole of all sexes, gender, and religions (and anti-religions) are terrified to occupy the same space as my family and myself. What is worst I am expected to feel as if this racism and prejudice in western society is not only justified, but, rational and reasonable, from the same pepole, who convinced me religion is stupid. Where I am from in tennessee pepole have gone as far as burn down mosques and a little further south a man burned korans hoping to incite violnce between muslims and christians.so please do not patronizingly tell me ” i don’t know what it’s like to feel fear and that i’m privledged”. Richard Dawkins was out of line when he picked a fight with ms.watson. his original post wasn’t even that offensive, his second post, however, was down right retarded.. But let me say this, just because, Mr. Dawkins has one rotten opinion, does not mean, he’s a rotten human. One website has suggested boycotting his books—yeah books that have nothing to do with sex or gender, over this whole fiasco. Please, cut the crap. He is one of the leading authorities on evolution, and to try and discredit his career over one comment that has nothing to do with the subject of bioilogy is intelluctually dishonest. and that ladies and gents ismuch much worse. I want to conclude this by saying, the men who are criticizing ms.watson for feeling uncomfortable alone in an elevator next to a man propositioning her for sex or late night coffee drinking are lame. Ladies understand the dude asked, got rejected, then carried on with his life. and that’s exactly what you should be doing.
Are you serious though?
But, are you serious though?
No really: are you serious?
Can you tell me a situation that isn’t a potential sexual assault that involves a man and a woman?
A father pushes his daughter on a tireswing in the backyard. Potential sexual assault? Well, incest does happen, after all. Men have been known to rape their daughters. Should you intervene if you see this happening?
A husband and a wife are on a date, and they’ve stopped and parked at an overlook point. Potential sexual assault? Things could easily lead to sex; in fact, they probably will. And we cannot presume consent even in the case of a loving, married couple. She could potentially say no. Someone call the cops.
A professor asks you to his office, ostensibly to discuss something that you wrote. Potential sexual assault? Well, you’re going to be alone in his office and there is a definite power differential there. What if his office hours are after the department staff have left? You’d better bring back up to be sure.
If you think these situations are clear disanalogies, they really aren’t. A guy talked to a girl in an elevator at night. Uncomfortable? Potentially. Sexual assault? Not potentially, no. Not unless he does something else. Mere words–especially when those words are, by all accounts, ordinary and polite–aren’t enough. Sorry. This is nonsense.
If you’re going to complain about something, complain about something actual.
So I was alone in an elevator with a black man at 4 am. He asked if I had any cash I could spare. I said no and was worried he would take my wallet by force.
I was potentially robbed. We need blacks to not talk to us late at night.
This is rich. It’s a potential rape/assault because he asked her out on an elevator? Is it potential assault if she was on an elevator with a strange man in a foreign country at 4am and he said nothing instead? Perhaps this world is too dangerous for women with all these predatory men about. Perhaps all women should have a male relative escort to defend her against the sea of potential rapists which swarm our cities and neighborhoods.
@Mohammed
He is one of the leading authorities on evolution
so….if that is true, why has he forgotten evo theory of culture and evolutionary games theory?
Islam is an uninvadable EGT strategy, and islamic FGM ha NOTHING to do with Rebecca Watson being uncomfortable in an elevator at 4AM.
I think Dawkins is ready for assisted living. He sounds like he has early onset senile dementia.
I have every book hes ever written, but he showed his ass on this thread.
It seems like teh XY feel they have some intrinsic right to accost women.
you don’t.
@shams
You’re clearly missing the point. i can’t tell if you’re being funny or being serious. I am assuming you’re being dead serious. do you believe the reason i told my experience is because i think it helps her elevator story or because it lends plausbility to her male priveldge theory? Yes, i said i would like to not be patronized for male priveldge, that doesnt mean, we can dismiss her whole point. it’s easy for men to simply dismiss it because they don’t see this happen to them , therefore , they have zero evdience to make such an extrapolation. do you not see how disrespecful words like senile dementia and assisted living are just as awful as the people who emailed ms.watson and told her she deserved to be raped. and you have the nerve to pretend you’re the moral king or maybe queen? try coming off your high horse and understand people make mistakes.
> 1787. White Guy Says:
>
> So I was alone in an elevator with a black man at 4 am. He asked if I had any cash I could
> spare. I said no and was worried he would take my wallet by force.
>
> I was potentially robbed. We need blacks to not talk to us late at night.
I don’t think you’re very likely to convince anyone you’re sufficiently vapid to buy that argument. You’re just raising the question of what’s motivating you to try and convince others, and maybe yourself, that you are.
@Mohammed
“do you not see how disrespecful words like senile dementia and assisted living”
do you not see how disrespectful words like FGM and stoning are when Dawkins scornfully contrasts them with Rebecca’s experience?
Again, I have read everything Dawkins ever wrote. I’m a scientist. I believe in empirical data.
How could the man that wrote the Blind Watchmaker and made foundational contributions to EGT and evo bio write something like “Letter to Muslima”?
The only thesis i can come up with is that Dawkins is experiencing early onset senile dementia, and belongs in assisted living where he can’t make a public fool of himself.
My favorite argument in all this whinning was from Rebecca Watson.
She said:
“this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experience 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,”
That’s sound and logical. And it follows perfectly. Dawkins work is just male chauvinistic babbling. And all we need to prove this is one small opinion in a blog and the feelings of some feminist.
Another favorite, repeated by many of the skepitc community is:
“Are you saying Mr. Dawkins that just because there’s worse things done to women we should not condemn things like a man trying some love with a women”
And, because we really know Dawkins, it’s certain that this is exactly what he is saying. Ain’t it?
Seriously though. How F*** up is America?
PS: The man on the elevator was Juan Valdez.
Dawkins work is just male chauvinistic babbling
no, Dawkins WORK is foundational to evo bio and EGT. His letter to ‘Muslima’ is embarrassing and clueless. that is why i suspect early onset senile dementia.
also-too, Dawkins didn’t apologize.
he just dug deeper.
@sham wow, lol that is harsh. and meaner than anything dawkins ever said.
Let’s see. Man = potential rapist = bad. Got it, but you know men only become stronger than women at maturity and since most women are tasked with child rearing there seems to be a rather obvious solution here.
One way to react to a pass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_P2aOPJMw
1795. shams Says:
“that is why i suspect early onset senile dementia”
i also have a suspicion. The Internet radicalizes people by grouping then according to opinion.
“no, Dawkins WORK is foundational to evo bio and EGT”
Oh, really?
This is from Watson’s post responding to Dawkin’s attack on her:
(Emphasis added.)
@Julie
It’s amazing the mental gymnastics you go through to rationalize your bias. You honestly believe that it’s okay to throw a bad blanket statement on men as long as you hedge your statement with something like the word potential (“hey, I’m not saying *all* men are like that… *wink*”), but somehow you think it’s different and unacceptable to do the same on women. Sexist?
“Guys, don’t do that.”
You will note that it was not –
“Guys, please don’t do that.” Which would have been a request. or
“Guys, I’d prefer it if you wouldn’t do that.” Which would have been an expression of desire and opinion.
No, it was “Guys, don’t do that.” Apparently Rebecca Watson’s powers of celebrity have enabled her to issue orders (to guys at least).
I wonder. Do I get my turn to issue orders or is it an exclusive club?
There’s an aspect of this that’s not being addressed. This happened at an atheist/skeptic conference. She was more in danger of being invited to a game of D&D.
The elevator guy probably just wanted to have sex with her. If you don’t ask you’ll never get it so you gotta ask.
I appreciate hearing a woman’s perspective, but she shouldn’t assume that all women don’t want to be propositioned at 4 am in an elevator. I’d be willing to bet $100 dollars that there is a woman somewhere that would enjoy this type of request.
I think it’s a good thing to be reminded of though– sometimes women feel threatened, probably because they’re on average smaller than men, and I think I can sympathize there. So it’s good that she pointed this out; the guy probably should have waited till the door opened to ask her, but we’re not always perfect, and big picture this wasn’t a big deal.
I can’t follow Phil’s reasoning here. The way the story is presented, the guy in the elevator did nothing wrong.
The woman in the elevator may have felt uncomfortable, but that does not seem to have been the intention of the guy.
The difference can be that I am male, and I, nor any friend I have, would follow this up with sexual assault, and no woman in my envirement had ever had the opposite problem. So the guy in the elevator was a ‘potential assault’ just as my next door neighbor is a ‘potential serial killer’: it could happen, but is extremely unlikely.
I may be naive, but my interpretation: the guy just wanted to discuss some things over coffee, because he thought her talk was interesting. It’s possible that he had a secondary motive, that he was hoping that it would turn into some sort of relationship.
I don’t have all the information; I did not see the look on his face for example.
“Guys, don’t do that”
What would the Chef from south park say?
Baby, I’m in the mood for some love.
I admit, that usually doesn’t work with women. So, guys don’t do that because it doesn’t work. You got to be less honest and direct and think strategically.
@Julie
btw, I used the distasteful example on black people because I thought it would be blatantly obvious to anyone that it’s not kosher. I also thought that you would A) have the decency to acknowledge how it’s not okay to make such a statement about black people (which apparently you do) and B) have the honesty to acknowledge that you’re making the exact same statement about men, with all the bigotry, prejudices and biases (which apparently you don’t).
I have been raped, and I am on Dawkins’ side in this matter. If a woman feels threatened by social situations that most people would rate as fairly innocuous, she should consider getting some help. Ms Watson doesn’t help anyone to resurrect the specter of female fragility.
Phil…I simply can’t believe you have “tagged” this under the headings, “rape”, and “sexual harrassement”.
There was no crime committed, so these tags do not apply.
I really do wonder what you were thinking when you posted this…Rebecca continues to display her irrationality by personally attacking others (in other words, she lacks evidence for her opinions), and you’ve swallowed it all “hook line and sinker”.
I’m just surprised you could be so easily influenced when the evidence is so lacking.
I like you, PZ, but seriously? Potential sexual assault? If it was a potential sexual assault, the guy would have put a hand on her. I agree with Dawkins for the MOST part, although I don’t agree completely. Yeah, it’s fine she said something on her blog about it, but she did whine needlessly when the guy was obviously just awkward about being around a pretty girl. Yes, what the guy in the elevator asked was inappropriate, but that doesn’t occur to everybody. I know from having Asperger’s I sometimes unintentionally ask inappropriate things. What if somebody accused me of ‘potential sexual assault’ when I was trying to be polite? No, I don’t think Dawkins should have posted and compared Muslim women to an advance in an elevator because situations like that happen that are very real and DO lead to sexual assaults. Yes, the girl was right for feeling a bit uncomfortable. But demolishing Dawkins over this and BOYCOTTING his work? PLEASE! Even though I don’t wholly agree with what he did, I have to back up Dawkins here.
I’m dropping the SGU, this blog and organized “skepticism” in general over this.
The details are irrelevant, but I believe in the long run, this politically correct, thought police approach is as much of a threat to my liberty as is the radical religious right.
Adios, Manginas.
Richard Dawkins is 100% correct on this issue. And Rebecca Watson, in my opinion, is a sexist and prejudiced against men in general.
I found this to be very interesting (oh, the irony …):
http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/
Richard Dawkins was absolutely correct in all three of his posts, clearly stating that nobody did anything wrong. His second post, especially, was clear, concise, to the point, dead on RIGHT, and it absolutely amazes me how many posters here just don’t “get it”.
Rebecca Watson has exposed herself as a sexist, and her prejudiced attitude towards men in general is an insult and unwarranted. This skep”chick” … you know, the one that doesn’t want to be “sexualized” … was probably just upset that the poor fellow in the elevator wasn’t Justin Theroux instead. She disagrees with the politics of this man she never met, but as she puts it “I’d still do him” and “… whom I immediately wanted to lick from top to bottom”:
http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/
But SHE doesn’t want to be sexualized. That’s why she appears to be naked on a bed in this pic holding a Phil Plait book:
http://a2.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/124/63ad30877bc1494285a4f44e7708cade/l.jpg
But SHE doesn’t want to be “sexualized”. What a hypocrite!
(plus there are other other photos available on google that also depict a Rebecca Watson that doesn’t want to be “sexualized”)
I’m immediately going to purchase TWO more Richard Dawkins books in support of him, BECAUSE of his courage to stand up and state his mind on this men-bashing issue. And an incredible mind at that! I will also continue to support PZ Myers, I like him a lot, I just don’t agree with him all the time. Just because I disagree with his point of view on this issue doesn’t make him lose any credibility with me whatsoever. Which leads me to this point; I find Rebecca Watson’s attitude EXTREMELY childish. Richard Dawkins disagrees with her on ONE issue, and she falls just short of organizing a book burnin’! Personally, I cannot understand how anyone cannot understand how Richard is absolutely correct on this issue. But that’s what makes life interesting … we all have different viewpoints. If we didn’t, life would be boring and there would be no need for a comment section at all. Grow up, Rebecca.
Peace, and stop the man hating.
@1796
tant pis
Dawkins showed his ass, tried to walk it back, and then balked at doing the right thing and apologizing for his tone at least, even tho many, many sapients said he should.
i certainly won’t ever think of him the same way.
im not gunna boycott his work, but i do suspect early onset senile dementia.
we will see what happens next, i guess.
It really is striking how delicate so many dudes are, and how little it takes to make them feel wounded and threatened and such. Offer a little example of an inappropriate proposition and add, “Guys, don’t do that.” and the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth commences–scores of men act as if they’d taken a shotgun blast of rock salt to the balls. Pretty amazing fragility.
It’ll be interesting to see if anyone does any after-action research on all of this. I’d like to know what kinds of percentages we’re talking here, and ideally what sorts of peas bruise so many guys’ egos through a stack of mattresses (besides “Guys, don’t do that.” I mean).
—
Mostly, though, I hope we can get past this … at least most of us. One thing this has demonstrated is that we have most of the nasty elements of group ugliness as any religious group. People take a side and identify themselves with it, and bad reasoning that can only come from emotional investment and the lack of self-discipline follows. There are some exceptions of course, and they notably tend to be pretty one-sided, but never-the-less the invested pseudo-reasoning dominates–probably just because it’s the product largely of emotional investment. This is a microcosm of what we’re seeing after it’s gotten well out of hand in US politics right now. The emotional and divisive investing, I would wager, is enhanced by religious fervor and presumption, but to some degree we’re obviously quite capable of the very same kind of thinking.
Anyway, hopefully some good, productive social research will at least result from all of this–help us understand the Dark Side of human nature.
@ Carlos: You’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re ‘not taking no for an answer.’ (Hmm, where else might that behavior be troubling?). You’ve got an idea fixed in mind, and input from the outside world is not going to affect it. You’ve been striving to parse words instead of meanings. Reminds me a little bit of creationists, when they seek to question one fossil, thinking that this will disprove all of evolution.
I sincerely hope that you and yours live out the rest of your lives free of unwanted violence. Law enforcement in my region are overworked already.
Basically, the comment she made was more about sexual assault than religion, not about religion at all.
Yet Dawkins could only see that she was a muslim, and went on a rant about that. He can only see things from the prism of athiesm and religion. He can’t see that people are discussing something different.
He’s become an ideologue, and less about reason.
It’s wrong to use the advantage of hindsight to say that since there was no violence, nothing at all bad happened. When situations are playing out in real time, you don’t know what that other stranger is thinking.
I’m really thankful to Watson for speaking out. The fact that she got such a condescending smackdown attempt from Dawkins, shows that the issue of gender relations in the community still needs some work. When somebody other than yourself relates an experience, one of the first decent things to do is simply acknowledge their experience. You aren’t required to feel the same emotional reaction in the same situation, but to belittle their emotions is to fail a pretty basic test of compassion.
> 1818. Adam Says:
>
> Basically, the comment she made was more about sexual assault than religion, not about
> religion at all.
>
> Yet Dawkins could only see that she was a muslim, and went on a rant about that. He can
> only see things from the prism of athiesm and religion. He can’t see that people are
> discussing something different.
>
> He’s become an ideologue, and less about reason.
Except that she’s not a Muslim … or if she’s converted that would be a surprise to me, anyway. As far as I’m aware she’s a pretty staunch skeptic-atheist. Dawkins was saying Rebecca’s “assault” was trivial and he used the way a lot of Muslim women are treated in Islamic countries as an illustration of perspective. That makes it pretty clear he doesn’t appreciate the real time security issue of a woman being inappropriately propositioned in an elevator when very few people are up and about (or he doesn’t take Rebecca seriously, which I suspect is likely the case–doesn’t excuse it, particularly his follow-ups after the initial comment, it would just explain it to some extent … but it’s 100% conjecture, or almost 100% anyway). As Julie just pointed out (1819) this is hindsight. In real time we have to deal with things as they unfold, and the particulars of that proposition, especially given the PREceding events, was potential bad news (and we can infer that the body language involved didn’t set Rebecca at ease). In any case, I’m pretty sure Dawkins wasn’t turning it into a religious issue.
Even though he comes off as an obnoxious prick and the examples he used were unfortunate, Dawkins is fundamentally right.
That aside, my problem with the whole situation, as a woman, is this one: Watson and those siding with her in this are asking men to understand how we feel and not make us uncomfortable in these threatening situations? Am I understanding this correctly? If I am, I’m extremely disappointed as a woman, I tell you. What are we saying to men, that we feel threatened just because there’s more of them in the room than us? Because they’re staring at our breasts instead of our eyes? Because they’re standing closer than we like it? And the only way we can handle it is by asking them to please not do it? Come on! How about we don’t feel threatened in the first place? How about we don’t feel like the weak ones who can’t stand up for ourselves? How about we have the confidence to get in the guys face and tell him to stand back or go f*ck himself, whatever the situation requires? How about we don’t act like victims because we live in societies where we have the option.
As a woman who has had to struggle all her life to learn to stand up to men and not be afraid, not be a victim, I’m really pissed off. (I wish I could post this comment on the Skepchik blog where it belongs, but it’s for members only. So, thanks for leaving this space open for all comments.)
I was alone in my bedroom earlier. I caught sight of myself in the mirror. I think the man in the mirror wanted to potentially sexually assault me. I was disgusted but couldn’t go for a shower to make myself feel clean as there is a mirror in the bathroom too, and I can’t be sure what bathroom mirror me might potentially do.
Female discourse about sexual assault is not going to be helped by allowing minor viewpoints to become major themes of social construction.
http://i.imgur.com/MOCk3.png
A polite request is made.
It’s turned down.
END of story. But not of a blogger’s drivel on the same dead-horse topic.
There is no offense here, or insult, or threat.
Is this how thin-skinned you yourself are? Or is this the deformed idea that you have of chivalry?
“It looks to me that he really is comparing a potential sexual assault to someone chewing gum”…wow.
Just wow.
A man, at worst trying to hit on a woman, at best being genuinely friendly and sincere, is deemed a potential sexual predator by merit of TALKING to a woman in a confined space.
This is where I stopped reading, what absolute nonsense.
@Tasha
Dawkins is fundamentally right.
no, Dawkins is fundamentally WRONG. Islamic cultural practices like FGM and stoning, etc, have ZERO to do with Rebecca’s western culture situation.
Dawkins is revealed as just another Angry White Male with barking islamophobia.
But he is right about one thing….al-Islam is an EGT uninvadable strategy and in 20 years one of four humans will be muslim.
so while islamic cultural practices have nothing to do with Rebecca’s situ, and Dawkins is merely using them for shock value to trivialize Rebecca’s argument….we should be afraid.
very afraid.
valar dohaeris
@Tasha
Dawkins is fundamentally right.
no, Dawkins is fundamentally WRONG. Islamic cultural practices like FGM and stoning, etc, have ZERO to do with Rebecca’s western culture situation.
Dawkins is revealed as just another Angry White Male with barking islamophobia.
But he is right about one thing….al-Islam is an EGT uninvadable strategy and in 20 years one of four humans will be muslim.
so while islamic cultural practices have nothing to do with Rebecca’s situ, and Dawkins is merely using them for shock value to trivialize Rebecca’s argument….we should be afraid.
very afraid.
valar dohaeris
@Tasha
Dawkins is fundamentally right.
no, Dawkins is fundamentally WRONG. Islamic cultural practices like FGM and stoning, etc, have ZERO to do with Rebecca’s western culture situation.
Dawkins is revealed as just another Angry White Male with barking islamophobia.
But he is right about one thing….al-Islam is an EGT uninvadable strategy and in 20 years one of four humans will be muslim.
so while islamic cultural practices have nothing to do with Rebecca’s situ, and Dawkins is merely using them for shock value to trivialize Rebecca’s argument….we should be afraid.
very afraid.
valar dohaeris
Dawkins i right because Rebecca didn’t suffer nothing from an obviously normal guy trying his luck. I only blame the guy for being innept in his attempt. But at 4 am, this things can happen to good people.
