Everyone Needs to Calm the Fuck Down

Et tu Hemant?

All the blogs are full of this. Enough already.
(Though I think you did explain the situation better than anyone else).

I think Female 1 and Female 2 — ah, fuck it, Rebecca Watson and Stef McGraw — are important voices in our movement.

Wouldnt it have been nice if Watson made the mature decision to have a discussion with McGraw over beers at the conference, instead of what she ended up doing?

Has Watson recognized that she made a poor decision yet?

A threesome involving Female 1, Female 2, and Unknown Male should clear this matter up nicely.

As soon as I read this post…I went to the PZ Myers blog because I knew it would be there.
And indeed it was.
Over 600 comments full of derp as I type this.

I much prefer your calm take on the matter.

This kind of “blow up” seems to keep happening. I don’t know whether to just get depressed or grab popcorn.

I going with the grabbing popcorn option for now.

I can’t wait for something to happen at TAM in a few weeks. Because you KNOW it will.

I couldn’t have said it better. I find it shameful that professionalism and politeness was tossed aside so easily in order to Be Right.

It’s petty, it’s bitchy, and it is the exact opposite of the message that those individuals are supposed to be providing. Want women to be treated better in the atheist community? My suggestion is to stop acting like junior high brats. Thanks, girls, for setting that wonderful example. Like it isn’t hard enough to shake a stereotype.

@DiscountDeity,

That was because “female” was used impersonally in a personal situation–“Does anyone know how to get females in the movement?” as opposed to, “How can we get more women involved?” When you reach out to people, you don’t treat them impersonally.

Here Hemant is trying to make the situation impersonal, so “Unkown Male” and “Female 1” are appropriate.

Great post, imo.

Posted on FB, but thought I’d post it here too… “…who knows how many other potential atheist bloggers and podcasters and writers are now even more hesitant to voice their beliefs out loud.” Yeppers… The blogging world is fairly messed up to me, it gets out of control so easily. And it’s really lame, also, all of the back and forth all of the time. It seems to me like there’s almost always some kind of major drama and back and forth and it is very tiring.

Fucking hell.. I’ll make sure not to even look at any female I see… Oh no… I just called them “females”. Next thing you know there will be a big fuss over someone commenting on how good it is to have attractive bloggers… Oh we’ve already been there.

The fact is, there is NEVER a good time to come on to someone if they don’t find you the least bit desirable. Maybe some ugly women would be flattered, or 100% of guys would thank their lucky stars, but I bet Rebecca would’ve kicked up a fuss no matter what time and place the “Sex plz?” took place.

If you put a large group of diverse folks from many different communities together, you may incidents where someone feels they have experienced harassment or oppression.

Perhaps conference organizers should look at having:

(1) guidelines or expectations for conference attendees

(2) procedures in place when incidents happen

The Unitarian Universalist Association has guidelines that they use for their annual convention could be adapted for atheist conferences:

Anti-Racism, Anti-Oppression, Multiculturalism
http://www.uua.org/ga/values/13298.shtml

Since they have been hosting annual conferences for years with around 5000 attendees, adapting their work may be easier than “re-inventing the wheel.”

@DiscountDeity Re: Females

That happened in Alabama, and after seeing the video from the talk, that was totally a mountain out of molehill, IMO.
(The same guy who used the term “female” also used the term “male” in the same talk to refer to men.)

I am a female, and I don’t care who knows it!

This whole thing has taken on a life of its own, hasn’t it? It’s like the conversation isn’t really about the inciting events anymore.

I suspect the whole blogospheric conversation is more about a problem that has existed for some years now but is only recently seeing the light of day.

You know what? We are not all on the same goddamn side.

Some of us are feminists.
Some of us are misogynists.
Plenty of us are scattered on the spectrum in between.

And, to be frank, I have a lot more patience for a theistic feminist than for a misogynistic atheist.

@ Kenny

The fact is, there is NEVER a good time to come on to someone if they don’t find you the least bit desirable. Maybe some ugly women would be flattered, or 100% of guys would thank their lucky stars, but I bet Rebecca would’ve kicked up a fuss no matter what time and place the “Sex plz?” took place.

Quite frankly, there are nice subtle ways of asking the same question. In an elevator is probably not the best place to do it. It makes the woman feel vulnerable. Being a past victim, I probably would have kicked him in the head.

@Kristina

Quite frankly, there are nice subtle ways of asking the same question. In an elevator is probably not the best place to do it. It makes the woman feel vulnerable. Being a past victim, I probably would have kicked him in the head.

Because women are defenseless and need a “true man” to protect them from other men? Fuck that train of thought.

@Pam:

And I thnk people are sometimes too hesitant to call misogyny misogyny. Sounds like we’re even.

Ditto Discount Deity. There are many “sides” of many issues that emerge in the course of even a tightly focused discussion among atheists. If this expanding discussion demonstrates nothing else, it’s that issues of gender, power and appropriateness remain deep and divisive ones in our overlapping movements. They need talking about.

Excellent Post, Hement. The problem is, many people in the atheist/skeptics/humanist moments (if they really are, in fact, movements) tend to forget that the thing that brings them together is their beliefs/philosophy/rational viewpoint in the core subject of atheism/skepticism/humanism. Many people in these “movements” assume they hold Belief A (atheism, for example), everyone else that holds Belief A must, ipso facto, hold the same beliefs on every other subject, including feminism, politics, labor unions, tax policy, abortion, etc ad nauseum. Thus, when a fellow traveler as far as Belief A is concerned comes along that might have a different viewpoint on things like politics, taxes, you name it, they are considered Not A True Atheist/Skeptic/Humanist, etc. I don’t think that most people associated with on of the “movements” feel this way, but there are some particular celebrities (such as they are to you and me–I mean, very few people in the grand scheme of things have even heard of most of the people who are celebrities in the “movement”) and small groups that will go on the attack when anyone who considers themselves an atheist/skeptic/humanist publicly espouses a viewpoint on what they consider an important issue if that viewpoint is different than what the particular celebrity or small group thinks an atheist/skeptic/humanist should believe. The most obvious example of this is PZ Myers, who seems to have no use for anyone unless they agree with him on everything, from atheism, to skepticism, to left-wing politics, affirmative action, feminism, abortion, etc. Of course, most reasonable people will look at this and consider it obnoxious, which, to some of these celebrities and small groups, means that that the very same reasonable people are themselves not true atheists/skeptics/humanists. I think that we have also seen this phenomenon with some of the topics that have begun creeping into organized atheist/skeptics/humanist events and conferences. While I think that there are many very important political and social issues outside of the core areas of atheism/skepticism/humanism, do we really need to devote our time and energy to those issues when we are wearing our atheist/skeptic/humanist hats? For instance, a few years back at TAM 5, Christopher Hitchens gave an impassioned talk about the danger that the Islamic religion posed to the civilized world. I personally loved the talk, but a good number of people I spoke to were very much turned off by it, and complained, and called Mr. Hitchens a jerk for spending time at a skeptics conference speaking about it. I heard similar things when Michael Schermer has talked about libertarian economic policy, with his viewpoint apparently being that it should be the Official Economic Policy Of Skepticism. Similarly, digressions into issues of feminism, labor policy, and so forth are important issues that need to be discussed, but many people seem to think that they need to be part of the accepted dogma of the organized “movements” and that anyone that feels otherwise is a borderline heretic.

Thanks for this, Hemant. I think this is the sanest and fairest explanation of the situation thus far.

The comments over at Pharyngula are more than I’ve been able to stomach today. A socially inept man made a wrong move and came off as a creeper, but not a misogynist. Rebecca Watson was unprofessional in calling out Stef McGraw in the manner in which she did. It was inappropriate and childish. The automatic assumption of misogyny is getting more than tiresome, and talk of “rape schedules” put things over the top today.

When Unknown Male approached Watson, it was probably the only time he had had to talk to her. She was at a conference, and she was busy.

Actually, the incident occurred at 4 AM after Ms Watson had spent several hours down at the bar talking with multiple people about various things, during which time he had ample opportunity to talk to her, but didn’t. Then she said she was tired and going to bed, and that’s when Elevator Guy got her alone and asked her back to his room.

