Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Animavore]

I was going to say something. Had it typed. But it's gone too far now. It's getting ridiculous. Those last two blogs, especially The Friendly Atheist's, are verging on the insane.

[MiM]

Context is important. He hadn't just seen Watson in the elevator-- he'd been listening to her talk about sexualization/objectification of women, for hours. How is it not clueless of him to ignore everything she said? If you want a woman not to feel objectified, paying attention to her clearly stated likes and dislikes is a good place to start.

And how is it not clueless of him not to realize that asking someone back to your place has a different effect when it's four in the morning and you're alone in an elevator, versus maybe asking her back at the bar, before she decided to leave? Or at any other point in the long day he'd spent as part of her audience?

I think one needs to make some really big assumptions about this guy in order to question his motives and call him clueless.

This much I agree with Coito. Come on, all of you have good brains, and most have lots of life experience. If you really look at the full situation, isn't it fairly obvious that most probably this guy wasn't clueless at all. He had been following her speech and later discussions on the sexism issue and then placed himself in a perfect position for giving her a jab. At best he was a bad prankster, at worst he was real perp giving her a warning. To picture him clueless would more or less imply him very strongly Aspergerian, with bad coping skills to boot, which in itself would picture him as having severe difficulties in sensing others' emotions.

Of course, this being an Atheist conference does heighten the odds of the last possibility quite a lot.

[JimC]

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.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... privilege/

And, here is this blog addressing Dawkins himself not getting it. This is truly fascinating. Being alone in an elevator with a man is a potential threat. Always. It's a serious potential threat. That, apparently, according to some, is the woman's view on this.

All men in elevators alone with woman make women uncomfortable, exude predatory vibes if they say a word, and even if they don't say a word they are "a potential sexual assault."

The "atmosphere in there was bad enough." Isn't that just fascinating? This woman blogger is of the view that a man and a woman in an elevator together - no matter what - creates a bad atmosphere. So bad, in fact, that awareness of it must be raised.

Do many women really agree with this?

And here is the kicker:

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.

Sexism! Men getting on elevators alone with women and saying non-sexual things to them? Sexism.

I am just....well...wow....

It very much depends on the context.

Context 1 Middle of the day, lots of people around, but just by chance an elevator ride with one male (businessman, with briefcase, busily texting his partners to plan more avaricious crimes against the people), young women, texting her friends...

Context 2 Early hours of the morning, very few people around, hotel elevator, young women, guy smelling of alcohol and looking at her with a certain amount of interest...

Also, the deal of "let me buy you a coffee" implies a public place. "Come up to my room for coffee" is quite different...

[Azathoth]

Context is important. He hadn't just seen Watson in the elevator-- he'd been listening to her talk about sexualization/objectification of women, for hours. How is it not clueless of him to ignore everything she said? If you want a woman not to feel objectified, paying attention to her clearly stated likes and dislikes is a good place to start.

And how is it not clueless of him not to realize that asking someone back to your place has a different effect when it's four in the morning and you're alone in an elevator, versus maybe asking her back at the bar, before she decided to leave? Or at any other point in the long day he'd spent as part of her audience?

I think one needs to make some really big assumptions about this guy in order to question his motives and call him clueless.

This much I agree with Coito. Come on, all of you have good brains, and most have lots of life experience. If you really look at the full situation, isn't it fairly obvious that most probably this guy wasn't clueless at all. He had been following her speech and later discussions on the sexism issue and then placed himself in a perfect position for giving her a jab. At best he was a bad prankster, at worst he was real perp giving her a warning. To picture him clueless would more or less imply him very strongly Aspergerian, with bad coping skills to boot, which in itself would picture him as having severe difficulties in sensing others' emotions.

Of course, this being an Atheist conference does heighten the odds of the last possibility quite a lot.

You missed out the most likely scenario, shitfaced. They just left a bar at 4 AM.

[Coito ergo sum]

It very much depends on the context.

I agree, but the woman who wrote the blog did not.

Context 1 Middle of the day, lots of people around, but just by chance an elevator ride with one male (businessman, with briefcase, busily texting his partners to plan more avaricious crimes against the people), young women, texting her friends...

Context 2 Early hours of the morning, very few people around, hotel elevator, young women, guy smelling of alcohol and looking at her with a certain amount of interest...

