Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Santa_Claus]

Would it be wrong..........

....if the next time she is at a public event that I follow her into an elevator - simply to spice up her next tale of a 4am encounter

and if it is wrong - how wrong?

[Coito ergo sum]

Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

Errr....um....a guy asked you to his hotel room for a cuppa...

That's not being "objectified." I think that's where the differences of opinions mainly diverge - right there from the get go. Skepchick thinks that the mere impertinent suggestion of "coffee" (read: sex) in a hotel at 4am is "objectification." I think most of the positions contrary to skepchick's dressing down of RD on this issue stem from the fundamental disagreement about whether the impertinent suggestion is, in fact, "objectification." If you think it is not "objectification", then you likely think it's no big deal, and if you think it is objectification, then you likely think the whole interaction to be misogynistic and sexist, and then we easily slide down the slope to "threatening," and "traumatizing..."

And, here may be a reason why RD didn't "get" it, and why men in general don't "get" it:

This is especially interesting since Richard Dawkins sat next to me in Dublin and heard me talk about the threats of rape I get.

I pondered this for a bit after I read it. And, men get these kinds of threats by email and other sources all the time. Richard Dawkins has read out loud some of the hate mail he gets, and they include threats of murder, torture, death by many means, anal rape, and a host of other violent suggestions. I think the issue may come down to the fact that sometimes what women seem to be complaining about just seem like no big deal. I mean - you get hate mail? Assholes send anonymous threats by email? Big fucking whoop, actually.

She then says -

That’s where you come in. You, dear reader, have been incredible. You posted in response to Dawkins on the Pharyngula thread, bravely battling both him and the hoards of clueless privileged people who didn’t get it. You emailed me to tell me to keep talking.

Those who side with skepchick on this issue are "bravely battling." And, who are they battling? RD and the "hoards" of "clueless privileged people." It's this kind of statement that just does more to make me hand-wave the whole situation away. Now we can't just be opposing her position reasonably, we are hoards of clueless people, and not only that, we must be "privileged." Well, the reality is that skepchick too is "privileged." She's a "privileged" white woman, and that is exactly what RD called her in his post on the topic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Stef McGraw counters Skepchick: http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/f ... ef-32.html

If you don't want to watch the whole thing (as it's not all relevant to my point), start a little after 4:00. Otherwise, this is what she said that concerns me:

(After being at a bar with people at a conference where she spoke), "...so I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and 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?' Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and--don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner..."

It's possible the man actually just wanted to talk and do nothing more, but I'll even give that point to her; I obviously wasn't there, and don't know what sort of vibes he was giving off. Fair enough. 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."

Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?

Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would, in my view, have to react in the same manner were the situation reversed; if a woman were to engage a man in the same way, she would probably be creeping him out and making him uncomfortable and unfairly sexualizing him, right? But of course no one ever makes that claim, which is why I see Watson's comment as so hypocritical.

If you really want social equality for women, which is what feminism is, why not apply the same standards to men and women, and stop demonizing men for being sexual beings?

I'm on Team Stef:

[hadespussercats]

I'm not calling him a woman-hating sexist pig. Rebecca Watson didn't call him that, either. Her ire, as I understand it, was primarily directed at Dawkins' ridiculous response to her anecdote about a you-say-dopey, I-say-clueless (and the difference is...?) dude who asked her back to his hotel room in the wee hours of the morning.

As for whether his request that she come back to his room for coffee, after they'd incidentally just left a place that served coffee, was sexual in tone... you're right-- it might not have been a come-on. Maybe he was just that socially retarded that he didn't realize that to most people, getting someone alone at four in the morning and asking her to come back to your hotel room might likely come across as a come-on.

I'm glad you brought up that consideration. We've neglected the possibility that Rebecca Watson is poking fun at the socially retarded. And it's not nice to make fun of people who are challenged.