DiscountDeity Says:
July 2nd, 2011 at 5:47 pm

Wasn’t there recently some controversy in the community about calling women “females”?

Why is that bad? We could say ‘males,’ couldn’t we? I prefer girl or female, and then woman. ‘Woman’ is just an odd word for me. Why does it matter though? Unless it’s ‘female dog,’ they should get over it.

As for the situation, and as a female myself, it’s incredibly awkward, and definitely scary if you’re in an elevator with some guy who asks if you want to go back to his room, in any way. I would like to mention, though, after watching her video, I don’t see how the man was ‘sexualising’ her in any manner. It’s not like he said, ‘Wow, you’re hot. Want some…coffee? With cream and sugar? *wink, nudge*’ — So, in that respect, I agree with Stef M., especially here:

Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would, in my view, have to react in the same manner were the situation reversed; if a woman were to engage a man in the same way, she would probably be creeping him out and making him uncomfortable and unfairly sexualizing him, right? But of course no one ever makes that claim…

I can see how it could be uncomfortable for Rebecca W., but sexualising and making it a feminist issue seems to be going too far. — But, I also agree with what SM said prior to this, that she wasn’t there and he may have been creepy. RW doesn’t make out that he was being creepy though. She said she doesn’t like to be ‘sexualised in that manner,’ not, ‘He was scary as freaking tartarus and I thought I was going to be raped and murdered.’ Maybe it was like that, but she didn’t say it.

pinko Says:
July 2nd, 2011 at 6:40 pm

Ugggghhhh. I don’t know of many women, ugly or not, who would consider some creep hitting on them in an enclosed space like an elevator at ANY time of the day, let alone very very late at night, flattering. It’s just creepy. Perhaps you meant “maybe some women with low self esteem and little judgement when it comes to potentially dangerous and/or predatory behavior would be flattered.”

Agreed.

Look, let’s go back to (5). If someone says, “I’m upset about X,” the proper reply is never- never “Well, you shouldn’t be.”

What should and shouldn’t be has little to do with what is. People don’t get upset because they reason themselves into the state. They feel upset. You might not be able to sympathize with them, but you can at least empathize with them.

This over is void for people who are the cause of their own problems. Like that friend that complains about never having money but can’t budget to save their life. That clearly doesn’t apply here. “This guy did this and it skeeved me out and upset me,” is not a self-caused problem. It’s just a rather bland statement of fact.

In conclusion: guys, don’t hit on girls. It won’t end well. Just have female friends and the rest will work itself out.

Great post, Hemant.

& Rich, you really nailed it with this:

Many people in these “movements” assume they hold Belief A (atheism, for example), everyone else that holds Belief A must, ipso facto, hold the same beliefs on every other subject, including feminism, politics, labor unions, tax policy, abortion, etc ad nauseum. Thus, when a fellow traveler as far as Belief A is concerned comes along that might have a different viewpoint on things like politics, taxes, you name it, they are considered Not A True Atheist/Skeptic/Humanist, etc

Exactly. Such assumptions are extremely frustrating, to say the very least.

I’m sure you have, by now, read Jen McCreight’s take on the subject (I’m not savvy enough to hyperlink to it). Did you possibly take the time to read her link to an explanation about privilege? I think it’s a must-read. For everyone.

Oh, and I know it’s been said, but it bears repeating: “female” is acceptable as an adjective, not as a substitute for “woman.”

At the risk of being seen as a dick, I’d like to say the following.

1. Rebecca Watson is hot.
2. I’d like to have sex with her.
3. I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened.
4. I don’t blame the guy for trying.
5. I hope he was polite about it.
6. She’s not wrong for calling out his futile attempt as creepy.
7. It’s also known as “sexual selection” and is referred to in a famous tome you may have heard of.
8. I hope he took no for an answer and went to his own room and whacked off.

I think people have put their finger on a really interesting point; the reactions are based on whether or not the person thought that the action was simply creepy or rather threatening.

As a feminist, I would very much like to believe that the actions in the elevator were just poor form and simply socially unacceptable. As a survivor of sexual assault, I can also see how the action may have come across as threatening to the woman. We’re right to realize that we theorize on one plane and live in another; I think her reaction may have been justified because of her gender, which she is obviously highly aware of.

When I first came across Skepchick, I wanted to like it. I know there’s a dearth of women in the skeptic/atheist movement, and the first few articles I read were great. But ultimately I found that the regular posters are sexist and hypocritical, and I just can’t stomach them anymore.

The idea that “any unwanted advance is always inappropriate” is ludicrous on its face, because there is NO WAY to be certain, ever, whether an advance is wanted until you do it.

t3knomanser, I disagree. I have often told friends, and been told by them, that even though I may be upset, I’m overreacting. We discuss, and I may or may not eventually agree with them. In this case (and we weren’t there, so it’s hard) I think it’s possibly justified to say “You shouldn’t be upset”. Just as “I am upset” is a bland statement of fact, the opinion that that is not something to be upset about is a bland statement of opinion.

The problem here isn’t really that they disagreed, but rather, that Ms. Watson aired them in an inappropriate forum. It would have been fine to post her rebuttal online, or even make her own response video, but it was inappropriate to hijack the talk that was supposed to be about a completely different subject.

This is not a problem with disagreement, or with the movement; it’s about Ms. Watson, who has been a voice in the movement, showing herself to be unstable and behaving inappropriately.

Sounds like they should all go to someone’s room and have coffee…

How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? …………..One. AND IT’S NOT FUNNY!

So that guy dared making slightly untactful suggestions and then left when he was rejected!?

OMG!, what a sexist misogynistic son of a bitch (what? as long as I don’t reach the Godwin point it’s ok, isn’t it?).

Dudes, I know we don’t like this particular symbolic, but this guy really deserves to be crucified.

Thanks, Hemant – this is one of the most rational posts I’ve read about this situation today.

To quote Rich Orman:

but there are some particular celebrities (such as they are to you and me–I mean, very few people in the grand scheme of things have even heard of most of the people who are celebrities in the “movement”) and small groups that will go on the attack when anyone who considers themselves an atheist/skeptic/humanist publicly espouses a viewpoint on what they consider an important issue if that viewpoint is different than what the particular celebrity or small group thinks an atheist/skeptic/humanist should believe.

I have found this trend very disheartening and have started avoiding a couple of atheist/skeptical blogs as a result. Attacking people who are on our side in the movement, simply because they don’t agree with these “celebs” on all subjects, is problematic. How many people out there will be driven away by this petty infighting and insistence on groupthink? How many will abandon the movement because they feel that their views on other issues make them persona non grata? Probably more than we know because most will simply leave quietly rather than incur the wrath of the outspoken.

And that’s a shame because the atheist/skeptical movement needs all the support it can get.

Yeah, I think it’s important that we discuss things like this without always showing anger and outrage to people who end up on the wrong side of a political correctness argument. It’s not easy to know what’s right, we as atheists understand that better than anybody.

I don’t suppose it’s occurred to any of the guys who are complaining about needing a mood ring to know when it’s okay to talk to women, that the actual problem here is not that Rebecca Watson is an evil bitch who shot down Elevator Guy’s dreams of getting laid, but that Elevator Guy needs to move out of his mama’s basement, put on his big-boy panties, and learn how to approach women in a way that doesn’t make him look like a creepy rapist?

Not looking like a creepy rapist, by the way, is NOT rocket science. It helps if — now I know this is a crazy idea but bear with me — you start with the assumption that women are human beings and treat them accordingly.

@Cassie

How about we assume the fellow in question is also a human being, albeit one who made a poor choice (but obviously didn’t pursue things after Ms. Watson said no), and not automatically assume misogyny on his part?

If I were a conference organizer, I’d not invite Rebecca to speak. Clearly her personal disputes are more important than what she’s been asked to speak about. I’d be scared she would use the bully pulpit she was given to advance her personal agenda, as she did here.

In this entire story, not sure I can find anything else that rises to the level of needing the entire communities attention. I think Rebecca was fine to say she found it creepy, and the other woman was perfectly fine in saying that men aren’t always sexualizing.

Very disappointing.

You realize this post is just massively hypocritical, right?

