Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[klr]

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.

I'm Irish, but I hadn't thought of this before.

it's certainly possible. More than possible in fact. In some ways this explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense than a guy seriously trying to hit on her after she gave the lecture she did. You know us Irish pretty well.

But there's always a chance that these sort of jokes can backfire when they have to traverse cultural boundaries.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't have done it myself though. I have a madcap sense if humour at times, but I have my limits.

[JimC]

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.

I'm Irish, but I hadn't thought of this before.

it's certainly possible. More than possible in fact. In some ways this explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense than a guy seriously trying to hit on her after she gave the lecture she did. You know us Irish pretty well.

But there's always a chance that these sort of jokes can backfire when they have to traverse cultural boundaries.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't have done it myself though. I have a madcap sense if humour at times, but I have my limits.

And it's highly unlikely you would be pissed at 4 in the morning, which is probably a pre-condition for such an amusing jape...

[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.

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.

I do not disagree with you. I said earlier I think it was more of a request for courtesy that an oppressive command from Feminist Politburo to gleefully drain the last drips of testosterone from the undying horror monster that is White Heterosexual Masculinity. However it does seem to me that because of Dawkins usual lack of finesse tact or basic social skills, this has blown up into a drama, with many commentators on both sides of the debate sounding more and more like Homer Simpson shouting "Oh yeah Marge, what about MY womanly needs?"

Which I think is a pity.

[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.

I do not disagree with you. I said earlier I think it was more of a request for courtesy that an oppressive command from Feminist Politburo to gleefully drain the last drips of testosterone from the undying horror monster that is White Heterosexual Masculinity. However it does seem to me that because of Dawkins usual lack of finesse tact or basic social skills, this has blown up into a drama, with many commentators on both sides of the debate sounding more and more like Homer Simpson shouting "Oh yeah Marge, what about MY womanly needs?"

Which I think is a pity.

I am not arguing with you, I just had to reply--for the sake of the lurkers don'tcha' know.

[Audley Strange]

Aye.

[JimC]

Feed the lurkers!

[klr]

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.

I'm Irish, but I hadn't thought of this before.

it's certainly possible. More than possible in fact. In some ways this explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense than a guy seriously trying to hit on her after she gave the lecture she did. You know us Irish pretty well.

But there's always a chance that these sort of jokes can backfire when they have to traverse cultural boundaries.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't have done it myself though. I have a madcap sense if humour at times, but I have my limits.

And it's highly unlikely you would be pissed at 4 in the morning, which is probably a pre-condition for such an amusing jape...

It's also highly unlikely I would even be awake, never mind listening to a lecture, at that ungodly hour.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

My assumption is that she, and the vast majority of women in the world, can easily "handle" what happened in the elevator - because in the end it wasn't an incident that needed handling. Someone made a request and the answer was no. I would never presume that Rebecca Watson couldn't handle that. Reading her writings on the topic, however, she certainly asserts that the matter constituted "objectification" and "misogyny." She appears to believe, and her supporters certainly believe, that this was "threatening," "predatory," and arguably "traumatizing." Surely, someone who can handled being approached in the way the "clueless" elevator guy approached her has not been "traumatized" by the incident (unless we are really re-defining "trauma" to include anything from "irked" and "mildly put off" on up).

And, it seems to me that if she felt "objectified" then than was a function of her own mind - how she herself views the world and how she thinks others view her. nothing in a request to shag inherently means that someone is "objectifying" you, and nothing in a request for early morning coffee does either. The elevator guy may well view women as objects - we don't know - but one can only assume he does or assume he doesn't, since asking Skepchick for coffee in no way indicates that he objectifies her or doesn't, does it?

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.

Had she been taking the piss, she would not have brought up the serious issues of misogyny and objectification, etc. But, who knows. She may be mocking elevator guy, I guess, which would be fine.

I wonder if Elevator Guy will ever come forward?

[MrJonno]

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.

Next time she does a speech everyone there male and female should give her one big wolf whistle just before she starts. Its not 'sexist' but would be very funny

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

She didn't just relate an anecdote and mention how she feels.

