Pledge Your Allegiances

Those shirts have breasts behind them.

Sexist.

You know, I’m usually never an advocate for “ignorance is bliss” but in this one case…

I haven’t followed the shitstorm and most importantly I have read not one single comment. I was certain that it would blow up into a hurricane of insults and drama, with a fair amount of unfair accusations of sexism and blanket dismissal of women’s complaints thrown in. I don’t need the higher blood pressure. So have fun everyone, I’m sitting this one out. I guess sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

This is so confusing to me (and probably any other reader who doesn’t give a sh*t– as the shirt so eloquently put it.) I really don’t care what happened, but I do have one request: Could we not give extra attention to what seems like petty drama? I visit this blog to avoid that whole mess and it’s a bit disconcerting to see you devoting such a useful forum to such an asinine topic.
Edited: I read some of the comments so I must make one amendment for clarity. Sexism IS an important topic and should be addressed. I just think this is a sophomoric way of bringing light to the subject without actually having to address the subject. It’s adding fuel to a fire that you claim to not care about, but from this post, it seems that you doth protesteth too much!

This shitstorm actually amuses me a great deal. I think it’s because I’m sort of in the middle (guy was inappropriate in the elevator, but not even close to being misogynistic), and I’m rarely in the middle on any issue. I need some popcorn. Keep prodding them, Hemant !. 🙂

Alex, Michael is joking.

You are taking this meta far too seriously.

It’s not clear that you’re joking, Hemant, because you’re still talking about this three posts later.

Plus he has a penis between his legs. Don’t forget that sure mark of woman-hating.

I’m going to have to go with Elevator Guy. He’s probably just really nerdy and doesn’t socialise much. Besides, he has a cool name. If I get another dog, I’m naming it Elevator Guy, even if it’s a girl. So there. …Or maybe a fish. I like fish.

And damn you for having boobs in this post, you misogynist! How dare you! *Fist shake*

*Cough* So…moving along….

Cheap drama makes good blog fodder.
Adamant feminism is just as easy a way for a guy to get laid as direct approaches in an elevator.
Implied assumptions make it easier to flame on people who annoy you.

Hold on a minute, now. Shouldn’t there be shirts for Team Jen and Team Richard Dawkins? Because I totally want a Team Jen shirt, low cut in honor of Boobquake. 8)

See, here is a very subtle, almost unnoticeable sign of male privilege. If both parties were male, it is likely they (the t-shirt designers) would address them by their last names. But with women we are almost always referred to by our first names. Even by other women who have been socialized to those same norms.

Things like this- these subtleties, the tendency to treat a woman as a sexual object despite giving a lecture on why she hates this, feeling empowered to corner a potential conquest on an elevator… it is small, almost insiginficant, but it adds up to creating a woman hostile environment within the atheist community. I want to be treated as an equal, I want to be respected, and until that happens I’m not sure that I will move beyond the periphery. It isn’t a huge issue, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Most of the atheist women I know are activists- but none are actively involved in the atheist movement. That’s a huge loss.

I think a valuable lesson might be: If you think it’s ridiculous, just go to bed and stop adding to the shitstorm. Even if someone is wrong on the internet.

A secondary lesson that is my axe to grind: Turning the sarcasm up to 11 and telling people they should stop arguing because children are starving in Africa or something is ultimately just stirring the pot more.

Evolily, we’re not objects, but we’re all sexual creatures with drives. So a guy fancies me? I’ve fancied guys before now. I’ve ogled builders and I look at football players bums whenever I can. At university I made passes at guys I didn’t know. Does that make me a misandrist? Or a normal person with healthy desires? Whatever, fancying men according to my tastes is a privilege of mine and I don’t want to give it up!

Ultimately I’m in the middle over this like Zadius. It was cocky and slightly inappropriate. But nothing else. What is harmful is people mouthing off at Richard Dawkins and sneering at his academic career because his opinion over this doesn’t match theirs. Such a shame. They’re arguing over elevator horndog’s dodgy etiquette and letting their manners slip in the process. Everyone needs to breathe, relax and get on with life! And leave Hernant alone for trying to peacemake.

Claudia (as she so often does) nailed it.

