Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Coito ergo sum]

Rebecca Watson wrote a while back: ... 2006 ...

What's an elevator guy to think?

Coitos suggestion? "A bit over five years ago she joked on her blog about how "hot" two girls were and about hotel rooms and group activities. Therefore it logically follows that she will be interested in coming up to my hotel room tonight, for coffee."

Now it may be just me, but there is something amiss with that logic...

Of course, that wasn't the logic.

Elevator Guy would never, ever know if she would be interested, for sure, in going up to his room. He can't know, unless she tells him. So, even if she said expressly in a different context that she would be willing to go upstairs with him personally, that doesn't mean that on the occasion he asks that she actually wants to.

Skepchick has made much of the fact that she thinks he "should have known" because of her presentation a the conference (about rape and receiving threatening emails) that no way would she be receptive to being asked to go up for coffee. To her, he was "clueless" for thinking he could even ask that question. Not only that, he was sexually objectifying her, and that he was a woman-hater and a predator. However, he may well have also read the material that she wrote, like this, which shows her to be fun-loving and sexually free. Maybe he really did have a "clue" as to the kind of conversation she was open to engaging in. Maybe he did not think she was a delicate flower that would feel "uncomfortable" at the mere mention of hotel rooms and "coffee."

Elevator Guy may not have had any right to expect a "yes" answer. But, is it way off base for him to think he could at least ask the question? She seems pretty free about the idea of someone mentioning hotel rooms for tickle parties. One might logically surmise that she wouldn't fall into a fetal position sweating in anxiety over the mere mention of coffee in a hotel room.

[Ronja]

...Skepchick ... To her, he was "clueless" for thinking he could even ask that question. Not only that, he was sexually objectifying her, and that he was a woman-hater and a predator...

One might logically surmise that she wouldn't fall into a fetal position sweating in anxiety over the mere mention of coffee in a hotel room.

You had better come up with links for those bolded parts, or admit that you are inventing rather wildly.

[Coito ergo sum]

...Skepchick ... To her, he was "clueless" for thinking he could even ask that question. Not only that, he was sexually objectifying her, and that he was a woman-hater and a predator...

One might logically surmise that she wouldn't fall into a fetal position sweating in anxiety over the mere mention of coffee in a hotel room.

You had better come up with links for those bolded parts, or admit that you are inventing rather wildly.

Not with those exact words - I was using a rhetorical device to illustrate her position here, which is that she was made to feel "uncomfortable" by the mere suggestion of coffee and hotel rooms by someone in an elevator. She also said she was "sexually objectified," and that he was a predator and that she was "threatened." If my metaphor of falling down on the floor in a fetal position sweating in anxiety is too "over the top" to illustrate the extreme nature of her feelings on this topic, well, then I can but apologize. Can we edit and replace the metaphor with "One might logically surmise that she wouldn't feel uncomfortable, feel threatened, feel hated and feel sexually objectified over the mere mention of coffee in a hotel room." Better?

Misogyny is the hatred of women. Woman hater. She wrote, and I linked to her blog above where she writes about Elevator Guy's behavior being misogynistic. Is "woman hater" not a synonym for misogynist? What's your objection?

[hadespussercats]

Coito, were you elevator guy?

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, were you elevator guy?

Nope, I've never even been to Ireland, which is where I think this conference was held - also - do I strike you as not having better skills than that? Some douche can't think of a better way to get in Skepchick's pants than ask her in an elevator, and you think that's me? I didn't realize how low your opinion of me was... From my perspective, I very likely wouldn't even hit on Skepchick because she's not really very attractive. I would want to have serious discussion and debate with her at the conference or at the bar afterwards, but I'd find hotter girls to hang out with if I was looking to hook up. And, if I did want to have a go with hooking up with her, I can tell you that I'd have been in the game far earlier than 4am, and she'd likely be buying me drinks.

I'm just incredibly fascinated by the dialogue here. The rhetoric I am hearing from the anti-Elevator Guy crowd is just, well, fascinating. It seems to have set off a brush fire.

Part of what fascinates me the most is the dynamic of the initial exchange and then the bandwagon jumpers who started joining each team. There is a vary interesting dynamic going on here.

