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,
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:45 am
This is why I really like you and PZ, Phil.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:49 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 10:50 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Thanks, Phil.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:51 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 10:52 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 10:53 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:53 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:54 am
You rock! I actually felt betrayed by RD.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:54 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:55 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Thank you for taking the time to write this.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:56 am
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
July 5th, 2011 at 10:56 am
> 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:57 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:58 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:00 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:01 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:02 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:02 am
@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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 11:02 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:03 am
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:04 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:04 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:04 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:05 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:06 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Still waiting for somebody to ask for the man’s side of events.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:07 am
*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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:07 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:07 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:08 am
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).
July 5th, 2011 at 11:08 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:09 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:11 am
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/
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:13 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:13 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:13 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:14 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:15 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:15 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:15 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:16 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:17 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:17 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:20 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:21 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:21 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:22 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:22 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:23 am
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:23 am
@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.”)
July 5th, 2011 at 11:24 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:24 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:24 am
This is a stupid argument.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:24 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:24 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:25 am
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:25 am
@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).
July 5th, 2011 at 11:26 am
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I think it’s ridiculous to consider what happened in the elevator “potential sexual assault.”
July 5th, 2011 at 11:28 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:29 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:29 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
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’.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:31 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:33 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:34 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:34 am
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:34 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Wow, it wasn’t long before the jerks defending male privilege turned up.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:37 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:37 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:37 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:39 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:39 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:39 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:39 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:40 am
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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 11:40 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:41 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:41 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:42 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:42 am
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:42 am
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
July 5th, 2011 at 11:42 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:43 am
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
July 5th, 2011 at 11:43 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:43 am
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)
July 5th, 2011 at 11:43 am
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:43 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:44 am
“Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.”
Right..
July 5th, 2011 at 11:44 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:44 am
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 …
July 5th, 2011 at 11:46 am
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
July 5th, 2011 at 11:46 am
@DiscountDeity
Equivalent in that context, and at worst, one implies the other.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:46 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:47 am
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:48 am
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.
[...]
July 5th, 2011 at 11:48 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:49 am
“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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:49 am
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
July 5th, 2011 at 11:49 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:50 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:50 am
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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 11:51 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:52 am
@Jonathan
Thank you.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:52 am
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:53 am
@Mark
Apparently. I’m deeply insulted by this.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:53 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:53 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:54 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:54 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:55 am
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.)
July 5th, 2011 at 11:56 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:56 am
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
July 5th, 2011 at 11:56 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:57 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:57 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:58 am
@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)…
July 5th, 2011 at 11:58 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:58 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:58 am
#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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:59 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:59 am
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
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. ^_^
July 5th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Is that cracker Dawkins is referring to the same as the communion wafer or host? Maybe they call it something different in England.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Women will never be seen as “equal to men” when every awkward come on is seen as a “potential sexual assult”
July 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
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…
July 5th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Yes, Blue, words like ‘he harassed me’. Words that are accepted as true without question as this article has already proven.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
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).
July 5th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
@166 I don’t think potential rapist should be allowed to have rights. wait what…
July 5th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Invitation extended, invitation denied, accepted denial and did not push the issue.
I’m not sure how she survived.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
thank you so very much for this blog post.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
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)
July 5th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
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/
July 5th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
+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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Using a name for male genitalia as an insult?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
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…
July 5th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
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.)
July 5th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
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.)
July 5th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
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”.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Should we rename this blog “Bad Philosophy” now instead?
July 5th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
My guess is that Ms. Watson posted her video for pure lucrative reasons. Ka-ching!
July 5th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Judging by the comments, this debate could go on all night…
So do you guys want to come back to my place for coffee?
July 5th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
@218. james
if any thing happens we could hire Casey Anthony’s lawyers.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
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…
July 5th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
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…
July 5th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
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”.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Once while shopping, I had a creepy woman blatantly hit on me.