“If feeling like Skepchick’s very public and over-the-top response to a one-minute private verbal encounter was humorless, foolish, and self-defeating makes me a misogynist, then so be it.”

Really? A brief video description of what happened–without mentioning the guy’s name–and the mild suggestion, “guys, don’t do this” is “very public and over-the-top”?

What’s over-the-top is the mischaracterization of what Rebecca actually said and what actually happened.

I frankly have had enough hearing about this non-issue, just let it go ok?

My conclusion is that people do people things in people ways. This may not, I’ll grant you, be the deepest insight ever.

I used to really like this blog. :/

Is there a t-shirt with “One movement indivisible” on it…

it could have a herd of cats squabbling underneath.

Hemant, I have a sincere question for you….

why did you feel the need to start THREE separate blog posts on this?

Especially when your first was entitled “everyone needs to calm the fuck down“

You do that and then plead for people to ‘stop taking sides’?

*mind boggled*

I think what we really need is separate elevators for men and women.

I’m “team I don’t give a shi*t”…

You know what, Hemant? Fuck you.

There is a legitimate serious misogyny problem in atheism, and making jokes and condescendingly telling everyone to chill the fuck out is not helping. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Consider me a former reader.

@The Godless Monster

I don’t know… Discount Deity sounds really Poey to me. If Poe can be extended to this debacle.

If not – I’m fucked.

Saying that everyone is overreacting sounds like an overreaction to me.

If we go and recapitulate. We first have Watson not making a big deal about it, but instead saying, as a hint that it is not a good idea to do it.

The problem is that many people reacted pretty badly to this mere suggestion. “Not a big deal”. Etc. The reality is that when you think about it, it IS creepy to choose a desolated elevator at 4:00 AM to offer someone that has never talked to you before to join you for a coffee in your hotel room. Watson didn’t really make a big deal about it, but the problem comes from people that don’t want to accept that it is actually very creepy to do that.

Misogyny shows not because of a guy being unaware that the circumstances in which he is asking people out are creepy. But the misogyny shows when people quickly jump into trying to make it look like doing that is fine. The correct non-misogynist reaction to this is “oh, I didn’t stop to think about this before, but I think that you may be right and doing that is not a good idea. I will try to consider this before asking women in our community out“. Rather than “big deal! You are wrong, this does not matter. I am a man and I will ask you out in any situation I find convenient. All you can do about it is say no. The new information I just heard about that it may actually be uncomfortable for you is irrelevant to me.”.

I for one, think the latter reaction rightly deserves to be condemned.

Bentley said:

There is 1 important side to take: against misogyny. Every step of the way, there have been comments that are sexist and dismissive, and comments failing to recognize sexism for what it is.

As has been said repeatedly, sexism is not misogyny. I haven’t seen a display of misogyny from the original cast of this drama nor from the spectators in the peanut gallery.

Using that term casually betrays the severity of its actual definition: hatred of women. I have not seen this demonstrated.

As for sexism, well, there’s objectification, but isn’t all sexual attraction without prior intimacy a form of objectification. We need to remember the definitions of Misogyny and sexism, so I’m going to repost from another thread:

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

Sexism: discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men

Some comments might have been sexist, but so many people responded in full Gloria Steinem battle mode, wielding axes that are ground to a fine point.

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?

A quick follow-up to my last comment: Of course the woman in the elevator was right to be unnerved in the situation. I’m a man, but I’ve been in tight situations just as alarming to me. It’s the follow-up reactions and attitudes toward the incident that I feel were way overblown.

I really do want that “Team I Don’t Give a Shit” shirt.

Hemant, if the issue concerned a bunch of atheist and evangelical christians arguing about whether something were discriminatory towards atheists or not, there would be no question of who was right. When a group of fundies claim that atheist are being oversensitive we all know which side is full of shit.

But when women in atheism are telling you that there are problems for women in the movement, your response is to mock and dismiss them (over the course of THREE posts)? I guess even atheists feel the need to be religious about their biases.

Sign me up for the “Team I don’t give a fuck” shirt. Why are so many atheist bloggers blogging about this? We don’t need this kind of drama and you shouldn’t be giving it one post let alone several posts.