Here we go again. Rebecca calls herself “skepCHICK”. Misogyny is not what she experienced, nor what she promotes herself as.

Many of these comments certainly clarify why there are not more women in the atheist ”
movement”.

*shrug* That is all 🙂

If you don’t get why a man following a woman to an elevator and propositioning her between floors is creepy, raise your hand.

Okay. Lesson time.

Men are, on the whole, bigger than women. Men are also more likely to be rapists than women are.

Does this mean that Elevator Guy is necessarily a rapist? No. Absolutely not. However, 1 in 6 women experiences rape during her lifetime. More are sexually assaulted. This is an aspect of sexual experience we men simply don’t have to think about or take into account.

Women do.

So Elevator Guy approaches Rebecca Watson in the elevator, in an enclosed space, and asks for sex. Is it any wonder she feels uncomfortable?

What makes it creepy for him to do it? The very fact that he didn’t think at all about her perspective. That right there sends a signal: he’s drunk enough, or self-absorbed enough, or clueless enough that he’s not sympathizing with her.

Lesson conclusion: it’s creepy behavior. All the mature adults among us should be on exactly the same page about this. Get it?

@Neal

Dude, the social inept knuckle-dragger in question (adjectives based on random assumptions) did not “ask for sex.” For all we know, the dude was totally on fire and just wanted a half an hour of intelligent conversation and a cup of coffee.

The rape statistics are horrible, no doubt, but that doesn’t mean that some creepy mouth breather who never learned basic social interactions should be hurled against a wall due to an awkward elevator exchange.

And who the hell knows if he though about her perspective or not? Some women, shocking as it may be, actually enjoy and want to participate in casual sex! Crazy, right? I mean, it’s unheard of to imagine a female who would be so comfortable with herself that she would happily defy convention to engage in casual, consensual sex with a man she had only known for a brief period. Absolutely absurd!

Seriously, hang up the Lancelot trousers and actual consider the ramifications of equality.

If you don’t understand the not-so-subtle differences of the English language, please raise your hand.

” Please do not take this the wrong way ” does not mean ” Listen closely, I want you to be highly offended. ”

” I find you interesting. ” does not mean ” I find you physically attractive. ”

” I would like to talk more. ” does not mean ” I want to bend you over my couch. ”

” Would you like to come to my hotel room ” sometimes really is just convenient and easier to get to after having a few drinks then a coffee shop open somewhere at 4 A.M.

” For coffee ” does not mean ” for more alcohol. ”

And most importantly, not stopping the elevator mid-floors and raping you means that the guy was probably being genuine. Please have your ” all men are raping pigs ” radar examined.

You know what was most telling… that the woman in question assumed that the guy wanted to have sex with her. Feminist or not, that’s pretty fucking arrogant. Atheist or not, that’s pretty fucking ignorant.

Stef wasn’t there. Bad move on her part. She was denigrating a situation she knew nothing about. It was as if she were calling Rebecca a liar.

this whole thing just makes me want to *facepalm*

it reminds me of my step-daughter’s elementary school girl-drama… except the vocabulary is much more extensive.

@ Adam

I said:

Quite frankly, there are nice subtle ways of asking the same question. In an elevator is probably not the best place to do it. It makes the woman feel vulnerable. Being a past victim, I probably would have kicked him in the head.

And you somehow misconstrued that to mean I need a man to protect me how?????

You said

Because women are defenseless and need a “true man” to protect them from other men? Fuck that train of thought.

Did you actually read what I said? Take a breath and read it again. I fight my own battles- figuratively and literally. All women should be able to do so.

I think people need to check the definition of the epithets they are leveling against the (apparently) socially inpet would-be Lothario and people who view things in a more nuanced way with less vitriol.

Mysogyny –n
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Misogyny is the antonym for philogyny, which is fondness, love or admiration towards women.

Sexism – —n
discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men

Please tell me how either of these labels applies to anyone involved in this idiocy? Some axes are ground to a fine point and wielded needlessly.

Creepy late night schmoozing. Check. Unpopular response expressed by third party in a public forum. Check. Unprofessional use of a bully pulpit for a perceived slight. Check. FFS, where is the misogyny and the sexism?

Tristan, until you shrink to a physically smaller size and smaller muscle mass, morph into a body shape that invites lewd comments on a daily basis, switch to a type of human who is statistically likely to be raped, and turn into the category of human beings historically (and currently) often considered by many other human beings to be receptacles…and then get into a small enclosed steel box with a human being physically larger than you who propositions you for sex with not much indication that he’s reading any of your signals, *then* you can declaim about what’s creepy and what’s not to 50% of the human race. Shut up with your Lord High Arbiter Of Acceptable Emotions act otherwise.

Some background: I was sexually assaulted in high school on school grounds. I didn’t realize that it was sexual assault until ten years later because I’d been told it “wasn’t that bad”, “that’s nothing” and “he was just kidding”. (A rape threat after groping and asking for sex is in no way “kidding”.) No “adults I trusted” took me seriously. This is the world we live in.

I can understand Rebecca Watson getting creeped out. Aside from the content of the exchange, there’s also form to be considered. Tone of voice and distance between them especially. I’m very reluctant to deny someone’s feelings that something was wrong, probably because mine were so denied when something was very wrong. Even so, speaking at the conference wasn’t the appropriate forum for such a response. Yes, unprofessional. If a response was called for, that wasn’t the place. A math test, for example, wouldn’t have been the place for me to expound about the assault and how I felt about its denial. It wouldn’t have been a wrong thing to do but a wrong place to do it. Simple as that.

I take issue with the call to stop that and “focus on what’s important”. Many things of different sorts may be important all at once. The call is valid, though, if it’s “focus on what’s important for us to discuss here and now”. “That may be a valid discussion but this is neither the time nor the place; we need to get to the topic at hand” is entirely acceptable to me, at least so long as suggestions of when or where could be offered upon request.

@Jay:

You’re making the same mistake others are making. A man is no more safer than a woman is in this world. If you think for a moment that a man can’t be lured back to a hotel room so that another man can beat the hell out of him and rob him then you’re either naive, or an idiot. There’s far worse than even that which could happen to a man.

There’s a lot of sexism going on here… yours included. We live in a world where a man can be just as easily killed and raped as a woman.

I would have thought that everyone with even a teapot of intelligence would have considered the truthfulness of that by now and stopped making this entire ordeal out to a case where some small, frail, weak, and intimidated woman was being harassed, degraded, and humiliated. None of which was the case if we are to believe what has been said.

As for you telling me not to speak my opinion about what’s creepy and what’s not? Stuff your ignorance into an envelope and mail that bullshit to someone who wants to read it. The fact is, in this situation and others it’s all about perspective of the people involved. The rest of us are simply observers who have an opinion.

It always kills me how it’s these high school dramas that make the blogs light up like the bridge of the Enterprise… when we have Roe V. Wade being de-facto overturned in a new state every day… when the Republans are plotting to destroy what’s left of the economy because it’s the only way any of their pathetic candidates has a chance against Obama… when the lunatic religious right grows more powerful, delusional, and violent all the time… this is what’s monopolizing people’s attention.

For the record I don’t agree with Stef’s original blog post but the way Rebecca Watson reacted was immature and bullying. I hate bullying. If you disagree with my opinions, fine, do your worst, as long as the playing field is level. Don’t abuse a position of power and attack me when I can’t defend myself. That’s cowardly and dickish.

Pretty creepy. A lot of situations are in the eye of the beholder, but a total stranger asking to stay the night? What kind of dick asks for that without even so much as a dinner and a movie/show? If he’s not famous, the chances are vanishingly small.

As for “Female 1” vs. “Female 2”, frankly, my head is spinning.

@Neal…

Read my post above regarding the understandings of not-so-subtle English language.

It’s easy to make assumptions about intent, but you know what… sometimes 4 AM coffee is simply 4 AM coffee. In this entire situation there’s been a working assumption by many that this was all about sexual proposition. Hell, look at the person’s post above yours ” Asking to stay the night… “. Seriously? People are just tossing spaghetti to see what sticks. Worse, they’re ignoring facts — something we Atheists aren’t known to do.

Just a thought here… how many of you have closed down a bar and went to coffee at Denny’s afterwards? In a group? With someone you just met? Alone? It’s not as uncommon as some of you are making it out to be.