It was the most terrifying moment of my life.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
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…
July 5th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
[...] creepy and phrases like it should be refrained from utterance? Was it the approach, the gaze, or even the mere fact that a man was on the elevator? I mean to what extent must I change my behavior to make women uncomfortable? If I meet a strange [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Is sexual assault a branch of physics? Like can I convert potential sexual assault into kinetic sexual assault and back again?
July 5th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Add the word “black” before “man” in this scenario and then tell me if her reaction ( and others) afterwards was justifiable.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Propositioning someone, while perhaps rude, is NOT sexual assault.
July 5th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I really really wish the guy that approached Rebecca, comes out and say: Hey, all I wanted was coffee, chill, I’m gay!
July 5th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
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. :-\
July 5th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“…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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Mountains out of molehills, I tell ya. I can just imagine all the religious folks rubbing their hands in delight at this stage.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
[...] my fingers were itching. I have commented here and there, mainly expressing my confusion about why Richard Dawkins, of all people, would be that incapable of thinking two steps further and not realize what he is [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
@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”.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Assumptions are full of maybe, might and could. Nothing happened here, Richard Dawkins was 100% correct.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
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”.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
@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!!
July 5th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
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?”
July 5th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
“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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
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)
July 5th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
@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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
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”?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
This could get confusing. There’s an Andrew W and Andrew Wilson(me) posting!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
OMG He asked her for COFFEE!? OUTRAGEOUS!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
“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.
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, 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
[deleteme]
July 5th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
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)
July 5th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Dawkins vs Dworkin, who will the feminists back?
The answer seems clear.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
[...] comments made on other blog posts about the situation – all of which has been well rounded up here by Phil Plait, so I’m not going to go into huge detail and repeat what has been written over and [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
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!”
July 5th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Perhaps she should wear a burka, that would stop men talking to her.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
@ 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?
July 5th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Oh hell, Dawkins. That’s so disappointing.
One step forward, so many steps back. It’s sad to even read.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@#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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
If words matter…
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3827127/Skepchick
July 5th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
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).
July 5th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
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 …
July 5th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
[...] From Bad Astronomy. 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: [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
@JJ (the other one)
People don’t decide where or when to have anonymous, meaningless sex. That’s kind of the point of it!
July 5th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
From Dawkins I didn’t expect anything else. From you, Phil, I expected a lot more. Minority Report.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Well said Phil.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
…and it doesn’t help matters to use the word “creepy” along with the assumption that your particular usage is universally defined.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
OK, one more comment, and then I’m really gone…
…does this mean no more Skepchick calendars?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
@#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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
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*
July 5th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
“……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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
[...] but this even floored me. There is a little bit more to this story. I am going to ask that you read Phil’s blog about it, because it is his blog and the comments left it in that has created the ranty storm within my [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
@ # 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
“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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
IMO, “creepergate” rolls off the tongue better than “creepgate”.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
[...] Plait is another who disagrees with Richard Dawkins about the zero badness of asking a stranger for sex on an elevator at 4 a.m. An important point that came up multiple [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Hmmmmn, creepergate, crackergate? Sounds like some sort of conspiracy
July 5th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
[...] that conversation with Ginny, I said something that was better articulated in a comment by a “Marty” on Phil Plait’s blog today (#31) Just as it would be insulting for me to assume that every moment I spend with other women is [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“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?
July 5th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
@ 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?
July 5th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
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”.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
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).
July 5th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
“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?
July 5th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Wow, this is some really bad astronomy…
July 5th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
@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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
558 Andrew Wilson said:
“Men cannot be made to feel they are in the wrong for asking a woman for sex.”
…huh?
July 5th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
[...] on, he’ll be the poster boy for sexism. He’s burned his credibility to the ground with his ignorant, moronic comments about [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
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”.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I was waiting on a punchline that never came. Over react much?
July 5th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
[...] to say the least. An important point that came up multiple times is that many … Read more on Discover Tagged with: Latest • News • Rape If you enjoyed this article, please [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Uhh….is Richard the “man in the elevator” in this story?
July 5th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
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)
July 5th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
@ QD’s “WTF does Dawkins have against gum?”
He was once in a very sticky situation that left an oily residue behind..