Listen to this take on it - fast forward to about 6 minutes in, where she characterizes the elevator request for coffee as "harassing her with his dick's needs...who at any point can choose - although this man didn't - to rape her....possibly infecting her with a disease....impregnating her which could also lead to her death...the threat of that laying over her head while this guy is bothering her...but she's the one with the privilege...i just wan to say that any woman who has a platform that she can use to expose men that do that, please use it...please don't be nice please don't be complacent please use your platform to expose men that harass you and intimidate you and do all manner of things to you that you don't deserve....how about you [men] stop en masse terrorizing and brutalizing women...how about we name those who have power over us and are terrorizing us with that power..."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjvVSxm6 ... ideo_title[/youtube]

Opposition to this shit is called "mansplaining" apparently. We either agree, or are mansplainers who just want to justify violence against women.

[hadespussercats]

Sorry to insult your game, Coito. Nice to see we agree the approach was, at best, ham-fisted.

I read your sum-up of the video-- haven't watched the clip itself yet. And yeah, given what actually happened, it sounds... extreme. And a whole heck of a lot more of a reaction than Watson originally posted-- though it also sounds like passions are riding high on both sides of the flame war, with the original anecdote serving as endless analogy for any number of alternate, and generally more extreme scenarios.

I can see why you're fascinated. But it crossed over the line into silly for me a while ago.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry to insult your game, Coito. Nice to see we agree the approach was, at best, ham-fisted.

No worries. I haven't been in the habit of picking up on girls for a few years now, as I am happily monogamous. But, every now and again I look back on the me of years ago...I went from a shy, nerdy, geeky, nervous kid, to a guy who could walk over to any woman in any bar/club/social event and get a conversation going. Obviously, I wasn't able to pick up on just any girl I wanted - but I learned the social skills to be fearless and to have a good time anywhere. I still have that - if I go to a business event on my own, and there are often single, attractive women there - I can work the room, and I am the top wing-man for my single friends. I'm the one they send over to break into a crowd of women and then introduce them.

In any case, it was, I believe, a ham fisted Hail Mary pass at 4am. A guy finds himself, or makes his way, to an elevator and has a chance to ask her to socialize with him alone, and maybe get some "coffee." If she says no, he's going to his room alone (which he was doing anyway), and if she says yes, then jackpot. Nothing to lose, pussy to gain. He probably didn't expect anyone to call him out on it.

I have to say, maybe I just identify with Elevator Guy - When I was in high school and late teens, I was petrified of talking to women, and even into my 20s. I couldn't be the guy to go read women's body language and cues, and say the right things to get them laughing and smiling. I'd crash and burn routinely. I'd have to work up the courage to approach women, always fearful of being "shot down." And, I would definitely not want to approach women in groups at all. I would - and this is a bad strategy for any guy - try to get a chance to talk with her alone. That way you don't get publicly embarrassed by being turned down or turned away. So, I might have clumsily said some dopey line to a woman in an elevator, or alone somewhere else. I know I made plenty of clumsy, dopey moves over the years. But, when society places almost all the pressure on men to make the first move, there is going to be a learning curve.

I read your sum-up of the video-- haven't watched the clip itself yet. And yeah, given what actually happened, it sounds... extreme. And a whole heck of a lot more of a reaction than Watson originally posted--

Watson's original video was just a statement that said something to the effect of "hey guys - don't do that," type of thing - she also wrote and blogged, however, about it being misogyny and sexual objectification, among other things, and she has also cheered on and agreed with even more extreme folks like the views in the video I just linked to.

though it also sounds like passions are riding high on both sides of the flame war, with the original anecdote serving as endless analogy for any number of alternate, and generally more extreme scenarios.

I can see why you're fascinated. But it crossed over the line into silly for me a while ago.

I can't stop following it. It's like a two-headed snake or a train wreck.

I have to say, the feminist view on this is, IMHO, embarrassing. Rape and sexual assault, and harassment, are all serious things that need to be dealt with seriously. It is not, however, productive at all to use Elevator Guy as the poster child for those things, or as a request for coffee at 4am as emblematic of sexism and misogyny. A horny guy at 4am asks a dumb question when he should have known better? That's what is going to set the feminist world on fire?

[Gallstones]

Can we go back to remembering that I am not skepchick?

That has never been in question, nor have I ever talked about you. I've only talked about what happened to skepchick, except in the limited circumstance of pointing out that what you said happened to you did not happen to skepchick.

Invalidating my feelings now?

[Gallstones]

Strawman. "Feminists" don't do these things; it is some people who do these things and who also self identify as feminists. Even Watson was boring me.