I don’t attend atheist conferences, because everything I’ve heard indicates that I can expect to be hit on by strangers all weekend, and that doesn’t sound like any fun at all to me.

I’m reading all these arguments full of men defending why it’s harmless for them to hit on women at conferences, and they apparently don’t understand why a woman might not want to spend her weekend that way.

So I stay home. Because that isn’t my idea of a good time. In fact, it sounds just awful.

Now, you’re a man. If men make unwanted passes at women all weekend, that doesn’t affect your ability to enjoy the conference at all. Unless, of course, you have any female friends whose good time you care about. Or unless it bothers you that these conferences will remain mostly male for the foreseeable future. But if neither of those things bother you, then you have luxury of not caring about the kind of experiences women have at atheist gatherings.

That must be nice. I don’t have that luxury. Since I’m female, I don’t get to decide that I don’t care about the kind of experiences women have at atheist gatherings.

But what I’ve learned from this ‘controversy’ is that, if I were to go to such a gathering, I’d be surrounded by mostly men, some of whom will make clumsy passes at me, and most of whom will think that’s okay, and if I even mention that this is unpleasant for me, I might become the target of a maelstrom of male anger.

If you’re trying to make atheism an all-male endeavor, you’re doing great.

Face it, many feminists think about men they way many atheists think about Christians (and vice versa of course).

and if I even mention that this is unpleasant for me, I might become the target of a maelstrom of male anger.

Wrong. It’s ok if you mention that it’s unpleasant. Most people would agree that it is.

What’s not ok is creating such childish drama about this and spreading it over the whole atheist blogosphere. Or equating this to rape – so not what happened.

There is a real issue here but it is not discussed.

Rebecca is fine to articulate her feelings, and she has a point.
Elevator guy is fine to ask.
Richard is fine to not think it’s a big deal.

This is an ultra-nuanced point, one that is filled by hyperbole and exaggerations.

So was the elevator guy unaware or insensitive. Perhaps.

What what situation is fine? When is it not potentially insensitive to approach someone.

Every time when one approaches another person without knowing if they want to be approached on takes that risk, and what settings are OK is a matter of a certain nuance.

But yes, don’t do it in enclosed spaces without having the party you approach have an easy way to say no and leave is not good.

But we get the whole spectrum from all men are potential rapists, to outright misogyny that just pile on a woman who expresses a legitimate discomfort.

Reality is that our discomfort cannot be heard. On “all sides”. How much sympathy would a guy get if he said just how unpleasant it is to constantly deal with the potential rejection when you talk to someone you think is interesting, or worse have it blow in your face because it was not received as intended. But we should hear each other’s discomfort to actually understand what is going on. Perhaps we need 50% approaching by both genders, perhaps if women talked to men in elevators as much as the inverse, perhaps if we had removed or made “getting to know” less gender-patterned, perhaps we’d have a different discussion.

So what side? All sides.

This idea that every side of an argument must be given the same amount of respect is ridiculous, and we as atheists should know that better than anyone.

Just because someone overreacts about something doesn’t mean they don’t have a valid point.

– Team “I don’t want to be hit on in an elevator either”

Team Must Be Spending Too Much Time Online. Team Backing Away Slowly Now.

You know what the real problem is? People are taking Rebecca’s original point personally.

Guy’s, it wasn’t personal. She took something she experienced and used it as an example of the problems of sexism in the movement and the world in general, and gave the general advice to not do what that man did because she assumed that most atheist men wouldn’t want to make women uncomfortable in that way. At no point did she say that every man is sexist, and that any man who has ever approached a woman in the context (because context it everything) she described is an evil rapist. But that’s the conclusion that many of you jumped to because it’s easier to get defensive instead of taking a minute to examine your privilege.

This reminds me of Jay Smooth’s How to Tell People They Sound Racist video. Replace “racist” with “sexist” for an excellent explanation of what’s going on with this discussion.

Here’s the t-shirt Richard Dawkins should wear:

“Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”
Prof. ‘enry ‘iggins, My Fair Lady

The entire ‘problem’ exists because people no longer practice good manners. Think of all the things that were said and done (or alleged to have been said and done) and decide if ANY problem would have existed had all parties practiced good manners.