The point I was making was that - at worst - from Skepchick's description of it - at the very worst - it was a clueless/dopey attempt to get her to his room for a shag. EVEN IF we assume that as his intent and the meaning of the "come back for coffee" request, then is it really a huge deal? Really? I think that is something I freely admit "not getting." I genuinely don't get why the situation described by Skepchick can possibly be described in the terms it has been: threatening - predatory - harassment. I mean - if that's threatening, predatory and harassing, then the only honorable choice for a man is to wait for the next elevator and ride up alone.

I never said Skepchick was poking fun at anyone.

I think she was.

A lot of people are talking about this as though Rebecca Watson couldn't handle being approached-- she could. She did.

Afterwards, she pointed out that a guy who'd been supposedly listening to her talk for hours about how she personally doesn't enjoy fielding come-ons at atheist conferences decided to come on to her at an atheist conference. Which was dumb of him. I think all she did was point that out. Poking fun at him, and hoping that other, similarly dopey men might understand the irony of the situation and strive not to be similar butts of jokes themselves.

[Gallstones]

not automatically, no. I didn't say that, as well you know.

So, based on exactly what Skepchick said, what's the big deal about the dork asking her to his room for coffee? She said no. He left.

Big deal?

It was a non-event, until Dawkins chimed in.
Get that?

Apparently, Skepchick thought it was a big deal, something men needed to be lectured never to do - always improper.

Dawkins chimed in after she posted her video and after it became a public discussion. His input certainly expanded the pool of people interested in also commenting, and expanded the issue to be about the propriety of his comments too, but his post followed Skepchick, not vise versa.

Get that?

You are grossly exaggerating and mischaracterizing what she did. She made mention of something that happened, as an aside, an anecdote; and mentioned how she feels about that behavior. She didn't lecture anyone--see when women talk about what they like and don't like--it's lecturing? But when men do it it is........what?.....sharing feelings and ideas, expressing preferences? See, how the terminology changes the character of the same act? Women are described in derogatory terms and ascribed derogatory motives, but men doing the same thing are described as doing something ordinary and reasonable. This happens often.

Are we approaching any modicum of understanding here?

[stripes4]

I fear you may be casting your pearls amongst the swine on this one, G. Even if they did see our point, they will carry on arguing anyway to be silly.

[Geoff]

I fear you may be casting your pearls amongst the swine on this one, G. Even if they did see our point, they will carry on arguing anyway to be silly.

No we won't.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I fear you may be casting your pearls amongst the swine on this one, G. Even if they did see our point, they will carry on arguing anyway to be silly.

Typical woman!

[Gallstones]

No. I am not concerned, I CAN JUST SEE THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD MAKE SOME WOMEN FEEL A BIT THREATENED AND NOT VERY SAFE. Like it or not, rape happens. Females raping males is rare and biologically unlikely!!! Men DO rape women so women DO tend to be on their guard when alone and it's late and it's dark and there aren't many people around. Men that do NOT understand and appreciate this are autistic morons, I've found. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET??? PROBABLY NOT. See recent DIAGNOSIS

In certain circumstances yes, but this wasn't one of them.

Like most people who've posted, I really don't see why she thought it worth mentioning.

Here's the problem with Monday morning quarterbacking, none of us were there to witness body language, or affect or tone of voice or anything. We are all speculating and we can only speculate based on what we know and what we have experienced ourselves.

So, Skepchick left his threatening body language and evil tone of voice out of her description? Seems as if that might be an important fact to include. I think it's fair to say that the body language was not threatening and his tone of voice was not a problem since she didn't say they were.

You can't fairly say that. You can fairly assume that, but you can't rationally assert it. We weren't there, we don't know and we can't know. Watson's not detailing every nuance of posture or gesture or eye movement tells us nothing definitive about what she saw or didn't see or what he did or didn't do. I think that I can fairly assume that she was nothing more than annoyed and did not see this as a threatening situation--just an unwelcome one.

Anger doesn't come from out of nowhere--so there is some fire with all this smoke.

What's the smoke, exactly?

The anger, the assumptions the arguing, the accusations, the divide of opinion that seems to mostly cut across a gender line.

