Dawkins: At War With The Feminists?

[Coito ergo sum]

I hear many voices of women saying they aren't, and that elevatorgate was not a big deal - those followers of Stef McGraw, etc. -- why ought we dismiss their views?

I'm neither completely "pro" Watson nor completely "pro" McGraw, and I certainly won't "follow" anyone uncritically.

not saying you are or would - "follow" was an ill-chosen word. I didn't mean that people are "followers" of her in the disciple sense - only that they adhere to her view on the topic.

[

That said, doesn't it make sense that a notable percentage of the women who speak up about "EleveatorGate" in atheist/skeptic/etc forums and blog comments are exactly those women who already feel comfortable enough to speak up in the atheist/skeptic/etc community? So that sample is likely skewed, though it is difficult to estimate which (all) way(s) the skew(s) go(es).

That I don't know. I'm not sure that those speaking up at blogs and forums can be said to be those who feel comfortable enough "at" events. There's a large difference between a relatively anonymous invented screen name, and being somewhere physicall.

[

IMO, pretty much everybody who has said that "elevatorgate was not a big deal" has pointed out that *they* themselves would not have felt uncomfortable in a similar situation.

Naturally, one would expect that to be true. That's not completely it, though. All of us tend to make a judgment about what is reasonable. Surely, a woman who says she was made to feel uncomfortable because a guy offered to buy her a drink in a bar, may well not be lent much credence in that regard. Many folks may well be skeptical as to whether she was really made to feel uncomfortable in that situation, and even if so whether she is reasonable in complaining in that regard.

[

If they also implied that Watson *therefore* either should not have felt what she felt or should not have spoken about it, then they can

Everybody can feel what they feel, of course. I might fall to the ground shaking in fear if a woman offers to buy me a donut. I doubt many people would take me very seriously though. Should they tell me I "should not have felt what I felt" if that happened? Or, is it that I'm entitled to my feelings, or does everyone have to take me seriously and respect them to the nth degree?

As for speaking up about it - she can speak up all she wants - but, the rest of us are entitled to our opinion too, and that opinion might be that what she's complaining about is no big deal. And, one of my objections to the whole thing is that she called this thing "misogyny" and "sexual objectification," and I found that to be ravingly over the top. What I won't do is agree with her suggestion that Elevatorgate represents some sort of larger example of a rampant misogyny at atheist and skeptick events, and I wont' agree that if a man hits on a woman like that it means he's sexually objectifying her.

[

, because what she feels is what she feels, and nobody has the right to telle her to (not) feel this or that.

Well, everyone has the right to tell her what they feel about the situation. She's not the only one with rights here.

And, many times people claiming hurt feelings may sincerely be hurt, but that doesn't mean that we ought to take it seriously. Imagine if a man walked up to a woman, say, in a bar, and said, "I find you interesting, and I would like to talk to you more in depth. Would you like to come back to my place and have coffee?" And, maybe the woman was, truly, put out by that - she felt "uncomfortable." Is she "entitled" to her feelings? Sure. But, is it a big deal what the guy did? No. Neither is Elevatorgate. It's a breach of etiquette, at worst.

[

And to tell her that she doesn't have the right to speak about her experience or feelings is just idiotic, unless one is willing to claim oneself as some kind of Higher Authority for What Are Suitable Topics on the Interwebz.

Who told her that? Nobody told her that.

I, for one, am just saying that she has the right to speak about her experience or feelings. I also claim that right, and I also claim the right to discuss her claims and to analyze whether or not her claims of misogyny, sexual objectification and other things that have been bandied about like - harassment, threats, intimidation, sexism, etc. - are really applicable to something as benign as Elevatorgate.

We are not required to respond only with, "oh, Rebecca, you poor poor dear. Your feelings are valid no matter what, and if you feel that way, it must mean that whatever you say caused you to feel that way is eminently justified and reasonable, and no matter what, if you say certain behavior must be changed because you say that behavior is misogynistic, sexually objectifification, etc., then by all means, that must be true - because your feelings are valid and after that, we are not allowed to comment because we just don't get it, we are clueless and we're just engaging in mansplaining."

[Ronja]

Coito, you are entitled to you opinions, but you cannot realistically expect them to be universally accepted. IMO you misrepresent Watson's original comment fairly seriously - in her own video she simply told that the exchange in the elevator had happened and that it had made her feel uncomfortable, and asked "guys please don't do that" (or words very much to that effect). She did NOT call the "elevator guy" a misogynist or any other derogatory name.