What Dawkins did was ridicule Rebecca’s arrogant whinning (“don’t do that guys”, Jebus, how condescending is this?) with an example of a real problem. And the example happens to be true; and it really doesn’t matter if Dawkins his islamophobic or not.
And the example does not imply, as some sophists try to say, that just because there are worse things happening to women we should let minor violences done to women to pass. The fact is, Nothing happened. I guess rebbeca only tried to give men some manners lesson. But, the ways of love aren’t really ruled by logic. Not at 4 am at least.
So, yeah. I think Rebbeca’s Whinning was wrong, arrogant, condescending… but the overall result of all this is kind of funny.
Oh well.
> 1823. mig Says:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/MOCk3.png
Another -fine- example of #3, here ( http://tinyurl.com/3mtmdz6 ).
sure it does.
Dawkins OWN WORK proves Islam is an uninvadable EGT strategy.
Empirical data PROVES Islam is an uninvadable EGT strategy.
Islamic cultural practices HAVE NOTHING TO DO with Rebecca’s situation.
And Dawkins knows this.
I heard your an asshat, that’s unfortunate. I actually took you seriously once.
A few years ago, there was a minor blog post which blew up into a major incident which came to be known as the Great LiveJournal RaceFail. It centered around a (white) author’s appropriation of a non-white culture, and a non-white person connected to said culture expressing discomfort with it, and a great deal of backlash against the various PoC about how they had no right to be so oversensitive!!!1!1!!!!11!!!1!! to a well-meaning and friendly author who had done so much to advance their visibility etc.
I see some reflection of that here, with the disheartening number of people who are STILL adamant in their mischaracterisations* of what happened, and insistent on the “fact” that people should simply be sympathetic to the poor awkward guy, whereas the woman saying “don’t do that” is obviously oversensitive and overreacting and so on and so forth and there is no reason to be sympathetic. And she is complaining about nothing and shouldn’t be allowed to do that. And women are attacking people who are actually feminist which you can see because look they disapprove of blatant and dangerous inequalities, etc.
The major difference is that in the LJ RaceFail, the upshot of it was actually a change in general attitude, if only by a few inches, as more and more people took on board the fact that if you want to open up your community to more people, then maybe you should spend some time listening to them, being respectful of what diversity actually means and trying to understand the different perspectives being brought to the table, rather than lecturing them on how yours is the One True Understanding and they do not have a valid contribution to make unless it happens to agree with you. Here…well, I wish I saw anything that positive.
I’m not advocating for “different ways of knowing” and non-evidence-based understanding. But people don’t seem to grasp that the human experience of interaction with other humans DOES vary according to gender, skin color, social status, etc., and that this carries profound implications for danger, discomfort, or disadvantage in various situations. And respect and true equality involves not telling people that they aren’t allowed to say “please don’t do this” to behaviours which target them (not some abstract concept, but the actual person) directly. These things are entirely evidence based — but here, whenever that fact impinges on the lives of the majority in any way which makes them a bit uncomfortable, it is getting blown off as “nonsense.”
I’m proud of the SF/F writerly community for the attempt to learn from a kerfuffle. The reaction to this, though, really makes me disgusted with the atheist/skeptic community. And, looking at the kinds of responses that RW has gotten (not even the original incident, I mean the kinds of things plastered all over a dozen blogs) it surely does not encourage me to think that sexism in the skeptic community is a non-problem.
——-
*There is an awful lot being attributed to RW which is not backed up by any evidence. And events seem to be rewritten according to a variety of timelines in people’s heads without any regard for recorded evidence, either. And this is supposed to be the skeptic community?
Yes, you do have a long way to go.
Eering on the side of caution is one thing. Assimilating all men in everyday scenarios as potential rapists is another. I understand the fear, but please don’t blame innocent men for it nor try to make them feel guilty simply for being in an elevator (since according to you that in itself is uncomfortable).
The only thing this man was guilty of was not having his interest returned.
Well, so many skeptics and rational people here, and after reading many, many comments, I haven’t seen this asked: Is there any statistical evidence, any at all, that says that a woman is more likely to experience stranger rape from someone who’s propositioned her than by someone who has said nothing to her? Stranger rape is far the less common type, and I really don’t know that it’s more likely that the stranger rapist tries asking before assaulting someone on an elevator. Do you? Does anyone?
If not, than saying he was wrong for saying something is defending an IRRATIONAL fear. Indeed, if it could be shown that women were less likely to be stranger raped by someone who politely propositioned them first, then, to make them feel more comfortable, all men should proposition women when getting on an elevator with them. According to the logic displayed here, anyway.
ALSO. Why is it disrespectful to proposition someone, even openly? Can you give a good reason, other than a Puritan morality you atheists are supposedly so much more enlightened than? What is wrong with sex, even just for its own sake? Even without knowing someone’s name? What is wrong with that? What is the moral justification for saying it’s wrong? Maybe she would be into it! How would he know, if he didn’t ask? Sure, she gave a talk on it. People say more misleading things. Hey, some even change their mind. What if he made her all hot and bothered? Who can say?
Point is, if the only way to really know is to ask, and there’s nothing morally wrong with a hook-up, than why is it rude to ask for one? Why is it threatening? It’s not really surprising that, in a group of sexually stunted intellectuals, the idea of a libertine sexuality might be off-putting, but that’s your hang-up.
Luna_the_cat — you left off heterosexism, ageism, sizeism, and racism in the list of those things in the skeptic community that are still not non-problems. We all need to continue working on them — if only to assure ourselves that we’re not part of the problem.
You perpetuate some of these problems with your statement “And respect and true equality involves not telling people that they aren’t allowed to say “please don’t do this” to behaviours which target them (not some abstract concept, but the actual person) directly.” — because it states as a fact that a behaviour was targeting someone, which a skeptic should see is not supported by the facts. (Perhaps you should have said “behaviours which were interpreted to be targeting them” or something like that, which is accurate, where the original text is not.)
As has been pointed out frequently, a great part of this “kerfuffle” was caused by RW stating that EG’s actions were an example of “misogyny” — which a skeptic should see is not supported by the facts.
And pointing out someone’s errors is not telling them to “shut up” — a skeptic should be able to see that claim is not supported by the evidence.
Putting the event into perspective is not telling anyone to “shut up” — a skeptic should be able to see that claim is not supported by the evidence.
But I agree that more mutual respect (which includes not presuming someone is attacking your opinions/values/self) is always a good idea, and would help to diffuse much of the negativity.
Sharazel, you have jumped to a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. A request for coffee is not equal to propositioning someone.
It can mean that, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that. A person who believes it always means that is demonstrating their sexualizing of all interpersonal interactions.
@gr8hands: True enough. It could have just been coffee. However, my guess is that it wasn’t, and even if it was, my point is, my argument was that even if he had been overtly sexual, so what? If he had said,
“Excuse me, it’s clear that you are an intelligent and interesting person, and quite lovely, so I would be honored and delighted if you’d come up to my room and have sex with me.”
THAT also should be fine, and not offensive, even if you say no. I mean, it would also be rather unlikely to succeed, but there’s nothing offensive about it. Our attitudes towards sex are repressed and sick, and that is an undercurrent that runs through this whole discussion.
Sharazel, if EG had been that brazen, then it could have accurately been described as “misogyny” and sexual objectifying.
It would have been blatant heterosexism on EG’s part (to presume RW was heterosexual), and perhaps sexist.
Some women perceive any sexual request to include a veiled threat if the request is rejected. Some women perceive a man just standing there as a threat.
It seems that EG was going to be in trouble if he did nothing, said anything, after making the “mistake” of getting in the elevator with her alone. According to different posters here.
You’re right, there are undercurrents running through the discussion. And you’re also right that our attitudes (as a group) towards sex are repressed and sick.
@gr8hands: Why would it have been misogyny? Why is openly acknowledging one’s sexual interest in someone as a primary interest objectifying? Is it not possible to respect someone as a person and yet, in a particular circumstance, have only a particular type of interaction in mind?
Also, perhaps it wasn’t an assumption. Perhaps he knew her from her blog/Youtube, and had seen where she expressed interest in men. Even if not, it doesn’t require an assumption. In that case, he’d just be rejected, same as before. Is he supposed to ask whether she’s hetero or not before he hits on her? That seems at least as disrespectful.
First — this is a fantastic example of what I meant by people rewriting events in their heads without regard to evidence — nowhere has RW ever accused EG of misogyny. She didn’t accuse him of rape, or even of being a potential rapist. She accused him of sexual objectification. The misogyny word came in later, when she (quite accurately) pointed out that when a “please don’t do this” statement is interpreted by others as anti-sex and man-hating, this is where misogynist attitudes have been internalised by people who have every reason to know better, and when it lands on her in the same environment as the one in which she gets a lot of actual written rape threats it makes her think, hey, the people here do not have my back.
She (and many others) pointed out that the reason the situation is creepy is that a woman in a small and enclosed space which is easily controlled by a larger individual, must gauge interactions there in terms of risk, given that there IS a long and well-populated history of abuse against women. What happens there is not an advanced statistical analysis; it is a simple cost-benefit analysis, where the cost of even once underestimating the possibility of a sexual assault is far higher than any benefit to be gained from being happy and trusting all the time. Think of it like this: soldiers who have been several rotations in a combat zone get very paranoid about every person on the street, not because there is a statistically great chance that they will encounter someone with a gun or a suicide bomb every day, but simply because the possibility exists that they will encounter one, and it could be anybody.
She did not, ever, anywhere, call EG a rapist. This comes out of people’s imaginations. The clearly stated premise, however, is that women tend to evaluate interactions in light of the possibility of violence, and that there is a reason for this, and that is one of the things that makes a proposition late at night in an enclosed space “creepy.” The other thing that makes it creepy: the fact that she had just clearly stated her preferences, and had them ignored. This is a common metric: if this man is sexually interested in me, and has just ignored things I’ve been saying, what else will he ignore? Will he ignore “no”? In this case it is clear that he didn’t, and RW never represented otherwise, but that tense moment of calculation makes it creepy and uncomfortable.
Second — let’s just be clear, as I stated far far above us in this thread, there is also a wide cultural context of “come back to my place for coffee” as the “polite” intro to “I want to have sex with you.” I also suggest that you all check out the RSA Animate video on “Language as a Window into Human Nature.” Seriously. I wish people would. I’m not going to link it simply because that would mean the comment hangs in moderation, but it’s not hard to find and it is entirely relevant (as well as interesting, of course).
(Quite as an aside, in an imaginary hypothetical universe where RW followed the guy to his room, if she got raped there many of the men on this board would probably be united in saying “Well, if she didn’t expect sex, what was she doing in his hotel room at 4am?”)
gr8hands is absolutely committed to denying that this is the case, but no matter how strenuously people may insist the world is flat, it keeps on being round.
Now, why is this in any way objectionable: RW had just spent hours talking about how getting random sexual propositions from people you don’t really know in inappropriate settings makes women uncomfortable, and chases them away from many venues and groups when it happens too much. Then she explicitly stated that she was exhausted and wanted to get some sleep.
Then a guy, who claims to have found her “interesting” and who was in the bar where she was discussing the subject, starts a conversation with a sexual proposition which ignores what she’s just said about needing sleep.
How much more plainly could one convey the message “I wasn’t really listening to what you say, or I don’t feel the need to take you at your word; I just want to have sex with you”?
As for Sharazel’s Maybe she would be into it! How would he know, if he didn’t ask? Sure, she gave a talk on it. People say more misleading things. Hey, some even change their mind. What if he made her all hot and bothered? Who can say? — Perhaps someone who respected the individual enough to listen to what she just said and took her word for it, they could say. The “well, maybe she said ‘no’ but I’ll just ask her again because maybe she didn’t mean it or maybe she’ll change her mind” – that is part of the dratted problem, the kind of thing which makes women very fed up.
Where’s the harm in all this? Read. People are telling you. Lots of people. Lots of posts. Try listening and thinking about it from the point of view of the people who are trying to tell you.
And, finally — gr8hands, in what delusional world does a proposition directed to a specific individual, who then responds specifically to that proposition, not count as a behaviour specifically targetting someone?
What a very sad affair this is.
Sad that the man in the elevator set this sorry story in motion.
Sadder still that the respect I once had for Dawkins evanesced reading each succeeding word of his insensitive and ill-thought out posts.
But saddest of all is that so many of my fellow sceptics have failed to appreciate that a man putting a woman he doesn’t know in the position of having to refuse his proposition of sex while immured in an elevator late at night might actually leave the woman feeling vulnerable.
If you’re one of those who don’t appreciate this, then you’re not getting it. You have a blind spot and you need to do something about it.
Actually, her talk seems to have been about more overtly hostile and crude things. Unwelcome touching. Threats of rape, things like that. A euphemistically-worded proposition, if it even was that, isn’t the same thing.
Non-sequitur. Try again.
Why, it’s not like you address any of the substance of my previous points. I was clarifying my previous statement that Luna cited.
> 1838. gr8hands Says:
>
> Sharazel, you have jumped to a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. A request
> for coffee is not equal to propositioning someone.
No more so than an invitation to come by my room for breakfast when it’s ten or eleven in the evening. No more so than that there’s anything suggestive behind the proposition that you sit on my lap and see what comes up. The idea that this wasn’t a proposition works only if you ignore everything but the words themselves–unless you do -precisely- what you’re accusing Sharazel of doing, in still another example of #3, here ( http://tinyurl.com/3mtmdz6 ).
It’s often rather telling when people choose to act as if they live in a world without any such a thing as subtlety or innuendo. Kinda reminds me of Larry “Wide Stance” Craig … and about 14 to 27 other such cases of staunch defenses offered by Wingnuts.
I was sort of leaning toward the idea that Skepchick overreacted. After learning what actually happened and reading Dawkins’ reply. Well, let’s just say, “Another hero bites the dust.” Yeah, I know I shouldn’t put people on pedestals. It’s just I thought Dawkins was so much better than that. As the days past, my respect for him has pretty much faded into low-level contempt.
I have to say, if I’d found myself in the lift with Rebecca at TAM I’d have asked her back for a coffee. I’d have said exactly the same to Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Swoopy, any Novella you want to name or, uh, Phil Plait. Why? Well, because they’re all heroes of mine and I’d just love to talk to them.
@Byron 1847 and @Luna_the_cat 1842 — you seem determined to completely ignore my statement: A request for coffee is not equal to propositioning someone.
It can mean that, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that.”
Scolding me for “denying” the reality of “the proposition” is just so much low reading comprehension on your parts. Some people will see all/most offers of coffee as sexual in nature — but they bring that interpretation to the table, and is their problem.
Luna_the_cat, it has already been demonstrated that RW inaccurately recalls what she spoke about in her presentation (the video has been posted to YouTube), so she is a bit unreliable in terms of characterizing what she spoke about in the bar. A skeptic would note that.
gr8hands is absolutely committed to the truth, and not bringing in sexualized baggage. “There is also a wide cultural context of ‘come back to my place for coffee'” meaning you want coffee. Luna_the_cat just doesn’t want to accept that possibility, because it won’t fit into her pre-conceived notion of what must have been going through EG’s mind. Not very skeptical.
@euthyphro 1843, you are misusing the word “immured” because there was no imprisoning, and certainly nothing against anyone’s will. In fact, your entire post is rife with similar mistakes and presuppositions. Not a good sign of skepticism.
Byron, it’s often rather telling when people choose to act as if they live in a world where everything is sexualized, no matter how innocent. It doesn’t speak highly for those people. And it is not a good sign of skepticism.
If you are unable to tell the difference between an offer for coffee and an offer to sit on someone’s lap, then perhaps you should have counseling.
> 1850. gr8hands Says:
>
> If you are unable to tell the difference between an offer for coffee and an offer to sit on
> someone’s lap, then perhaps you should have counseling.
Maybe, I suppose, if you’re -unable- to tell the difference, though even then I’d still say that’s rather melodramatic.
But I’m pretty sure you don’t honestly think that applies to what I actually wrote anyway. Rather, I think it’s a good example of precisely the point I was making–in so many words that it’s often telling when someone depends upon strategically applied spin in order to harshly judge or otherwise be nasty to others (or in order to defend a chosen position). It’s just linguistic combat, not any kind of genuine attempt at communication, and it indicates pretty clearly that genuine attempts at communication will not be met favorably, to put it mildly, and they -certainly- won’t be reciprocated. I think that’s what grates most about Wingnuts–Palin fans and the like–and it would appear right now that We the Skeptic/Atheist Community are making quite a show of displaying most of the very same true colors that we’ve seen from them.
@Byron 1851,
I am glad to see that you want a “genuine attempt at communication.”
First, when someone says “X” it frustrates communication when you presume they mean “Y” — regardless of your personal background or whatever baggage is brought to the table. (I personally try to first take people at their expressed word, modifying it if they show it needs to be adjusted.)
That’s the issue here. Man invites woman for coffee, but far too many state as fact that man propositions woman. Notice that “Y” has been substituted for the original “X”, substantially changing the meaning. Communication fails at that point because arguments ensue about “Y” and not really about “X”.
If you are genuine about wanting communication, stick to what actually happened. People keep saying EG “cornered RW” — no evidence to support that. People keep saying EG “followed RW into the elevator” — no evidence to support that (RW said he “got on the elevator with me” which meant one was in front of the other, or they walked in side-by-side).
Please notice that I’m not ignoring a possible sexual aspect of his invitation to coffee. I have repeatedly pointed out that a sexual aspect is one possible interpretation, but not the only one, and certainly not the default one.
The rest of the nontroversy is based on whether you presumed EG was propositioning RW or just asking her for coffee.
Is that communication enough? Please note that nothing in my post is telling you to shut up or stop posting.
[Amazing that this thread is still growing…]
@gr8hands
“I have repeatedly pointed out that a sexual aspect is one possible interpretation, but not the only one, and certainly not the default one.”
This is very true. However, you keep leaving out the context of EG’s invitation (setting/time/location) which lends balance to the interpretation of it being a sexual overture, though obviously not an aggressive one. He waited until he was alone with her in a place which had the potential to be very scary if he did get aggressive, it was 4 AM, they did not know each other, and the coffee invitation was for right then in his room.
As reported by Rebecca, he didn’t ask to talk to her in his room over coffee. It’s really not about what might have happened if the guy had tried to do something and ultimately not over how this is a prelude to an attack in so many other instances.
It was simply inappropriate, especially if the reason he found her interesting was because he’d listened to her talks and conversation at the bar. And initially, that’s all Rebecca said. It escalated out of non-issue when people badgered her over having pointed out the guy’s poor manners.
> 1852. gr8hands Says:
>
> I am glad to see that you want a “genuine attempt at communication.”
It’s good to see that you’re “glad” about that. Do you recognize how using quotes in this way adjusts the context though?
> First, when someone says “X” it frustrates communication when you presume they mean
> “Y”
I agree, unless you’re suggesting that the context of a statement shouldn’t be considered (such as how quotes are being used). Context can easily indicate quite clearly that a statement means precisely the opposite of what the words alone say (sarcasm/facetiousness … ).
In any case one thing that has to happen in order to manage genuine dialog here, is that you have to stop responding to what “‘people’ keep saying” as if I’m responsible, or as if you know I agree with those people. Very little of 1852 actually seems pertinent to anything I’ve personally written in here.
Speaking of which, what’s up with pointing out you haven’t told me to shut up or to stop posting, anyway? Where’d -that- come from?
@Byron 1854.
I disagree that merely quoting you automatically “adjusts the context.” (it appears you like the word ‘context’ as it appears is a majority of your posts) It appears more like you’re looking for an insult that isn’t there. I hope I’m wrong.
As no one can know the actual context of the elevator statements, it is not possible to do much considering of them without putting in baggage we bring ourselves. I suggest it is better to take them at face value. Perhaps if RW had said the phrases were said in a sarcastic or facetious way, it might have some merit. Or if she related EG had used finger quotes around “have some coffee” to indicate it was anything other than having some coffee.
You have been in error for stating as a fact that a sexual proposition was made. I point out the “people keep saying” as further evidence that you are not alone in making statements not supported by the evidence.
As many many people have posted that any criticism or pointing out of errors is an attempt to tell RW (or others) to “shut up”, I was trying to be proactive in stating that I was not attempting to tell you to shut up. (Or hadn’t you read anything about that topic in this thread?)
Well, end of the day. I need to catch a train.
@1832
heard your an asshat, that’s unfortunate. I actually took you seriously once.
i doubt that…i was never anything but a bit of fluff for you to train up and educate.
i had you on a pedestal too.
just like Dawkins.
bi la kayfah
@Keith Bowden 1853.
I do not leave out the context of EG’s invitation (setting/time/location) but just shorten it to “offer for coffee” — I include it. But let me be explicit: Offers for coffee, made in an elevator at 4am, after having been in a bar for hours, can have a sexual connotation to them, but do not necessarily have them, nor should that be the default.