She said specifically, very clearly, that any woman would uncomfortable at night alone with a man in an elevator.

Also, the deal of "let me buy you a coffee" implies a public place. "Come up to my room for coffee" is quite different...

She said, even if the guy said NOTHING, and his intent was irrelevant - completely irrelevant.

But, I agree with you - everything depends on the context and what exactly was said and how. Based on the Skepchick's description, I have no idea what the guy did wrong. I just don't "get it."

[MiM]

You missed out the most likely scenario, shitfaced. They just left a bar at 4 AM.

Good point!

...To picture him clueless would more or less imply him either shitfaced or very strongly Aspergerian, with bad coping skills to boot, either which in itself would picture him as having severe difficulties in sensing others' emotions.

[stripes4]

I've lost track of this now as I am too tired to read it all, but I will still be right
... although I can't recall what my point was.

[Coito ergo sum]

Context is important. He hadn't just seen Watson in the elevator-- he'd been listening to her talk about sexualization/objectification of women, for hours. How is it not clueless of him to ignore everything she said? If you want a woman not to feel objectified, paying attention to her clearly stated likes and dislikes is a good place to start.

And how is it not clueless of him not to realize that asking someone back to your place has a different effect when it's four in the morning and you're alone in an elevator, versus maybe asking her back at the bar, before she decided to leave? Or at any other point in the long day he'd spent as part of her audience?

I think one needs to make some really big assumptions about this guy in order to question his motives and call him clueless.

This much I agree with Coito. Come on, all of you have good brains, and most have lots of life experience. If you really look at the full situation, isn't it fairly obvious that most probably this guy wasn't clueless at all. He had been following her speech and later discussions on the sexism issue and then placed himself in a perfect position for giving her a jab. At best he was a bad prankster, at worst he was real perp giving her a warning. To picture him clueless would more or less imply him very strongly Aspergerian, with bad coping skills to boot, which in itself would picture him as having severe difficulties in sensing others' emotions.

Of course, this being an Atheist conference does heighten the odds of the last possibility quite a lot.

You missed out the most likely scenario, shitfaced. They just left a bar at 4 AM.

One really needs to be a delicate flower if one considers it threatening for a guy to ask a girl up to his room for coffee. And, the interesting thing to me seems to be the view that "any woman in an elevator at night with a man is uncomfortable," and that if he says anything to her, even innocuously, his intent doesn't matter and he creates a predatory atmosphere....

[stripes4]

Spoken like a true person that has never been a female in a potentially vulnerable position. Great empathy. Applause.

[Gallstones]

Hades, I don't actually think many people think there is an issue with Rebecca's original video. I certainly don't. She is right to be wary of him and it is within her right to blog that she prefer that men don't do this. I think the problem is that there are plenty of people who are using this and labeling it potential rape which equates it to many people as labeling all men as potential rapists. People with voices that reach a large portion of the skeptical community. I personally feel angry that anyone who attempt to make such a claim.

As for the last remark, I agree that there are those who would say such a thing if she had gone to his room and been raped. Anyone who listens to these people, however, is an idiot.

Personally, I have to agree with Robert_S. If it were not for RD's comment this would of gone unnoticed with most people nodding in agreement that the elevator guy was a jerk.

Exactly.

I am not even willing to call the EG a jerk. I would have had to be there, witness the body language and affect and tone of voice.

[Gallstones]

I am not devoid of sympathy for those who find social situations awkward. I actually feel a great deal of sympathy. But I was taken advantage of by a person who pretended to social awkwardness to get my sympathy. As a result, I can no longer allow myself to respond to men who are acting uncomfortable in social situations. It is also why I tend to be more comfortable with overt assholism.

[MiM]

One really needs to be a delicate flower if one considers it threatening for a guy to ask a girl up to his room for coffee.

Context Coito, context. If you have one picture of a fire, one of a crucifix and one of a yard, there's no problem. But if you put fire on a crucifix in yard, it's pretty bad.

[stripes4]

Context indeed, CES. I fear you feign ignorance on this occasion

[Gallstones]

In the US, asking someone to come back to your place for coffee is a euphemism for come back to my place for sex. There may even be coffee--after. But sex is the intended activity. Have you never watched Seinfeld?

[Animavore]

It's not generally used as a euphemism in Ireland.