Her mistake, if any, (IMO) was not to script her video so that the line between general commentary on misogyny in the atheist/skeptic/etc community would have been clearly separated from her telling the elevator anecdote. But I am not sure that it would have been possible to do successfully, even if she had tried - listening to her it was quite clear to me that she had moved from one, more general issue to a personal and specific one, but apparently many who watched the video were not able or willing to hear which of her several topics she was addressing at which time in the video.

.

Maybe every woman in the atheist/skeptic/etc. community should stick to just one topic per video or post, so as not to confuse and befuddle those poor people who cannot multi-task?

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, you are entitled to you opinions,

Thanks. So are you.

but you cannot realistically expect them to be universally accepted.

I've never had such an expectation. Neither can you, by the way.

IMO you misrepresent Watson's original comment fairly seriously -

I don't. Not at all. I've misrepresented nothing. I've included what she said in her Youtube video AND what she posted on her blog. It would be a misrepresentation to only go by what she said in her youtube video. Note: Watson misrepresented what she was talking about in the speech at the hotel - she was talking about email threats and sexist emails - she characterized that as just having talked about not wanting to be asked for coffee (approached by a man).

in her own video she simply told that the exchange in the elevator had happened and that it had made her feel uncomfortable, and asked "guys please don't do that" (or words very much to that effect). She did NOT call the "elevator guy" a misogynist or any other derogatory name.

She did too refer to him as a misogynist and she did too say that the guy "sexually objectified" her. You'll need to read her post on Skepchick.com. Just because she says one thing on the video doesn't mean we ignore everything else she did say.

Her mistake, if any, (IMO) was not to script her video so that the line between general commentary on misogyny in the atheist/skeptic/etc community would have been clearly separated from her telling the elevator anecdote. But I am not sure that it would have been possible to do successfully, even if she had tried

Are you under the impression that Watson doesn't think elevator guy was engaging in misogyny and sexually objectifying her when he asked for coffee at 4am in the elevator? You're entitled to your opinion, but you can't expect it to be universally excepted, especially in this instance, if that's what you're asserting.

- listening to her it was quite clear to me that she had moved from one, more general issue to a personal and specific one, but apparently many who watched the video were not able or willing to hear which of her several topics she was addressing at which time in the video.

I, for one, don't just go by her video, and ignore everything else she says.

.

Maybe every woman in the atheist/skeptic/etc. community should stick to just one topic per video or post, so as not to confuse and befuddle those poor people who cannot multi-task?

Not all women agree with Watson on this, and plenty of women see it the same way I do.

Maybe the irrational among us, though, need to be little bit more logical, instead of reacting out of emotion and mixing different issues.

[Coito ergo sum]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JA4EPRb ... ture=feedu[/youtube]

[Hermit]

I'm neither completely "pro" Watson nor completely "pro" McGraw

Same here, so in order to balance what I said on the matter in an earlier post, let me add this:

Every time I got into an elevator I used to yearn for coffee and interesting conversation, but nowadays it's all about helping someone out with maths homework.

[Coito ergo sum]

Elevator Guy Revealed!!!

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Ronja]

... in her own video she simply told that the exchange in the elevator had happened and that it had made her feel uncomfortable, and asked "guys please don't do that" (or words very much to that effect). She did NOT call the "elevator guy" a misogynist or any other derogatory name.

She did too refer to him as a misogynist and she did too say that the guy "sexually objectified" her. You'll need to read her post on Skepchick.com. Just because she says one thing on the video doesn't mean we ignore everything else she did say.

Link? And please also a quote, seeing as Rebecca has written four blog posts about this (in addition to the original and one additional video blog), so where exactly did she call the elevator guy or his behavior "misogynist"? I may have missed it, forgotten it, or mixed it up with Rebecca's or someone else's general comments on misogyny in the atheist/skeptic/etc community.

Not all women agree with Watson on this, and plenty of women see it the same way I do.

Argumentum ad populum does not prove anything. Not one woman who agrees or disagrees, fully or partially, with Watson a) is Watson or b) was in the elevator to witness the extent of creepiness or lack thereof in TEG's voice, face and body language.

My main point is that we cannot know what happened - none of us were there. So making strong statements one way or another is rather disingenuous.

[Coito ergo sum]

... in her own video she simply told that the exchange in the elevator had happened and that it had made her feel uncomfortable, and asked "guys please don't do that" (or words very much to that effect). She did NOT call the "elevator guy" a misogynist or any other derogatory name.