Why should everyone move on from this discussion simply because you tire of it? Furthermore, why do you feel everyone else should stop talking about it when you keep bringing it up over and over again?

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

There’s been a whole lot of churning over a chance “dick move” by a adult-aged male saying the wrong thing the wrong way at the wrong time to the wrong person in an enclosed space.
Elevator dude, you screwed the pooch. Dedicated feminists hate the term misogynist being applied to them or their opinions over a difference of perspective. Normally reasonable males of a certain age (50+) that have one foot in the “Mad Men” culture and are trying to negotiate 21st century realities have trouble bridging the divide between how they grew up thinking and what’s real and makes sense now.
Can’t we understand that we’re all, as people, atheists and humanists, all on the same path, albeit at different milestones? Can we accept this and get along or just quit talking to each other and quit stirring the pot, or are our individual egos going to keep fighting until no-one on the Internet is wrong anymore?
The idea that Only We Have the One True Outlook… eh, kids, that stuff is for theists and the GOP, right?
C’mon. As Mom used to say, “I will turn this car right around if you don’t stop this nonsense!!!”.
Mom was right.

I’m so ecstatic that I missed out on all of this. Ironically, I was too busy watching “reality” TV to see it unfold. 😛
MOVING ON!

Have to agree with Alex O’Cady. I have been a rape victim and I have also been the time alibi for a man wrongly accused of rape.
Every woman who wrongly accuses a man of rape hurts actual rape victims.
Some women are calling elevator guy a sexist, misogynist and wanna be rapist and everyone who disagrees that he was those things, a sympathizer or also a misogynist/sexist/privileged.
We should not water down those very specific terms until they can be used on anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
On twitter, I saw several posts calling Richard Dawkins a “rape like” guy and a misogynist. I saw someone joke “Richard Dawkins was not elevator guy because Dawkins would have offered his rape victim tea, not coffee.”
So now the jump has been made from Watson being asked for coffee, to Watson being a rape victim in that elevator.
I think it’s sad that the passion that has arisen over this issue is 100X more the passion I have seen over any other issue. More has been written about it in such a short time, more people have decided to leave the secular community over it, more people have been called names over it, more people have commented on it.
Our priorities are screwed up if this is going to be the poster cause/destroyer of the secular movement.

Every time a feminist subject comes up it becomes a shitstorm. I think it is now obvious that this is a very important topic. I would be very pleased if some women got together and talked this through seriously. As a man, I would like to hear the discussion proceed without any input from men.

These comments are from the name names blog pz myers wrote.
There are more on youtube and all the other blogs.
These are just the comments that refer to him specifically as a “potential rapists” not the ones calling him/his actions misogynist and not the ones that talk about how this situation could have been one where a rape occurred. There are a lot more of those.
This situation is absolutely being discussed as one where a rape was likely and so the implication is that the guy in the elevator would have been the rapist.

“Elevator Guy was playing rapist wannabee so strongly that even normally clueless me recognized it.”
“And if you were trying to understand why Rebecca had that perception instead of trying to excuse the would-be rapist, then you’d realize it as well.”
“Well of course you don’t do it, but you’re supposed to be flattered at the opportunity and not complain about it because it’s every man’s right to bother you in elevators and make you wonder how close you are to being raped!”
“I can say exactly what made elevator guy rapey.
1: Alone in an elevator. When a lion isolates something, it is because it is prey – so approaching a woman in an isolated setting? Predatory.”
“He could have just as easily realized that he didn’t have time to subdue, strip and copulate with his chosen target before the elevator reached a floor with people and so chose to abort his planned rape once it was clear that she would not go willingly to the crime scene.”

If there’s one thing I think we CAN agree on as atheists, it’s that being an atheist in the existing American culture is pretty damn hard. So, finding someone whose worldview is compatible with yours is exponentially harder. Wouldn’t it logically follow, then, that if you were at a conference attended primarily by people whose worldview have a much higher possibility of being compatible with yours, you might be on the lookout for someone who you might have romantic/sexual compatibility with?

Do you think that alienating women so badly that most won’t go to the conferences, and those who do are on their guard against unwanted advances, is a good way to accomplish this goal?