July 5th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
i think Richard Dawkins is senile.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Rebbeca Watson is insane.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
“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?
July 5th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment of Richard’s comment. The enormity of this over reaction cannot be understated.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
>>>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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Guys , (not all of you) RW offered you dating advice, and you’re calling her a man hater. What’s up with that?
July 5th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
@587. Joshua Fisher
Tough growing up in these days without a little help from da homies especially if you are 61. Word man.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
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;
July 5th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
He was once in a very sticky situation that left an oily residue behind..
Hmm. YouTube video or it didn’t happen.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Richard Dawkins…The God of New Atheism, got to a feel a little pity for a person whose breakthrough work is pseudo-science.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
[...] to another Reapsow listener, Sheldon. I was put onto this article by Phil Plait and it shocked me and some of the comments are just as face-palmingly [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
[...] Richard Dawkins and Male Privilege [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Further question: Is there any value to the concept of ‘privilege’ beyond ad hominem arguments and poisoning the well?
July 5th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Thanks Phil, for licking PZ’s Marxist Fembot ass on this issue.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
#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!
July 5th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
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)
July 5th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
“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).
July 5th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Harry: If it’s real, can you prove for me that it exists, or point me to such a proof?
July 5th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
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.)
July 5th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
[ 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?
July 5th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
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?)
July 5th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Also:
http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/wp-content/doodles/sexism-all.jpg
July 5th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
”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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
@ Varsil’s “Proving things to be true is the scientific method.”
LOL
u sure about this? you might want to go check before answering.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
I’m going to pretend I read all 660+ comments.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
@ 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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Phil, thank you so much for being an ally.
Your daughter is lucky to have an advocate like you.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Phil,
Richard is right, and you and “skepchick” are wrong. Get over yourselves.
-jcr
July 5th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
I didn’t know Phil was a bigot until today. I’m saddened by this news.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
[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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
I also learned to tolerate the odd kid.
And I thank you for that.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
@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!
July 5th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
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!
July 5th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
@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?
July 5th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
@ Horseman
Heiferdust!
July 5th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
I declare this commentary thread dead
Um… thanks? Or something?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
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.”
July 5th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
“Magpie, what’s the privilege that people are tossing around?”
Oh Jesus H. MALE Privilege. Look it up some time.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
[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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Astrofiend, what makes you a bad guy is simply being born as the male sex.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
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?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
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*
July 5th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
O V E R R E A C T I O N.
Plain and simple.
On to the next thing.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
“That your purse? That’s a nice purse.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0IDjx3hkw0
July 5th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
[...] the subsequent response by Richard Dawkins. I won’t repeat the whole story here, as there are lots of good summaries out there. Rebecca wrote a post today which for me, concluded my period of [...]
July 5th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
O V E R R E A C T I O N.
You mean Watson or Dawkins?
Or is that an acronym?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
“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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
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…
July 5th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
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
July 5th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Oh, crap! I posted these links from California. Did I just activate the amazon tax again?
Knowing our government, yeah, probably. Thanks.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
@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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Boycott anyone? Who’s with Rebecca?
July 5th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
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.
July 5th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 12:03 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:03 am
[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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Maybe in Briton “come in for a coffee” doesnt have the same connotations?
July 6th, 2011 at 12:10 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:20 am
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…
July 6th, 2011 at 12:20 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 12:26 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:40 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:44 am
A typical screeching overreaction– hyperbolic stupidity of a depth only possible only by modern feminism.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:52 am
@ 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?
July 6th, 2011 at 1:02 am
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!
July 6th, 2011 at 1:04 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 1:05 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:08 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:08 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 1:12 am
Right, Tim, it’s always the victim’s fault.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:14 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:16 am
@ 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?
July 6th, 2011 at 1:17 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:20 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:22 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:28 am
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!
July 6th, 2011 at 1:29 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:33 am
….“A study in the failure of effective human communication and its consequences”
July 6th, 2011 at 1:38 am
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!