15 minutes is a bit too long for me to maintain interest.

It wasn't a straw man at all. The guy pointed out that Watson seemed to think that she had put everyone a the conference on notice that she should not be asked up to a room for coffee. The point being made in that youtube video is that in the conference she was talking about rape, threats of rape and nasty emails.

It droned on and on. I already admitted that it was really hard to keep paying attention.
Invalidating my opinions now?

[Rob]

Strawman. "Feminists" don't do these things; it is some people who do these things and who also self identify as feminists. Even Watson was boring me.

15 minutes is a bit too long for me to maintain interest.

Gallstone, meet Great Scotsman Fallacy. ;\

Oddly enough considering my political leanings I have not read too much of CES that was over the top or that I am in opposition to.

[hadespussercats]

Sorry to insult your game, Coito. Nice to see we agree the approach was, at best, ham-fisted.

No worries. I haven't been in the habit of picking up on girls for a few years now, as I am happily monogamous. But, every now and again I look back on the me of years ago...I went from a shy, nerdy, geeky, nervous kid, to a guy who could walk over to any woman in any bar/club/social event and get a conversation going. Obviously, I wasn't able to pick up on just any girl I wanted - but I learned the social skills to be fearless and to have a good time anywhere. I still have that - if I go to a business event on my own, and there are often single, attractive women there - I can work the room, and I am the top wing-man for my single friends. I'm the one they send over to break into a crowd of women and then introduce them.

In any case, it was, I believe, a ham fisted Hail Mary pass at 4am. A guy finds himself, or makes his way, to an elevator and has a chance to ask her to socialize with him alone, and maybe get some "coffee." If she says no, he's going to his room alone (which he was doing anyway), and if she says yes, then jackpot. Nothing to lose, pussy to gain. He probably didn't expect anyone to call him out on it.

I have to say, maybe I just identify with Elevator Guy - When I was in high school and late teens, I was petrified of talking to women, and even into my 20s. I couldn't be the guy to go read women's body language and cues, and say the right things to get them laughing and smiling. I'd crash and burn routinely. I'd have to work up the courage to approach women, always fearful of being "shot down." And, I would definitely not want to approach women in groups at all. I would - and this is a bad strategy for any guy - try to get a chance to talk with her alone. That way you don't get publicly embarrassed by being turned down or turned away. So, I might have clumsily said some dopey line to a woman in an elevator, or alone somewhere else. I know I made plenty of clumsy, dopey moves over the years. But, when society places almost all the pressure on men to make the first move, there is going to be a learning curve.

I read your sum-up of the video-- haven't watched the clip itself yet. And yeah, given what actually happened, it sounds... extreme. And a whole heck of a lot more of a reaction than Watson originally posted--

Watson's original video was just a statement that said something to the effect of "hey guys - don't do that," type of thing - she also wrote and blogged, however, about it being misogyny and sexual objectification, among other things, and she has also cheered on and agreed with even more extreme folks like the views in the video I just linked to.

though it also sounds like passions are riding high on both sides of the flame war, with the original anecdote serving as endless analogy for any number of alternate, and generally more extreme scenarios.

I can see why you're fascinated. But it crossed over the line into silly for me a while ago.

I can't stop following it. It's like a two-headed snake or a train wreck.

I have to say, the feminist view on this is, IMHO, embarrassing. Rape and sexual assault, and harassment, are all serious things that need to be dealt with seriously. It is not, however, productive at all to use Elevator Guy as the poster child for those things, or as a request for coffee at 4am as emblematic of sexism and misogyny. A horny guy at 4am asks a dumb question when he should have known better? That's what is going to set the feminist world on fire?

I get where you're coming from, Coito.

Just a few thoughts:
I have sympathy for the socially inept guy trying to make a connection. But something that the socially inept need to learn in order to become ...ept? is that there are actions and behaviors that read very differently from how they seem inside their nervous, hopeful minds.

I always think of Michael Scott [from The Office] in these situations-- like how Jim had to explain to him at the office Christmas party that he couldn't grab Ryan and try to force Ryan to sit on his lap while saying, "I need this! I need this!" If you know Michael Scott, you know he honestly just had no grasp how that behavior would seem-- he was so focused on playing Santa, and wanting to make a connection with the guy he had a man-crush on, that he just couldn't see how creepy his behavior was.