She also said this: 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!

So, not only was she "objectified" by being asked for coffee, any white people of unacceptable age need not comment on it.

And she said, "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." So - by dismissing her being upset about a guy asking her for coffee at 4am, we are not only dismissing that, we are dismissing the concerns of women who have survived rape and sexual assault.

She raised her concern about the elevator incident, which she said was a prime example of what men in the atheist community ought to avoid -- she used that as an example of "anti-feminist thinking amongst the very people I was meant to be addressing." http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/

She then saw this video response from what appears to be a fairly well spoken, and together young woman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfA5AZutpCs and then Skepchick proceeds to excoriate that woman. The young woman vocalized what essentially has been my view on the subject of Elevatorgate. And, what does Skepchick say of that young woman? "I was pretty frustrated, seeing a young woman who I’m sure is intelligent be so incredibly dismissive of my experience and that of other women in this community, and so uneducated about the fundamentals of feminist thought." LOL -- naturally, someone who opposes Skepchick's view that asking her for coffee at 4am is an example of anti-feminist thought, and sexual objectification, is a result of being "uneducated" about feminist thought and "dismissive" of her experience AND THAT OF OTHER WOMEN IN THIS COMMUNITY." What? The rash of other women being asked for coffee? Or, is she suggesting that being asked for coffee is equivalent to other, more serious, incidents?

Skepchick also said, "What I should have added is this: for the men (and women) who are behaving in sexist and destructive ways, I hope that pointing it out to them has the effect of making them consider their actions and stop being sexist and damaging." So, pointing out a guy asking her for coffee at 4am in an elevator is pointing out an example that will make them consider their actions and stop being sexist and damaging. Don't you get what she is saying here? Asking a woman for coffee in an elevator, according to Skepchick, IS SEXIST, DESTRUCTIVE and DAMAGING! That's a fuck-load more than just pointing out an example of where guys are clueless clods with no game....

She also says, "When I was discussing the video with friends the next day, I was blown away to be told that there were other student leaders who had expressed similar dismissive attitudes recently on Facebook and on other blogs. An hour or so prior to my talk, someone sent me this link to a post by Stef McGraw on the UNI Freethinkers site. I added a paragraph of that response to a slide for the intro to my talk, in which I hoped to call out the anti-woman rhetoric my audience was engaging in." So - according to Skepchick - if you don't agree that Elevatorgate is an example of antifeminist thought, constitutes "sexual objectification" of women, and is sexist, destructive and damaging, then you're engaged in "anti-woman rhetoric."

She also stated, "I also pointed out that approaching a single woman in an elevator to invite her back to your hotel room is the definition of “unsolicited sexual comment.”" - Really? Well, if coffee is an unsolicited sexual comment, then we may need to go over what verbiage would not constitute unsolicited sexual comments. I think "I find you interesting" likely falls in that category at 4am in an elevator, as might "Hi." We'll have to clear all verbiage with Skepchick, of course, first to make sure that whatever we say that isn't in the least sexual is not nevertheless "the definition of unsolicited sexual comment." http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/

She also stated that Stef McGraw (and by extension anyone agreeing with Stef McGraw) "demonstrates an ignorance of Feminism 101 – in this case, the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. The former is great – be attracted to people! Flirt, have fun, make friends, have sex, meet the love of your life, whatever floats your boat. But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the “object” in question. That’s what we shouldn’t be doing. No, we feminists are not outlawing sexuality.[/quote] There we have it again - Elevator Guy SEXUALLY OBJECTIFIED her by asking her for coffee. People are, according to Skepchick, allowed to "flirt, make friends, have sex...whatever floats your boat," but, of course, not in an elevator at 4am - one must flirt only in the ways approved by Skepchick, and one must not say "come to my room for coffee" because that isn't flirting, or making friends, or "whatever floats your boat" - THAT is sexual objectification.