You state “He waited until he was alone with her…” — which is not supported by the facts. We do not know if he had been speaking with her (or trying to speak with her) the entire walk from the bar to the elevator (or while at the bar, or right after her panel). It may be true, but we don’t know.
You wrote “… in a place which had the potential to be very scary if he did get aggressive…” I submit that any place has the potential to be very scary if someone were to get aggressive — including out in the open.
You wrote “It was simply inappropriate . . .” which is inaccurate, unless you qualify it with something like ‘in my opinion.’ You state it as a fact, which is not supported by the evidence.
You also state as a fact “the guy’s poor manners” — again without the disclaimer of it just being your opinion. Others, like myself, thought EG was being polite.
I’ve gone to lots of conferences (including almost every TAM) where there were gatherings after the panels, then drinks at a bar after that with fewer people, then gatherings in someone’s room after that with fewer people still, then moving to someone else’s room after that with just one other person — none of it sexual, often with people I’ve just met (since you might not easily be able to see them face-to-face again, or soon).
Speakers experience this very frequently. People in the limelight experience this very frequently with the addition of ‘fans’ wanting to interact with them — fans, who are also complete strangers.
Apologies if someone already brought this up, but perhaps another lesson to be learned is, “It might not be a good idea to stay at a hotel bar in a foreign country until 4:00 a.m. and then walk around the hotel by yourself.”
@gr8hands aka Mr. Wikipedia.
NO.
Watson said the guys overture made her uncomfortable.
End of story, its her right to feel uncomfortable.
It is not creeper elevator guy’s to MAKE her uncomfortable, no matter how socially challenged he might be.
Do you know the definition of sexual harrassment? At my work, it means someone that ANNOYS you.
And that is reportable offense. You have no right to annoy people, to make people uncomfortable.
Elevator guys right to swing his fist (or his dick) leaves off where Rebecca’s virtual nose begins.
@shams 1859, you remain terribly confused.
First off, using ‘overture’ as shorthand for a sexual overture is inaccurate, as I have explained again and again. You might at least put in ‘in my opinion’ — just to be accurate.
You are free to report any feelings of offense, but that does not mean an offense has occurred. (Feel free to go to Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal and look for comic 2164 for further clueing in.)
Only you are suggesting EG was swinging his fist (or anything else) at RW, or having the right to do so, so your comments about that are bizarre.
Many people have pointed out that EG just being in the elevator at all and doing nothing would still have made them uncomfortable — which clearly demonstrates that annoyance/uncomfortableness/offense in those situations is strictly in the mind of the self-described annoyed. Not being able to distinguish between real annoyance/offense and something strictly in your own mind is part of the problem demonstrated by this discussion.
You are deeply confused about “the definition of sexual harrassment.”
I’m surprised you didn’t put in your usual . . . stuff . . . about “Islam is an uninvadable EGT strategy” (as if that somehow makes a point).
But, please keep posting. This post is not in any way telling you to ‘shut up’ or stop posting. However, as I have determined that based on the evidence of your posts, you really don’t have anything worthwhile to say on this topic, I will stop responding to you. I am not suggesting anyone else do the same, or that you stop posting — please, feel empowered in your own right to keep posting.
This was the “full blown scandal”? It’s no wonder that Skepticism has no mainstream appeal – you’re all so busy feuding amongst yourselves, pointing out logical fallacies and being oh-so-clever you’ve made yourselves irrelevant and unappealing to anyone except your fellow skeptics.
Good luck with the echo chamber, chaps.
I dislike Richard Dawkins pretty intensely for various reasons, so it’s saying a LOT that I completely agree with him here.
You don’t get to tell people how to act just because it makes you uncomfortable. If someone’s behavior does no physical or (demonstrable) psychological harm to you, then guess what? You can get over it. That’s how it works.
The POTENTIAL of assault, sexual or otherwise, exists everywhere. Are you going to start projecting it onto every guy you encounter in a small space who works up the courage to show overt interest in you? Seriously?
The reverse sexism in our society is almost as tiring as the reverse racism. I’m glad Phil’s supporters in this thread aren’t legislators or guys would be taking the stairs in public buildings just to avoid lawsuits. On the upside, we’d all be healthier.
So, what is the solution ?
I’m in front of elevator at anytime of day or night, there is woman who is waiting for the same elevator waiting as well. There is just the two of us.
The elevator opens.
which is correct:
Say: ” This is yours, I’ll get the next one”
Say: “I’m not going to hurt you but I’d like to share the elevator to my floor if that’s ok”
Say: “I’m uncomfortable being in a elevator with a woman alone.. shall we flip for it ?”
Say: “Nothing … but stand as far away as possible”
Say: “This is your call, I’ll use the elevator first or you can”
expound this into a meme if you like
Has anyone seen or read any credible response this alleged elevator guy ? If was in the skeptic movement in any sense, he would most likely have heard of this uproar… Where are you Elevator Guy.. you didn’t do anything stupid like suicide… did you ?
yes you do. That’s why creeper elevator guy got shut down. Rebecca REFUSED his invite because he made her UNCOMFORTABLE. CEG’s free-speech-right to proposition Rebecca ends with Rebecca’s right to reject him because she found him creepy, he made her UNCOMFORTABLE.
And Dawkins is an ass and so are you.
@Mr. Wikipedia
nope, that is how sexual harrassment is defined at my work. I had to undergo “sexual harrassment training”, so we poor weak fems could recognize when someone was harrassing us..
lol, dude, im not the one sourcing wikipedia.
where did you go to school…..im guessin Oral Roberts? “junior” college?
As a transwoman I’ve been on both sides and I can empathize with both parties but more with the female. Most guys would see no harm in asking a woman for coffee in this situation because they don’t feel vulnerable when they are alone. To them it just looks like he is being friendly, and that is true. The mistake he made is asking her to the room. How ever this is not potential sexual assault. We have no idea the mans intentions.
On the other hand I feel uncomfortable any time a guy hits on me, and if I’m a lone I’d feel awkward about it. If he would have gotten off the floor with me I would def me hesitant to go into my room if he knew he could see me. When your a woman the world seems like a more dangerous place. I never felt this way until hormones and I realized I was weaker than men. I’m now am nervous at night and I even check my back seat in my car to ensure no one is in there. My point is that this was an awkward encounter and nothing more. It’s natural for a guy to hit on a woman(it’s the testosterone!) just as it is natural for woman to feel scared when they are alone with a guy in a tight place. But please don’t make this into an argument about male privilege. If sexual harassment is in the eye of the beholder no guy could ever even hope to comprehend the appropriate time to talk to a woman. But guys should take a hint that hitting on a girl who’s alone and in a tight place is a bad time to do it, especially if there’s been alcohol.
> 1868. Megan
It couldn’t be made much more easy to understand than that, Megan. Thanks!
Now duck and cover … quick!
While RW and her ludicrous sycophants have been nursing a careful sense of grievance, Richard Dawkins posted this:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642257-how-sexual-apartheid-works-in-pictures
So, who, exactly, is asleep at the wheel when it comes to women’s rights here?
If the defense of liberty and reason depends on the likes of RW we may as well quit now.
@1866. shams:
“yes you do. That’s why creeper elevator guy got shut down. Rebecca REFUSED his invite because he made her UNCOMFORTABLE. CEG’s free-speech-right to proposition Rebecca ends with Rebecca’s right to reject him because she found him creepy, he made her UNCOMFORTABLE.”
No, you don’t. I don’t think you understand me. You can voice your opinion, but under any normal circumstances you have no authority to tell someone how to behave and force them, physically or contractually, to act in accordance. That would be considered coercion or duress, and would be illegal under several legal precedents.
and rebecca didnt do that.
she just shut him down and complained that he was an insensitive jerk.
that is how society works– social capital rules.
@Hugo
remind me what islamic cultural practices have to do with Watson and Creeper Elevator Guy again?
NOTHING.
you and Dawkins are both riddickkulous islamophobic assclowns.
“While RW and her ludicrous sycophants have been nursing a careful sense of grievance, Richard Dawkins posted this:”
Yes, while Rebecca Watson’s “sycophants” were wasting time saying that men should not feel entitled to women’s bodies, Richard Dawkins was obsessing about how Islamic men acting entitled to women’s bodies is much much worse than western atheist men acting like they are entitled to women’s bodies.
You illustrate the difference well, Hugo. Thank you for making it so clear.
Re: 1873.Teresa who said “…Richard Dawkins was obsessing about how Islamic men acting entitled to women’s bodies is much much worse than western atheist men acting like they are entitled to women’s bodies.”
Once again. Elevator guy didn’t feel entitled to the woman’s body. He ******asked******, he didn’t act entitled. He asked and accepted a “no.” Asking, “can I have a piece of your cake?” is different than stating, “I’m entitled to some of your cake!” or simply taking someone’s cake. As it’s pretty much impossible that you don’t already know the difference, I expect you’re just upset at Dawkins for some other reason.
Karl,
Sure, if you see cake to be as personal as sex…and if you are judged for giving cake away as freely as you would be giving away sex, and if you wouldn’t consider it rude and presumptuous for someone you’d never interacted with personally to just feel free to come in out of the blue with no preliminaries to come over to a table where you were dining, and ask for a bite of your cake…yes, that makes perfect sense.
Much like it’s perfectly reasonable for you to just come along, compare my sexuality to a consumable, and imply that it’s even less valuable and implying that I have less right to object to a total stranger coming up and asking me for sex in an elevator than I would if they came up to me in a restaurant and asked for a piece of my desert…and then tell me how I should feel about that, and explain why it would be wrong for me to feel like what’s mine is mine, and I have no right to be offended and creeped out when people do it frequently…
… and then accuse me of ulterior motives, and expect that to demonstrate to me that you don’t feel entitled to women’s bodies.
Really? If someone did that to you, you wouldn’t feel like maybe there was a boundary that would need to be reasserted with “Don’t do that?”
I need to show up sometime when you are dining and walk up to your table out of the blue, point to something on your plate and just say “Are you going to eat that? Can I have it?” and see if you think you should be constrained to a polite “no” or if you think I should maybe be informed that it just isn’t appropriate to do that. More accuratly, I should have several of my friends do it in the course of one meal to make the analogy complete.
lol. talk about not understanding the difference.
And I’m not really upset at Dawkins. I think he said something injudicious and thoughtless, and I hope he’s learned something in the process.
Thought:
Maybe “slutwalk” should be accompanied by some sort of event where women just go up to men on the street and ask to borrow their cars, or go into restaurants and ask for food off the guy’s plate, or knock on doors and ask them for their television, and then, when the guys freak out and yell at them say “Well, I was just ASKING…I took ‘no’ for an answer, what do you want from me? It’s not like I’m acting ENTITLED or anything!”
I expect a lot of us are upset at Dawkins for acting like a cretinous American movement conservative with barking islamophobia instead of the SCIENTIST we all thought he was.
I wonder if Dawkins was a wannabe member of the EDL like Anders Breivik.
Thank you, Shams 1878…
…although you really should let the big strong man define my motives, emotions, and values for me…it’s the natural order of things, the way God wants it. Let’s not get uppity, and just thank the man for taking “no” as “no” and for not making us wear a burqa. We obviously owe him SO MUCH!
Dawkins is right, we should take what we’ve got and not get all uppity and demand that basic courtesy and thoughtfulness be used to try to get sex from us. We obviously owe it to all men everywhere that they should be able to approach us in all ways at all times with no regard to our feelings, as long as they take “no” as a “no.
you are welcome, Teresa.
SCIENTISTS would analyze how Creeper Elevator Guy failed the Social Brain Hypothesis rules instead of staging a freakout about teh Horrors of Eevul Islam.
Hey, maybe we should take the heat off of Rebecca by getting women to put up their own “guys, don’t do that” moment.
I’ve got a few…but my favorite is: Guys, don’t ask a girl out on a date while wearing a tee-shirt that says “Hey, does this smell like chloroform?” Guys, don’t do that.
…a-n-d- guy complaining that I am now barring him from asking women out while wearing a tee-shirt in 3, 2, 1…
Dear Intellectually Stimulating Single Men of at least average attractiveness, typical sanity levels, and 0-10 years my junior or senior;
Feel free to ask me out…even on an elevator. I may or may not be interested, but I will be flattered. Oh, and holding a door open for me and/or paying for dinner is not an assault upon my womanhood. It is not expected behavior either.
With that said, please do not be offended if I constantly hold my coffee or if I decline an invite back to your place. I made those mistakes. Never again.
1875. Teresa said: “Sure, if you see cake to be as personal as sex…”
I didn’t say that. No analogy is perfect,
“…and if you are judged for giving cake away as freely as you would be giving away sex, and if you wouldn’t consider it rude and presumptuous for someone you’d never interacted with personally to just feel free to come in out of the blue with no preliminaries to come over to a table where you were dining, and ask for a bite of your cake…yes, that makes perfect sense.”
But there was a preliminary in the elevator. He didn’t ask for sex, he asked a person if they’d like to come to his room for coffee. This *might* have been a preliminary to a request for sex, might not have.
Karl 1875,
a-a-a-a-n-d we are back to that. OK, if he didn’t know that he was asking for sex of a total stranger out of the blue and displaying behavior consistent with a creeper trying to lure someone to a future crime scene, hopefully he does now. If not, his sad, ineducable self has my pity.
Being ignorant isn’t criminal, but being willfully, persistently ignorant probably isn’t going to result in increased success.
I hate this. I hate that no matter what I do, no matter how good I’ve lived my life, no matter how good a name I make for myself and however many good works I’ve done, that because of my gender I am always going to be perceived as a predator.
And any instance of me explaining to the contrary makes me not only sexist, but apparently proves that I am unable to relate or even understand the reality of being a woman.
Which means that I am automatically in the wrong if I approach a woman, and because of her own preconceptions and stereotypes, means I’m in the wrong for making her uncomfortable.
Because that is the truth of the issue. As a colored man, I’ve had to deal with this from white people all my life. I strike up a random conversation, and they instantly show that fear. BUT, we understand that this reflexive fear is irrational and we correctly call people out on it. Because calling every colored man a potential predator is racist and offensive.
But, in this circle, in this example, the man in the elevator, as polite and proper as possible, is the real victim. Despite his actual actions and intentions, he is labelled a potential predator, and her uncomfortability is actually his fault?
It makes no sense.
I have to agree with Dawkins here. We have lived in a society that has improved so much, all things considered, that we incorrectly label things sexism and racism because a lot of people have not experienced the real things. Real racism is not being able to get a job because people hate the color of your skin, and not letting you buy a house because they want the community to stay “all white”. Racism isn’t being passed over by a more qualified candidate or getting the worst grade in the class because you had the most answers wrong and you happened to be black. Just like real sexism would have the man barring her exit or smacking her ass and trying to coerce a kiss, or joking she’d look better in a kitchen. It isn’t a woman who feels uncomfortable because a person with a penis asked her a polite question politely.
Karl let us try a thought experiment.
And ekshually this happened to me in undergrad.
At a bus stop in A2 a guy approached me, leered at me over the top of his glasses, informed me he was in dental school, and invited me back to his apartment to “show me the correct way to brush and floss my teeth.”
Was the prospective dentist interested in….
a) building his practice before he got out of school?
b) actually cleaning my teeth?
or c) initiating a relationship that would lead to sex?
you tell me Karl, as an XY, you are our captive expert.
a, b, or c?
isnt an invitation to coffee just as superficailly innocuous as an invitation to learn proper dental hygiene?
Shams,
Practically it,doesn’t matter what Karl thinks. Karl probably doesn’t risk end up being raped and/or buried in a plastic tote in a swamp if he misinterprets the meanings of such signals. At worst, he risks being embarrassed or disappointed through rejection if he really truly fails to understand what women have at stake.
Maybe the dental student literally meant to teach you the right way to brush and floss your teeth, maybe he was approaching you with the attitude that you were a free-range vagina up for grabs and he didn’t need to treat you like a human being, or maybe he was testing you out to see if you respected yourself enough to stand up against unwanted intrusions, but was hoping that you would play the easy victim.
Either way, you are under no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Telling the guy that he’s being creepy and shouldn’t do that anymore if he actually wants to better his chances at attracting women would be a profound kindness if he was just a clueless dental nerd.
Christopher 1885,
I’m sorry that people treat you this way, and that’s wrong. People shouldn’t have irrational fear of black men, or men in general, and if they do, they should get help with it. However, taking legitimate concerns and lumping them in with irrational fears is not constructive.
EG’s behavior was NOT “polite and proper”. Even most of EG’s ardent defenders admit that it wasn’t. They try to pass it off as “awkward”…in otherwords, they shrug off RW’s perception of the situation as threatening (when the things EG did are things that sexual predators themselves tell us that they do in order to gauge how easy a victim someone will be, and to gain better access to them as a victim) and tell her she is wrong to consider the possibility that he could have been behaving in a predatory way. They want to set her level of risk tolerance FOR her, and make her choose some random awkward guy’s feelings (assuming that’s what he actually was) over her own safety. Well, they don’t get to make that call.
His behavior raised red flags, and it SHOULD have.
It is not polite and proper to ignore all social cues telling you that the woman was not receptive, and make her deal with your wants and desires in contradiction to her own CLEARLY communicated desires. It is not polite and proper to make her deal with it in a choice location for a sexual assault and confined area. It is not polite and proper to approach her for sex with no introduction, no preliminaries, and no indication from her that she is interested in moving forward from “we’re strangers in an elevator” to “I’m going to ask you to put yourself at my mercy by going up to my room alone.” RW gets to set the level of acceptable risk, not you.
A man is not owed the benefit of the doubt when he acts like a creeper. Demanding that women ignore the facts of how predators work, and risk their lives and safety so that they do not offend a socially awkward guy who ignores their very clear communications and treats them as sexual objects is just not OK. it’s ridiculous.
There are interviews with convicted predators available. Some of these guys have hundreds of victims. Go watch a few, and find out how they operate before you tell a woman not to trust herself when she sees these behavioral markers.
Maybe go and take a self-defense/rape prevention class and learn what women have to think about if they want to avoid rape…educate yourself before you scold us about what sort of consideration we owe to guys who act like predators over and above our own safety.
I have to agree with Dawkins here.
just what does agreeing with Dawkins mean, Chris? That you also are a cretinous American movement conservative clone with barking islamophobia?
What do scientists do, boys and girls?
They ANALYZE empirical data and apply scientific KNOWLEDGE to understand behavior.
For example, Social Brain Hypothesis is a good place to start analysis of human interaction.
Islam has NOTHING to do with Rebecca’s situ.
How can you agree with Dawkins?
You might think, like Dawkins, that Rebecca’s issue is trival.
Others might think your blackman-inna-white-world issue is trivial. After all, in some parts of the world black men get whacked or enslaved still.
Itsn’t your issue rather trivial?
@1872. shams:
“and rebecca didnt do that.
she just shut him down and complained that he was an insensitive jerk.
that is how society works– social capital rules.”
Yeah, I really don’t know what you’re arguing. I said that you can’t force or threaten people into doing your bidding, and you called me an ass and then basically agreed with me, so that was pretty weird.
Point being, while Rebecca has every right to say or feel anything she wants, she can have zero expectation of Elevator Guy’s behavior changing. He’s not harming her in any way. I think she’s being a baby. Yes, women are assaulted and it’s not something I take lightly at all, but this guy in no way threatened her or intimidated her or behaved in any way that would indicate he meant her harm of any kind. It was in her head. It was her (imo, wildly judgmental and overly sensitive) interpretation of his behavior, an interpretation which may have been completely different if any number of variables were changed–location, subjects, time of day, body language, whatever.
What happened to her happens to girls (particularly, very-attractive girls) all the time. They don’t make videos to complain about it on their eponymously self-congratulatory websites. They usually have the good grace to let it just go to their heads quietly and not shout it from the internet rooftops to be picked up by other white people and used as a crusade against something nobody would be able to adequately summarize but still makes them feel vaguely satisfied about things.
This kind of unwarranted, silly sensitivity is the reason why we leave in such a paranoid, litigious society. And you’re siding with one person because that person has a vagina. Not because you actually believe that someone awkwardly hitting on someone else in an elevator is cause for internal “I might get raped soon” bells to start going off. I’ve read some of her posts. Chick’s an attention whore. Honestly. I implore you to separate yourself from crazy people and get a little perspective.
And anyway, she ain’t even cute. I wouldn’t give her a second look. (Just wanted to justify your judgment of my being an ass).
Adam 1890,
You have a lot to learn about rape. Not that you’d care enough to actually get the facts. Ugly chicks get raped, men get raped, olde ladies and babies get raped. Just because a woman does not fit your particular sexual tastes doesn’t mean she is not at risk for getting raped. Just because She isn’t the type of girl YOU would want to rape doesn’t mean a rapist isn’t going to target her.