I think, from what I've heard, that the picture you're painting of the elevator scenario is probably right-- a dopey guy making a hail mary pass. And, whatever Watson has said since, the sense I got from her original post is that she understood that too. Before the rhetoric got so out-of-hand, I think what she was trying to do was play Jim to Elevator Guy's Michael Scott-- trying to get him to see that asking that question in those circumstances (four in the morning, alone together in an elevator, in a foreign country, after she'd called it a night, etc., etc.) could come across as really creepy and threatening-- and that refusing to examine his behavior in that light shows a disrespect for the likely fears, vulnerabilities, and desires of the woman he was approaching. Refusing to acknowledge that the woman has feelings that deserve sympathy (just like dopey Elevator Guy arguably deserves sympathy) means that the woman's feelings don't count. And deciding that a woman's feelings don't count is the same as treating that woman as an object. A sexual object-- because it was arguably in the context of a veiled sexual proposal.

I think you're right, that Elevator Guy probably didn't understand that-- that he was probably just doing his best to connect with someone he was drawn to. The vitriol in this case does feel excessive. But my sense is that the string of thoughts and conclusions I've described above is what lies underneath it-- and is why so many women are so angry.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sorry to insult your game, Coito. Nice to see we agree the approach was, at best, ham-fisted.

No worries. I haven't been in the habit of picking up on girls for a few years now, as I am happily monogamous. But, every now and again I look back on the me of years ago...I went from a shy, nerdy, geeky, nervous kid, to a guy who could walk over to any woman in any bar/club/social event and get a conversation going. Obviously, I wasn't able to pick up on just any girl I wanted - but I learned the social skills to be fearless and to have a good time anywhere. I still have that - if I go to a business event on my own, and there are often single, attractive women there - I can work the room, and I am the top wing-man for my single friends. I'm the one they send over to break into a crowd of women and then introduce them.

In any case, it was, I believe, a ham fisted Hail Mary pass at 4am. A guy finds himself, or makes his way, to an elevator and has a chance to ask her to socialize with him alone, and maybe get some "coffee." If she says no, he's going to his room alone (which he was doing anyway), and if she says yes, then jackpot. Nothing to lose, pussy to gain. He probably didn't expect anyone to call him out on it.

I have to say, maybe I just identify with Elevator Guy - When I was in high school and late teens, I was petrified of talking to women, and even into my 20s. I couldn't be the guy to go read women's body language and cues, and say the right things to get them laughing and smiling. I'd crash and burn routinely. I'd have to work up the courage to approach women, always fearful of being "shot down." And, I would definitely not want to approach women in groups at all. I would - and this is a bad strategy for any guy - try to get a chance to talk with her alone. That way you don't get publicly embarrassed by being turned down or turned away. So, I might have clumsily said some dopey line to a woman in an elevator, or alone somewhere else. I know I made plenty of clumsy, dopey moves over the years. But, when society places almost all the pressure on men to make the first move, there is going to be a learning curve.

I read your sum-up of the video-- haven't watched the clip itself yet. And yeah, given what actually happened, it sounds... extreme. And a whole heck of a lot more of a reaction than Watson originally posted--

Watson's original video was just a statement that said something to the effect of "hey guys - don't do that," type of thing - she also wrote and blogged, however, about it being misogyny and sexual objectification, among other things, and she has also cheered on and agreed with even more extreme folks like the views in the video I just linked to.

though it also sounds like passions are riding high on both sides of the flame war, with the original anecdote serving as endless analogy for any number of alternate, and generally more extreme scenarios.

I can see why you're fascinated. But it crossed over the line into silly for me a while ago.

I can't stop following it. It's like a two-headed snake or a train wreck.

I have to say, the feminist view on this is, IMHO, embarrassing. Rape and sexual assault, and harassment, are all serious things that need to be dealt with seriously. It is not, however, productive at all to use Elevator Guy as the poster child for those things, or as a request for coffee at 4am as emblematic of sexism and misogyny. A horny guy at 4am asks a dumb question when he should have known better? That's what is going to set the feminist world on fire?

I get where you're coming from, Coito.

Just a few thoughts:
I have sympathy for the socially inept guy trying to make a connection. But something that the socially inept need to learn in order to become ...ept? is that there are actions and behaviors that read very differently from how they seem inside their nervous, hopeful minds.