July 6th, 2011 at 1:43 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:46 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:51 am
Oh my. Now simply hitting on women is “a potential sexual assault”. WTF.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:51 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:54 am
‘Don’t suppose RD might say ‘Sorry, I was wrong’?
July 6th, 2011 at 1:57 am
Seriously? Obviously that guy should have been killed for making eye contact and talking to her. /sarcasm
July 6th, 2011 at 2:00 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:01 am
>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?
July 6th, 2011 at 2:06 am
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.”
July 6th, 2011 at 2:08 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:13 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:14 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:21 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:21 am
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…
July 6th, 2011 at 2:23 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:28 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:31 am
[...] Phil Plait has weighed in on the issue here, saying the same as what I think, but in a much more eloquent fashion. Go [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 2:32 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 2:33 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 2:45 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:48 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:52 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:59 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 3:00 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 3:06 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 3:06 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:07 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:13 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:35 am
Please read this folks :
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/07/women_in_elevators_a_man_to_ma.php
Well written and I second it.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:45 am
@ 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?
July 6th, 2011 at 3:48 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:58 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 4:00 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 4:04 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:09 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:09 am
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.” !
July 6th, 2011 at 4:18 am
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).
July 6th, 2011 at 4:19 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:27 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:35 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:48 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:53 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:08 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:13 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 5:15 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:24 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:25 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:25 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:38 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:43 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:43 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:49 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:51 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 5:52 am
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…
July 6th, 2011 at 5:53 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:55 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:57 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:58 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:03 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:09 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:14 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 6:15 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:16 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:21 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:24 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:25 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:26 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:27 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:28 am
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”.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:30 am
[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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:30 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:31 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 6:36 am
slw obviously couldn’t recognize a rhetorical device if it… heh… shot him in the face.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:36 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:37 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:38 am
[...] creepily propositioned in an elevator1. I really don’t have much to say about it because far better writers than I have covered all the bases I can think of. What hasn’t been addressed is the [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 6:39 am
Bernard Bumner at #783:
EXACTLY!
July 6th, 2011 at 6:41 am
offering someone coffee is now sexual assault.
I’m glad none of the women in my life are this insane.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:47 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:48 am
Dude #789
Hahaha, you chickened out of actually naming me then? I saw that comment before your edit.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:50 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:51 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:55 am
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”.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:56 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 6:56 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 7:09 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 7:11 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:12 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:14 am
@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/ )
July 6th, 2011 at 7:18 am
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]
July 6th, 2011 at 7:22 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:26 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 7:28 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:29 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:31 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:34 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:35 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:36 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:36 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:37 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 7:44 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:54 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:56 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:57 am
@Bernard Bummer
Then what do you suggest? If this scenario so obviously exposes women to rape, then we must surely need to prevent it?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:01 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:02 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:03 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:05 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:05 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:05 am
[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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:08 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:09 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:11 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:12 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:16 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:16 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:18 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:18 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:20 am
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…)
July 6th, 2011 at 8:21 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:22 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Actually MarkW, if the societal structure is at fault here, would the preferred course of action not be to change it?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:23 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:24 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:24 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:27 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:27 am
“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”.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:38 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:38 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:44 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:46 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Ron1 (803) said:
Hey, that’s in my dictionary under “geek”.
[just kidding, folks!]
July 6th, 2011 at 8:53 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:53 am
@ 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)
July 6th, 2011 at 8:54 am
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!
July 6th, 2011 at 8:55 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:01 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:02 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:02 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:04 am
@Thorsten (819) -
OK, now I’m just confused again.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:06 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:08 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:08 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:09 am
‘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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:11 am
@ 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?
July 6th, 2011 at 9:17 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Feminism doomed America. Enjoy your paranoia.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:18 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 9:19 am
@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
July 6th, 2011 at 9:21 am
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”.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:22 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:23 am
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…
July 6th, 2011 at 9:27 am
@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/
July 6th, 2011 at 9:35 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:38 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:38 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:41 am
@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
July 6th, 2011 at 9:42 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:44 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:45 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:46 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 9:47 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:52 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:53 am
@841 Chris Crawford
A very nice synopsis of the progressive argument lightly peppered through this thread.