She did too refer to him as a misogynist and she did too say that the guy "sexually objectified" her. You'll need to read her post on Skepchick.com. Just because she says one thing on the video doesn't mean we ignore everything else she did say.

Link?

http://Www.skepchick.com. "...but I figured I should post this for the record: yes, 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!" - Rebecca Watson That's Watson referring to herself, in the elevator, as being sexually objectified. http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/ Same article: "Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier." In context, she is referring to the elevator incident as a possible issue of misogyny or objectification - both mentions are referring directly to this incident. Here, she also refers to the incident being "sexual objectification" (as distinct from "sexual attraction") http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/ That answers the question, so I won't go in further depth than taht.

Do you plan to ever answer any of my questions? Or, is this a one way street.

And please also a quote,

I did.

seeing as Rebecca has written four blog posts about this (in addition to the original and one additional video blog), so where exactly did she call the elevator guy or his behavior "misogynist"? I may have missed it, forgotten it, or mixed it up with Rebecca's or someone else's general comments on misogyny in the atheist/skeptic/etc community.

See above.

Not all women agree with Watson on this, and plenty of women see it the same way I do.

Argumentum ad populum does not prove anything. Not one woman who agrees or disagrees, fully or partially, with Watson a) is Watson or b) was in the elevator to witness the extent of creepiness or lack thereof in TEG's voice, face and body language.

I never said it did "prove" anything. But, when Dawkins took issue with Skepchick by giving her a big, well-deserved "Oh, Come the fuck on!" it was deemed, on Skepchick.org, "belittl[ing] the experiences of women" collectively. http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/ - Surely, if not all women agree with Skepchick, and many women agree in principle with Dawkins and Stef McGraw, then it's just as valid to point that out as to point out the opposite. Some women don't consider Dawkins' belittling of Skepchick's supposedly horrific incident in the elevator tantamount to to "belittling the experiences of women" in general.

And, we don't have to "be" Watson to take her word for what went on in the Elevator.

My main point is that we cannot know what happened - none of us were there.

So, what? We can't know for certain that anything happened, yet we still have judicial systems and we still opine, based on the information we do have, as the merits of different issues. We don't have to have been there. Plus, we have the testimony of the complaining witness - Skepchick - who says what happened. We are entitled to go by what she says. Just as if a guy in the elevator says, say, he badgered a woman mercilessly to have sex with him, and didn't take no for an answer, we would be entitled to take his word for it.

So making strong statements one way or another is rather disingenuous.

That depends on the issue. I can certainly say that based on exactly what Skepchick said happened in that elevator, there was no evident misogyny or sexual objectification. Do you agree, or disagree? If you disagree, then what is the evidence of misogyny and sexual objectification, based on what Skepchick told us. I realize more may have happened than she told us (not sure why she'd sugar coat the story, but she might have, I guess...), but we only know what she told us.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just noticed this diddy....

Now I must share one additional fact about me: I loathe passive aggressive behavior. Loathe it. I sincerely believe that if you are going to criticize someone’s argument, you should clearly and honestly state to whom you are referring and what exactly they have said or done that you find objectionable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/

I would think if she followed her own advice, she would have named elevator guy and said exactly what they have said or done that she finds objectionable. She apparently did the latter - although Ronja pointed out that we may not have gotten the whole story from Skepchick - but, she did not clearly and honestly state to whom she was referring.

She did call Stef McGraw a misogynist - or at least a woman parroting misogyny and anti-woman rhetoric...LOL - right - a woman who doesn't take Skepchick's nonsense seriously is, of course, not just anti-Skepchick on this issue, she's "anti-woman" and "misogynistic" (or at least brainwashed by the male dominates society to propagate anti-woman rhetoric...).

I have enough respect for my audience to allow them the opportunity to double check my work. If I hide the person and the exact words that I am criticizing, how does anyone know whether or not I’m creating a strawman?

Yep. How do we know indeed...?

[Ronja]

Coito, I'm sorry to say this, but your posting style in this thread is starting to make me more uncomfortable* than what I am willing to stand "just for the heck of it".

This thread is not a constructive discussion. Heck, it's not even a discussion anymore. If your way of communicating with those few women who turned up at the atheist events you helped organize was even a little bit alike your way of communicating in this thread, I am not the least bit surprised if many of them only attended once.

This was enough of this thread for me.





* I feel fremdscham** and that does not feel good.