This was a situation, which in my opinion, has been blown completely out of proportion and it started with a guy using obviously polite language talking to a woman in an elevator. Someone should probably stone that guy… Oh wait… only Christians and Jews do the stoning thing, right?

Augh, thank you SO MUCH for this, Hemant. We really need a voice of reason in this shitstorm.
This whole thing just really highlights a huge problem for me with the mainstream feminist movements, and one of the biggest reasons why I hestitate to label myself a ‘feminist’ – because ANY criticism whatsoever of the movement so often automatically gets you branded a misogynist without elaboration. The point of the movement is to give women a voice to speak up with, yes? And yet apparently the only voices worth listening to are the ones talking about how awful men are, and how creepy this is, and how unfeminist that is. And believe me, all of these things are worth saying – if it’s what you honestly think, you should argue it. But that counts just as much for people who have a much narrower definition of ‘unfeminist’, and who actually don’t mind a lot of this stuff.

Time and time again I’m told that X is ‘offensive to women’, or that Y is an awful experience that ‘all women share’. Well, guess what? A lot of these things I don’t mind at all, or have never had any trouble with at all. Do I think my point of view is more important than anyone else’s? Fuck no. I think it is EXACTLY as important as one other person’s opinions. In fact, it’s probably less important, given that my views on the subject tend to be pretty uncommon. But I should still be able to say it, and I am sick to goddamn death of feminists alleging to speak for me telling me what my own experiences are. If I want to say that I actually wouldn’t be too bothered by being propositioned in an elevator at 4 in the morning, I should be able to say it. (Admittedly, I think Stef did word it the wrong way. If it bothered Rebecca, I don’t think she has a right to tell her it wasn’t so bad. But the idea behind it – that, actually, not all women are identical stereotypes and might actually have different points of views on what is or isn’t creepy or sexist – is a good one.)

And I’m not saying that misogynists don’t exist, either, or that women can’t be them. But simply stating ‘I don’t think this is sexist’ or ‘this actually doesn’t bother me’ isn’t misogynist. It is a woman saying how she feels she is treated by the world. Which is… kind of the point?

Argh, and yes, I’m aware this is a really silly little point and I feel a bit bad about myself for even caring about it. But the feminist movement for me is just this veritable PARADE of things both big and, much more often, small that just end up putting me off the entire thing. So there it is – I wanted to say something and I’m saying it.

(Note: Yeah, I haven’t read the other comments. Sorry! I wasn’t really intending to get into a conversation here, but I guess you can if you want to? I just wanted to get it out there that someone, at least, feels this way…)

“That is rape culture. Women are dehumanized. The entire conversation is about him and his needs. Any references to her are vague. And that is what makes it sexist and misogynistic. You are free to disagree. It’s your reputation.”

The conversation is about what he said, and what he meant by it. So yes, it’s about him right now. Because we understand her point of view, she’s spoken about it. What we don’t have, and therefore must speculate and discuss, is HIS opinion. So yes, we don’t quibble over her opinion, since we have it. That doesn’t mean she’s not involved, it just means it’s not a point for debate. It is misandrist of you to assume that this is a “rape culture” problem without backing that thought process up. And it’s totally a valid POV that he might have MEANT coffee.

“I’m really tired…”
“Want to come back to my room for coffee?”

Maybe he did hope to get laid, but maybe he also hoped to talk? Maybe he hoped to talk that might lead to getting laid?

I HAVE invited people over FOR COFFEE. And meant it. Particularly at 4AM.

None of us were there, though, so I understand that it’s POSSIBLE that he was the creeper. However, her response to someone questioning the validity of her anger was so out of proportion, and so inappropriate, that I think it’s a valid position to say there’s a high likelihood she was over-reacting to a situation that didn’t need to be a situation.

Honestly, I think, having read the tone of her posts, that she’s more mad that someone made a pass at her than at any “creepiness”. I could easily be wrong.

And to everyone who says “How dare he make a pass in an elevator!” I would say, what if it were some attractive celebrity, and the other person was you? I know plenty of women who would have 0 problems with Brad Pitt asking them up for coffee, even if he flatly said sex. (Obviously not everyone would, but I think it’s not entirely ridiculous for him to have made the pass, even if we assume it was a pass). Something to think about.

Also, MV, Tristan wasn’t talking just about rape. He/She was also talking about the myriad OTHER bad things that can happen to a person. Which you may not consider equal, but don’t skew her/his argument.

This is pretty much how I feel every time one of these non-controversies flares up on all the atheist blogs: (Warning – language)

Seriously, petty infighting is one of the main reasons I’ve never been big on joining any type of organized group or club.

Man says something stupid at 4 AM.

War is declared.

The most frustrating thing about this situation is how no one seems to be able to understand that the “Elevator Incident” and the “CFI Incident” are two different things. As far as I can tell, everyone has accepted Watson’s account of the “Elevator Incident” as she described it. As far as I know, no one has denied that she felt the way she felt. The only disagreement is where this guy falls on the scale between clueless, clumsy, and monster.

Then you move on to what Watson did at the CFI conference. If you erased the names and described what she did in any other public speaking context, what she did would be condemned as unambiguously petty and unprofessional. She used a position of power to grind an axe against a member of the audience from a position of presumed safety.

And yet, anyone who tries to point out that what she did was wrong independent of what the guy in the elevator did is either ignored, shouted down as a misogynist, or told that what the elevator guy did was creepy.

What the elevator guy did is irrelevant to what Watson did. His bad behavior in no way justifies her bad behavior toward a completely different person. What she did transcends gender. It’s wrong when a man does it, it’s wrong when a woman does it, it’s wrong when a dog does it, and it’s wrong when an alien does it.

So spare me the dissertations of the how and why the guy in the elevator was creepy. Even if I don’t necessarily agree with you, I understand what you are saying.

And a word of caution to the feminists. If you insist on alienating every potential ally because they don’t toe the line on the subject you’ve chosen to be passionate about, don’t be surprised to be short on allies when it’s time to step up.

Some people are suggesting that what happened wasn’t inherently creepy by suggesting you change the genders of the two people involved and because the other three scenarios (two dudes, two gals, a woman propositioning a man) are obviously not creepy, that Ms Watson was wrong to complain. This is, in my opinion, complete and utter bullcrap.

Once there was a study wherein men and women were approached by an attractive grad student of the opposite sex and propositioned, their responses recorded. The men said yes far more often than the women and the minds behind the study concluded “Women are prudes and men are sluts”. Folks all ’round the world rolled their eyes and waited for a rational, nuanced study. Eventually, they got it.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

Once you study in more depth, it turns out that men and women, gasp! have different worldviews. The women said no because they saw high risk and low reward (random guy asks for sex? Could be a psychopath, probably isn’t good in bed). The men said yes because the situation was exactly reversed (doesn’t matter if she isn’t any good, and even if she’s a nutjob there isn’t much risk).

The second study asked about situations with lower risk and higher reward and, glory be! female responses became more positive. Decrease reward and increase risk and male responses went down.

The simple fact is that a woman cornered in an elevator by a strange man is in a much, much riskier position than a man would be, particularly if he’s being propositioned by a woman. And a woman being propositioned by a woman is it far less risk than if she’s being propositioned by a man.

That’s why you can’t just swap the genders around, the dynamics of the situation change radically. Saying that Ms Watson shouldn’t have been creeped out or felt threatened is ignorant, and taking that further and saying she shouldn’t have commented on it because it’s somehow sexist to do so is doubly ignorant.

In conclusion, regarding Ms Watson’s initial post, she was well within her rights to be creeped out, as most anyone would upon being cornered in an elevator and propositioned by a stranger, taller and stronger than they (playing the odds, here, I have to admit ignorance because Ms Watson didn’t indicate as such in her post, nor did she indicate to the opposite).

As a final, rather odd note, some people have been wondering how it matters that Ms Watson was in a foreign country. The further you are from home, the more foreign the territory in which you find yourself, the less comfortable you are. If a stranger propositions you in the US, USians are certain of their rights. The same cannot be said of a USian in a foreign country. Did you know that the cops don’t have to advise you of your rights in Europe? Hell, thanks to American TV, even some Europeans don’t know that one!