Cheers
July 6th, 2011 at 9:58 am
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!
July 6th, 2011 at 10:00 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:02 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:04 am
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”.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:05 am
[...] slight detour from the usual topics, this angry rant by Phil Plait caught much of my attention. In short, the story is this: A woman is in a hotel elevator with a [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 10:06 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:09 am
@843. Rift
Well done.
Cheers
July 6th, 2011 at 10:10 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:11 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:11 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:13 am
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
July 6th, 2011 at 10:13 am
@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
July 6th, 2011 at 10:17 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:18 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:24 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:25 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:28 am
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 ?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Rift – thank you for that. Its no small comfort, amid this deluge of misogyny, apathy and cluelessness, that there are men who get it.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:28 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:31 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:34 am
[...] Update: and Phil Plait. [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 10:36 am
” …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?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:40 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:41 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Dawkins was dead on the money with this one. PZ, you’re usually rational, what the hell dude?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:41 am
You consider asking someone for coffee and then not saying anything afterwards harassment?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:42 am
[...] Plaitt has talked about the situation further in Bad Astronomy, giving even more details and conversations. PZ Myers has confirmed that the callous comment left [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 10:43 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:44 am
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:48 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:48 am
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.”
July 6th, 2011 at 10:51 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:51 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:53 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:54 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:55 am
@ ^ 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?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:55 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:02 am
“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?
July 6th, 2011 at 11:03 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:03 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 11:04 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:05 am
@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!
July 6th, 2011 at 11:05 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:07 am
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 11:13 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:14 am
Antoine, do you see echoes of Brownmiller vs Thornhill/Palmer wars in this one? I sure do.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:15 am
@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”.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:19 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:20 am
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:28 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:32 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:34 am
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 11:35 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:39 am
> 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:41 am
In other news, Rebecca won’t approve any comments in direct opposition to her position on her website.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:41 am
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:43 am
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…
July 6th, 2011 at 11:44 am
[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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:44 am
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”?
July 6th, 2011 at 11:45 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Sorry guys, Richard’s right on this one.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:47 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:48 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:49 am
drunk at 4 in the morning and shocked that someone asks for sex?
dood, that’s my saturday night.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:49 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:50 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:51 am
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:53 am
#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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:56 am
@ 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?
July 6th, 2011 at 11:59 am
@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!)
July 6th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
@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
July 6th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
…
July 6th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
>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!”
-____-
July 6th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
You know how much hate mail Dawkins gets? If he complained each time someone said something mean to him… sheesh, seriously, coffee=/=butt rape
July 6th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
@ 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?
July 6th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
[...] so I’ll just refer you to the summaries of the events made by Jen McCreight, PZ Myers, and Phil Plait. But essentially, one issue that has been brought up as a result is the fear of rape that many [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
[...] so I’ll just refer you to the summaries of the events made by Jen McCreight, PZ Myers, and Phil Plait. But essentially, one issue that has been brought up as a result is the fear of rape that many [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
@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”.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
[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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
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
July 6th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
What an unbelievable amount of crap. I would have expected this community to be above the “all men are rapists” nonsense.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Stop whining and grow some thick skin; I’m with Dawkins on this…
July 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
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.”
July 6th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@ “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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
@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?
July 6th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 6th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
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
July 6th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
[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
July 6th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
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????”
July 6th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
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
July 6th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Would anyone like to go out for coffee? I’m avaliable ;P
July 6th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
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.
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.
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.
“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. “
July 6th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
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
July 6th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
@ 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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
or maybe i was a great admirer of Richard Dawkins.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
@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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
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?”)
July 6th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
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!
July 6th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
did we break it?
July 6th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
So tell me about how many dragons do you average a day when you’re busy white-knighting?
July 6th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
#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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
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.”
July 6th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
“Yes, this thread needs closing as it’s officially entered the twilight zone.”
Silence dissent and persecute the thought criminals!
July 6th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
It is sad some dude in an elevator has done something that Creationists could not.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
What in the hell does this have to do with astronomy?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
edited
July 6th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
@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
July 6th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
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?)