** "Fremdscham (the noun) describes the almost-horror you feel when you notice that somebody is oblivious to how embarrassing they truly are. Fremdscham occurs when someone who should feel embarrassed for themselves simply is not, and you start feeling embarrassment in their place." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evo ... ger-effect

[Coito ergo sum]

I answered all your questions - I provided the proof you sought - I provided the links you asked for. You, of course, ignore all of my questions, and don't give me the courtesy of clear and direct answers, despite my practice of extending you that same courtesy. It's all evasions with you.

Now you hit me with this bullshit? Fremdscham? And, a veiled assertion that I suffer from a psychological condition (see your link)? You can't be serious. Don't bother addressing the merits - just hand-wave and insult. I don't know why I expect anything different. This isn't the first time. Suffice to say, if I said anything that was wrong, you could have chosen to refute it. You chose a different course. That was your call.

Part of the reason this thread wasn't constructive is that it, and the other thread on women being made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events, became more about you and others putting me in my place than actually discussing the issues. I, for one, stuck to the issue.

Anyway - it's up to you - discuss the issue or don't. If you're going to post here, I would sincerely like to discuss the issue. However, if you're going to hurl insults, I'd rather you go somewhere else. You decide what you want to do, and I'll leave it to anyone who cares to read this thread whether my "posting style" is really something that made this discussion less constructive, or perhaps it was something else that did it.

[Coito ergo sum]

O.k. - so, moving on, for all those that wish to continue the discussion - the SUBSTANCE of the discussion - if that's not too much to ask....

Here is Skepchick's latest video on the topic -- [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m1sm8z7 ... ture=feedu[/youtube]

My first impressions - snarky - sarcastic - snide. She seems to be responding mostly to the lowest common denominator - thanking men or boys who made nasty comments to her, etc.

In any case - the story changes a little - now she characterizes the event as her being "cornered" in an elevator. Now, being cornered is different than just getting on an elevator with someone. In the original video, she talks about the guy "getting on" the elevator with her and then saying that he found her interesting, and would like to talk more, and then asked her back to his room for coffee. She made no mention of being cornered or words to the effect of having been cornered. This jumped right out at me.

I will say this - if she was cornered in the elevator (corner, in this case, being to force into an awkward or difficult position or one from which escape is impossible:" - examples of cornering in an elevator would seem to me to be if someone was trying to get out and they were stopped or the way was blocked, or if one person moves closer to another such that they are driven back toward the corner or even just the wall so as to limit movement. Cornering would not occur, however, if two people who are both going onto an elevator for the legitimate purpose of going to their rooms in that building and exchanging words. That's not being "cornered."

Another thing that jumped out at me was her body language in this video. She often has that same smirk or Cheshire grin, but in this case she continually and quite often flashes her eyes up and to her right, up and and to her right, and then to the side. This is, as I understand it, an indication that she is putting together something using her imagination. Looking down and to the right is a remembered feeling. When she talks about being cornered in the elevator, it's up and to the right - imagined. Up and to her left would indicate "remembered." That is an indicator used by body language experts that someone is lying. I'm not saying she is lying, but she did look up and to the right a lot.

Contrast that to when she is "remembering" the posts calling her a retard and a faggot on her blog or on the youtube comments. She looks down and to her left and off to the left sideways when she is recalling those items. That's expected because eyes moving in those directions indicate that she is "remembering" and that down and to the left is "internal dialogue." So, she's thinking - trying to remember - the posts that she tells us about.

She also says in this video that she SAID she didn't want to be hit on. She did not bring that up before in her blogs or video. Previously, the issue was that the man should have known based on her speech at the conference where she sat next to Dawkins and talked about hate email and sexist email - he should have known that she did not want to be "hit on." Her story now is that this guy was told that she did not want to be hit on, and then almost immediately "cornered" her in the elevator and hit on her.

[hadespussercats]

Her story now is that this guy was told that she did not want to be hit on, and then almost immediately "cornered" her in the elevator and hit on her.

Actually, what jumped out at me in this version of the story is that she says several times that she'd never had a conversation with the guy in the elevator before. She said he didn't know her.

She didn't use the language "cornered" in her earlier post-- you're right about that. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. And before you say it-- yes, it doesn't mean it did, either. If it did, though, her reaction seems more reasonable, doesn't it? Something to consider...

I haven't seen the full clip of her conference talk-- just the bit you and I discussed previously, so I don't know if she mentioned at any point in the conference (which the elevator guy ostensibly attended) what her feelings were about being hit on. But she's been clear that she doesn't maintain she told him directly that she didn't want him to hit on her. At least, not until after he did...