Okay, that’s my full thoughts on Ms Watson’s initial post. Ms McGraw’s response was in many ways based in ignorance. I don’t know, but I feel free to infer that she’s never been cornered in an elevator by a man and propositioned (and I, for one, feel no compunction, in calling it a proposition. Hotel room, coffee, four AM, alone… Sex).

Honestly, though, I don’t give a damn about McGraw’s response because I want to talk about the ridiculous shitstorm that surrounds Watson’s response to that response. People have criticized Watson for calling McGraw by name and criticizing her, specifically quoting her words.

I’m going to draw an analogy to Penny Arcade.

PA is now the elder statesmen of gaming webcomics. They may be unprecedented in that they are perhaps the only lazy gamers to successfully found a multimillion dollar charity. There are two things they do with caution: link to someone in praise, link to someone in condemnation. Either way they’re likely to crash a server.

I am unwilling to condemn Ms Watson for two reasons. 1) I honestly believe that open and honest discourse is awesome, and that we all benefit thereby. Exploring ideas in public discussion leads to the understanding and elimination of the weakness of those ideas, and the understanding and reinforcement of the strength of those ideas.

2) I honestly believe that a public figure criticizing a lesser known figure… necessarily leads to increased public appreciation of the lesser-known public figure. I can’t be the only person who has sought out Ms McGraw’s website in order to better understand her opinion.

That Ms Watson confronted Ms McGraw, in whatever setting, necessarily means that Ms Watson directed all of her followers to Ms McGraw’s blog.

Five dollars gets you ten that Ms McGraw’s readership picked up by at least five. Because Ms Watson commented on her blog. Because Ms McGraw commented on her blog.

Discussion rewards discussion. Honesty rewards honesty.

Ms Watson rewards Ms McGraw and Ms Mcraw rewards Ms Watson; each for exactly the same reasons and to exactly the same degree.

I’m going to have to address the myth that men don’t mind when women treat them the way that women get horribly offended by.

The fact is, if a woman makes unsolicited sexual advances on a man and the man complains he will be victimised and ridiculed. Simple self-preservation teaches us all at an early age that the only option is to pretend we don’t mind. If we do mind then it will go away much quicker than if we complain about it.

Women get sympathy and support. Men… well, take a look at how hard it is for men to get support against female abuse.

Not just abuse either. Next time you see a man struggling to get a pram through some doors or down some steps, make the world a better place and lend a hand. Nobody else will.

Was it creepy and rude? Sure. No question. But he apparently took no for an answer and nothing further happened.

The thing simply doesn’t justify all this ridiculous drama around it.

Nice job on taking the overbearing and condescending role in this Hermant…
While I don’t actually disagree with your take on this story it’s just a cheap cop out to say; “This thing has escalated and everybody else is stupid for still caring about it”

Atheism, Feminism, Skepticism, this is what happens when so many “isms” collide. Hemant has it right, we are all on the same side. It is embarassing to see “leaders” play out such petty crap in public, trying to out-do each other in who can take the biggest “stand” against some injustice. Whether it is merely a perceived injustice or not no longer seems to matter, so long as someone gets the biggest megaphone and acts the most outraged.

My advice to all involved: Try developing an identity that isn’t entirely wrapped up in living the model of a label, like “feminist” or “skeptic.” Try incorporating those principals into just being HUMAN instead, and treat each other with some freaking respect once in a while!

Um, I don’t think it was wrong to voice her opinion that she was uncomfortable… but how exactly are people supposed to get together if one doesn’t make a move? She doesn’t want to be sexualized… okay… is she completely disinterested in being in a relationship? He could have been more socially appropriate for sure and asked to see her the next day, but I’m not sure what’s wrong with asking… as she figured out, she can say no…

Thank you Chris aka “Happy Cat”, you said precisely what I was thinking. Shame no-one else seems to care about it.

Two things come to mind to me in this:

1) Words like misogyny, sexism, bigotry, racism, and many other highly powerful words now mean virtually nothing because the people using them don’t know what the hell they actually mean.

2) My interest in getting involved in feminist movements has gone from quite high to virtually nil ever since I came on the internet. Note that that doesn’t mean that I don’t still want equality between genders, because that hasn’t changed one iota.

Some of the comments about this beggar belief: not just implying, but pretty much saying outright that all men are rapists. You know what? Fuck you. (And no, that is not some kind of ‘misogynistic’ invitation to come back to my room.)

(Hell, let’s assume he was coming on to Rebecca, and wanted sex rather than coffee at 4am in the morning, but not go so far as to assume with absolutely no grounds that all he wanted to do was rape her. That pretty much guarantees that he isn’t a misogynist.)

Finally – yes, I can understand Rebecca getting creeped out about this, and don’t blame her for it. Sounds like the guy was socially inept, and made an absolute mess of everything. Can understand her reaction, and think she is completely justified in feeling that way… it’s what she has done afterwards that I disagree with.

And as for the subsequent bullying that’s gone on – that tells a lot about Rebecca Watson, and none of it good. Interesting way for her to encourage more female bloggers/speakers in the movement, I must say.

Just above, @SeekerLancer, who has not been alone in this sentiment, wrote the following:

Like them we fall into the trap of wanting everyone to think and act like ourselves and try to ascribe our own morals and beliefs onto everyone else in our movement.

The sooner we realize that other than our common denominator as atheists that we don’t really need to agree on anything else, the better.

Here’s the question, though: If we aren’t going to agree on anything else, why get together for such a talk? I’m serious here. If we’re to agree that the way women are treated by the religious right is a bad thing that should be fought, shouldn’t we make sure we keep looking at ourselves and the way women are treated within our movement as well? Is there not a place for something other than simply patting ourselves on the back as far as women’s rights within the atheist community, as loose as it is, are concerned? While, as atheists, we don’t necessarily agree on anything else, if we’re talking about the religious right waging a “war against women” then that says we have a different view than they do about how women should be treated, about what policies are and are not beneficial, and about the role women play in our society. As a result, I would assume that those in the audience who are friendly to the message that the religious right is waging such a war also have some sort of common ground in their view of what sorts of actions are harmful and what sorts are better.

Because there is a view here of what sorts of actions are better and we’re saying that we’re friendlier and better than the religious right is, then I don’t think a reminder that, while we are indeed doing better than they are, we know we’re not perfect is remiss.

Dave,

Has anybody considered Elevator Guy’s feelings in all this? Considering that the time zone in Dublin is 8 hours ahead of PST, perhaps he figured that she needed a coffee instead of sleep.

If he figured she needed coffee when she’d just said she needed and wanted to go to sleep, then he’s an asshole, even if he isn’t a creeper. Saying he wasn’t trying to harass her, he was just totally ignoring her statements about her feelings and not taking her seriously is hardly complimenting him.

@ Dave, I think at the very least it would not be remiss for someone to pass Elevator Guy a copy of the study posted earlier so that he can be aware of how such things come off. Here it is again.

Wow! 100+ comments at night on a holiday weekend! PZ Meyers had a good post this morning as well on etiquette.

I haven’t spotted this comment specifically although I’m sure that it is somewhere. Conversational etiquette is particularly important in an elevator since in that case our zones of personal privacy are under challenge. I would say, always wait until the door is open and both parties can clearly leave the elevator before making any “come to my room” suggestion.

And just one personal story: the one time this situation happened to me (a male) while I was in a position to accept (before my marriage) the lady asked ME if it was interested while we were still in public. That worked out very well and I recommend it to others.

Hemant, I think you’re totally wrong here..

You say (after point #3)

That should be the end of the story. We all learn a lesson in What Not To Say To a Tired Woman at 4:00a and we move on.

Who learned a lesson here? Unknown Male got rejected; I doubt he woke up in the morning saying ‘hrmm, my advances were denied, so now I know I was totally creepy.’ It wasn’t until Watson mentioned it in her video (#4) that anyone had a chance to learn anything. In fact, there’s a good chance that Unknown Male did watch the video, and though he might have indignantly denied the creepiness of it, I bet he’s not going to be making any elevator advances for some time. Just as importantly, the skeptical community is reminded that attitude towards women [in the skeptical movement] is an issue!