July 6th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
@1079
Meant to say at the end that it’s not harassment.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Dawkins hit the nail on the head. Get off your whiny self-absorbed privileged high horse and get some perspective on real world issues.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
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?
July 6th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
The line “made her feel…” is used quite a bit by some. She *reacted* with feelings, he didn’t *make* her feel them.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
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).
July 6th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
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.”
July 6th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
[...] un debate inmediato no sólo en la web de Skepchick, sino en blogs como el de Jen McCreight, el de Phil Plait o el de Melissa McEwan. En todos ellos se hacía referencia no sólo al vídeo de Rebecca Watson, [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
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.”
July 6th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
[...] Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you lost your home and several members of your family, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to stay in the North, and you can’t hold a job or cultivate any fields and you will probably be rounded up and deported soon. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor white old male academic siblings have to put up with. [...]
July 6th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
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!
July 6th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
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.
July 6th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:14 am
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
July 7th, 2011 at 12:22 am
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.”)
July 7th, 2011 at 12:23 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:35 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:38 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:39 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:43 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:59 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:06 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:22 am
“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.
July 7th, 2011 at 2:03 am
“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).
July 7th, 2011 at 2:09 am
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!
July 7th, 2011 at 2:22 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 2:27 am
Saying that was potential sexual assault is like saying that being alone with a black guy is a potential mugging
July 7th, 2011 at 2:42 am
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!
July 7th, 2011 at 3:04 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:05 am
@Shams, in reply to comment 1109, I think integralmath explains it best here: http://youtu.be/wHkvY-GnlR8
July 7th, 2011 at 3:07 am
Men are stupid. Women are stupider. I’m going with Dawkins on this one.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:11 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:25 am
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?).
July 7th, 2011 at 3:36 am
Aarg . . .
Too … many … comments … cannot … keep … up.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:40 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:54 am
@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’.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:30 am
From Family Guy:
Brian sits down next to afemale student:
Brian: hello.
Student: *rabid mode* she attacks Brian with peppperspray. “No means no!”
July 7th, 2011 at 4:38 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:43 am
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/
July 7th, 2011 at 4:54 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 5:08 am
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’
July 7th, 2011 at 5:31 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 5:39 am
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 5:41 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 5:45 am
@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?
July 7th, 2011 at 5:54 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:19 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:22 am
@ 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
July 7th, 2011 at 6:23 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:29 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:30 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:36 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:54 am
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?!
July 7th, 2011 at 6:55 am
@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!!!!”
July 7th, 2011 at 7:03 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:03 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:08 am
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
July 7th, 2011 at 7:09 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:14 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:22 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:35 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:39 am
@OmegaBaby – Do yourself and your male friends a favour and Google the term “marriage strike”.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:40 am
Oh how I miss Stephen Jay Gould….
July 7th, 2011 at 7:48 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:00 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:12 am
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 8:18 am
“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…
July 7th, 2011 at 8:23 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:31 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
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.”
July 7th, 2011 at 8:36 am
1154 shams
I think Rebecca’s “experience” was a non-event. But Jose beat me to it.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:37 am
This is why I never travel alone in mirrored elevators.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:38 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:39 am
On this blog I count the “f*”:
#552 pro Watson
#957 anti Watson
#1151 pro Watson
not enough statistics, really.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:40 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:42 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:52 am
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
July 7th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Schrödinger’s Mormon Knocking On My Door
July 7th, 2011 at 9:02 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:03 am
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/
July 7th, 2011 at 9:08 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:15 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:16 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHCqz-J51IU
July 7th, 2011 at 9:26 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:26 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:28 am
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
July 7th, 2011 at 9:35 am
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!
July 7th, 2011 at 9:35 am
@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?
July 7th, 2011 at 9:37 am
@ 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
July 7th, 2011 at 9:37 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:39 am
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!”
July 7th, 2011 at 9:40 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:40 am
OmegaBaby (1163) said:
Heh. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there!