Rapists don’t rape people because they are sexually attractive to you…they rape people because they feel like they can get away with raping them.
How do they find out who they can get away with raping? Well, if you ask them (lots of psychologists and sociologists have, you know.) Many of them will explain that they do the things that EG did in order to discover if they person they targeted is a soft target…if they can get away with raping them. Will they participate in their own victimization by just going to his room when asked? Will they maybe just take the violation of personal boundaries as the threat it is intended to be and give in out of fear of what he might do if they say “no?” or will they feel like they have to say “yeah” because they have to prove to him that they aren’t a suspicious man-hating bitch? Can he trade on an “awkward nice guy” cover for his tests to give his target a false sense of security? Can he make them seem as unsympathetic as possible, and make any actions that they takes on their own behalf look like they is being over-ractive and bitchy, or suffering “buyers remorse?
That camouflage and those techniques are what cause the phrase “Nice” is the predators best weapon”.
When speaking about his latest book, Sam Harris mentions that empathy is a skill that can be learned. Too bad Dawkins appears to have missed that lesson.
@ 1891. Teresa:
“You have a lot to learn about rape. … Ugly chicks get raped, men get raped, olde ladies and babies get raped. Just because …
Rapists don’t rape people because they are sexually attractive to you…”
With all due respect, you’re putting words in my mouth. I would like to know at exactly what point I said or implied that only hot girls get raped, or implied that rapists are sexually attracted to their victims as opposed to just getting off on the feeling of control or domination. Or that those things are even exclusive of each other in any way.
“Many of them will explain that they do the things that EG did in order to discover if they person they targeted is a soft target…if they can get away with raping them.”
Oh, goodness. That’s a slipperly slope, isn’t it? A rapist is a black box. Psychologists ask questions and get answers and we connect the dots with limited knowledge of what’s actually going on in his head. Someone asks if you’d like to come back to their room and you assume he’s a rapist because SOME known rapists have asked similar questions of their potential victims. That’s a pretty big leap, innit? That’s a little like saying that because some serial killers have been known to religiously watch old Bozo the Clown episodes, if you’re approached by an obvious Bozo fan you have good reason to fear for your life. There’s a word for that: paranoia. (I should admit that this scenario would actually make me paranoid).
“Will they participate in their own victimization by just going to his room when asked?”
Obviously you don’t go to his room. No one is suggesting she should have. But I am suggesting that hitting on a girl in a public elevator in a public hotel is not grounds for have your ass torched online by a bunch of people who heard the story second-hand from a woman in obvious need of a boyfriend. Or a better boyfriend.
“Will they maybe just take the violation of personal boundaries as the threat it is intended to be and give in out of fear of what he might do if they say ‘no?’ or will they feel like they have to say ‘yeah’ because they have to prove to him that they aren’t a suspicious man-hating bitch? Can he trade on an ‘awkward nice guy’ cover …”
Holy crap, you have already concluded that Elevator Guy is a rapist, haven’t you? I’m truly very sorry if something bad has happened to you in the past that affects you and causes you to immediately suspect admittedly awkward sexual advances as being threats of sexual violence, but the reality is simply that most men are not rapists. Most men aren’t predators. It’s actually really unfunny and not-okay to suspect that we are. Which you have. Because Elevator Guy never threatened her nor did he do anything that might cause us to reasonably suspect he meant her harm, and your irrational assumptions about his intentions are a precursor to witch-hunts.
If it’s okay to assume this guy is a rapist based on his actions (as related to us by Rebecca), then it’s okay to assume any man whose behavior we don’t like or don’t feel comfortable with is a rapist, simply because you felt uncomfortable or, to address the salient argument, because some psychologists have said that some bad people do similar things.
Adam,
Have you even paid the least bit of attention at all? Asking the girl out was not the problem. Acting like a suspicious creeper straight out of a rapist (OR PUA) playbook was the problem. The consequences for his which were that he got shot down, and asked not to do that…(he was not accused of rape…it was merely pointed out that he shouldn’t do that. It’s counter productive.)
…for which RW was then screamed at, belittled, reinterpreted, threatened with rape, and had charming asses like you say that they think she’s over reacting because you wouldn’t even look at her twice…
And if you read ANY of my comments, I can’t possibly say more often that no, I don’t think it is likely that Elevator Guy was a rapist…but he made himself indistinguishable from one, and therefore a sensible woman will treat him as one. Especially if she’s already had rape threats and stalkers in the past.
You seem to be demanding that women are obligated to give meant he benefit of the doubt, and risk their lives merely to “be fair”.
No, we’re not. We are not obligated to ignore our own experience, science, statistics, and reason and risk our safety and lives just so that some awkward guys can continue to treat us like we are there for them to hit on, and not individual people in our own right.
There’s a multi-million dollar industry that has spent a lot of time and money developing information on how not to get raped. Smart women follow it. Smart men who want to sleep with women should probably at least have a passing familiarity with it in order to not appear to be rapists.
But only if they want to have sex on a regular basis.
You say that it is a “slippery slope” to follow basic safety recommendations. No, it isn’t. A woman has the right to decide the level of risk that she is willing to accept, just as it is a man’s choice as to how creepy and predatory he wishes to appear.
If he doesn’t care how he come off to the woman he wants to have sex with, he can be as creepy and slimy as he wants to be…but she is under no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He can ignore advice like “guys, don’t do that” until the cows come home. He might even get some naive women to consent or easily intimidated women to comply with his desires. But one of them is not Rebecca Watson, and that does not make her “over reactive”. It makes he smarter and safer than some other women. Safe to say , she’s not missing out on any great prizes of manhood.
So everyone is happy, except people who think that men are owed the opportunity to “score” with women even if they act like a textbook rapist or low-life PUA artist.
Of all the things that women should look out for, CEG did the two biggest ones: Not listening to what the woman said about what she wanted, and ignoring social and personal boundaries. Worse, he signaled that he understood that he was crossing those boundaries, and went ahead and did it anyway. Three strikes.
Guys, please don’t do that. It makes many of us uncomfortable, and there are guys who know that and use it to scare us and manipulate us in the hopes that it will make us easy victims.
If you don’t want to be confused with those guys, don’t act like them.
@Adam
i called you an ass because you are agreeing with Dawkins, who certainly showed his ass on this thread.
well done. I certainly feel vindicated in my judgement of both you and Richard Dawkins.
And i am a very big fan of empirical data.
Like all Real Scientists.
Uhhh … has anyone seen this?
http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/
Wow!
Rebecca Watson even disagrees with the politics of this man she never met in person, but as she puts it “I’d still do him” and “… whom I immediately wanted to lick from top to bottom”
Yet SHE doesn’t want to be “sexualized”.
Sure doesn’t look like that’s the case in THIS photo of Rebecca:
http://a2.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/124/63ad30877bc1494285a4f44e7708cade/l.jpg
Oh … the irony …
I’ve come to the rational conclusion that Richard Dawkins was dead on RIGHT, and clearly summed up the situation in an entertaining way.
Our little attention seeker, Rebecca, proves herself to be a sexist AND a hypocrite.
Peace … and stop the man-bashing.
It seems like most of the guys who are here still arguing are not so much defending the skeptic community from the evil feminists, but PUA “artists” who are angry to find out that there are women who see through the slime-ball “techniques” that they have spent so much time and money learning.
After all, “closing the deal” is not possible if she doesn’t feel obligated to respond to their “opening bid” and keeps her “bitch shield” up…and they are ENTITLED to have a woman hear their opening bid, and it offends their little egos if they have to admit that some women just really are not interested in “riding the alpha carousel.”
Adam says “she’s an attention whore”. And “she aint even cute” Right? So she’s setting her “price” too high and offending you by “keeping her Bitch Shield up” right? After all, we know from our wonderful PUA gurus that the “Bitch shield” is just the technique that “attention whores” use to get what they need to feel like they aren’t slutty when they have the sex with you that YOU KNOW they really want…and she’s probably one of those “hostiles” who will charge you with rape or mace you just because you were trying to help her out by using some of your techniques to “blast through the Last Minute Resistance”.
How dare she? How dare she price herself out of your market? Who does she think she is, right?
Yeah…that sort of thinking belongs more with the VOX DAY crowd than in the Skeptic community.
BTW, all of you “AFCs” (AKA normal guys with healthy self images and healthy sexual attitudes and approaches who are confident enough to approach women like they are people rather than complicated and malfunctioning sex machines that need to be hacked to work properly) out there…you are sexy as hell…
> 1897. Teresa Says:
>
> It seems like most of the guys who are here still arguing are not so much defending the
> skeptic community from the evil feminists, but PUA “artists” who are angry to find out that
> there are women who see through the slime-ball “techniques” that they have spent so much
> time and money learning …
Dunno about all of that, but it does seem pretty clear that some such ugliness is behind the surge of histrionics in response to a simple admonition. It’s striking to me how delicate a dude has to be in order to get so upset over “Guys, don’t do that,” and as has been made crystal clear through this little flare up, a lot of dudes are actually that delicate. That alone makes it pretty clear that we need to be alert–aware of our surroundings and those around us, and that’s all the more true for women. There do seem to be a lot of very dark sentiments directed your way from a lot of guys. The frat RV scene in Borat comes to mind here–very ugly.
Byron 1899,
Well said. Thanks.
“Most” was too hyperbolic a word choice. I’m pretty sure about a couple of these guys, though. They use the terminology and express the sentiments very clearly.
It seems like those guys in the RV found themselves in a similar predicament to young women who end up in those “Girls Gone Wild” videos.
http://www.crowza.com/showthread.php?t=83379&page=1
> 1900. Teresa
>
> “Most” was too hyperbolic a word choice.
Dunno if I’d say that either. The doubt I expressed is about the specific nature/motive behind the ugly. I suspect it’s more generalized than a psychological need to protect the emotional investment in pick up “artistry”. I’m sure that’s probably part of it in some (many?) cases though.
” If you ever make any women feel uncomfortable in any way, you’re a horrible person and should be ashamed of ever showing your face in public again.”
This is nauseating hyperbole coming from a so-called skeptic.
Teresa:
“Have you even paid the least bit of attention at all? Asking the girl out was not the problem. Acting like a suspicious creeper straight out of a rapist (OR PUA) playbook was the problem.”
And I disagree that this was his behavior. I maintain that you are jumping to conclusions about his behavior. You heard a story from someone else and you’ve decided you have enough information to tell him how he should behave. I disagree with you.
“charming asses…”
Thanks.
“And if you read ANY of my comments, I can’t possibly say more often that no, I don’t think it is likely that Elevator Guy was a rapist…but he made himself indistinguishable from one, and therefore a sensible woman will treat him as one. Especially if she’s already had rape threats and stalkers in the past.”
I think it’s a little silly to imply that I haven’t been reading your comments, since I’ve been quoting them and addressing them directly. Anyway, Rebecca is well within her rights to assume this man planned to hurt her. Or that he was simply a creep and she needed to shut him down. Doesn’t mean she’s right.
“You seem to be demanding that women are obligated to give meant he benefit of the doubt, and risk their lives merely to ‘be fair’.”
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Can you really say her life was at risk? Yes, you can assume some people mean you harm and not give them the benefit of the doubt, but taken too far (as I believe it was in this case) this results in stereotyping. But I guess it’s okay if it’s men we’re stereotyping.
“No, we’re not. We are not obligated to ignore our own experience, science, statistics, and reason and risk our safety and lives just so that some awkward guys can continue to treat us like we are there for them to hit on, and not individual people in our own right.”
Experience – If you’ve been raped, I can understand being a little more cautious. But we’re still talking about a hotel elevator, here. It’s possible he could try something, but would you call it likely? Even if he were a rapist?
Science – What science? The science that says men aren’t to be trusted in hotel elevators?
Statistics – What statistics? The statistics that say most men are rapists and not to be trusted in hotel elevators?
Reason – Reason? We can all agree that if it were a woman seductively hitting on a guy in an elevator, expressing interest, asking him to come back to her room for “tea,” this wouldn’t be an issue, no matter how the guy being hit on actually felt. But it was a man, and because he is physically stronger and because men are, statistically, much more likely to be rapists than women, we feel like we can conclude that his behavior was improper and was unacceptable and scary and worrying and needs correcting. I just want you to follow that line of “reason.” Because it leads inevitably to this: Black men in the US are, statistically, much more likely to commit violent crimes than other race groups. Native Alaskans are, statistically, much more likely to commit suicide than other ethnic groups. So if we want to be “reasonable,” we will go out of our way to avoid any agitated black man. We will strongly intervene if any Native Alaskan becomes sad. Where, exactly, does that kind of stereotyping end? Or is it still okay simply because it’s a (presumably, white) man?
“Smart men who want to sleep with women should probably at least have a passing familiarity with it in order to not appear to be rapists.”
And who gets to decide what “appearing to be a rapist” consists of?
“You say that it is a ‘slippery slope’ to follow basic safety recommendations.”
I may have missed something. What “basic safety recommendations” did she follow? Shutting him down? Embarrassing him, privately(?) and publicly? Yeah, she’s a poster child for rape-safety PSAs.
Let me just say this: I wouldn’t ever hit on a woman alone on an elevator. I certainly wouldn’t ask her back to my room. But I’m also not going to assume he meant her harm (as many here obviously have) or that I have any place to tell him how to behave.
Teresa:
“It seems like most of the guys who are here still arguing are not so much defending the skeptic community from the evil feminists, but PUA ‘artists’ who are angry to find out that there are women who see through the slime-ball ‘techniques’ that they have spent so much time and money learning.”
Just fyi, I’ve never used a “pickup line” in my life. But feel free to keep passing judgment on complete strangers. It’s clearly something you feel comfortable with.
“After all, ‘closing the deal’ is not possible if she doesn’t feel obligated to respond to their ‘opening bid’ and keeps her ‘bitch shield’ up…and they are ENTITLED to have a woman hear their opening bid, and it offends their little egos if they have to admit that some women just really are not interested in ‘riding the alpha carousel.'”
And I see you’re also quite comfortable projecting your obvious dissatisfaction with stereotypical male behavior onto everyone who disagrees with you.
“Adam says ‘she’s an attention whore’. And ‘she aint even cute’ Right? So she’s setting her ‘price’ too high and offending you by ‘keeping her Bitch Shield up’ right? After all, we know from our wonderful PUA gurus that the ‘Bitch shield’ is just the technique that ‘attention whores’ use to get what they need to feel like they aren’t slutty when they have the sex with you that YOU KNOW they really want… and she’s probably one of those ‘hostiles’ who will charge you with rape or mace you just because you were trying to help her out by using some of your techniques to ‘blast through the Last Minute Resistance’.
How dare she? How dare she price herself out of your market? Who does she think she is, right?
Yeah…that sort of thinking belongs more with the VOX DAY crowd than in the Skeptic community.”
Whoa! I’m guessing all of those things you said are pickup artist terms and concepts. You’ve obviously done a lot more research into it than I have. Well. Keep projecting, keep assuming. See how far it gets you.
Adam,
I’m glad that you are happy. You must like being mistaken for a PUA if you keep talking like them.
Not so much “research”, (that would imply me seeking out the information, rather than the information being necessary for basic survival) Yeah, I know a lot about it, but not by choice. It’s self-defense, buddy. You learn who to shut down right away so you don’t have to fight them off later.
You may not think of yourself that way, but it isn’t projection. You are talking just like one and have the same attitudes. I don’t owe you the benefit of the doubt. Acting like I do is ridiculous.
I can see “hoe far it’s got me” 23 years of happy marriage with a guy who knows how to talk to girls without creeping them out, raising two sons who also have no problem meeting and getting to know girls and consistently treating them with dignity and courtesy…
…and a couple of decades stalker, attacker,and rapist-free since I started “projecting”.
So…I’m all good, thanks so much for your “concern”…
Teresa,
“…if he didn’t know that he was asking for sex of a total stranger…”
Um, if he didn’t know that he was asking for sex then, I’m afraid, he almost certainly wasn’t. It’s not the sort of thing that people – yes, even men – tend to do without being aware of it.
By the way, making approaches to women you find attractive is not, if done respectfully and not accompanied by intimidation, “creepy.” It goes without saying that a woman has an absolute right to refuse any approaches she’s not interested in, but it is UTTERLY UNREASONABLE to say we men don’t have the right to make them as long as we stay within the bounds of consent. Guess what? Sometimes it’s even welcomed.
BTW, understanding the obvious markers (what you call “projecting”) of people who deny your right to set your own boundaries, who ignore simple, clear social cues, and refuse to hear polite dismissals, and use NLP or PUA or other systems of social engineering to manipulate others not only works great to avoid stalkers, “players” and rapists, but also muggers, dishonest salesmen, telemarketers, user “friends” and their resulting drama, and bad bosses.
In fact, what you call “projection” is probably the best skill ever saving time, money, and irritation. Not only are you safer, but life is better all around. I highly recommend it.
Fergus Mason 1908,
“If done respectfully”,
That’s the key, isn’t it? It WASN’T respectful. It violated her clearly and publicly stated wishes, common sense, and basic politeness at best…and he gave every indication that he was aware of the fact that he was overstepping, but chose to do it anyway.
Most people know that asking someone up to your room at that time of night is a code for asking them to have sex with you. Most people know that elevators are places that women are warned are dangerous places for them. Many men know this, and there are websites, books, and instructional videos teaching men on how to use those things to their advantage in gaining compliance (not necessarily consent) from women.
If you don’t know how to talk to women without looking like a creeper and you don’t want to be creepy, it’s best to learn. If you don’t want to learn that, then learn to be OK with being perceived as creepy. I guess even creepy guys have a certain level of success amongst the naive, easily intimidated, easily manipulated, or those who are turned on by creepiness. You probably don’t need to bother yourselves over the opinions of women who have higher standards and/or more experience spotting problem behaviors.
Asking women to ignore real-life experience, the collected knowledge of safety experts, psychological and social science research, the testimony of predators themselves about how they are successful, and common sense is an unrealistic solution.
Teresa:
I’m not talking like a pickup artist. It’s in your head. Period.
I am a little confused by your assertion that pickup artists need to be shut down immediately or you’ll have to “fight them off” later. Are you saying that all pickup artists are creeps who will force themselves on any woman stupid enough to fall for their lines? Or simply lumping all men who use pickup lines into the same category with the overlap of men who ARE predators who ALSO use pickup lines?
So, okay, you’re not “projecting.” I don’t really care what you want to call it. You’ve ascribed about 10 highly negative qualities or behaviors to me based off of two things I’ve said, one of which was pretty clearly tongue in cheek, the other which simply happens to be my opinion of one person and has–despite your irrational insistence to the contrary–nothing to do with my attitude toward women in general.
I don’t want or need the benefit of the doubt from you, and I never asked for it–another example of your inability or unwillingness to distinguish between what you think I am and what I’ve actually presented.
I’m also glad you’re happy. I’m sure you’d actually get along very well with me if you met me. Unfortunately you’ve chosen to dislike me because you don’t agree with my attitude, about 75% of which isn’t actually my attitude, and it’s easy to decide you know who someone is when you can’t see them and your judgments go basically without consequences. Which is fine, my concern wasn’t for your well-being, but simply for the sake of cogent argument:
1. I think Rebecca overreacted. She can feel uncomfortable, unsafe, etc. But by her own admission, this guy made an awkward pass, was turned down, and it was left at that.
2. I don’t think Rebecca needed to make a video about it.
3. I think many people here have overreacted to Rebecca’s overreaction.
4. We have no room to judge this man based off of her story.
5. His behavior is not under our purview, and concluding that his behavior was tantamount to sexual assault (again, based off of one side of the story) is moronic.
Teresa, you are clearly unable to determine whether someone was being respectful due to your bias and prejudice.
Unless you’re a cryptographer, I suggest you refrain from considering what “is a code for” anything. It only demonstrates your bias and projection (Adam is right, you have been projecting), and is an argument from ignorance.
People have already supplied the statistics demonstrating the incredible safety of elevators. But, of course, that would interfere with your bias and projection.
You should know that you do not speak for all people who have been raped — I, for one, disagree with your bias and projection. I, unlike you, don’t live my life as an ongoing victim. Calling men’s actions sexist or creepy or threatening when it is not, actually harms the equality movement. Falsely labeling men is part of the problem, not the solution. (It is more accurate to say “it appeared to be” or “in my opinion”)
However, feel free to continue posting. Nothing in this post is an attempt to tell you to ‘shut up’ or stop posting.
A woman asks to be treated with respect, including the *outrageous* request that her actual words be heeded. And weeks later, people are still popping up, following Dawkins’ lead, to condescendingly explain to her not only why she shouldn’t speak up, but also why she shouldn’t have been bothered by the original event. Is there any better demonstration of why Dawkins is a bad example, and shouldn’t be afforded leadership status anymore?
