Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Coito ergo sum]

\

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 ask for no sympathy for the socially inept. Sympathy is irrelevant here. What I think is required is "perspective." It's not the fact that the guy is socially inept that matters, because his social ineptness ought not allow him to get away with something that is seriously wrong. Example - socially inept guy doesn't think it's wrong to touch a woman he doesn't know on the buttocks. He says, "Hey baby, nice butt," and gives her a gentle pat on the behind. Does his social ineptness make him deserving of sympathy for that assault? No. Not at all.

So what's the perspective I'm suggesting is needed? In the case we are talking about the guy (socially inept, sexual predator, mass murderer, or serial masturbator - whatever) asked a woman to his room for coffee at 4am in an elevator. What I'm suggesting is not that we give inept men a pass. What I'm suggesting is that even if he knew it was dopey and he was plenty "ept" and even if he was maybe doing it to mock Skepchick or something or purposefully to piss her off..... whatever....it just ain't a big deal. It's nothing. She is a 27 year old, or thereabouts, woman - not a 12 year old child. People customarily say things to each other and quite often say things that we think are impertinent. Such things are just things we have to deal with.

We're often asked to swap sex roles when dealing with issues of sexual harassment. If you wouldn't say something to a man, then don't say it to a woman, we are told. Well, if we do that here, what would we find....Elevator Girl gets into elevator at 4am drunk after returning from a bachelorette party. She sees guy who she knows has a girlfriend, but she's now tipsy and horny and not thinking straight, and she says she finds the guy "interesting" and giggles as she asks him if he'd like to come to her room for "coffee." This makes the 27 year old guy "uncomfortable" because he reads it as being asked for sex by a woman who knows he is not in the market.

What would we say of him if he started lecturing women not to "do that" because he felt "sexually objectified" and that it made him feel "uncomfortable?" I submit that most of us would hand-wave it away, and say "dude, WTF? Some girl asks you for "coffee" and it's a big deal to you? Give us a break!"

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.

And, of course, perspective is needed there too. Creepy behavior - yes - avoid it. But, does creepy behavior mean "misogyny" and "sexual objectification?" Even if Michael Scott said that - it would be no big deal. Creepy and funny, yes. Major example of something that is fundamentally wrong with society and men? Hardly.

\

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 don't agree that she started off only with that benign motive in mind - sort of trying to teach the clueless guys the whens and wheres of pick-up moves. No, she started right off with the "sexual objectification" line, and the "threat" line, on her blog. And, she's gone well into the misogyny line too. Hatred - HATRED - of women.

Moreover - a veiled, or unveiled, sexual proposal is not per se "sexual objectification." Trying to pick up a girl is not sexual objectification, sexism or misogyny.

And, there is no real allegation that Elevator Guy thought Skepchick's feelings didn't count. The video I posted above made a great point when it went through the actual presentation that Skepchick made. She talked about email threats and rape. She didn't at any time suggest that she was opposed to being approached by men in general, or would have an issue with someone asking her a question. She says that men ought to have gotten that impression from watching her speech, but not only do we not know if this guy actually sat through her speech (she doesn't know), it's not even apparent from what she said in the speech that she would be upset at being asked for coffee.

And, let's also use some perspective here - there is nothing to the level of "disregarding her feelings" in asking a question involving staying up a little bit longer for conversation at 4am, when she's said she's tired. People say they're tired for lots of reasons, not all of them literal. And, one might say "I'm tired" because one is looking for a gracious exit. People are often asked about doing things after announcing their tiredness. Big deal. It's happened to me in the middle of the night - have they disregarded my feelings?

It remains a tiny, miniscule offense at best. "I already fucking said I'm tired, douchbag." Is the response, or words to that effect. It doesn't become a federal case just because guy might have had getting in her pants as a motive.

This is what I find extraordinarily embarrassing about the "feminist" (for lack of a better word) response to this whole situation. Really? THIS is what you're going to hold up as the poster child of misogyny, anti-feminism, sexism and objectification? Come on. Strong, adult, women need to be treated equally with strong, adult men. A man making this same complaint would be laughed out of the room. What should be the response to a strong, adult woman making the complaint then? Pat pats and there theres and and lectures to "clueless" men who "don't get it" and who we just KNOW really hate women, and think of them merely as objects to be used for male pleasure, and this whole thing is just emblematic of "male privilege?" I think trying to make this mole hill into that mountain does a disservice to the ultimate goal of overall equality.

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.

I am sure it is a string of thoughts and conclusions that lie underneath it.

I think also, though, that what may well be underneath it all is the simple fact that is going unstated: If coffee means sex, then Elevator Guy made Skepchick out to be a cheap whore, who could be asked back to a hotel room at 4am and implicit in the asking of the question is that he felt there was a chance the answer would be "yes." She, like many women, don't like to think they're giving out some sort of vibe that they are easily bedded. That pisses some women off. Skepchick speaks the language of feminism, however, and so she replaced "suggesting I'm a common whore" with "sexual objectification and misogyny."