Now, I’m glad we’re in agreement that Stef McGraw is wrong in her criticism, and I’m sure we’re in agreement that she had the right to express her opinion. What I don’t understand is what makes you think that she can’t be called out by name. She criticized Watson on a public website. Why doesn’t Watson have the right to respond? Because she has more power in the blogosphere? Who the hell cares? As long as she’s not using her power to silence the voice of others, why can’t she use a short portion of her speaking time to address an issue that she finds to be important?

It’s pretty hard to miss the blatant hypocrisy in your post. You’re spending just as much time criticizing Watson as Watson spent criticizing McGraw. It sounds like you’re more in favor of it because Watson’s more established in the skeptical community, so she can ‘take it’.

And the hell is this “we’re on the same side” shit? As atheists, we share one thing in common, disbelief in gods. As freethinkers/skeptics/etc we also share an appreciation of critical thinking. None of this means we can’t criticize each other. In fact it seems that we should be more likely to so. I’m all about the ‘big goals’ of the skeptical movement, but do you really think that battling sexism and working to make women feel safe should take a backseat? How much is it really going to hurt the skeptical movement? Maybe someone will be able to point to it and say “oooh, look! Atheists fighting again!” BFD. That’s a cheap price to pay for a movement that continues to value open dialogue.

I think it’s a really bad idea to invite a stranger at 4am for coffee in your or their hotel room. If it’s really just an innocent coffee invitation, then it can go to the hotel lobby, local coffee shop or restaurant.

Next time I’ll seriously consider waiting for the next elevator because I’m not comfortable being profiled as a potential rapist.

So every time you’re in an elevator with a woman you automatically invite her to your room? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Look, no one is saying that you’re a potential rapist. But there are all kinds of behaviors that are considered socially inappropriate depending on the context, REGARDLESS OF INTENTION, and if you don’t want to be seen as creepy/weird/etc. you won’t do them (this doesn’t just apply to interactions between men and women). I, as a woman and an outside observer, can say that most men aren’t rapist and that the man Rebecca describes most likely wasn’t trying to be a creepy and instead was just awkwardly trying to flirt; I can also, as a woman, say that if man were to approach me in the exact manner that Rebecca described I would feel the exact same way that she did. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and that seems to be where the disagreements on this issue lies.

Let me put it this way…can you honestly say that a significant percentage of those who are criticizing Rebecca over her reaction to the elevator incident and are getting defensive on that man’s behalf wouldn’t be questioning her actions if she had gone to that man’s room and been raped? We need to take a good, hard look at the way society treats women in general and rape victims in particular, because I’d bet money that a good amount of people who are all, “She’s accusing all men of being rapists and that hurts my feelings!” wouldn’t hesitate to accuse her of being stupid/naive or outright lying if she had been raped by that man after accepting his invitation to go to his room to talk. If it weren’t for that attitude being so pervasive in this world, women wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable in elevators with men they don’t know inviting them to their rooms.

” So every time you’re in an elevator with a woman you automatically invite her to your room? Or am I misunderstanding your point? ” — Lena

You’re missing the point entirely.

” …as a woman, say that if man were to approach me in the exact manner that Rebecca described I would feel the exact same way that she did. ” — Lena

So you’re saying that at 4 AM if a man were to join you in an elevator and tell you that he found your talking points interesting and would love to discuss them with you, in his room over coffee… You would jump to the assumption that he wants to fuck you? You would assume that because he finds you intellectually interesting that he must find you physically attractive and cannot possibly control his hormones or treat a woman with respect? Because when a man has an opprotunity to wield power over a woman he’s going to do it.

Huh… Yeah, sounds like you’d come off like a self-centered, and arrogant misandrist, just as she does.

” We need to take a good, hard look at the way society treats women in general and rape victims in particular ” — Lena

We need to take a good, hard look at the way society treats people in general and victims of crime in particular, because rape doesn’t just happen to women, and men aren’t always treated with the respect they deserve. No one is denying that rape is a problem. No one is saying that a woman shouldn’t be on guard.

” because I’d bet money that a good amount of people who are all, “She’s accusing all men of being rapists and that hurts my feelings!” wouldn’t hesitate to accuse her of being stupid/naive or outright lying if she had been raped by that man after accepting his invitation to go to his room to talk. ” — Lena

As I told someone else, that point is irrelevant. She wasn’t raped, in the elevator, in her room, or in his and even if she had been — few, with obvious and notable exceptions would ever say that she was at fault. Believe it or not, men as a majority do not support rape, or blame the victim — we’ve ( Again, with notable exceptions which we cannot do a damn thing about. ) come a long way in twenty years, how about joining us?

This woman took an innocent, casual, and benign encounter and turned it into some kind of ” See that… Right there! That’s what I’ve been talking about. Men are pigs. ” example in order to prove her point. This isn’t about rape. This isn’t about her being creeped out ( She may have been, but I don’t for one second think that it played the role everyone seems to want to make it out to have. ) — this is about her being arrogant, self-centered, and opportunistic.

So every time you’re in an elevator with a woman you automatically invite her to your room? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

No, but sometimes I try to make polite conversation, and I’m generally a creepy guy anyway. When I read something like this:

In an elevator is probably not the best place to do it. It makes the woman feel vulnerable. Being a past victim, I probably would have kicked him in the head.

it tells me that even polite conversation could be interpreted the wrong way and result in hurt feelings or heads, so now I know not to do it in that situation.

Look, no one is saying that you’re a potential rapist.

Really? That seems to be exactly what they’re saying:

The sad fact is that we women live in a world in which some men are rapists. These men who are rapists do not give us the courtesy of pinning a sign to their shirt so we know who they are. See, even though you know that you’re a Nice Guy Who Would Never Ever Rape Anyone, if we have never met you before, we have no idea whether you are a potential rapist or not. That means we have to act in such a way as to (hopefully) ensure our safety until we know you well enough to make that determination.

depending on stupid semantics about the definition of “potential”.

Let me put it this way…can you honestly say that a significant percentage of those who are criticizing Rebecca over her reaction to the elevator incident and are getting defensive on that man’s behalf wouldn’t be questioning her actions if she had gone to that man’s room and been raped??

There are too many negatives in that sentence for me to figure out what you’re asking, but I agree strongly with the people who said that an invitation to one’s hotel room for coffee at 4 am sounds like an invitation to sex, regardless of how it was meant, so that’s a complicated scenario with lots of issues that aren’t related to the current one.

All I’m saying is I’ve learned something I didn’t know before: that women are uncomfortable being alone with unknown men in enclosed spaces. It doesn’t matter whether their discomfort is justified or not – that won’t make them any more comfortable – but it makes me uncomfortable to know they’re uncomfortable so I’ll try to avoid it.

While I enjoyed watching the “Creepy Elevator Guy” episodes on the atheist/sceptics movement channels sometimes I feel like I should watch some real news. Like about this french guy in New York who is accused of actual rape. Might be interesting.

If you really want to know what NOT to say on this topic, check out Richard Dawkins latest post on PZs blog. I feel he has really demeaned himself. If you are a leader in a movement, you need to set higher standards than cheap and snarky sarcasm.

So, I see some of the guys in this thread complaining that women are a total mystery and they have no idea how to tell what they want or how to treat them.

Here we have a woman who had a creepy encounter with a guy in an elevator, and she says, “Hey guys? This? This is creepy. Please don’t do it.”

And you’re complaining about it?

The problem is not that women won’t tell you what they want. The problem is that you’re refusing to listen to them when they try.

” So, I see some of the guys in this thread complaining that women are a total mystery and they have no idea how to tell what they want or how to treat them. ” — Cassie

What you should be seeing is men getting tired of actions being stereotyped, and consequently being crucified for it. Don’t let that get in the way of a good story though.

And you’re complaining about it? — Cassie

I don’t see anyone complaining that the woman in question is asking men not to approach her. She certainly has that right, regardless of her reasoning. She’s entitled, but I’m pretty sure that she’s not going to have to worry about ” creepy ” men approaching her for some time to come — certainly most Atheist men are smart enough to avoid this woman lest they want their innocent conversation to land them in middle of an online shit-storm.