July 7th, 2011 at 9:45 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:49 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:57 am
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 9:58 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:04 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:05 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:06 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:06 am
@Nigel Depledge 1218:
So you’re comparing asking a woman out to groping and bottom-pinching?
July 7th, 2011 at 10:08 am
@ 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?
July 7th, 2011 at 10:15 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:20 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:20 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:24 am
@ 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/)
July 7th, 2011 at 10:36 am
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:47 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:54 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:55 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:55 am
@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!
July 7th, 2011 at 11:07 am
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:09 am
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
July 7th, 2011 at 11:24 am
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:47 am
@ 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.
”
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:49 am
[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.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:51 am
@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).
July 7th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
/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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
@ 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.*
July 7th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Well said Pheldespat!!!
July 7th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
@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”.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
@ 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?
July 7th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
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/
July 7th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
@ 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?
July 7th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
[...] Worth reading: Oh, no, not again…once more unto the breach : Pharyngula Richard Dawkins and male privilege | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine No Signature Reply With Quote + Reply to [...]
July 7th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Lot of white knights in this thread.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
@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
July 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
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…
July 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
@shams
All comments from new members get put in moderation then they don’t.
My guess is it’s a way to fight spam.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
@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?
July 7th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
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…
July 7th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@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?
July 7th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
@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?
July 7th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“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.”
July 7th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
@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
July 7th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
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…
July 7th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
@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?
July 7th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
@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?
July 7th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
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 …
July 7th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
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…
July 7th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“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?
July 7th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Nathan @ 1074 wrote:
July 7th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
“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.
July 7th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
“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?
July 7th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
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
July 7th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
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/
July 7th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
@ 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?
July 7th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
@Mark (1306): Funny!
July 7th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
“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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
@1306 Mark: unfortunately, the commentary thread for http://xkcd.com/642/ wound up looking a lot like this one.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
@ 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?
July 7th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
[...] Richard Dawkins and male privilege (blogs.discovermagazine.com) [...]
July 7th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
@ 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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
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..
July 7th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
[...] The Bad Astronomer [...]
July 7th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
OK OK ! We get it!
Atheist chicks don’t put out.
Enough already!
July 7th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
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.)
July 7th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
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?
July 7th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Phil, is there any way to paginate these long threads? My t ablet is actually making choking sounds. And crashing. Brand new tab, too.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
“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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
@ 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:
July 7th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
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
July 7th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
@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.
July 7th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
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.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
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
July 7th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
“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.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
@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…
July 7th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 12:08 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 12:15 am
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 ….
July 8th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Can’t we all just get along???
July 8th, 2011 at 12:20 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 12:21 am
@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?
July 8th, 2011 at 12:36 am
@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/
July 8th, 2011 at 1:02 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 1:34 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 1:58 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:05 am
MTU (1223) said:
Erm … 1218 was not one of mine. Did you perhaps mean #1217, or #1220?
July 8th, 2011 at 3:15 am
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).
July 8th, 2011 at 3:26 am
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?
July 8th, 2011 at 3:34 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:44 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 4:12 am
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…“?
July 8th, 2011 at 4:21 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 4:47 am
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.”
July 8th, 2011 at 5:39 am
Shams (1247) said:
Just try heating a diamond up and then dunking it in liquid oxygen. Then we’ll see how long “forever” is . . .
July 8th, 2011 at 5:43 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 5:45 am
@ ^ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 5:53 am
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?
July 8th, 2011 at 5:57 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 5:59 am
Shams (1253) said:
Yeah. It contained a hyperlink. All comments here that contain hyperlinks go through moderation.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:05 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:08 am
Joseph G (1268) said:
Eh? You have heated teacups?
July 8th, 2011 at 6:11 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:17 am
Joseph G (1268) said:
Not to detract from any of the foregoing comments, but:
Yes, this also.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:20 am
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?
July 8th, 2011 at 6:23 am
@ Karen (1269) -
Agreed, but what does “PUA” mean please?
July 8th, 2011 at 6:35 am
@ ^ 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?
July 8th, 2011 at 6:38 am
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?