[Orwellian]

The Thought Police have found them out.

[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?

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.

I disagree. My assertion is valid, you just don't recognize that because you don't want it to be true.

[Coito ergo sum]

I disagree. My assertion is valid, you just don't recognize that because you don't want it to be true.

Disagree all you want. You admitted you didn't even watch the whole video, but then labeled it a "straw man." Also, the video made several different arguments throughout, and you simply blanket-labeled them all "straw man" and you didn't even explain why you thought it was a straw man. Further, I explained exactly why the main point in the video was not a straw man argument above.

[Coito ergo sum]

A Complete and Utter Lack of Self-Awareness
Posted on July 10, 2011 by Colin 0

It is a very good rule to be suspicious of enthusiasm in general and enthusiasm about ideas in particular, which is why I, while being constitutionally inclined in their direction, regard the organized Skepticism movement as something of an exercise in autodefenestration. As the latest exhibit of what I’m talking about, c.f. the brouhaha over a comment war between some blogger named Skepchick (nee Rebecca Watson), who got Very Offended after being hit on in a hotel elevator at some skepti-con, and Richard Dawkins, who thought she needed a ladder and a tall glass of chill the $#@! out.
The putative reason for her offense-taking was that she had, earlier in the evening, given a talk criticizing how any woman who dares to attend a Skeptic event is immediately set upon by a slobbering horde of suitors. So one can perhaps appreciate her consternation at being approached by a guy who complimented her on her insightful presentation, and then proceeded to invite her to his room for a little less conversation.
That said, I hate to break it to her, but the facts that (a) the Skeptic community’s gender ratio is probably comparable to that of your local model-railroad club, and (b) is self-selecting for people with low Agreeableness (in terms of the Big Five personality traits), probably go a long way towards explaining why she became a celebrity in the community to begin with. Unlike Richard Dawkins, who, love him or hate him, is a major public intellectual (he quite literally invented the meme), Ms. Watson is a chatterer who traffics in other people’s ideas, a thing of which there is no shortage on the Interweb. But lo! She is young, female, and moderately cute in a naughty-librarian way, all of which greatly enhance her status. Had she named her blog Skeptic in Brookline and never posted a picture of herself (let alone posed nude for a skeptic-pinup calendar), it’s not unreasonable to suspect she’d have a half-dozen occasional readers and would be sitting in the nosebleed seats at any major events.
As Trotsky said, “you may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is interested in you.” Just as I can’t help the fact that I was born with a penis and thus entitled to a permanent life of single-malt scotch, Havana cigars, and leveraged buyouts, she can’t help the fact that she’s a beneficiary of the culture she criticizes. But, if you name your theater blog “Drama fag,” then you have little business complaining when pretty young boys hit on you in hallways, and if you name your blog Skepchick, it’s more than a tad rich to complain about sexualization and objectification.

http://thesnob.com/2011/07/10/a-complet ... omment-112

[hadespussercats]

\

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 ask for no sympathy for the socially inept. Sympathy is irrelevant here. What I think is required is "perspective." It's not the fact that the guy is socially inept that matters, because his social ineptness ought not allow him to get away with something that is seriously wrong. Example - socially inept guy doesn't think it's wrong to touch a woman he doesn't know on the buttocks. He says, "Hey baby, nice butt," and gives her a gentle pat on the behind. Does his social ineptness make him deserving of sympathy for that assault? No. Not at all.

So what's the perspective I'm suggesting is needed? In the case we are talking about the guy (socially inept, sexual predator, mass murderer, or serial masturbator - whatever) asked a woman to his room for coffee at 4am in an elevator. What I'm suggesting is not that we give inept men a pass. What I'm suggesting is that even if he knew it was dopey and he was plenty "ept" and even if he was maybe doing it to mock Skepchick or something or purposefully to piss her off..... whatever....it just ain't a big deal. It's nothing. She is a 27 year old, or thereabouts, woman - not a 12 year old child. People customarily say things to each other and quite often say things that we think are impertinent. Such things are just things we have to deal with.

We're often asked to swap sex roles when dealing with issues of sexual harassment. If you wouldn't say something to a man, then don't say it to a woman, we are told. Well, if we do that here, what would we find....Elevator Girl gets into elevator at 4am drunk after returning from a bachelorette party. She sees guy who she knows has a girlfriend, but she's now tipsy and horny and not thinking straight, and she says she finds the guy "interesting" and giggles as she asks him if he'd like to come to her room for "coffee." This makes the 27 year old guy "uncomfortable" because he reads it as being asked for sex by a woman who knows he is not in the market.