Real things have happened in my real life to lend me think and feel about things the way I do. There does exist--from my POV--a very real divide, an unbridged crevasse. I do not feel that I am understood, and too often demeaned when I dare assert myself. It does happen, and it has happened most of my life, over and over and over and over and over and over and over.........

And another thing, I'm fucking tired of being asked to be considerate of the feelings of the poor (allegedly) shy and socially awkward man--I have insecurities too, like for my personal safety.

So, then men ought not enter elevators with women alone, just in case that woman feels threatened by the potentiality that the man is a threat? What other viable option is there?

How do you get that from what I said?

Viable option? Suck it up. If you choose to approach a woman assume there might be rejection. Get over it, don't make us responsible for your feelings about that. We have our own to deal with. If you want to be more successful, find out how to do it that makes us receptive. Listening to us when we tell you is an obvious first step.

I have been rejected. I haven't jumped off a bridge or been so demoralized by it that I won't try again.

[stripes4]

I fear you may be casting your pearls amongst the swine on this one, G. Even if they did see our point, they will carry on arguing anyway to be silly.

Typical woman!

[Gallstones]

Three Dog Night Harry Nilsson wrote a song about this.

[Audley Strange]

Suck it up. Get over it, don't make us responsible for your feelings about that. We have our own to deal with.

To be fair Gallstones, though I fail to see what CES is failing to get, what you say here could easily apply to those making complaints about being approached. In fact I would suggest that this is the sine qua non of the division that this anecdote has illuminated.

[mistermack]

Actually, bearing in mind that this "chick" had gone on quite a bit about how men hit on women at atheism meets, and the fact that this was Dublin, I'm beginning to wonder if this guy was taking the piss.
Knowing the Irish sense of humour, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this guy didn't deliberately do exactly what she had been complaining about, just for a laugh. (or as a dare).
The fact that it was four am in Dublin means that a few drinks were probably taken, and I know plenty of Irish guys who would have done the same, if they had thought of it.
It's nothing compared to some of the things I've known men do, after a few drinks, because they thought it was funny.

[Gallstones]

Suck it up. Get over it, don't make us responsible for your feelings about that. We have our own to deal with.

To be fair Gallstones, though I fail to see what CES is failing to get, what you say here could easily apply to those making complaints about being approached. In fact I would suggest that this is the sine qua non of the division that this anecdote has illuminated.

Probably.

I am not taking the position that people who complain of being hit on should have a complaint about that or should not.

Factually, there are those who do not like it, and many more who do not like it relative to who is doing the hitting, and other contextual concerns.

I don't think it is at all unusual for a person to relate having been hit on and what his/her feelings about that event to his/her friends and/or family, or even strangers in a bar etc. When one has a public venue to communicate one might even relate such an incident and one's feelings and thoughts about that using those venues--blogs, youtube.

Other than being polite and considerate and showing that by good manners, I can not be made responsible for the feelings that occur when I say "No thank you." Good manners is as far as it is reasonable to expect me to go.

Whatever feelings I might have in that situation are mine, I don't have to explain or defend them. If I choose to share those feelings and thoughts with friends and/or family or on Facebook, that is not unreasonable or unfair or a betrayal or impolite.

I don't know, nor can I unless the EM tells me, if this was an effort to hook up.
What I do think I can say is that whatever it was--even taking EMs motive at face value based on what we know--it was unwelcome. Unwelcome at least due to contextual concerns if not for any other.

[Gallstones]

Actually, bearing in mind that this "chick" had gone on quite a bit about how men hit on women at atheism meets, and the fact that this was Dublin, I'm beginning to wonder if this guy was taking the piss.
Knowing the Irish sense of humour, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this guy didn't deliberately do exactly what she had been complaining about, just for a laugh. (or as a dare).
The fact that it was four am in Dublin means that a few drinks were probably taken, and I know plenty of Irish guys who would have done the same, if they had thought of it.
It's nothing compared to some of the things I've known men do, after a few drinks, because they thought it was funny.

OK.

Still disrespectful. A person can object to being disrespected regardless of the reasons why.