July 8th, 2011 at 6:56 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:06 am
[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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:09 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:12 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:20 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:48 am
@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?
July 8th, 2011 at 7:55 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:56 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:02 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:05 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:06 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:10 am
@ MTU (1354) -
Thanks for that!
July 8th, 2011 at 8:19 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:19 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Steve (1333) said:
Apparently not, by the looks of this thread.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:33 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:37 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:44 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:48 am
[...] I think that all of the major players whose opinions I have read (Watson, PZ, Hemant Mehta, Dawkins, Phil Plait) have fallen short in some major ways at empathy and thus at accurately assessing the [...]
July 8th, 2011 at 8:51 am
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
July 8th, 2011 at 8:52 am
@ 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”.
July 8th, 2011 at 8:53 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:02 am
@ 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?
July 8th, 2011 at 9:06 am
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!
July 8th, 2011 at 9:08 am
@ 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?
July 8th, 2011 at 9:32 am
@Thorsten 1381, I apologize that I did not read your post clearly enough. I’m sorry. I was wrong.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:35 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:50 am
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:52 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 10:03 am
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 10:20 am
“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.
July 8th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Hello, I am a potential rapist, would you like to come to my room for some coffee?
July 8th, 2011 at 11:01 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 11:11 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 11:27 am
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
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?
July 8th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@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?
July 8th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
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
July 8th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
@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.)
July 8th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
@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?
July 8th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Funny. I didn’t know Phil was a woman.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@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.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Jeremy (124): Thank you for your comment. Rebecca: Grow up.
“Paranoia (feminism) strikes deep, into your life it will creep…”
July 8th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
@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/
July 8th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
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
July 8th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
@Messier Tidy Upper 1383: if you write a blog, I want to follow it.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
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!
July 8th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
“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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
[...] a blog post titled Richard Dawkins and male privilege, Pliat attempts to take Dawkins to task for his comment. You’ll have to read the back and [...]
July 8th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
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!
July 8th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
nevermind, I’m man enough not to rise to the bait.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
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?”
July 8th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
@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
July 8th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
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.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
[...] at 4 o’clock in the morning and then mentioned on her blog that it made her uncomfortable. Richard Dawkins replied with the following: Dear [...]
July 8th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
I’m never going to talk to a woman in an elevator again
July 8th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
re @1436. Ron1
I did it again. I said Rachel when I meant Rebecca. God knows I should know the difference.
Sorry.
July 8th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@ 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.
July 8th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
@ 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”.
July 8th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 12:42 am
@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.
July 9th, 2011 at 1:05 am
@ 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.
July 9th, 2011 at 2:20 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 3:10 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 3:39 am
I might add that I’m starting to think Mr. Dawkins is suffering some delusions of godhood himself.
July 9th, 2011 at 3:46 am
@ 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.
July 9th, 2011 at 5:34 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 6:49 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 7:23 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 8:02 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 8:05 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 8:09 am
“[...]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.
July 9th, 2011 at 8:15 am
It makes me sad that this is what we’ve come to as a race.
July 9th, 2011 at 8:30 am
yup. this is my first taste of internecine warfare in the atheoskeptic community.
i am unpersuaded.
July 9th, 2011 at 8:34 am
[...] has been discussed already by PZ Myers, Greg Laden, Phil Plait and others and I do not pretend to have anything unique or inventive to add to that conversation. [...]
July 9th, 2011 at 8:45 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 9:09 am
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.
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 9:35 am
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”?
July 9th, 2011 at 9:55 am
“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?
July 9th, 2011 at 10:28 am
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?
July 9th, 2011 at 10:47 am
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”.
July 9th, 2011 at 11:10 am
@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.
July 9th, 2011 at 11:14 am
@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”
July 9th, 2011 at 11:21 am
“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.
July 9th, 2011 at 11:32 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 11:38 am
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“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.
July 9th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
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.
July 9th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
@1335 thats actually not the correct video. the one that is being discussed is actually not up at CFI yet.
July 9th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
…Further on Kanin: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/
July 9th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
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?
July 9th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
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