What would we say of him if he started lecturing women not to "do that" because he felt "sexually objectified" and that it made him feel "uncomfortable?" I submit that most of us would hand-wave it away, and say "dude, WTF? Some girl asks you for "coffee" and it's a big deal to you? Give us a break!"

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.

And, of course, perspective is needed there too. Creepy behavior - yes - avoid it. But, does creepy behavior mean "misogyny" and "sexual objectification?" Even if Michael Scott said that - it would be no big deal. Creepy and funny, yes. Major example of something that is fundamentally wrong with society and men? Hardly.

\

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 don't agree that she started off only with that benign motive in mind - sort of trying to teach the clueless guys the whens and wheres of pick-up moves. No, she started right off with the "sexual objectification" line, and the "threat" line, on her blog. And, she's gone well into the misogyny line too. Hatred - HATRED - of women.

Moreover - a veiled, or unveiled, sexual proposal is not per se "sexual objectification." Trying to pick up a girl is not sexual objectification, sexism or misogyny.

And, there is no real allegation that Elevator Guy thought Skepchick's feelings didn't count. The video I posted above made a great point when it went through the actual presentation that Skepchick made. She talked about email threats and rape. She didn't at any time suggest that she was opposed to being approached by men in general, or would have an issue with someone asking her a question. She says that men ought to have gotten that impression from watching her speech, but not only do we not know if this guy actually sat through her speech (she doesn't know), it's not even apparent from what she said in the speech that she would be upset at being asked for coffee.

And, let's also use some perspective here - there is nothing to the level of "disregarding her feelings" in asking a question involving staying up a little bit longer for conversation at 4am, when she's said she's tired. People say they're tired for lots of reasons, not all of them literal. And, one might say "I'm tired" because one is looking for a gracious exit. People are often asked about doing things after announcing their tiredness. Big deal. It's happened to me in the middle of the night - have they disregarded my feelings?

It remains a tiny, miniscule offense at best. "I already fucking said I'm tired, douchbag." Is the response, or words to that effect. It doesn't become a federal case just because guy might have had getting in her pants as a motive.

This is what I find extraordinarily embarrassing about the "feminist" (for lack of a better word) response to this whole situation. Really? THIS is what you're going to hold up as the poster child of misogyny, anti-feminism, sexism and objectification? Come on. Strong, adult, women need to be treated equally with strong, adult men. A man making this same complaint would be laughed out of the room. What should be the response to a strong, adult woman making the complaint then? Pat pats and there theres and and lectures to "clueless" men who "don't get it" and who we just KNOW really hate women, and think of them merely as objects to be used for male pleasure, and this whole thing is just emblematic of "male privilege?" I think trying to make this mole hill into that mountain does a disservice to the ultimate goal of overall equality.

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.

I am sure it is a string of thoughts and conclusions that lie underneath it.

I think also, though, that what may well be underneath it all is the simple fact that is going unstated: If coffee means sex, then Elevator Guy made Skepchick out to be a cheap whore, who could be asked back to a hotel room at 4am and implicit in the asking of the question is that he felt there was a chance the answer would be "yes." She, like many women, don't like to think they're giving out some sort of vibe that they are easily bedded. That pisses some women off. Skepchick speaks the language of feminism, however, and so she replaced "suggesting I'm a common whore" with "sexual objectification and misogyny."

All right. I don't have much to add, since I agree with you that there's a lot of manufactured drama going on.

Fortunately, I don't get the sense that the feminist community at large has adopted the Elevator Incident as their rallying cry-- this is an internet drama that's stirring up dust in one quadrant of same-- an intersection between geeky skeptics and feminists (which is, all things considered, not that large an intersection.)

There are plenty of feminists who have more important items in their agenda than attending to an internet flame war. Particularly this one.

Quick, mostly unrelated observation-- in one of the videos you posted, there's footage from the actual conference where Watson was speaking. She's sitting next to Dawkins, and as she talks, it's kinda hilarious to watch Dawkins' body language. The sense I get is that he didn't cotton to Watson from the word go-- which might have had something to do with how graceless he was in responding to her post.

Check it out-- the twitching, the unnecessary nose-wiping and weight-shifting. I think he was having a hard time not snapping something snarky right there.

Just my impression. But, I enjoy people-watching, and I found it entertaining.

[Gallstones]

I disagree. My assertion is valid, you just don't recognize that because you don't want it to be true.

Disagree all you want. You admitted you didn't even watch the whole video, but then labeled it a "straw man." Also, the video made several different arguments throughout, and you simply blanket-labeled them all "straw man" and you didn't even explain why you thought it was a straw man. Further, I explained exactly why the main point in the video was not a straw man argument above.

No, no, no. That isn't what I said at all. Perhaps it is what you wanted me to have said.
Go back and read that post again. I posted twice on that in fact.