As for the eye/body language-- I'd have to watch the clip again to see if I see what you see. But-- how is that sort of eye movement affected when someone is thinking up something to say extemporaneously? I mean-- whether or not she's making up events, she's inventing what she's saying about them, when she presents an unscripted video post, isn't she?

[Coito ergo sum]

Her story now is that this guy was told that she did not want to be hit on, and then almost immediately "cornered" her in the elevator and hit on her.

Actually, what jumped out at me in this version of the story is that she says several times that she'd never had a conversation with the guy in the elevator before. She said he didn't know her.

Previously, I believe her story was that the guy was in the conference, and also at the bar with them. I recall that she previously said she hadn't spoken with him directly previously. Here she does say that the guy was told (well, I guess she says "I said") that she didn't want to be hit on, and that she was tired. She makes a far more declarative and certain statement about what elevator guy supposedly knew prior to asking her for coffee.

She didn't use the language "cornered" in her earlier post-- you're right about that. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. And before you say it-- yes, it doesn't mean it did, either. If it did, though, her reaction seems more reasonable, doesn't it? Something to consider...

Absolutely. I meant to say it more clearly originally - which is if this guy "cornered" her in that elevator, then she may well have been justified in calling the police or at least to the front desk to report the incident. Cornering a woman is far different than getting into an elevator with a woman, and the implications are far different. It's an important distinction. It is such an important distinction that leaving it out is strange. I mean - why sugar coat it in the original video? Why say "he got on the elevator and said..."? Why wouldn't she have said - "this guy I didn't know got on the elevator and immediately cornered me - I was cornered to the wall - and..."

It's kind of like - when you're listening to someone tell a story, and they go through various details, then you discover a hole in their story, and you call them on it, and then they conveniently remember a key fact that solves the problem. But, you're left with the feeling that it's surely something that would have been mentioned. I mean, in this case - what if she said now that he touched her - held her back briefly from leaving the elevator. Wouldn't you think that would be something she'd have included originally? I feel that way about the "cornering." It's a very convenient word for her to use right now. It adds to the seriousness of event more than just a little bit.

Let's say she used the word "cornered" in the first video. I guarantee you that the followup inquiries would have been "cornered? what do you mean, "cornered"? Did he just get on the elevator, or did he drive you into the wall or the corner of the elevator? Were you not free to leave?" And, she could have said, "Right - we got on and suddenly I found him in my personal space, and he backed me to the wall - then he said.... etc." -- that's HUGELY different than - "some guy got on the elevator and told me I was interesting, and wanted me to go for coffee - I said no, and he left." The dearth of detail in her original story was, to me, pregnant.

I haven't seen the full clip of her conference talk-- just the bit you and I discussed previously, so I don't know if she mentioned at any point in the conference (which the elevator guy ostensibly attended) what her feelings were about being hit on.

Not at all. I can tell you, she didn't.

But she's been clear that she doesn't maintain she told him directly that she didn't want him to hit on her. At least, not until after he did...

Actually, in this video, she says that he asked her for coffee AFTER she had already said she didn't want to be hit on. That too is a key distinction.

As for the eye/body language-- I'd have to watch the clip again to see if I see what you see. But-- how is that sort of eye movement affected when someone is thinking up something to say extemporaneously? I mean-- whether or not she's making up events, she's inventing what she's saying about them, when she presents an unscripted video post, isn't she?

I don't know - I'm not an expert. I just found it interesting. When she's talking about what happened in the elevator - up and to the right (imagining) - when she's talking about the posts/blogs from the creeps - off to the left and down and to the left (remembering and internal dialogue). It was very apparent to me. Now, body language is not an exact science anyway - and I'm certainly no expert, but I noticed it because it jumped out at me that she was looking up and to the right and to the right so many times, and then suddenly it was off to the left off to the left and down and to the left....so, I looked up body language and eye movements, and then watched the video again.

I'm not going to accuse her of lying about the whole event - but, with the added details, etc. - I'm thinking there is some "embellishing" going on. But, who knows. I could be wrong.

[hadespussercats]

hadespussercats wrote:But she's been clear that she doesn't maintain she told him directly that she didn't want him to hit on her. At least, not until after he did...

CES: Actually, in this video, she says that he asked her for coffee AFTER she had already said she didn't want to be hit on. That too is a key distinction.

I just meant she said they hadn't spoken directly to each other before meeting in the elevator.