I’m at the point of sending the elevator guy ( Though I’d imagine we’ll never know who he is… He’s probably hiding due to a false sense of shame. ) a basket of goodies and a goddamn thank you note. This is one woman I sure as hell don’t want anything to do with — on the Internet or off of it.

Cassie – if that’s what you see, may I suggest you go to Specsavers?

Really? Who’s “crucifying” him? Watson sure didn’t. She said, “Um, guys, don’t do this, k?” — gogoyubari

Take a look around. If you don’t see this guy being pinned up on the wall and being used to justify unnecessary misandry, then you need to have your eyes checked.

” Citation seriously needed. ” — gogoyubari

It’s my personal opinion based on my observations — no citation required.

” You’re being a drama queen. ” — gogoyubari

I suggest you look up the definition of that phrase. The person who was being a drama queen was the woman who turned an innocent encounter into a global event where she was ” sexualized “.

“… most of the reason this has turned into such a clusterfuck is that guys like you have mischaracterized the incident so freely. ” — gogoyubari

The only person who mis-characterized the incident was the woman who chose to take an innocent encounter with a man on an elevator, and chose to use it as a talking point to expound upon how woman are sexualized and how there’s so much misogyny in the world today. This poor fellow is being demonized, the Internet over, because he wanted to talk to her — not sleep with her, not rape her, not molest her, not disrespect her, not humiliate her, not to seduce her, not to beat her — but to talk to her about the subject material, over 4am coffee.

I’m all for equal rights for all, and stamping out ignorance but sometimes people look for things to be offended by, and this was one of them.

See, this is what happens when you don’t believe in God! Ha!

Seriously, I jest.

Rebecca Watson is a humorless, dull white woman. She’s also going through a divorce. I think a great deal of this bullshit controversy is pure projection. She’s no more a victim in this situation than the actual elevator is (and I can’t wait for IT to chime in too!)

Woman: I’m tire of being hit on, of having inappropriate sexual suggestions made in inappropriate places, of my contributions being valued for my appearance instead of the content of what I say.

Man: Oh, you’re always making generalisations about men. You’re just paranoid and misandrist.

Woman: [describes specific situation in which she was sexually objectified]

Man: hey, you can’t call out a specific man’s behaviour! That’s unacceptable!

Being the father of a girl approaching sexual maturity may be coloring my perceptions a bit, but…

a. The original incident was not – and never has been – about Elevator Guy. It is about male privilege. For those of you who don’t get that, read this.

Know how some Christians have a persecution complex? Well, those of you defending Elevator Guy are in the same class. Really. Get a clue.

b. McGraw shouldn’t have made light of the situation Watson found herself in.

c. Watson could’ve handled her disagreement w/McGraw much more gracefully, and still done so in public (to avoid the whole passive-aggressive thing she loathes).

That is all.

J.C. Samuelson,

You post a link to that privilege nonsense and then bitch about others having a persecution complex. That garbage is the very definition of persecution complex.

Just an interesting note I have learned through all of this:

the majority of all rapes or attempted rapes happen to underage children. Of those women (1 in 6) who said they were victims of rape or attempted rape, roughly 53% said it happened before the age of 18. 22% said it happened before the age of 12.

The vast majority said the perpetrator was a family member or close acquaintance.

A grown woman in a crowded hotel during a conference is not actually at much risk (and to be fair, Ms. Watson never said she was afraid of rape).

It doesn’t really add much to the discussion except to consider our perception of risk is very skewed.

We get this:

women, a piece of advice

You post a link to that privilege nonsense and then bitch

What she has done is tantamount to crying wolf

A man should have the right to strike up conversation with a woman, whether she’s alone or not, in a confined space

And then this:

So what you’re saying is that people in the Atheist movement want to have more women involved — we should go out of our way to make sure that they’re comfortable. Okay, that makes sense to me and I fully agree. No one should be forced to be in a situation where they are uncomfortable, or afraid.

Except that everything else is defending a man’s right to do exactly that.

I’d love to be able to spend time explaining this so that you’d finally get what the problem is with elevator man. Except you’ve all made it plain that you are simply never going to listen to what anyone, especially a woman, has to say. The only only view you are prepared to admit is that the man was right and the woman was wrong. No room for empathy or rational consideration.

Sorry, Hemant. I lurk here often; I came here today hoping you might have a thread that developed a bit more insight. Instead it’s depressed me so much I don’t think I want to be part of this any more.

Oh, for fuck’s sake…

I still do not see how the elevator guy was misogynistic. The only way we could know for sure is if we actually got to hear his side of this.
I keep hearing
“Well, he KNEW she was tired and going to bed and asked her to have coffee(sex) so that means he disregarded her feelings for his own gratification.”
How do you know any of this? How do you know he heard her? Because he was in the same bar full of people when Watson said it aloud? Have you ever been in a bar full of people?

“Because he trapped her in an elevator and asked her to go to his room.”
How many of the thousands of comments have we seen from men who, until this week, had no idea this was creepy.
How many women have said “Well, now you do.” or “Of course it’s creepy.”
I am not buying that this was purely malevolent.
I am also not buying that this was Misogynistic in any way until we have more information.
Watson herself blew this off, it was 4 minutes into a very long vlog, it was an afterthought. If she was afraid that this guy was more than creepy, and making her feel fear more than uncomfortable, she, of all people, would have made a separate blog/vlog and gone into great detail about how horrifying it was, how misogynistic it was was. It would not have been an afterthought.
The only reason she actually spoke any more about it was because so many people did NOT UNDERSTAND why it was creepy.

So, we can all accept that thousands of men and women don’t get why it was a problem and need to be taught, but, the Elevator guy? He isn’t one of them.
He was a misogynist.
He was sexist.
And anyone who disagrees is as well.

This is not “No Means NO” which everyone knows now because it has been taught so much that, if it this point they do not take no for an answer, they ARE guilty of rape.

This is
“Don’t Ever Ask A Woman for Coffee In an Elevator.”
And that campaign is just getting started.
If at the next conference the same situation occurs and you know the man involved has read these blogs, THEN you can call him a misogynist. It still might not be true, but at least you would have a valid argument.

As noted by Alex, above, you’re wrong when you suggest that

That should be the end of the story. We all learn a lesson in What Not To Say To a Tired Woman at 4:00a and we move on.

occurs at step three. It doesn’t occur until step 4, the posting of the video. That’s why a whole one minute of an 8 minute video was spent innocuously mentioning an example of what not to do.

Also, I think you’re wrong about this too:

One, it was a distraction from an otherwise important talk. Instead of us discussing the incredibly important issue of how the Religious Right harms women (the subject of the talk), we’re all discussing whether it’s right for someone with a big megaphone to pick on someone with a smaller one, whether someone was being a “bad feminist,” and all sorts of shit that doesn’t need to be aired in public.

How religious fundamentalists repress women is an important topic, but it’s also pretty well known within the atheist community. Talking about it at an atheist event may be interesting, but what does it accomplish? Basically it’s a moment to sit around feeling really great about how much better we are than religious people. Which is why what Rebecca did was more important. She pointed out that we’ve got our own problems too. It made some folks mad because it made them uncomfortable. Maybe we shouldn’t wallow in our comfort zone of talking about the evils of religion and should take on the uncomfortable task of cleaning up our own house. And now everyone seems to be talking about it, and I’ll be honest, it’s getting a bit old. But what’s getting old is having otherwise smart, rational atheist reveal their privilege and ignorance.

After three days of reading this stuff, I’m so glad I trusted my gut when I stopped checking out atheist meetups. I went to 3. After two of them I was followed to my car. At all three I experienced more “accidental” touching than I do in the most crowded of bars. And when I said something about it, it was generally excused that “some of the guys in the atheist world are a little awkward, but they mean no harm” and “it’s really better if you go with a guy or a couple instead of as a single woman.”

This is the norm, as far as I can tell, based on my experience online and at events. Yes, the number of men who will try to corner you at events is very low, but it was at least one at 2/3 of the events I went to. The more significant thing is that protecting those men from embarrassment and justifying their behavior was more important to a good portion of the community than my feelings of comfort or safety.