Gr8hands,
Talk about projecting. You accuse me of living my life as an ongoing victim. I’m a martial artist, a self defense teacher, I volunteer and serve on the board for an organization that helps missing and exploited children, and does abduction prevention and rape prevention.
I go to regular training on the issue. If I’m projecting, then the DOJ is projecting, AMECO is projecting, The Minnesota BCA that conducted some of my training is projecting. The Poly Klass Foundation is Projecting, NCMEC is projecting.
People who disregard your boundaries and are cavaler about your safety are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I’m sorry that you think this is wrong, I hope that you continue to be lucky…
People who act like EG should be viewed with skepticism. It is only logical and rational. Not a victim mentality.
You say I am making “men” the problem, no…I am making people who ignore clearly and publicly stated boundaries, who use perceptions of threat and pressure situations and who display clear markers for predatory behavior the problem. Or rather, they make themselves the problem, I am suggesting a well-founded solution that’s been vetted by some pretty smart people, which is that if someone acts like a predatory creeper, you should take precautions to not play into their game.
In the past, you accused me of living in fear. No, I’m not living in fear. Knowledge and understanding are the OPPOSITE of fear. Knowing what is going on in a social situation and being able to walk away from it before it becomes critical is power, not victimization.
Plus, I’m pretty sure I could kick pretty much any guy’s ass if I needed to. So thanks ever so much for your “concern”…I hope that you continue to be lucky with your approach of safety through chosen ignorance and repeated mistakes.
Re: 1913. Julie Says: “A woman asks to be treated with respect, including the *outrageous* request that her actual words be heeded. And weeks later, people are still popping up, following Dawkins’ lead, to condescendingly explain to her not only why she shouldn’t speak up, but also why she shouldn’t have been bothered by the original event. Is there any better demonstration of why Dawkins is a bad example, and shouldn’t be afforded leadership status anymore?”
Dawkins didn’t say she shouldn’t speak up. (Lying about what someone said is very unbecoming, and you owe Dawkins an apology.) Dawkins didn’t say she shouldn’t be bothered, in fact he affirmed her privilege to feel how she wanted about the incident. What he did, was point out that many people wouldn’t rank the incident very high on their list of concerns and why.
@Teressa:
Re the analogy of *asking* for a piece of someone’s cake and Teresa saying that it’s wrong to ask a stranger for cake. If I had a stranger ask me for cake, who accepted “no” as an answer, then I made a whiny video about it and said “don’t do that,” I would hope someone like Dawkins would put the entire thing in perspective by pointing out how many millions of people are actually starving and/or starving to death in the world, that some people are intentionally starved by their families, and that even though I had the right to *feel* upset about being asked, my trivial concern shouldn’t rate very far up on anyone’s ‘give a @#$%’ list (even if I said I was afraid the person might get angry and attack me, and even if I’d filled up my allotted time at with otherwise interesting atheist panel discussion on how I hate being asked for food).
As for me not being under any risk for winding up buried: I intervened when a violent person was harassing a co-worker of mine (the person had beaten my co-worker up recently before that and they were ignoring the restraining order). The person had a loaded rifle in their vehicle, but I intervened regardless of the risk (someone else had already called the police). Would you have walked up and stood in between the violent person and the person they were screaming at, like I did, and put yourself at risk of winding up in a body bag? The Y chromosomes in most of my cells, make me no match for a rifle bullet, regardless of the chromosomes of the person firing it.
Karl, I rest my case. You don’t think it violates clear social boundaries to walk up unannounced to a person you’ve never met and ask for a piece of their cake. Most people would.
I ran into a dark room in my pajamas and intervened when I heard my neighbor screaming “don’t !! stop!!!” at the tops of her lungs,a nd there was a lot of thrashing around I had no idea what was going on, or if there was a weapon involved int he conflict, only that there was a lot of screaming and breaking furniture. I went to rescue her anyway. *shrug* That’s a nice and decent thing to do. What do you want a cookie?
You still don’t risk anything at stake in whether Sham’s overly friendly dentist is going to rape and murder her. I don’t care how many shotguns you stand in front of in other situations, your opinion of her risk in the situation she described is zero. You don’t get to set her risk tolerance.
I’m really mystified that you think either one has anything to do with the other.l
Adam,
“Are you saying that all pickup artists are creeps who will force themselves on any woman stupid enough to fall for their lines? Or simply lumping all men who use pickup lines into the same category with the overlap of men who ARE predators who ALSO use pickup lines?”
Um.. no, where did I ever say anything about pick-up lines? I am talking about the PUA technique of ignoring clear boundaries, and moving forward with their plan despite clear resistance.
People who ignore clear boundaries (like EG) are displaying predatory behavior he even clearly knew that he was violating clear boundaries because he said “Don’t take this the wrong way”. Obviously, he knew that it was very likely that his advance would not be welcomed. It serves to undercut any offense with the implication that SHE was responsible if she took it the wrong way.
The problem was not the pick-up line, it was ignoring the boundaries, preempting the offense he knew would be coming at the violation of the clear boundaries, making his creepy boundary- violating move in an enclosed area, and trying to move her to an even more unsafe location.
The elevator itself BECAME creepy with the first time that he violated clear and publicly stated boundaries.
I’ve written this post three times, I was a little longer, and addressed more of your concerns, but it keeps getting eaten. Maybe I’ll finish later.
I talk to guys in elevators. I talk to guys in bars. I talk to guys on buses and at work. All places that I have been aggressively groped or grabbed by men, or had men scream, call me a bitch and make sexual threats…I’m not upset when guys hit on me, and I have even stopped alongside the road to rescue guys (four of them) who were stranded in severe weather along the highway.
Was I scared? No. Why? Because those guys respected boundaries and didn’t act like manipulative creepers. Did I feel confident that I was safe? Yes. Why? Because they respected boundaries.
Guess which guys I DON’T talk to and don’t help and don’t give the benefit of the doubt? Guys who use slimy manipulative techniques to cross clearly defined and communicated boundaries…or appear to. I really don’t care about being fair. I care about being safe. My call. End. of. story.
Adam,
“I think Rebecca overreacted. She can feel uncomfortable, unsafe, etc. But by her own admission, this guy made an awkward pass, was turned down, and it was left at that.”
No, she did not “admit that he made an awkward pass”. She actually stated that he was quite confident, and was not awkward at all. Other people have attributed awkward to him in an attempt to be kind. But Rebecca has explicitly stated that he was not at all awkward, but quite confident.
She did not over-react. She quietly asked guys to “not do that”. “That being to violate clearly and publicly stated boundaries in an enclosed space, while implying that she should not “take this the wrong way” (implying that she is somehow in the wrong if she reacts badly to him violating said boundaries) and following with an invitation to move to an even less secure location.
Asking guys to “not do that” is not an overreaction.
Adam,
“Experience – If you’ve been raped, I can understand being a little more cautious. But we’re still talking about a hotel elevator, here. It’s possible he could try something, but would you call it likely? Even if he were a rapist?”
Yeah, actually, I have been forcefully groped and grabbed against my will in elevators. I know women who have been shoved against the wall in elevators by guys and had the guys penetrate them with their fingers against the women’s will. Yes, PLURAL friends, as in more than one.
In most cases, there were warning signs that an attack was coming. Either a violation of personal space, an out-of-the-blue and slightly unreasonable request, an unwelcomed sexual comment (“I like it when you girls wear short skirts like that” or “You got anything on under that dress?), or ignoring clear boundaries like “Hey, it’s dark out, do you want me to walk you to your car?” “No thanks I’m fine” – and he proceeds to get in the elevator with her like and act like he didn’t hear her say no, or argue with her to try to talk her out of a “no” or some other way to “test” the level of resistance the person was likely to encounter and the level of risk that they would experience in the attack.
“Shutting them down” would include an icy “bitchy” look, a demand “don’t talk to me”, or “I have mace” (not really any good in an elevator as it would get you too, but it counts as a demonstration of resistance to threaten it.
It’s not the elevator that is the problem. it is the elevator + the creepy behavior that is the problem.
Or take bar situation where a guy asks a woman if he can buy her a drink. She says “no”, but he buys her a drink anyway. She leaves sends the drink back and the guy feels free to demand why she is being such a “bitch” when he is “just trying to be nice”. If she crumbles and tries to explain/excuse herself she’s basically playing his game. If she shuts him down hard when the drink arrives by getting up and leaving the bar completely, she shirt-circuits his game.
Or on a bus, the guy asks a woman out and she says she’s married. (clearly what normal people would see is a “no”), and he counters by saying “Your husband probably sleeps around on you, why should he have all the fun?” Right at that moment, she should know that anything she does short of getting up, walking away, and reporting him to the bus driver is playing he game. She needs to shut him down. Leave, and find a way to make him stop.
Does this mean that women shouldn’t talk to guys in elevators, in bars or on busses? Most of the people defending Dawkin’s remarks seem to think that’s the message. No. If you give clear signals that you do not want to be asked out, bought a drink, or accompanied to your car by a guy…and they ignore your clear wishes and do what they want to anyway while playing games to undercut your legitimate objections then you should take them on the face value of their actions. They are acting like a predatory creeper, and the “nice” rules are just part of their game. It’s time to stop playing and stop being “nice”.
Oooh, another one that was really something A guy at the bar again.
Him: “Are you here alone?” <- no problem here
Me: "I want to be here alone."
Him: "I knew that you would think you're too good for me. What's wrong with me? Why do you think you're too good for me?" <-here's the problem.
The "nice girl" response is to spare his feelings and say "There's nothing wrong with you, I don't think I'm too good for you, I just want to be alone right now." Which was HIS cue to monopolize my evening despite repeated attempts by me to politely disengage the conversation, and then try to follow me home. After that, I suspect he went back and got my name from someone at the bar (neighborhood bar, pretty much everyone knew who I was) because I got creepy heavy breather phone calls until I put a trace on the phone and referred the issue to the police.
Guys, don't do that. Girls, don't give the creepy guy's permission to do that by continuing to play their game.
Dawkins would say that I have no right to complain about the second sentence because some women have their genitals mutilated. You know, maybe if he was raping me, but a behavioral marker for being a preditor? Nope. Have to ignore it and not complain about it. That's "over reacting".
I think that is a nonsequitor. If putting up with creepy boundary violations from creepy stalker guys would help prevent FGM, I might consider it. But the two have nothing to do with each other.
interesting how Ann Althouse goes right for the fact that when EG ran to get in the elevator with her, Ann basically said that she would have gotten out right then. And went on to imply that Rebecca made a “mistake” by not leaving right away.
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/a-weird-time-on-bloggingheads
That in and of itself would not have set off alarm bells for me, because running for the elevator is normal behavior…unless you follow it up with a violation of clear boundaries.
> 1922. Teresa Says:
>
> Dawkins would say that I have no right to complain about the second sentence because some
> women have their genitals mutilated. You know, maybe if he was raping me, but a
> behavioral marker for being a preditor? Nope. Have to ignore it and not complain about it.
Just last weekend I spotted an elderly couple in a bad Atlanta neighborhood having trouble changing a flat tire in the rain. I would have stopped and helped them, but there are elderly people in the Middle East who have bigger problems, so I didn’t.
@Karl Johanson 1916, Excellent and cogent.
Teresa, you are clearly unable to discern what is or is not “a violation of clear boundaries” as you have made post after post of almost pure victimspeak, full of bias and projection.
It is almost as if you believe that by constantly referring to EG as “creepy” and repeating ad nauseum words like “stalker”, “boundary violation”, “predator”, “sexual”, “manipulative”, “slimy” — it will somehow magically transform what he did into those words.
Not very skeptical. It does not demonstrate an adherence to evidence. It demonstrates desperate clinging to bias and fear projection. It de-legitimizes the real suffering of real crimes against real people. It makes you part of the problem, not the solution. It makes it 100 times more difficult for people to believe someone who has actually been stalked by a sexual predator, because you (and so many others) have been crying “wolf” about non-events like this.
I understand your fears — but I do not share them, and I do not think they should be the default setting for interactions.
You were very telling when you wrote: “I really don’t care about being fair.” This is complete victimspeak. You don’t want fairness, it appears you want revenge, you want punishment. Victimspeak.
It is a little worrying your next words: “I care about being safe. My call. End. of. story.” Only because too many people would feel that justifies almost any action to feel safe — including proactive, first strike, attacks.
Taken to a not-so-extreme logical next step, it appears that you might even be tempted to ‘defend’ yourself by attacking some guy who you ‘felt’ had crossed your imaginary ‘boundary’. I hope you see the error of doing that. But maybe not.
You see, by you choosing to be judge, jury and executioner (probably not literally ‘executioner’ but you haven’t ruled that out) under the guise of “My call” you have passed into the crazy land, with very little difference between you and the guy in Norway — who was also just trying to be safe. His call. But it doesn’t appear to be the end of story.
Thank you for your . . . interesting, but sad posts. I wish you get the therapy you obviously need to deal with your phobias. Sorry that your martial arts haven’t helped with confidence. Sorry that your skepticism hasn’t helped with discernment about what is a real threat versus an imaginary one. Sorry that you will mis-identify this post in terms of content and intent.
So sad.
But, feel free to keep posting. Nothing in my post is in any way an attempt to tell you to ‘shut up’ or refrain from posting.
@Byron 1924 — I hope you can get help with your low reading comprehension problem.
I think this cartoon is germane:
http://abstrusegoose.com/381
Another germane cartoon:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/07/27/girls/
Gr8hands,
I wish you well in your war with reality.
Teresa, you are still projecting.
Oh, and there are no capital letters in my name. Maybe you should just cut-and-paste. (I’m guessing your software does it automatically. You could, in the interests of accuracy, manually correct that error.)
Whoa. I just realized part of why Gr8hands is sounding so schitzo. There’s a guy with the same name posting in other forums (Pharyngula) on this topic as a man. So there’s a man Gr8hands, and a woman Gr8hands (here) obviously two different people.
Well, that helps somewhat…reading them as the same person accidentally can be kind of confusing. Not that either of them seem particularly grounded in consensual reality…but if anyone wants to try to sort it out, there are two separate fire hoses of crazy. Don’t cross the streams.
Gr8hands,’
I would but you see there are Muslim women out there with much bigger problems and you are minimizing them with your silly concerns about capitalization. How should they feel, the poor dears to know that you are putting the proper spelling of your made-up name above their plight?
Also, you call me all sorts of names and accuse me of all sorts of horrible things for suggesting that people be judged by their behavior rather than their gender…and I’m supposed to worry about how I use capitals in your made-up name?
You got a lot of moxy, sister, I will give you that.
But you have convinced me that in order to show you as an individual, the respect that you deserve in the manner that you require it, I should ignore your explicitly stated wishes and boundaries, and continue to do what I want regardless of your wishes. Thank you for correcting me and showing how to make you feel more comfortable. So I will make an exception in your case as it is clearly very important for you to feel empowered.
@Teresa 1932, could you provide evidence that there’s a guy with the same name posting in Pharyngula on this topic?
Could you provide evidence that I’m a woman? Or posting as a woman?
It is painfully obvious that you sexualize everything.
Also, using a spelling error of someone’s name after they point it out is being insulting on purpose.
“schitzo”? Yes, Teresa, you’re still projecting.
Re: 1920. Teresa Says: “She quietly asked guys to “not do that”.
No she didn’t ask. She just said “Guys, don’t do that.” No “please” as some have added after the fact. No askeing, just telling. People don’t like being given orders by people not in charge of them, which likely accounts for some of the reaction to her video. If she had *asked* then I expect there would be much less reacton to it. The only one who *asked* in the whole thing was Elevator guy.
Gr8hands….
“Could you provide evidence that I’m a woman? Or posting as a woman? It is painfully obvious that you sexualize everything.”
Umm…the proof would be that if you go to pharyngula and read the comments, you will come across someone with the screen name “gr8thands” who says he’s a man. (I imagine that Goggle would help you in this endeavor)
In an earlier comment on this thread, I (having seen the guy on Pharyngula identify as a man) responded to you here as though you were a man, and you referred me to a post where you identified as a woman.
I assume that you are a woman because you said you were. I assume that the guy at Pharyngula is a man because he said he was a man. Is this wrong? Should I not take people at their word until they prove themselves liars?
if you say you are a woman, I accept that you are a woman, if the guy at Pharyngula says he is a man, I accept that he is a man.
When you corrected me earlier, I assumed that I have made a mistake and misremembered Gr8hands in the Pharyngula post identifying as a man, and modified accordingly.
I just came across that post again, and I did not misremember…he identifies as a man. So the logical assumption is that you are different people. Which would explain why it would seem to me that you are little schitzo…talking to two separate people and thinking that they are one person would explain that.
Also, am I not supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt? Maybe
It’s not “projecting” to say that you seem schitzo if you sound like two different people when you are posting…and then say that it explains it when I find out that it actually IS two different people. that word: you keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.
“Also, using a spelling error of someone’s name after they point it out is being insulting on purpose.”
Normally, I would agree with you, but you have clearly indicated that you would consider it to be paranoid, sexist, and anti-movement to expect me to comply with your clearly worded requests and wishes. So, while I would certainly apply the normal standard of behavior towards others, I an honoring you by making an exception in your case.
You’ve been very explicit that you find the idea that someone would modify their behavior based on another’s clear wishes insulting and degrading. I wouldn’t dream of doing that to you.
Karl 1935
Interesting. So, when EG said “Don’t take this the wrong way”…was he telling RW what to think about his clear boundary violations…or was he asking politely?
Teresa, please provide the link where I identify as a woman. (this will be difficult, as I have done no such thing)
Please provide the link at Pharyngula where I have posted “on this topic” (Elevatorgate or Ms. Watson’s comments, or Dawkins’ comments about RW/EG . . . you know, this topic — this will again be difficult, as I have not posted on Pharyngula even once in all of 2011. Perhaps you need some remedial training in Google.)
Please provide the evidence for this inaccurate and insulting claim. Once again, you will find that difficult, because it didn’t happen.
You’re still projecting. You’re still wrong.
Have a pleasant evening, everyone.
Gr8hands,
Why would I go through the thousands of entries here to sift out that one post? I literally don’t care whether you are a man or a woman. I was assuming you were a man. You corrected me, so I assumed you were a woman. Apparently, that is wrong as well. Maybe you are intersexed, or maybe you are transgender. That’s fine too. Sorry, but I don’t care. If it matters to you that I know, you can tell me, and I will believe you. It makes no difference to me, and has no bearing on the validity or non-validity of your arguments. If knowledge of your gender identity is important to you, by all means clarify it. If it doesn’t matter, I’ll just go on not investing any importance to it one way or another, if you don’t mind.
I never claimed that YOU posed on Pharyngula. I said that SOMEONE with the same screen name posted on Pharyngula, and this caused confusion which was corrected when I realized that it WASN’T YOU on Pharyngula. If you are curious about this other person, once again Google is your friend.
Please respond to what I wrote, not to your projections.
“Please provide the evidence for this inaccurate and insulting claim. Once again, you will find that difficult, because it didn’t happen.”
I cite as evidence our entire conversation up to this point.
10,000 people went missing in Minnesota last year Many of these were women and children, but some were men. Not all of those people disappeared under suspicious circumstances. Of those where there was a crime committed not all of the culprits were men.
But what is one thing that stands out when we look at prevention? Not extending trust to the wrong person. Sometimes the culprit is a total stranger….more often, it is someone the victim knows, at least tangentially. Disappearances happen in urban, rural, and suburban settings. They happen at night, and in the daytime.
You can’t say “Don’t trust men” and be safer. You can’t say “Don’t trust black people” and be safer. You can’t say “Don’t go to certain neighborhoods” and be safer from abduction. However, you CAN say “Don’t trust people who ignore your safety issues and boundaries” and make a BIG impact on how safe you are.
That’s the number one safety rule that most experts tell you. If they treat your safety or your right to set your own boundaries as unimportant, or as if it doesn’t apply to them…get out of there, and don’t extend them your trust.
For this, I’ve been accused of demonizing all men, cowering in fear, being racist, sexist, paranoid, and a number of other insulting things.
Knowing what makes you safer does NOT make you paranoid, it is the opposite of fear. Judging behavior rather than gender or race is in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION of racism and sexism. Saying that behavior that shows that you understand their boundaries, and are going to violate them anyway, and telling/asking them to overlook it is is creepy.
Gr8hands has repeatedly harangued me for saying this, saying that I am accusing EG of being creepy because I hate/fear men and my paranoia is causing me to “project” creepiness onto EGs behavior. As described by Rebecca, EG’s behavior WAS creepy. Some have said that we shouldn’t take Rebecca’s version of events as fact…Ya know who doesn’t accept a woman’s testimony of what happened to her? Sharia law as applied in some countries that have been rightly criticized for it.