I can go on and on.... no no, Gallstones, Skepchick was not just saying - "some dick was a clueless boob and asked me for coffee at 4am - guys, if you're gonna hit on girls, don't do it that way..." - no, Gallstones, this was an example of anti-feminism, anti-woman behavior, that was misogynistic, threatening, sexually objectifying, damaging and destructive. And, anyone who doesn't agree with Skepchick on this is anti-feminist, anti-woman, misogynistic, possibly a "wealthy, old, white man [who has no business commenting on the subject at all unless it's to express agreement]" and uneducated.

Are we approaching any modicum of understanding here?

You'll have to tell me whether your understanding is improving at all.

[colubridae]

score so far.jpg (15.06 KiB) Viewed 1702 times

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Of course we can. We have Skepchick's own summary of what happened. I can assume the guy wasn't armed or wielding a crossbow because that would likely be something she might mention.

We weren't there, we don't know and we can't know.

We are entitled to go by what Watson said happened, which is what I'm doing. We aren't entitled to add that he called her frigid, or made threatening/menacing gestures. That would be irrational. Assuming that what Watson left out of the story is not part of the story is rational.

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.

If he made a threatening gesture while she was trapped in the elevator, don't you think she'd mention it? Especially after she has amplified her position several times since her initial video? The only rational approach is to take Watson at her word. If he raised his voice to her, became angry, made threatening gestures - it's up to her to tell us, not us to assume they happened.

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.

You'd be leaving out the part of this being an example of anti-feminism, anti-woman, sexually objectifying, damaging, and destructive behavior....

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.

Not really - the main anti-Skepchick forces are led by Stef McGraw and youtube's stclairose. From my point of view, my opposition to this has been made clear by me, and has nothing to do with anger - it's that I don't think what the guy did (like Dawkins said, and McGraw and stclairrose agreed) was a huge deal - I don't find it sexually objectifying to women, I certainly don't see it as anti-feminist and I don't think Skepchick's use of it as an example thereof is reasonable.

Real things have happened in my real life to lend me think and feel about things the way I do.

As have the things that happened to everyone else.

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.........

I'm sorry to hear that. And, it is this very real divide - this unbridged crevasse - that I have been examining in my posts. I think I narrowed it down as it applies to the Elevatorgate issue. I think it boils down to whether one thinks a guy hitting on a woman is sexist, and whether conduct like "shall we go to my room for coffee" at 4am in an elevator rises to the level of "sexism" and "sexual objectification." Those who think so, think Elevator Guy's conduct was an "incident" and exemplifies something extremely anti-feminist and anti-woman and misogynistic. Those that don't are the ones saying that this isn't a big deal, and is something grown women ought to be able to handle on their own.

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?

You're tired of being considerate of the feelings of the poor, shy and socially awkward man - you have insecurities for your personal safety. Nobody is asking you to be considerate.

Viable option? Suck it up. If you choose to approach a woman assume there might be rejection.

Are you talking about a situation different than Elevatorgate? The guy in Watson's story took rejection quite well.

Get over it, don't make us responsible for your feelings about that.

Gallstones, nobody made Rebecca Watson responsible for Elevator Guy's feelings. Are you talking about something other than this particular incident?

Watson had every right to say no. Or, to not say a damn thing and exit the elevator on her floor. She would say whatever the hell she wanted and tell the guy to fuck off his damn self and go throw himself off the building.

The only one trying to make others responsible for their feelings in this story is Rebecca Watson, who wants to make men responsible for her feeling "objectified" by a request to go to someone's room for coffee.

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.

What does that have to do with Elevatorgate? Nobody gives a shit whether Elevator Guy is "successful" at wooing women.

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

What the fuck all are you talking about? Nobody is talking about rejection here, or Elevator Guy's right to be upset at being rejected. Watson had every right to reject him, and she did. He went away without a word about it, according to Watson. She didn't describe him as upset about it at all. So what are you on about?

[Geoff]

I wonder if Elevator Guy will ever come forward?

He probably doesn't even remember it.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm old fashioned but I think what we have here is some bad manners from a old white gentleman?

[Coito ergo sum]

One woman's opinion....[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwPmicjj ... ture=feedu[/youtube]