In other words, EG just made Watson uncomfortable, but what is more telling to me is that a good portion of the atheist community supports and defends this behavior (echoing my personal experience).

I have a choice. I can accept that “accidental” touching and cornering is part of the price of admission for atheist events, and maybe even take on those who defend it in endless arguments. Or I can chose to go to other events where such behavior is not a defended norm. Women don’t have to go to atheist events. There are lots of activities without a religious component. And you can get the benefits of the intellectual exchange from these events without feeling uncomfortable online.

So I’ve decided not to go back. I’m sure I won’t be missed and another piece of “new meat” will be welcomed to take my place.

I’m going to copy this from here (http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins) because it explains things better than I could:

Dear Prof. Dawkins,

Since you ask, I’ll attempt to explain what you are not getting.

A man asked her back to his room for coffee. You said it was the end of the story, but that’s not the case. You have cut off the beginning of the story, and the beginning is where the point lies. The reason his request was a problem was not the request itself, but the time and place. The context is what made it creepy, and the elevator was not the only context. I trust that PZ Myers and others have covered the elevator issue well enough that you understand why it’s not a good place to proposition a lone woman. Let me elucidate the rest of it.

1 – She had had no prior conversations with this man, but he tried to get her to go back to his room anyway. That’s not only creepy, that’s presumptuous and rude.

2 – It was 4 am, and she noted that he had been present when she said that she was tired and it was time for her to get some sleep. He chose to ignore her explicitly stated desires and tried to get her to have coffee with him in his room. Again, this is presumptuous and rude. It’s creepy because it’s an indicator of what might be a larger problem – if he can’t listen to what she just said, what else might he ignore?

3 – At 4 am, a hotel, even in a big city like Dublin, is not crowded. That makes it less safe.

4 – The irony, which is what Ms. Watson originally pointed out in her video, is that this man tried to pick her up at a conference where she had just spent the entire day talking about why that kind of thing is not acceptable behavior. He claimed that he found her interesting, but evidently he didn’t find her interesting enough to actually listen to what she had to say.

5 – He could have said, “I enjoyed the talk you gave today. When is your next presentation scheduled?” He could have said any number of innocuous things. Instead, he chose to put her on the spot and ask her to come to his room to serve his needs, either conversational or sexual, completely ignoring her stated desires.

6 – He could have talked to her when they were still both in public spaces with other people around, but he chose to wait until they were alone. This is another red flag.

It is critical to your understanding of this situation that you grasp that all women, everywhere, are engaged in constant low-level threat assessment when in public. When I go out, I walk well-lit streets. I pay attention to who else is walking near me. If I take public transit, I try to find a populated train car. When I talk to men I don’t know, I pay attention to what they say and how they say it, because that can demonstrate red flags. For instance, if I am at a convention and a man tries to separate me from the rest of the crowd, either by asking me to his room or simply cornering me at a party, that sets off a flag. This man did both to Ms. Watson.

My argument is that there was no need for him to make her uncomfortable in the first place. He didn’t need to set off all those flags. She had already said “no” by stating her plan to go to sleep, but he chose to ignore that and proposition her anyway. That’s disrespectful, and is exactly the kind of behavior that as a feminist I’m fighting against.

It’s also critical that you understand that his intent does not matter. What matters is his behavior, and what he did is exactly what predatory men do: they isolate women, they ignore stated desires, and they wait until their target is in a weakened state. Up until the point Ms. Watson got off the elevator, she had no way of knowing that this man was simply rude and not predatory. If men don’t want to be seen as potential predators, then they need to learn how not to act like predators.

As atheists, we need to address problems like this because they cumulatively contribute to an atmosphere where women feel unwelcome. If a conference is known as a place where incidents like this happen all the time, then people will be less likely to come. Women will stay away because we don’t want to be creeped on, and men will stay away because they don’t want to be around other creepy men. It was a small thing, but small things add up, in society just as in biology.

In “The God Delusion,” you wrote a moving passage about how feminism raised all of our consciousness, and how you hope to emulate what feminism accomplished. When I read it, I took it to mean that you now identify as feminist. That gives me hope that you will not simply dismiss this issue out of hand, that you will listen to feminists, and raise your consciousness again. We still have work to do.

Sincerely,

Robynne W.

“We should always encourage more atheists to speak up with their opinions, not shy away from it, because we’re the ones who know how to handle differences in opinion.”

*eyeroll*

Ugh. Get over yourself.

Many people have made the following point: men are big and scary and can overpower you. That sounds exactly like the reason why people are irrationally afraid of dogs. It means that either A) most of the dogs in your life have been abused and trained to be aggressive and probably bit you or B) you truly do not understand that despite the teeth and size most dogs have no intention or natural inclination to be violent toward you. Taking one experience or notion and applying it to an entire gender IS sexist, I’m sorry, and while I might not think that asking someone for coffee at 4am is the most suave move in the book I would NEVER defend someone for saying “OMG and he was big and scary and the elevator was so small and omg feminism”.

Ladies, our definitions of feminism are obviously different. I do not at all preach being afraid of men, or thinking that they are jerks or assholes. Bad behavior exists, yes. IN BOTH GENDERS. I cannot tell you how many male friends of mine tolerate girlfriends who take their emotional insecurities out on them in castrating, dehumanizing ways, and how those men are not ever allowed to admit to themselves that they are being abused. Bad form, yes. But the fact that this has gotten to be such a big deal is bad form on all our parts. Good god, men hit on women. Women hit on men. Sometimes you bark up the wrong tree, and you say “whoops, my mistake” and back out. A man asking a woman for sex (IF coffee meant sex, which we dont know it did) isnt assenine. Men ask other men for sex all the time, and it’s not indicative of an inability to form emotional attachments or have deep sexual experiences with that person. Men ask for sex sometimes. But then again, sometimes men ask for coffee and conversation. Whether or not she wanted to get an advance, romantic, sexual or friendly, in that very moment is only relevant insofar as it dictated her response.

Sex, or being a sexual creature in general, isnt anti feminist. Sex is sex. It exists. And men arent malicious dogs bred for dogfights who have  a responsibility to know how scary you think they are just because they have upper body stregnth. I say this having been raped, but I guess I had a really wonderful father and male friends growing up so I never really thought that because I was raped by some douchebag it makes every potentially intelligent and worthwhile human being a scary douchebag when they stumble across the wrong way to ask to get close to you (either sexually or…coffee).

Hey guys. This is an interesting group. Would love to hear more and talk about this million dollar question in a grown up manner, as supposed to people saying I’m thick and deluded because I believe in God.
 
Anyway, I am not religious at all. In fact I think religion itself, and it’s content has disengaged a lot of people. People ignorantly feel they need a manmade scripture to understand the makings of the universe and God, when indeed they need no  such thing.
 
OK, about me. I am an astrophysicist and have been studying strong theory for about 14 years. I was an religious person before I started studying science and just before I got my PHD I became, if I was to be totally honest, a passive atheist.
 
I just couldn’t get my head around some of the ridiculous claims in the bible and Koran which were so far from fact. I ridiculed this on radio shows and wrote many articles (including one in the new scientist) and then it hit me.
 
I was studying Mtheory (combinations of the 5 string theories) and got into Greene’s world of 11 dimensions. I started working for a group (where I still am) in Paris understanding or trying to understand the higgs and how fabric of space rips in other dimensions and indeed multiverses (other universes). Something then shook me about 3 years ago. All the other scientists spoke about this high energy source called dark energy, they spoke about parallel universes and how every possible outcome of every possible action has been preordained or scientifically mapped out.
 
14 of the 18 scientists I worked with called this energy God but not one of them adhered to any religion. Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Bohr, Born, Morsley, and indeed Albert were, massive and fundamental believers of God.
 
Yet the argument between religious people still goes on. Especially when people speak of scientists versus those with blind faith. This is just untrue. I am a scientist and as you one questions, before you dismiss the almighty, prove his absence.
 
Ask me to prove his existence and yes I will be in the same predicament. This relates to an experiment (which you can simply Google) called Russell’s teapot, where a famous scientist said there was a teapot between mars and earth, he was asked to prove it where he asked for it to be unproven.
 
Remember, science is based on observational experiment. If it cannot be proven either
aduggalios@yahoo.co.uk