Teresa:
Fine, pickup artists. Wherever you draw the line, the point is the same. You should realize that a lot of girls show resistance as a test, not as actual “I don’t want this.” I’m not saying that it’s right to insist or “ignore boundaries,” but if every guy in a club walked off immediately after meeting initial resistance, a lot fewer people would be finding meaningful contact, hooking up, etc. It’s easy for you to sit there and say “pushy men are bad,” but men have to basically be pushy from the outset if they want to meet women outside of their established comfort zone and social circle. The onus is on MEN to meet women, not the other way around. Try to remember that when you bash men for being, by and large, only as aggressive as we have to be in order to meet and mate with women we’re attracted to.
“Don’t take this the wrong way” means you know you’re violating clear boundaries? Really? I’ve said that phrase probably a hundred times in my life and it’s never once been taken as predatory behavior or as a warning of coming violations of boundaries. I’m not saying this guy didn’t know he was doing something that might not be welcomed, but welcome to BEING A MAN. Why do you think there’s a multi-billion dollar industry for telling men how to meet women (including your hated pickup-artists)? BECAUSE IT’S NOT EASY. Women, particularly attractive women, are not easy sells. MOST men, when they meet a woman they’re attracted to, lose confidence and immediately assume their advances will not be welcome. “Don’t take this the wrong way” could easily be a defense mechanism, a way of LOWERING her defenses, and it simply backfired.
See, the difference between you and me on this point is that you don’t have any sympathy for what men deal with on a daily basis when it comes to meeting women. You don’t realize what kind of stress it entails, how nerve-wracking it can be, how discouraging it is. Instead, you’ve focused on the far less frequent scenarios in which men (for whatever reason) take their (necessary) aggression way too far and either creep women out, or hurt them.
“Rebecca stated that he was quite confident”? He may have been acting confident. It’s easy to ACT confident. But ACTING confident and BEING confident are very different things, and believe it or not, ACTING confident, because it’s not congruent with how you feel, results in actions that are sensed subconsciously by others as “off.” In this case, this man’s possible lack of actual confidence resulted in his saying or doing things differently than he may have done otherwise, which may have resulted in his coming across as creepy. You’ve ruled out this possibility because you’ve latched onto the idea that pushy or aggressive men are predators.
I’m not going to make any judgments about you, your friends, your behavior or the locations you frequent, but the things you’ve described men as doing indicate to me that your experience is not normal. Women I know don’t have things like this happen to them, and their experience is just as valid as yours when it comes to judging the “nature of men.” If you’re going to bars where men are too pushy and aggressive, stop going to those bars. If you can’t find a bar where this is not the case, stop going to bars altogether. Their are a lot of men who don’t go to bars at all and who don’t engage in bad behavior. I know this because I’m one of them.
A lovely quote from the comments on a post (“Boundaries”) of the Yes Means Yes blog.
Adam,
Once again…and I love how you just ignore what I actually say, and put the words you want in my mouth. You just keep proving my impressions right again and again…it’s not about them being MEN it is about their BEHAVIOR. The behavior of ignoring boundaries is a sign of problems not just in men wanting to date you, but user friends who try to hijack your life, pushy salesmen, door-to-door religious missionaries. Yes, male or female. People who ignore your boundaries don’t care about your well-being or safety. Best to get away and stay away. Like I said, since applying this knowledge, it’s been smooth sailing for almost two decades. I still do all of the activities that I used to, still go to the same places, still hang out with the same people. What’s changed? Recognizing problem behavior and responding appropriately.
Adam,
Conversely, most of the men I know have no problem meeting women and manage to do so without being creepy, pushy, or manipulative. I’m not going to make any judgments of you or the places you go, but maybe your doing it wrong?
Also, I’d like to just point out once again that I am not talking about MEN, (except in the sense that EG is a man) but BEHAVIOR. See, this is the subtle clue that you might be missing, since you insist on accusing me of judging ALL MEN.
I try to use the words “people” (although I can see why this might confuse you if you think that only men are people, and women are women) and “behavior” rather than “all men”.
People who don’t respect boundaries, and then (thanks for explaining to me why I am right about this) try to use manipulative language to lower defenses to get around those boundaries do not have your best interests at heart, and will probably screw you over literally or figuratively, eventually.
For instance, you write:
“MOST men, when they meet a woman they’re attracted to, lose confidence and immediately assume their advances will not be welcome. “Don’t take this the wrong way” could easily be a defense mechanism, a way of LOWERING her defenses, and it simply backfired.”
See…Creepy elevator guy didn’t have to “assume” that his advances would be unwelcomed. He KNEW that his advances would be unwelcomed. Because Rebecca Watson TOLD him that his advances would be unwelcomed. and he hit on her anyway. <-this is the boundary violation, BTW
Was he saying "don't take this the wrong way" to lower her defenses to get around clear boundaries? YES and that is @#$%#$@ creepy. It's low-life manipulative B.S. to try to get her to participate in something that she has already made clear that she does not want.
What part of this eludes you?
Finally:
"Try to remember that when you bash men for being, by and large, only as aggressive as we have to be in order to meet and mate with women we’re attracted to."
Yes, and sometimes it takes more aggression than other times, right? Here's a secret: there is a point where "aggression" buys you COMPLIANCE…but not CONSENT. There's a difference, and many people can't tell the difference and get themselves in trouble. There's a better way, and as Rebecca said, if you can't figure it out, maybe an inflatable doll is a better option.
Adam,
Also, it is possible that the women you know just don’t tell you the things that happen to them, because they know that you’ll judge them. You might even do something horribly passive-aggressive like say that you won’t judge them while at the same time clearing implying that they are bad people and bring this sort of thing on themselves.
Some people just don’t like to deal with stuff like that and would rather blame the victim than change their thinking, and you start to get a sense for who you can trust to tell, and who you can’t.
phil,
First time posting on your blog. I’m a great fan.
About the Dawkins-Rebecca debacle- You said
” to a woman, being alone on that elevator with that man was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps he has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. ”
I feel that this is just an unjustified prejudice on the part of women. If I were to say that I feel nervous in a flight with Muslim people around, I’m sure most people would think of me as overreacting or worse being Muslim hating. Just because terrorists are predominantly Muslim you should not go around spreading prejudice about Muslims in general. The same, I feel, applies to men and rapists. So when you argue that for a woman any “unknown man” is a potential rapist, you are doing the equivalent of saying any “unknown Muslim” is a potential terrorist. In a liberal society, it is important to approach a new person in good faith, be it a Man, Woman, Muslim, Atheist, Christian, Jew or Jedi.
So there. That’s my two cents on this issue.
On a separate note. I used to enjoy your Bad Astronomy Q&A video series. Any plans of doing stuff like that again?
I utterly completely disagree with the author of this blog post. Although I am not familiar with what REALLY happened in that elevator, I can imagine a similar situation that would occur frequently. I don’t understand how even according to your words, a man can be accused of potential sexual assault just by going into an elevator with a woman alone in it. It just seems like you are suggesting that all men are fully capable and perhaps even WILLING to sexually harass or even rape a woman, when in fact this man could be just as much innocent as the woman! Richard Dawkins is providing a reasonable and realistic understanding of this situation. Many people seem to be blowing this situation way out of proportion, using words like potential sexual assault. What Dawkins was probably saying when he brought up Muslim women is that there are many more incidents in this world that can actually be called sexual assault, and righteously so. So what if us men stopped stepping into elevators occupied by women late at night? Would that stop all the “potential sexual assaults”? Next thing you know, the women would also like the whole street by themselves late at night.
Alright, I can understand why it made her feel uneasy, but it think it’s being blown out of proportion. The man asks her if she wants to have coffee, she says no, they both go on with their lives. It had the *potential* to escalate, but “potential” is the key word. It didn’t and isn’t that all that matters? It’s in a man’s nature to search for a partner and that desire is something over which he has no control. Not only will making a video about how uncomfortable one felt not change the misogynists, it makes one seem self-righteous.
I think this idea is being overly generalized as well. I know women who probably would have had the same reaction, but I also know many who would have just brushed it off or would have even been flattered. Just because of this isolated incident that has been labeled as a “big deal” I don’t think that men should be told that they should have to restrict themselves when it comes to finding mates and passing on their genes, which is the biological goal of every human, male or female. The man saw a potential mate so he tried his luck, is that so absurd? I will reiterate: she *could* have said yes and it *could* have escalated into violence, but it didn’t and the man left her alone as he should have. I just feel like people are wasting their time on a non-issue. I’m sorry, Phil, I usually agree with you, but I just don’t see your point. I just feel this particular event is not as important as you’re making it out to be.
Mike @1947 and Someone @1948,
I suggest that you read some of the discussion previous to your comments. You are bringing up points that have already been thoroughly addressed in the previous thousand or so comments.
No one seems to be considering the possibility that some woman on a hotel elevator at 4 AM actually COULD want sex. He made an offer for something that the woman could too enjoy. She refused, end of story.
JM,
Actually, people have brought up this possibility several times. In spite of the fact that women who want to get hit on in an elevator at 4:00 in the morning don’t usually give a talk about how they don’t want to be hit on, hold forth further after the talk in the bar about how they don’t want to get hit on, and then don’t usually end the evening by saying that they are exhausted and have to get up early and need to go to sleep.
He did not “make an offer”. He ignored clear personal boundaries, and ignored clear messages that the woman in question did not want sexual overtures from strangers at that time. It isn’t the end of the story, because people who act like that are giving clear signals to everyone around them that they don’t really care about the safety and well-being of their fellow man. People who behave like don’t have a right to expect others to let that behavior go without comment.
Kind of like people who ignore thousands of comments, many that directly address their point, and just repeat an old argument that has already been addressed without adding anything new to the conversation, or acknowledging or addressing the intelligent points made to the contrary.
People are not required to accept antisocial and rude behavior like that without comment.
Lines such as ‘would you like to come back to my hotel room for a coffee’ have been abused and misused by men for decades. Its only natural there would be a ‘boy who cried wolf’ stigma’ attached to it.
A certain understanding and respect for women needs to be initiated when legitimately interested in further interation with them.
I think if the guy was genuinely interested in Rebecca, he should have perhaps paid the compliment, then proceeded to ask her for coffee in a more public location, either then or some other time.
When you ask the right questions, leave out the stigmas and have a genuine attitude towards befriending women; they might still say no to your offer of a social coffee, but you’ll carry the pride that you were a respectable gentleman who at the very least payed this lovely woman a compliment and brightened her evening.
Men expect too much from proposals such as this. As do some women. When it seems like you may get more out of thie situation that the person you are offering it to, the potential for them to step away (especially if youre a stranger) is far greater. Instead, go into something with a self-less attitude and a general interest for them as a PERSON. And if you do genuinely just want to catch up for coffee, be careful as to how your words can be read. Its all of our own individual responsibilities to watch what and how we say things.
A small hotel room for coffee, one on one, with a stranger is a no-go for most sensible women. Even a man should be cautious of such a proposal.
It would be very dangerous for us to educate people otherwise…
This Is sad It unreal people can not see the forest thru the tree’s when It come to Watson and her Fickle new Obsession over Third Wave Feminism.
The PROOF of FACTS are this, If she did not or dose not want to be hit On or made out to be a Sex Figure, then she never should of Made or Sold the Semi/NUDE CALENDERS!!!!!
This has nothing to due about a Man hinting at sex advances (If he really was) this has to due about WATSON NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER OWN ACTIONS!!!
Her chickens came home…plain and simple.
Dont even get me started about how Dawkins Is a “Privileged White Male”…..then hell Is Watson?
She looks rather “White”…….to me not only white but Lilly White to boot….Pot calling the Cattle Black Much!?
One more thing, It speaks boundary’s about how Watson and the people defend her see Men or them Self’s due to the fact most of you PRESUME and NOT KNOW what he Was insinuating when asking her for Coffee….Hypocrisy at Its best.
@Illusive Man 1955,
Whoa. Talk about some highly encrypted code. Are you suggesting that somehow, in her calender, Watson managed to hide a signal instructing that specific guy to meet her in an elevator in the UK at 4:00AM and ask her to coffee…just so that she could pretend to then be insulted?
Also, why do you say his sexual advances were not due? Did he show up too early?
Where did the chickens come in, did the guy bring them, or were they ordered in advance?
And is the Kettle white or black, make up your mind. And is it there to cook the chickens?
This truly brings a whole new perspective on the subject…one that moves at right angles to reality.
Wait, wait, wait… So a man talking to a woman is a ‘potential sexual assault’?
How is that not sexism?
‘All women are weak and illogical’ or ‘All women should be in the kitchen’ are highly sexist and offensive statements and should be denounced. How is ‘All men are (potential) rapists’ not a sexist remark? I, as a non-rapist male, find the suggestion highly offensive.
This man, from what I have read, made an unwelcome – and not explicitly sexual – advance, which was duly declined. He didn’t put hands on her, or make a sexual remark, or corner her, or do anything that could reasonably be defined as threatening. He talked to her, and apparently politely at that.
Males and females should, of course, be equal in the eyes of all. If I were to say that all conversations with a female are a potential sexual assault waiting to happen I’m sure many people would denounce the blog, but here it’s all gravy to liken all men to grunting, predatory criminals.
Humph.
Just to add, I do get that a woman might feel more threatened than a man when it comes to potential sexual assaults. Of course – in general – men are bigger and stronger, but then again vast majority of men are NOT sex offenders.
I would agree that this was a potential sexual assault if when declined, the man continued to harass the woman and/or cornered her. A man – or in another situation a woman – making a relatively non-threatening proposition then taking the hint when the answer is no is hardly a near-rape.
I would also be angry with Dawkins if he took a dismissive tone if it had been a more serious incident, but it wasn’t.
It was a man asking a woman if she wanted coffee – with a sexual implication, perhaps – the woman saying no, and nothing else. People seem to have read much more in to the situation than was there.
Stephan,
He DID ignore her when she said she didn’t want to be hit on, and he DID corner her. He sat and listened to her give a talk about how she didn’t want to get hit on. Then, he went to the bar and listened to her further discuss the unpleasantness of being hit on.
Then, he followed her to where she was alone in an enclosed area and used the talk that she had just gave about not wanting to be hit on as a pretext to hit on her.
When somebody is that completely indifferent to what the other person wants in order to feel like they are on equal footing, yes, it is a sign that they don’t care what the other person wants, they are only in it for themselves, and don’t care about the other person’s rights or safety.
Elevator guy was certainly displaying all of the behaviors of someone who was assessing if he could get away with a sexual assault…if he could use the intimidation of a potential assault to get compliance without having to go through the risk and effort of violence.
Was he actually one of those guys? Hard to say. That’s what makes the tactic so effective. A woman doesn’t want to hurt “awkward nice guy’s” feelings, and next thing she knows, she’s in the middle of a sexual assault. The “Awkward Nice Guy” camouflage is a classic ploy that is hopefully in it’s last days.
One thing that is clear from this whole thing, is that women are correct in staying away from the skeptic community if they demand and expect to be treated like people rather than sexual targets.
As for Dawkin’s opinion that Muslim women would be insulted or feel demeaned by their American sisters complaining about being objectified as sexual objects, maybe Dawkins should talk to this young lady and give her the same verbal spanking as Watson. That would be interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7gAcn4Idow
I didn’t know that women were hounded/hit on within the skeptic community, more than in society at large at least. That’s pretty weird, and I do sympathise if that’s the case. What is the cause, do you think?
Fair point on ‘awkward nice guy’ being a tactic of predators, I take it on board fully. Although what do you mean by not hurting his feelings? Would a simple ‘no thanks’ hurt his feelings if he were just an awkward man?
Even if ‘elevator guy’ was severely inappropriate, and asked even after hearing her explicitly say she didn’t want to be hit on, from what I’ve read once she had given him the answer no he left it at that.
What I meant by ignore was if he continued to hound the woman after she had told him no, and what I meant by corner was not being in the same elevator – of course this is an enclosed space, but I assume he did need to get to his room – but instead physically blocking her exit from the elevator or getting ‘in her face’.
I think that’s where I see this as a case of a man inappropriately ‘trying his luck’ with a woman, the woman declining and the man taking the hint. Yes, he may have heard her say she was tired at the bar, and this makes his approach even more inappropriate, but the fact he backed off when she had said no to him personally makes it seem like the ‘threat’ – in this case – was played up either inside the woman’s head or online afterwards by others.
The video you linked to is a girl denouncing the objectification of women who are told to cover themselves up or expect to be raped or sexually assaulted. This is a crass statement both for men and women, women being told they are just sexual objects or have no right to dress as they please and men being portrayed as dirty rapists who ‘just can’t help themselves’. A disgusting position, I think we can all agree.
This issue can hardly be compared with a man expressing an interest in a woman and backing off when she doesn’t return the interest. As ill-timed as it was, it was just an approach. If men – or women – are put in a position where they are afraid to politely approach the opposite sex in case they’re branded a ‘creep’ or rapist, where would we be as a species? Of course 4 a.m. in an elevator is inappropriate, but a polite proposition is not assault.
Likening all men to rapists, or calling them a threat, is pretty sexist if you ask me.
If you compare ‘All black people are potential thieves, and a threat to my property’ to ‘All men are potential rapists, and a threat to my person’ I think it’s perhaps clearer. Yes of course some black people are criminals, and of course some men are rapists, but to generalise based on skin colour or the fact they have a penis is hardly fair or right. Just in case, I’m definitely not comparing women to property here – hopefully no-one would have thought that anyway.
Stephan,
I would love for you to find a comment anywhere in here where I said that “all men” are anything.
You are having an argument with something I didn’t even say, and never would say. In fact, you are having an argument with an assertion that I don’t recall anyone making in this entire thread of nearly two thousand comments.
Either you literally don’t know anything about the conversation, and should go back and read some of it, or you don’t care what the conversation has been, and just want to put words in people’s mouths…in which case you don’t really need to be part of a conversation, as you are already supplying both sides anyway.
The problem is not that EG is a man. It is that he was acting in a way that made it clear that REbecca was just a sexual object to him. He wasn’t interested in her feelings (because he clearly listened to her talk about them, and then ignored them) he didn’t care about her rights (because he just went on with his actions regardless of how they affected her). All he cared about was if he could manipulate her into sex. And cornering her in an elevator and then trying a manipulative set-up where any response but the one he wanted her to make would be “wrong”.
The whole set-up is classic “grooming” she didn’t play into it, and so if there was an attack being planned, she short-circuited it through non-compliance (her lack of consent was already clearly expressed).
Asking men to not put women into that position was treated by the skeptic community as a huge imposition on the poor men, many of whom are the ones claiming that no man can get laid unless he is aggressive and manipulative, and corners women in elevators.
And it was Dawkins that implied that objectifying women wasn’t such a big deal and western, non-muslim women should shut up about objectification as long as there are real problems like FMG going on.
Dawkins is the one who called objectification of women “zero bad”, and implied that Muslim women didn’t care about it and by extension, western women have no right to care about it.
Several times in this discussion, people have suggested that FMG is only possible because women are seen as objects, not people…and have been slapped down for it with claims that it is not the case.
So yes, it is part of the argument. EG didn’t recognize REbecca’s right to not be hit on after she said she didn’t want to be hit on.
Her clear demonstration of nonCOMPLIANCE stopped him (refusing to fall for the intimidation and manipulation and the “nice guy” act)…but first he went right past her clear expression of non-consent.
This does not make him a non-rapist. Being a man doesn’t make him a potential rapist. Not listening to clear signs of non-consent for the violation of boundaries makes him someone Rebecca needed to be alert about how she handled him.
Let’s put it another way…when would YOU think that Rebecca’s defenses should be allowed to kick in to make her a non-sexist, non-man-hating bitch?
When he exited the elevator with her and followed her down the hall? When he put his foot in the door to keep her from closing it on him? What if he pushed her around a little, but then left when she still said “no”? At what point do you allow her to defend her own safety from a “potential sexual attack”? I would say that when she said “no” after her clear boundaries being ignored, being followed into an elevator, being approached with a classic grooming technique to get the target to cooperate as much as possible in something she has already said she doesn’t want to participate in…she was already in a position where she had to be using her brain in self-defense.
When men put women in that position, they are not treating women as people, but as a system to be hacked. Women don’t like that feeling. Guys, please don’t do that.
Um, wow. So, I am not an atheist, but I find you guys sociologically fascinating. And, this is harsh, sorry, but probably proof that evolution dictates that the bulk of society’s members will be religious. Sorry, but I can think of no other reason why god’s opposition should be so endlessly foot-shooting and self-defeating. You’d think, really, that your position wouldn’t be that hard to spread. And yet… but I digress.