[Coito ergo sum]

All right. I don't have much to add, since I agree with you that there's a lot of manufactured drama going on.

I love the manufactured drama. It is Seinfeldian in nature, what with the intense attention to minutia. I can picture Jerry analyzing the situation going -- "did she stand with her arms folded or at her sides? Because if her arms are folded, that means...and if her arms were at her side, that means...." Elaine would say, "look - Jerry - a woman is going to feel uncomfortable in an elevator with a man!" And, George would ask,"How tall is she?" and "Is she a husky woman? Would you describe her as "husky? Because a big woman wouldn't be scared..." And, Elaine would make an exasperated face and say something snarky...

LOL

Fortunately, I don't get the sense that the feminist community at large has adopted the Elevator Incident as their rallying cry-- this is an internet drama that's stirring up dust in one quadrant of same-- an intersection between geeky skeptics and feminists (which is, all things considered, not that large an intersection.)

Very true.

There are plenty of feminists who have more important items in their agenda than attending to an internet flame war. Particularly this one.

Quick, mostly unrelated observation-- in one of the videos you posted, there's footage from the actual conference where Watson was speaking. She's sitting next to Dawkins, and as she talks, it's kinda hilarious to watch Dawkins' body language. The sense I get is that he didn't cotton to Watson from the word go-- which might have had something to do with how graceless he was in responding to her post.

Thank you! I got the same exact impression of Dawkins' body language. Like he was holding back an "oh, come ON!" or something. I guarantee that's what the deal was with his "Muslima" response. He was just like - "Oh, for fuck's SAKE! Is EVERYTHING sexist now!?"

Check it out-- the twitching, the unnecessary nose-wiping and weight-shifting. I think he was having a hard time not snapping something snarky right there.

Just my impression. But, I enjoy people-watching, and I found it entertaining.

I think you nailed it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I disagree. My assertion is valid, you just don't recognize that because you don't want it to be true.

Disagree all you want. You admitted you didn't even watch the whole video, but then labeled it a "straw man." Also, the video made several different arguments throughout, and you simply blanket-labeled them all "straw man" and you didn't even explain why you thought it was a straw man. Further, I explained exactly why the main point in the video was not a straw man argument above.

No, no, no. That isn't what I said at all. Perhaps it is what you wanted me to have said.
Go back and read that post again. I posted twice on that in fact.

I would if I wanted to bother to play your game of fucking with me any longer. Frankly, I can't be arsed anymore.

Or, should I ask you if you're "invalidating" my opinion or my feelings?

[Gallstones]

I disagree. My assertion is valid, you just don't recognize that because you don't want it to be true.

Disagree all you want. You admitted you didn't even watch the whole video, but then labeled it a "straw man." Also, the video made several different arguments throughout, and you simply blanket-labeled them all "straw man" and you didn't even explain why you thought it was a straw man. Further, I explained exactly why the main point in the video was not a straw man argument above.

No, no, no. That isn't what I said at all. Perhaps it is what you wanted me to have said.
Go back and read that post again. I posted twice on that in fact.

I would if I wanted to bother to play your game of fucking with me any longer. Frankly, I can't be arsed anymore.

Or, should I ask you if you're "invalidating" my opinion or my feelings?

I am invalidating your sense of humor--or is it you who is doing it?

Seriously.
Sometimes it seems you have quite the stick up your rectal passage.
I'm sure you're a fun guy in person though.


Did you go back and read my post to see how you were wrong accusing me of having not watched the whole video?

[Coito ergo sum]

Stop invalidating my feelings.

[Gallstones]

Stop invalidating my feelings.

Tell me what they are and I will see if I can do that.

[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?

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.

PTSD.

[camoguard]

I chalk it up to an interesting intersection between various movements which are all generally progressive. I thought Dawkin's analogy was harsh which made me feel like he wasn't really considering his audience when he said it. The fact that Western women don't have third world levels of oppression doesn't mean that those women aren't forced to learn to cope with systemic levels of oppression on some level.

When I saw the atheist kerflufle between what's-her-face, the-other-lady, and Dawkins, I thought of Schrodinger's Rapist immediately. Dudes who don't realize what position a woman might be in do not have the game they think they have. The corollary, is realizing a woman's point of view isn't an in. I still have to be easy being blown off because you know what, I've seen women comfortable and I've seen them uncomfortable and I've decided it's their call how they want to feel about it. That's not a war I can win without their consent which if uncomfortable, the woman hasn't given. The right to feel uncomfortable strikes me as pretty basic. I don't think we really have a better tool in our toolkit than to wait until later and review the situation to find out how reasonable we think it is.

[Coito ergo sum]

Stop invalidating my feelings.

Tell me what they are and I will see if I can do that.

You're making me uncomfortable.