I always think of Michael Scott [from The Office] in these situations-- like how Jim had to explain to him at the office Christmas party that he couldn't grab Ryan and try to force Ryan to sit on his lap while saying, "I need this! I need this!" If you know Michael Scott, you know he honestly just had no grasp how that behavior would seem-- he was so focused on playing Santa, and wanting to make a connection with the guy he had a man-crush on, that he just couldn't see how creepy his behavior was.

I think, from what I've heard, that the picture you're painting of the elevator scenario is probably right-- a dopey guy making a hail mary pass. And, whatever Watson has said since, the sense I got from her original post is that she understood that too. Before the rhetoric got so out-of-hand, I think what she was trying to do was play Jim to Elevator Guy's Michael Scott-- trying to get him to see that asking that question in those circumstances (four in the morning, alone together in an elevator, in a foreign country, after she'd called it a night, etc., etc.) could come across as really creepy and threatening-- and that refusing to examine his behavior in that light shows a disrespect for the likely fears, vulnerabilities, and desires of the woman he was approaching. Refusing to acknowledge that the woman has feelings that deserve sympathy (just like dopey Elevator Guy arguably deserves sympathy) means that the woman's feelings don't count. And deciding that a woman's feelings don't count is the same as treating that woman as an object. A sexual object-- because it was arguably in the context of a veiled sexual proposal.

I think you're right, that Elevator Guy probably didn't understand that-- that he was probably just doing his best to connect with someone he was drawn to. The vitriol in this case does feel excessive. But my sense is that the string of thoughts and conclusions I've described above is what lies underneath it-- and is why so many women are so angry.

AND Dawkins was being a dick.

[charlou]

Coito and Hades, you both make good points.

AND Dawkins was being a dick.

After an initial sense of wtf?ness about his response to Rebecca Watson, and some further thought based on what I've seen and read from her, I came to agree with the point Richard Dawkins was making .. I posted the following explanation for why I agree with RD at RatSkep:

What I agree with RD about is the ridiculousness of putting forward the elevator guy incident as an example of sexism and misogyny among atheist males. I agree with RD that it is not an example (therefore it is nothing) and that the examples he gave are clearcut examples of real sexism and misogyny.

I think RD could have articulated his point better so he may have been better understood. The way he articulated it had me initially objecting to the point he was making, but the more I thought about it the more I see his point and do agree with it.

It's a shame RD didn't do a better job of making his point because I think it's a very good point to make. I've made the point in my own words, and I've seen it made in several different ways by others during the discussion since, so there are quite a few people who do get it.

I doubt RD would have dismissed Rebecca Watson's discomfort on a personal level if that were all she were expressing, but it wasn't. As has been pointed out many times now, she implied it was example of atheist male sexism and misogyny by using it in direct connection with her complaints about atheist male sexism and misogyny. IOW, her example was part of agenda, and her discomfort during the elevator guy incident may well have been tainted by her agenda. If so, then perhaps she should consider setting her agenda aside so she doesn't feel so uncomfortable when males show an interest in her.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... ml#p923092

[Coito ergo sum]

Can we go back to remembering that I am not skepchick?

That has never been in question, nor have I ever talked about you. I've only talked about what happened to skepchick, except in the limited circumstance of pointing out that what you said happened to you did not happen to skepchick.

Invalidating my feelings now?

Not at all. Your feelings are valid. However, not all of them are relevant to the Elevator Guy approaching Skepchick at 4am and asking her for coffee. Just as not all my feelings are relevant thereto.

It seems you've just made the issue about something else - some event or events that happened to you at different times, under different circumstances, with different things being done or said. As such, it is different. Not invalid. Different. And, if assault A happens to you, that doesn't make "let's go up for coffee at 4am" equivalent.

[Coito ergo sum]

Strawman. "Feminists" don't do these things; it is some people who do these things and who also self identify as feminists. Even Watson was boring me.

15 minutes is a bit too long for me to maintain interest.

It wasn't a straw man at all. The guy pointed out that Watson seemed to think that she had put everyone a the conference on notice that she should not be asked up to a room for coffee. The point being made in that youtube video is that in the conference she was talking about rape, threats of rape and nasty emails.

It droned on and on. I already admitted that it was really hard to keep paying attention.
Invalidating my opinions now?

In this case, yes, because your assertion that it was a "straw man" argument is invalid. It wasn't a strawman argument, so therefore your assertion (opinion) that it was a straw man is invalid.