As far as Rebecca, the argument that this man didn’t actually assault her misses the point entirely. Let me highlight by giving a more extreme example: say a man wants to hit on a woman who is walking alone in a deserted parking lot at 4 am. Say she is clutching her purse nervously and almost running away, and he follows like a hawk behind her, eyes boring into her skull. As she fumbles for her keys he leans in over her, breathing in her face and asks if she wants to “go someplace.”
Is this example more extreme? Yes. Is Rebecca’s more of a gray area? Of course. My point is, you can’t simply use the argument that “Well, all that matters is whether or not a man is really a rapist. If a woman is nervous, that’s her problem.” Well, no, in the above example, even if the man had no ill intention, I hope we could agree that the context is inappropriate. The argument that you can do whatever you want and women should just deal with it so long as YOU know you aren’t a creep doesn’t fly. We can talk about which contexts, specifically, are too threatening and where that gray area falls, but you can’t just say context doesn’t matter, get over it.
As a man, i’m offended by how the author of this article depicts ALL MEN as potential rapists who can’t control their urges that they should be scared of. This is insulting.
Rwandrall,
Did you even read the artical? Where does it say that ALL MEN are rapists? Nowhere. You take the time to comment, but no time to actually read.
In fact, it is the people arguing with this article that insist that ALL MEN are incapable of approaching women without being intimidating, aggressive, intrusive, rude, and obnoxious, and as long as they stop short of actually causeing physical damadge, women have no grounds to object.
As a woman, I’M offended by the author’s view. Just because you’re a woman doesn’t mean you’re walking around with a sign on you that says “rape me”. Guy asking you out to coffee on an elevator in the wee hours of the morning? Creepy, but shake it off and move on.
If Rebecca is that terrified of being attacked all the time, why does she ever go anywhere without an escort of at least two big, strong eunuchs?
has a man ever been sexually assaulted by a woman in a confined space in human history? yes? well then how do we know she wasn’t going to sexually assault HIM in a confined space? oh my god, that was DOUBLE POTENTIAL SEXUAL ASSAULT!! holy CRAP!! shouldn’t we march on something? WHERE’S MY POSTERBOARD AND SHARPIES?! SOMEBODY BAKE SOME BROWNIES FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
btw, what is this freshman-level junior college womyn’s studies class histrionic nonsense doing on discover magazine dot com of all places?
Cleo and Pooty,
If you read the article and the discussion in the comments, you didn’t understand it. If you didn’t read it, it is silly of you to comment on it.
1) REbecca never said that she was scared. She just pointed out that the guy was obvious about not caring about her stated feelings, or her rights to express her own personal boundaries and have them respected, and expected that he should be able to do or say whatever he wanted to her and expect to have a shot at getting laid without having to treat her like a person.
So, as a woman, it OFFENDS you that women speak up when a man pushes past her stated boundaries, and tried to sleep with her despite her clearly expressed wishes that guys not do that? And it OFFENDS you as a woman when a man points out to you that when a man ignores your clearly stated boundaries, and follows you to an enclosed area to try to get you to engage in sex, which you have already said you don’t want, it is possible that he will not stop when asked to (because he already hasn’t…so he’s already demonstrated that he is capable of trying to push a woman to have sex with him when she clearly does not want to)?
That’s messed up. I hope that if you are even in the situation of having an unwanted pushy guy following you around ignoring your requests to be left alone, that you don’t get rape threats and the abuse that Rebecca got jsut for standing up for herself.
Pooty, if the man had just given a talk about how he didn’t like being sexualized and hit on at conferences, and people shouldn’t just treat him like a sexual object, and that this sort of thing happened often enough to be off-putting and dehumanizing…and a woman ignored everything he said, ran to catch up with him to follow him into an elevator and did everything he’d just asked everyone listening (including her) not to do…then yes, I would say that the man was in some danger. Because she’s showing signs of being at the very least, a creepy stalker-type…if not worse.
This is NOT Freshman-level junior college womyn’s class nonsense. This is in part, is the sort of thing covered at law enforcement seminars to teach police officers to understand how sexual assaults begin and evolve, and what educational programs for rape prevention teach. If someone ignores personal boundaries, uses verbal techniques like “don’t take this the wrong way” (now you have to prove to me that you are open minded, which bys me time to try to work you into a more advantageous situation) or “you’re not one of THOSE women are you ?” (Because only feminazis and lesbians would turn down a prize like me, amiright?) or whatever…yes, you then have to know that you could be in trouble, and find somewhere to be near other people, or an open space where you can get away.
oh my god, just stop talking. at any point, at any time, a man or a woman can reach over and pinch a man or a woman’s nipple. therefore, every single human encounter in history has been a mutual potential sexual assault. don’t you have anything better to do than call a rape crisis hotline over a coffee invite? that wasn’t even to you? you know, there are ACTUAL problems in the world? turn off the tori amos CD and go save a kitten or something for god’s sake.
Pooty, are you talking to me? You want me to talk about real problems in the world? Like helping educate children about how to not be kidnapped and raped? Oh wait! I’m already doing that!
You can misrepresent what I say all that you want, it doesn’t make you right…it just shows that you are unable or unwilling to understand plain english.
But thanks so much for the condescending tone. My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
so now the guy is a PEDOPHILE rapist? sweet! what’s next out of the hysteriatron, do you think? puppy strangler? cannibal? dave matthews fan?
Pooty,
Please hire a reading tutor to deal with your poor reading comprehension. I never called him a rapist or a pedophile.
You told me to stop talking and do something useful, and so I was talking about the fact that I work with a non-profit that educates children about kidnappers and sexual preditors, and I am currently at a conference getting further training as we speak.
EG ignored clearly stated personal boundaries when he proceeded to hit on a woman when he KNEW it was unwelcomed (because he attended a lecture and a post-lecture discussion where she made that clear).
He did this after running to follow her into the elevator where she was alone with him. Still, he might be clueless…but he also used a classic grooming technique meant to pressure her into ignoring her feelings about his violation of boundaries “Don’t take this the wrong way”…in other words, setting her up to feel like she has to prove to him that she’s not taking it the wrong way. Which means taking him up on the invitation to go to his room alone with him.
Does this mean he’s a rapist? Not necessarily. He could be really stupid. Or he could have a mental illness. Or low blood sugar or whatever. I don’t care. It isn’t my job to accomidate his bad behavior or work to differentiate him from preditors who act the same way. If he’s going to act in a preditory manner, he’s going to set people on their guard until he learns how to stop doing that.
Rebecca is not required to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He had done nothing but completely inappropriate behavior from the moment that she met him, she is not required to ignore the possibility that he will continue to escalate his actions that show a lack of regard for her wishes, her comfort, or her safety.
He was the one who set himself apart from normal people who know how to act around other people. If he’d acted like a normal guy in an elevator, he would have been treated like a normal guy in an elevator. Instead, he chose to act like a creepy stalker guy in an elevator and got treated like a creepy stalker guy in an elevator.
I’m sorry if this angers you, but yes…people who act badly get bad reactions form normal people. That must be hard for you to hear, but contrary to your assessment of me as a hippy-trippy fuzzy-wuzzy, I really don’t care about whatever childhood trauma makes it difficult for you to see people’s bad actions reflect badly on them. Get therapy. And a reading tutor. It will improve your life so much more than yelling at an unknown woman on the internet.
I’ve seen so many defenses of Rebecca’s original, reasonable, requests for her audience to not be creepy, but this has got to be the worst. It is so wrong to label this as a potential sexual assault. That may be what she fears, but an innocent, albeit awkward, man is not potentially assaulting her.
Plait throws all men under the bus in his eagerness to defend Watson. I’ll agree she did nothing wrong, but this male-guilt response it maddening.
Personally I see Phil’s entire post as extremely sexist. Repeatedly referring to the phrase “Would you like to have coffee” as a “potential sexual assault” is frankly embarrassing. I highly doubt anyone would claim that a woman asking a man out for coffee on an elevator would be accused of “potential sexual assault.”
You could have said “her fear of a potential sexual assault” or a similar phrasing to acknowledge her feelings without tarring this man as a possible predator. He’s done nothing to deserve such slander.
I’ve personally picked up a woman on an elevator and I know for a fact that she didn’t feel threatened in the least. The situation could in some circumstances come across as creepy – but that doesn’t mean that any date request on an elevator might end up in a sexual assault.
Full disclosure: I am a straight male and several years ago I was sexually assaulted by another man. Whatever feelings she felt after being asked out on an elevator I can assure you that it doesn’t come near to the ongoing emotional turmoil that comes from a sexual assault.
teresa, you think that a S.W.A.T. team needs to repel down from helicopters when a man asks a woman on a coffee date, and *I’m* the one who needs therapy? You are the most neurotic, histrionic, cripplingly male-phobic broad I’ve had the pleasure of making fun of in years. I’d recommend YOU get therapy, but it’s marvelously clear that being a laughably melodramatic, psychotically paranoid manhater is the only thing that gets you out of bed in the morning.
Pooty,
Please give a quote from me that backs up your assertions? Do I say MEN when I talk about predatory behavior? No. I talk about PEOPLE, and behavior . You are the one saying that I am talking about MEN. Maybe you think that only men are people, and this is the source of your confusion. You are the one who uses sexist slurs like “broad” while I recognize preditor bahavior based on behavior, not gender…but I’m supposedly the sexist. Please display more of your ignorance and lack of clarity as an example to the class.
Second, one person asking another person out for coffe is not assault. One person cornering another person in an enclosed space, and asking that person out after she has said she doesn’t want to be asked out, and using manipulation to try to influence her to change her mind is something that preditors themselves describe as their most effective techniques for manuvering vulnerable victims into a position to be victimized. I’ve watched the interview tapes in classes at seminars provided by law enforcement agancies to educate first responders.
You can call me hystercal all you want, and you can try to make it about “coffee” all you want, but frankly, it is obvious that once you asked a woman out in a creepy and unsettling manner and got insulted when she was creeped out and unsettlds and feel like you have to go to war with all people who think that people should understand that creepy and unsettling behavior from other people should be responded to with a firm “no” and a quick exit to the situation and to a populated area.
Sam,
Please see the preceeding nearly 2000 posts for several excellent and cogent responses to what you said. If you are going to join a conversation and start trash talking the host, at least have the courtesy to actually read SOME of the discussion so that you know what is actually being said and don’t make an ass out of yourself like poor confused Pooty.
This argument that I am seeing that people are REQUIRED to ignore red-flag behavior in order to be “fair” to people displaying the red-flag behavior is disturbing.
True, someone acting like a preditor is not necessarily a preditor. They could be mentally challenged, or have a disorder of some kind…but they might also be a preditor. The person in the situation has to make the call as to how likely one scenario is vs. the other. People not involved with the situation don’t get to set their level of acceptable risk for them.
Rebecca asking guys to not put women in a situation where they have to decide if the guy is a preditor or not (based on several factors, not just the elevator, but also:
1) ignoring previously and clearly established boundaries (she said she didn’t want to get hit on, repeatedly, and explained why),
2) using grooming language to disarm and put pressure to not hold to previous boundaries (“Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m going to ignore everything you said, and do what you asked me not to do”.
3)conciously choosing the isolated location -( he had ample opportunity to ask her out in more appropriate circumstances…this was not “he happened to be in the elevator” this was, he waited for hours while she socialized and was clearly open to social interaction. He didn’t choose to interact with her when she was clearly open to socializing. He waited until she made a clear announcement that she wasn NOT open to any more socializing, followed her out of the crowd, and then hovered around until the elevator came, and then ran to get into it with her alone. This does not fall under the “I met a woman in an elevator and asked her out” catagory. There is additional information here that clearly makes his behavior suspect.
4) It involves an invitation to a more isolated location where Rebecca would have even less control or chance of getting help. This is just literally texbook. Over and over, preditors say in interviews that if you can convince a victim to go to a more isolated location of her own free will, you are less likely to be reported by the victim, less likely to have the report treated seriously by police, less likely to be prosecuted, and if prosecuted, less likely to be convicted by a jury.
Smart preditors know this and count on it. Calling someone “hysterical” for understanding that, and bringing it to people’s attention is just not accurate. Preditors can be men or women or even children (some children are victimised by other children, who learned their grooming techniques from the preditors that groomed them) there is no “profile” of race or gender or sexual preferance or age that you can use to accurately identify a preditor. The only useful profile for preditors is behavior. Recognizing problem behavior is the important factor here.
This is what I have been saying over and over and over again consistantly throughout this thread…only to have people repeate whining about how I am talking about “all men” when I talk about behavior…despite my repeated and clear statements that there is no useful gender/race/age profile that you can use and say that you are “safe” because you avoid “those people”. Recognizing behavior is the key. Yet some people are too willfully ignorant to understand that, or just enjoy exercising their own prejudice too much to learn.
People are not obligated to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they act in a manner that frankly falls under a classic “grooming” scenario. The idea that people react so offensively to basic safety information is very discouraging.
Wow, a friend just pointed out my grammar and spelling in the above posts. Apologies to anyone that matters to a lot. I was on a late flight from D.C. last night, made even later by weather delays. Not operating on anywhere close to enough sleep, combined with frequent interruptions. In particular, yes…it is spelled “Predator”.
oy, i need a nap. have fun in your feminist hindenberg, powered by engines of hate, fear, insecurity, and blind bigotry. lemme know how that works out for you. oh wait, i already know how that works out.
It works better than living in an alternate reality like yours, where judging someone’s behavior instead of their gender is “sexist”, where decades-tested, research-driven educational material and programs on personal safety are “hysteria”, where knowledge is considered “fear” and “hate”, and confidence is called “insecurity”, and where taking the individual actions of individual people on their individual merits is called “bigotry”.
Enjoy your nap, I’m sure all that cognative dissonance is very tiring.
Doh! Like I didn’t have enough to do! Now I want to start a punk band called “My Feminist Hindeberg.”
yes, i’ll take the “‘alternate reality’ where men aren’t brought up on ’emotional rape’ charges for asking a woman if she likes Babylon 5” for $500 please, Alex.
Pooty,
On what planet does that have anything to do with this conversation? Check and make sure you don’t have any head injuries or something.
Wait, did you just express a desire to live in an “alternate reality” where something that doesn’t happen … doesn’t happen? That. Is. So. Meta.
if i’m not mistaken you’ve just perpetrated a potential verbal sexual assault against me. are you some kind of pedophile rape-assessor, teresa? because i sure FEEL verbal rape assessed, and my feelings are the measure of reality, I’m sure you would agree. i hope you’re happy being a potential verbal rape assaultist, teresa, because i can assure you, it’s going to take years and years of therapy to even begin to deal with this trauma. i hope you’re happy, teresa, you rape assessing potential toddler raper.
Pooty,
Seriously, please get your head examined for trauma. I’m worried about you. You’ve become aphasiac and are typing word salad.
salad is made of vegetables, and vegetables can be used to rape people. you are creating a rape-conducive sexual assaulty wordzone of rapiness. i do not feel safe. your ISP has been forwarded to the authorities.
Pooty,
By your definitions, these children were “hystrical” victims of the “feminist Hindenberg powered by engines of hate, fear, insecurity, and blind bigotry”
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=17332585
And the man in question was a victim of assault and sexism.
In order to prove to you that she was not an hysterical, sexist feminazi, the girl in question would be required to have accepted the candy and gotten into the van willingly. Personally, I’m happier that she followed the advice and training provided by organizations like the one I work with and responded safely to the man’s behavior and saved herself from kidnapping, rape and probably death.
You are wrong. Not only wrong, but fnadamentally, fractally, and psychotically wrong. I’m sorry that this angers you, but the only remedy is for you to change. The world will not change to accomidate you.
i think vomiting up an 800,000 word treatise demanding men no longer be allowed to speak to a woman on an elevator lest he be jailed for “potential sexual assault” would strike most reasonably intelligent people as “psychotically wrong”, teresa. and, i hope you’re sitting down…i doubt very, very much the world is going to change to accommodate you on that, sister soldier.
Sorry, Pooty, the world is with me.
Most men know that following a woman around (especially one that they know has gotten rape threats), ignoring her stated wish to be left alone, stalking her into an enclosed area to bother her with an invitation to be more vulnerable yet is bad behavior, and not normal.
Once again, please show where anyone asked he be jailed, or that men not be allowed to speak to women on an elevator? All that has been asked is that he, and any others who are stupid enough to know that this is creepy and threatening should please stop doing it.
You haven’t provided such evidence despite repeated requests because you can’t. Because they don’t exist. Because that silly “reality” thing continues to refuse to comply with your wishes.
Notice, nobody has actually accused him of assault … only of putting her in a position where she had to be on guard against a potential one) this was based on the man’s behavior:
1) ignoring repeated statemtents that she was not interested in being hit on, as well as clear statemtents that she was done socializing for the night, and was no longer open to more social interaction
2) following her to an isolated location
3) trying to use grooming thechniques to get around the clearly stated boundaries
4) attempting to move the encounter to an even more isolated lcation.
But please do continue to serve as a negative example, and please do continue to embarass your position by arguing for it so badly.
You do realize that when you claim that it is sexist against men to criticize creepy stalker behavior, you are implying that you think that creepy stalker behavior is a male trait…right?
That seems pretty sexist.
Creepy stalker behavior is not an inherantly male trait. I think that you should stop implying that with your arguments.
Most men know how to ask a woman out…yes, even in an elevator..without being creepy and predatory about it.
In the end none of this matters. The man in the elevator acted like a pig, Watson exploited it to get as much publicity out of it as possible. She mentions youtube hits and all her Facebook friends far too often and to any layman, it’s obvious she’ll do anything for publicity. Nonetheless, it’s backfired with a vengeance. The CSI convention in New Orleans this past weekend is proof. She MC’ed the costume contest and sat on a panel about grassroots organizing. Excellent; the community takes you seriously. Not.
Dawkins was his arrogant self and is left mumbling in the corner with his wealth and his power. Her male supporters (Myers, Plait {Novella didn’t comment more than a few words and totally stayed out of it; smart man}) did what they could to help her out but to no avail. This conflict has divided a few thousand people in the community and it’s a crying shame. People who have supported her will also feel the sting of possible losses to their livelihood when they’re not invited to speak at certain gatherings for whatever infantile reasons.
As a woman and a human being I’m disappointed in Dawkins for being a dinosuar, I’m disappointed in Watson for being a nobody who came into skepticism at the right time/place and had a great gig handed to her with SGU while never discussing feminism in any meaningful way before this mess. Not to mention the fact that she exploited her sexuality every chance she had (come hither, bare shoulder head shots, marriage proposal bragging, give me a break; you never hear the men on SGU or any respectable blogger or scientist doing any of that). I’m disappointed that men send her disgusting letters and I’m disappointed that she never mentioned it in the last 6 years. You’re all just covering your own backs for not acting sooner. The men, the women, the bloggers, the feminists, the professionals; you’re all wet.
Hi, I’m a well read UK male and this is my opinion. If interested in a speaker that is female after a conference in a lift, I would 1. wait for the door to open and then 2. ask to go down again to the bar or public space for a chat, at a mutually agreed time. We live in a gendered world and men certainly need to be better aware of that. In my view it is clearly a sexual advance to ask a woman to your room in an enclosed space and I am VERY suprised at Dawkins’ response …..but for all his intellect you have to remember that he is still an older man brought up with his contemporary prejudices, as all of us surely do. 99% rational is perhaps all we can hope for? Steve
I don’t find any fault with Dr Dawkins’ posts at all. I’m a girl.
Seriously. Dawkins proves time and again how ignorant he really is.
Women are not equal to men. They have always been and will always be lower in a way. It doesn’t mean they are worth less than men. It is because of their more fragile nature and wiring. History demonstrates this to be true time and again. It is also inappropriate for any man (or woman) to behave the way that man did on the elevator. He implied sex when he asked her the question. That made her an object. She knew that. And because the man made her an object, he instantly became a threat. If he was geniunely a good person, he would have spoken a different conversation to assure her that he was harmless. Imagine what an old 80 year old man walking on a cane might have talked about. The elevator man couls easily have made her feel safe. But his intentions disregarded her safety in favor of his desires. He was a potential monster due to his own actions, regardless of what we all already know about rapists.
Dawkins writing and speaking sickens me. To know he is in a professional position and has gained popularity is very disturbing. I do not speak in bias here. I am simply observing one person. I am a born again Christian. But most of my years I lived as an atheist. But I always knew right from wrong. A big part of that includes being considerate of other people’s feelings, even if it means denying your own. Dawkins could take a large lesson in etiquette. He is an inconsiderate, hateful jerk who uses words to stomp on anyone he can. He loves to prey on the weak. Atheism breeds narcissism and other disorders. And Dawkins has a little bit of all of em. Lol.
He obviously feels no sense of purpose in life. He believes life is just meaningless and we all drift through it and die. That’s his false opinion. Many of us, namely Christians, live a life full of purpose. We cherish the time we share with our spouse, children, and people in general. I love to meet a stranger and talk about something new. I would rather listen to them speak. Ever since I found God, all that became even better. I wouldn’t trade it for all the science knowledge in the universe. I feel deeply sorry for people who waste their life filling their heads with pointless knowledge that seeks to promise more than it delivers. They spent more time rotting in their shoes instead of having fellowship with loved ones. They would rather have debates and go on tv shows to rant and rave negative nonsense to run people into the ground. Not me. Dawkins can have his stinking life so nobody else has to suffer through it.
Does this mean if a woman is alone in an elevator and I just want to use the elevator I should wait until there is more than two people in it, or none, or just one man? Does the threat only come from a man whos asks you for coffee in his room?
Steven, you obviously have not read the discussion, as this question has been asked over and over and over again.
The situation was that the guy was in a social situation where he could have interacted with Rebecca, but instead waited until she left, stalked her out of the room where all the people were, followed her to the elevator, RAN to get into it alone with her, and then proceeded to ask her out when she had made it clear that she was not interested in any further social interaction for the night.
There is no possible way that you should be able to conclude from criticism of this behavior that you are not allowed to get into an elevator with a woman who is alone.
Everyone is uncomfortable with other people in elevators. Nobody makes eye-contact, most people display nervous movement, etc. It’s just not comfortable.
So most people try to make people around them in the elevator LESS UNCOMFORTABLE. By not making eye contact, not standing too close, etc.
Elevator guy made her MORE uncomfortable by asking her out…and by the fact that he could have asked her out where she was not already uncomfortable, but instead chose to followe her to a place where he knew (or should have known) she would feel threatened.
This is a tactic that some criminals use to gain compliance of intended victims of their crime (weather the crime is a mugging, a rape, an abduction, a con game, or what have you) it is predatory and creepy as hell.
I have a hard time believeing that you can’t figure this out yourself…but failing that, you should have been at least able to skim parts of this conversation and get an answer to your question. Like I said, it’s been addressed several times.
JoeM,
“Atheism breeds narcissism and other disorders. ”
Actually, unexamined assumptions and prejudices breed nacissism and other disorders. You display several in your rant.
Check the log in your own eye, brother.
@ 21 Kaylen you said:
Some of those moments of intense fear will probably stay with me for a long time. Like this one dude kept walking past my friend and I, late at night. He would come back and look at me and I would move out of the way… So the eighth time he’s walking by us, he stops and screams at me, “STOP STEPPING BACK, I’M NOT GOING TO HURT YOU.” Well okay then, that sure makes me feel safe! Ugh.
(I know this comment is very very late…but I just read this and had to say something…) OMG that’s happened to me before, also! It’s spooky as hell, isn’t it? Most recently, I parked my car in an alley with other parked cars. It had just snowed, and the ground was very icy. There was this big guy walking down the alley, and he fell in a little ways behind me. I skidded a bit on the ice, and he said: “Woah, there! Don’t be scared! I’m not going to hurt you!”
What the hell? I wasn’t even thinking that he was going to hurt me. Why would he suggest that, unless he was aware that he COULD hurt me and that, indeed, I ought to be scared? I don’t get it.
@ John DuBois:
I think that a good way to do it would be to find an opportunity to speak to the woman BEFORE getting into the elevator. And most notably, where there are other people around. Not necessarily breathing down your neck while you’re speaking to her, but just within hearing distance if someone were to shout or a loud noise were to be made. So if you stopped in front of the elevator while waiting for it to arrive and asked, that would be much better.
And if you said something like “Hey, do you want to go up to my room to chat over a cup of coffee” or even “do you want to go up to my room for a cup of coffee? I’d really like to talk about that speech you gave” that would be a lot more expressive of your intentions (although we still don’t have any way of knowing whether they’re honest or not– that’s up to the woman’s gut feeling) than just saying “do you want to come up to my room for a cup of coffee?” because then you’re saying that you just want to talk and get to know her better, not that you want to have coffee and then leave the rest hanging in the air unsaid.
I know there are still women who would find this creepy or still turn you down, but I’m saying that this is a much less creepy way to do it, and you’re doing it in a way that makes the woman feel safer by not being isolated from other people nearby, and by making it very clear what it is you want. That is, if you’re being honest, which is something a woman still can’t take at face value, but the way in which you’re doing it is much less creepy.
But if a woman clearly says she wants to go to bed, I would ask if she wants to talk over breakfast the next morning instead. That’s being sensitive to her wishes while also making it clear that you’re still interested in getting to know her. If she’s interested, she’ll probably say something like “sure, what time?” or “you mean at the breakfast bar?” and you can go from there. This is actually the better option, because most women don’t like going to the rooms of guys they hardly or barely and especially don’t even know. Just make arrangements for the next day when you’re both not tired and are in a public place.
Women are conditioned, and with good reason, to avoid being alone and in close quarters to strange men. So the invitation for coffee in your room still isn’t a good idea, in all honesty. But the breakfast suggestion, and actually talking to her BEFORE she leaves and getting to know her then, is much better.
I hope this helps.
Might as well respond to this, as a man, even though it’s very old. Here’s what someone called Ruth thinks is what they undergo as a woman.
“If I go to a bar without my husband, I never leave my drink. If I do leave my drink to go to the bathroom, I won’t drink from it again.”
I do this too. Men can be date raped too, you know. It’s less likely to happen to a man than a woman, but still more than possible. It’s also very possible for me to be drugged and mugged. So yes, I do the exact same thing as you do, even though I am a man.
“When I’m walking by myself at night, I try to stay under streetlamps and keep an eye on the people around me.”
I don’t know anybody who doesn’t do this, male or female. Rape isn’t the only thing that can happen to you late at night.
“I don’t accept rides from male friends until I’ve known them a long time.”
This one maybe has more merit to it, but it’s still basically the same as the others. Men can be raped; men can be mugged. Men have to take this precaution in the same way as women do, at least to some extent.
So enough of all this stuff about being so put upon. You take the same precautions as everyone else does.
I think Richard Dawkins is correct in telling her to stop whining. The elevator woman holds prejudice against men! It would be the same scenario if I went in an elevator with a woman at night and came out thinking, “women only care about looks because she didn’t want to hold a conversation with me.” It is a putrid way of thinking: to hold assumptions based on generalizations.
@2004. Andrew: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/ Read this.
@2005. Michael B: OH so much prejudice! It can’t be anything to do with this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=elevator+rape&oq=elevator+rape&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=496l3063l0l3250l13l6l0l4l0l0l293l384l1.0.1l2l0#q=elevator+rape&hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=UhsNT8DXOo-Z8gPa88ycBg&ved=0CFUQggE&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a2f691d287712d53&biw=1280&bih=659 (news archive search for “elevator rape”). Or the fact that 1 in 4 women are raped or otherwise sexually assaulted(I have been). Gee, how irrational of women to feel threatened by strange men in enclosed, escapeless places. Of course, women are supposed to know what rapists look like, it’s tooootally not the case that it is impossible to tell. You poor, poor thing, so hard done by, because women won’t automatically award you their complete trust that, as a MAN, you are obviously entitled to. Having to be aware of potentially coming across as a threat to a woman is SO much worse than actually facing the possiblity of threatening situations(that, as a man who is not in prison, you actually don’t have to worry anywhere near as much as women about being raped, lucky you). And with Rebecca’s over exaggeration and her banshee scream of: “guys, don’t do that”… wow! So much man hate. Get a grip and check your bloody privilege, man.
I understand that woman feel the threat of sexual assault. I don’t know that feeling first hand of course being a man. The comment that the scenario in the elevator is a very possible threat seems to me that you live your whole life in fear. You could say that almost every encounter with a man is a possible threat.
At 6’4, 230 lbs, an a active athlete who easily handles his smaller competitors, I could assault a woman any time I wanted to. To assume that I would though is offensive. To be clear what I’m saying is I’m offended that you feel vunerable and assume I’m a potential rapist.
Being a man is not about enforcing your will upon other people, I am intelligent enough to know the differences between the sports area and the real world. The sports world being one that I impose my physical prowess over others. Perhaps most men are not like me and not governed by a real sense of confidence and stumble in an awkward attempt at courting woman, like the fellow in the elevator.
Perhaps the author should make greater contribution to the world and write an article about how men should approach women in an non-threatening manner. Include in the article a reference to the guy in the elevator and what he should have done.
By the way the next time you view me as a potential rapist don’t be surprised that I give you the silent treatment in the elevator.
A Good Guy
I object to the sexist tone in this post.
Claiming that being alone with a man in an elevator is a “potential sexual assault” would be the same as claiming that passing a black person on the street is a “potential mugging”.
Everyone agrees that the last claim is extremely racist, so why do you not think the first claim is sexist?
Being weirded out from an unwelcome proposition is no problem. It’s late, you’re tired, and you’re alone in an enclosed space with a stranger who has probably just asked you for sex. Many people would feel deeply uncomfortable in that situation, even if the notion never even crosses their mind that the propositioner mightn’t take no for an answer. I’ve been followed out of pubs and hit on, hard, by women I wasn’t attracted to in the wee hours of the morning and it wasn’t pleasant, even through there was no way they were going to do anything to me against my will. The combination of feeling tired, imposed on, and the vague irrational guilt nearly everyone feels if they turn down a request is not a nice combination of emotions.
Doing a podcast saying, not to do that is also OK. Advice to the tune of, “This kind of behaviour is going to make women feel weird and is not likely to land you some action” is perfectly OK. It’s true and helpful. The dudes in this thread who feel hurt by this need to drink a cup of concrete and harden up. One fair point though is this: women expecting guys to take all the risks in initiating relationships and then deciding after the fact that he’s a creep based, not on anything he actually did but how it was perceived, is unfair. Have you ever noticed that attractive men are less likely to be labelled creeps or sleazy than unattractive men?
What I can’t agree with is the accusation of misogyny. It is not “hating women” to be sexually attracted to them. There seems to be this notion that men want big boobs and a nice body (and nothing else), that they ought to respect only her intellect and personality like she’s a disembodied brain in a jar, when what they ACTUALLY want is the entire person. From RW’s account of EG’s dud pickup line, it was clear that he did respect her intelligence. He said that before he said he found her physically appealing as well. And he respected her right to say “no” without complaint. How this equates to hating women is a mystery to me.
Richard Dawkins’s comments were lacking in tact and good taste, but has anyone ever accused him of having those qualities? His argument that there are worse things in the world is accurate.
Finally, those handful of women in this thread who have said things like “most men would commit rape if they had the opportunity”, it must be miserable to live your life in this delusional fantasy world of paranoia and hatred. Get help.
This story’s been around for awhile, and I still strongly suspect Dawkins himself is the man who asked the woman for coffee.
Ok…. what the #$%& is wrong with you idiots???
As far as I can tell, a somewhat creepy guy asked Rebecca back to his room for coffee. Was he hitting on her? Yes. Was it creepy and uncomfortable for Rebecca? Yes. Would I want to be hit on by a creepy guy in an elevator (who is bigger and stronger than me) at 4am? Not particularly. But did this creepy guy do anything wrong than be somewhat creepy and presumptuous? OF COURSE NOT. And would I make a youtube video complaining about it? NO! This is absolutely ridiculous. Your article keeps on saying that “this was potentially sexual assault”, and then asserting that “men just don’t get it”. Well by that non-logic, every single time you are in a confined space with a male larger than you (this goes for women and men), and that large male has any desire in having sex with you, there is the potential for sexual assault. Well I guess that’s technically true, there is “potential”. Just like there’s potential that I might get mauled by a bear in the middle of my Contemporary Moral Problems class. But should I, or anyone else, act like that, or the elevator situation, is a real situation of potential danger? NO!!!
This has all the halmarks of the traditional feminist reaction to criticism. Despite the fact that I agree with feminist thought and thinkers 90% of the time, I find proponents of feminism to be the LEAST receptive to criticism. They play the “sexist” and “men just don’t understand” cards every single time.
I fully support Dawkins on this, and anyone who doesn’t is a complete irrational idiot.
Jordon,
aaaaaand, thank you very much for the demonstration of how “men just don’t get it”. Classic.
Of course many men get it just fine. You don’t. Which is also fine. But maybe if you listened, you would get it.
Predatory behavior has been quite thuroughly profiled, and have been taught to women in rape prevention classes for a few decades now.
Elevator guy displayed classic predator behavior. NOT by “being in an evelator”…as you put it.
If you are honest, then you are just dumb to think that the reason she should be afraid of him is that he “was in an elevator”.
But I don’t think you are honest. I think that you KNOW that the reason EG was “creepy” was becuase he waited around for hours for the opportunity to chase after RW so that he could isolate her from the crowd of people, RAN to get into the elevator with her, IGNORED the fact that she had made dozens of statements throughout the time he was listening to her that the actions he was about to engage in would be sexist and unwelcomed, waited until she was alone and in a closed metal box, and then hit on her despite the fact that he KNEW she didn’t want to be hit on right then.
Then, he tried to get her to a place where she would have even less power and control over her situation.
If you had taken any sort of rape-prevention training, or been to even one seminar about sexual predators, you would know that this is classic predator behavior.
Yes, it is also classic creepy dumb-ass behavior…which is why RW was now put in the position of having to decide if this guy is a creepy dumb-ass or a rapist in the process of an assault attempt.
But rather than be educated, you would rather man-splain to everyone why she, and most forensic psychologists, and most presenters on sexual predators who present at DOJ and BCA conferences on the subject of sexual predators are wrong, and you are right.
Teresa, I think you and a lot of people here have taken this way too far. Before I explain that, please consider how hypocritical it is for a woman to say “men just don’t get it”. I’d have thought a woman would be aware of how annoying it is to be stereotyped, as a group, for no adequate reason. A word to the wise here, don’t do that.
Ok I’ve watched the video, and Rebecca’s description of the elevator event. All of it. Yep, the ENTIRE 15 SECONDS’ worth of description. Let me summarise for you: 4am, walked to elevator, man gets in with me, says “don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I’d like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for a coffee?”
That’s it. Rebecca did NOT say it/he was “creepy”. She used the word “sexualised” – and concedes she is making an assumption here. She says herself, “There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment,” (see her first reply to a comment under the video).
A lot of what you’ve said is completely spurious, eg:
“Elevator guy displayed classic predator behavior” – you’ll have to explain how RW’s 15 second description equates to sexual predator behaviour, when she concedes herself it’s down to interpretation.
” the reason she should be afraid of him” – again, where did RW say she was AFRAID?
“he waited around for hours for the opportunity to chase after RW so that he could isolate her from the crowd of people, RAN to get into the elevator with her”
WTF?! That is complete and total fabrication, and you should really take some critical thinking classes if you’re going to engage in discussion of important topics by MAKING STUFF UP.
Bottom line – the guy was very inappropriate, and should have been aware that approaching a woman in a confined, isolated space is not the right thing to do. That makes his an idiot and not very sensitive, to be sure. It doesn’t make him a predator. I agree with RW, men should not do that. Even if she had not just talked about it. It’s just not the right thing to do.
The reason I’m writing this is because, as a man, it is quite offensive to see this kind of PROFILING. I guess if you see a black guy driving an expensive car, you just assume he stole it, right?
I can’t believe this has been blown not just out of proportion but completely out of all recognition from the actual description of events. Just.. wow.
John,
What are you talking about ? You are putting words in my mouth.
This only works if you actually address what I really said. Please go back and read the part where I said that men get it…before you accuse me of saying men don’t get it.
If you can’t even get that right, how can we talk? There’s no point in even talking to someone who is going to claim that your position is exactly the opposite of what you have actually said.
Or do you know what I said better than I do? In which case there’s absolutly no point in even talking further.
John,
For instance, please explain how, when I say:
“Of course many men get it just fine. You don’t. Which is also fine. But maybe if you listened, you would get it.”
and you respond:
“Teresa, I think you and a lot of people here have taken this way too far. Before I explain that, please consider how hypocritical it is for a woman to say “men just don’t get it”. I’d have thought a woman would be aware of how annoying it is to be stereotyped, as a group, for no adequate reason. A word to the wise here, don’t do that.”
How about if you don’t breeze into a conversation and completly misrepresent someone’s entire argument and then get on your high horse about what you lied about them saying?
You can have conversations with people’s made up statements on your own at home. Don’t involve the rest of us in your onanism.
John,
It might also surprise you that the 15 seconds of video that you watched is not the ONLY source of information about this topic.
In might also surprist you to know that the additional evidence is covered and heavily referenced in this extremely long conversation, which you feel free to join and critique without actually knowing anything about.
You watched a 15 second video where she makes a passing comment on the incident, and feel free to scold me …
Amazing. Did you watch the bloggingheads video where she described it in more detail? Did you read her subsequent writings about the issue? Did you read the commentary she provided in other venues?
I am in a conversation here, where many people (including Phil) prepared themselves for the conversation. Now, a bunch of yahoos who feel like they are experts because they watched a 15 second video are comeing to scold us about not knowing what we are talking about.
Please prepare yourself for the conversation before jumping in and trying to shout everyone else down.
I’d just like to also point out that the whole reason for doing the run-down was because of a complete misrepresentation of the issues…one that has been repeated again and again and again despite repeated efforts to correct.
Before you comment, educate yourself, it is all right there in the preceeding comments. If you feel like you have to comment, don’t do so from ignorance.
This is such an obvious overreaction. Guys have to do the work and they don’t have much time to have 2 hour conversations first. How she reacted is not how every woman would react, regardless of his charm. Also, for the term mansplaining, it has become ad hominem for talking down to men. It is a manipulative to “shut the male critic up.”
Nick, if he had several hours to lurk around waiting around for a chance to stalk her into anisolated, enclosed area, he had enough time for a real conversation.
Clearly Richard Dawkins outsmarted the author on this issue. No need to question him–just your feminist drivel.
Rebecca’s video gave pretty obvious and clear dating advice. She wasn’t calling the guy a criminal or a rapist, she just pointed out that the scene made her uncomfortable as it would most women. If you want to talk to a woman you don’t know, do it when she has people around who could come to her aid on the off chance that you are a stalker. What’s so hard to understand about that? Why all the vitriol against her for her calm and reasoned response to the incident? I think she went a bit overboard in excoriating Dawkins for his ill considered and insensitive comment, but given the stats on rape on women in such situations, it is hard to believe that any reasonable person would think she was being out of line. I wonder if Dawkins has discussed this with Lala. Maybe she’s physically imposing enough not to have the same degree of fear of situations like that as Rebecca has. I know my wife given that situation would respond much the same way as Rebecca did.
The man in the elevator said, “Don’t take this the wrong way…” to start his alleged proposition. Let’s look at what the man said, not what any of the commenters and public figures said, what did the man say. He seemed to be interested to further a discussion with her, and he knew she was done with the bar obviously, so he invited her to his room for coffee. If you think that was an attempt at rape, you are grasping at straws.
What part of that is a “…potential sexual assault.” I fail to understand that.
I also am a man about RD’s age. There seems to be a bit of dodging the real issue by RD and others here. To clarify, most of commenters here would, if we talked a while, classify me as a far right, neanderthal misanthrope. But that aside here is the situation:
Let us imagine the elevator invitation event took place in the ‘pre-enlightened’ days of 1950. Would a strange man invite a woman to his room for coffee? I don’t believe my old sexist brain can see that invite as anything but either very naive or low class.
At present, 2012, we are in the precarious position of mingling with people who do not have any sense of class or decorum. That guy in the nice suit and tie, evenly tanned, $200 haircut may be one who believes force is the only law. His smooth ways may be just a front.
Nope, I’m with the woman here, the guy in the elevator was either a jerk, a jackass being smart or a simple fool. He can ride the elevator with her and keep his mouth shut. What the hell is wrong with men now-days? And don’t give me the dumb and innocent argument please.
DON’T RAPE ME, BRO! (old reference?)
Seriously, though. A potential sexual assault? Stated as such as if it were fact. A man being alone on an elevator with a woman is not a potential sexual assault just because the man is…a man. This is like saying every time you walk past a young black male there is potential for a mugging. If you happen to encounter a rapist or a mugger it isn’t because they are male or black. It’s because you were unlucky to encounter a rapist or a mugger.
We have now reached the point where talking to a woman is a sign that we want to rape her. Good to know, I will never again talk to a woman.
There was no reason for Rebecca to feel like she was being assaulted in the elevator. It was only a simple remark, and when she turned down his request, he did not assault her. Dawkins is denying that her situation was sexist in any way, and I wholeheartedly agree. If anyone should feel victimized in this situation it should be the man in the elevator, who is being called a sexist because of very unoffensive words he spoke in an elevator. I agree with Dawkins entirely.
Rebecca can say “guys, don’t approach me in this way” but she can not speak for women in general. Half the people speaking out against her have been women.