If you knew in advance that no woman at the conference will have sex with any man at the conference, would you still want women to attend?

If you’re trying to raise money for the James Randi Educational Fund (JREF), then you should also have a “Team PZ” shirt.

Based on readership numbers, you will sell a lot more.

Do you think that alienating women so badly that most won’t go to the conferences, and those who do are on their guard against unwanted advances, is a good way to accomplish this goal?

There’s a huge difference between unwanted advances, and persistent unwanted advances. As has been stated by others, there’s not really a good way to know if an advance is unwanted until it is made and subsequently rejected. If, as in this case, the person making the advance then backs off, then there’s nothing to be concerned about.

I’m married, and happily monogamous. Any advance anyone made toward me would be unwanted. Should I then never leave the house for fear of being hit on? Should I expect the entire world to anticipate and accommodate my personal feelings about being hit on?

If there is a problem with people not knowing how to take no for an answer at these conferences (I haven’t been fortunate enough to attend one, so I don’t know), then that’s another issue altogether, and one that should be discussed rationally and objectively – without resorting to incendiary language and demonizing anyone who disagrees with one’s own point of view.

If you knew in advance that no woman at the conference will have sex with any man at the conference, would you still want women to attend?

Are you saying that there aren’t any women attending atheist conferences that would be receptive to romantic overtures? That all women attending atheist conferences have zero interest in connecting with any man at said conferences in any sort of romantic or sexual way?

I’m not trying to imply that atheist conferences are merely singles mixers. I’m just pointing out that just as romance, dating, and flirting are a part of everyday life outside of these conferences, it’s fair to expect that they will have some small part to play while attending them.

There’s a huge difference between unwanted advances, and persistent unwanted advances. As has been stated by others, there’s not really a good way to know if an advance is unwanted until it is made and subsequently rejected. If, as in this case, the person making the advance then backs off, then there’s nothing to be concerned about.

What I’m imagining as you say this is being in a room in which I am outnumbered by men, say, 20 or 25 to one. I’m imagining five or six of these men walking up to me and clumsily propositioning me, because somehow they’ve made it to adulthood without finding a good way to recognize the rare occasions when it would be a good idea to proposition a stranger.

I’m imagining that the men around me think this is normal and acceptable, since each of the people propositioning me only asks once. That seems like no big deal to each of them, but it means I spend the weekend saying ‘no’ to creeps.

Why on earth would I spend my weekend this way?

Are you saying that there aren’t any women attending atheist conferences that would be receptive to romantic overtures?

Not at all. I’m asking exactly what I asked: does anyone even want women at these conferences, except as a possible source of sex? If the women were not a possible source of sex, would they be at all welcome?

I know in advance that I don’t want to have sex with you. Do you care that I didn’t go to the conference?

It makes me sad, actually, because, as you said, it can be lonely to be an atheist, and it would be nice to be able to connect with like-minded people. But it wouldn’t be nice to spend the weekend being creeped out and hit on, and there doesn’t seem to be any alternative convention for women who don’t want to be hit on.

Never mind. There’s no reason for me to try to persuade you to interact with women as if they were human beings, and not a backwards game of Whack-a-Mole in which you’re trying to find the hole you can stick your dick in. If you are a grown man who doesn’t already know that, you probably aren’t worth the time I spent typing this message.

I’m not trying to imply that atheist conferences are merely singles mixers.

I don’t have any problem at all with romance, dating or flirting, but the assumption that without any of those preliminaries every single guy there is entitled to one request for a casual bang implies that the presence of women at atheist conferences is considered to be part of the ‘entertainment’ rather than part of the intellectual exchange.

In addition, your implication that women should cheerfully tolerate all the unwanted requests, no matter how inept or clueless, and only express irritation at persistence, ignores the fact that her experience of the conference is going to be short bursts of attention from a a series of men just checking to see if she’ll put out. She can get that for free at home by going to the laudomat.

I’m not in any way trying to imply that women should expect and welcome being propositioned.

But apparently you are saying that it is unreasonable to tell the men that as a blanket rule women do not expect and do not welcome being propositioned.

What bothers me is the outrage that a man would dare show interest in a woman at all.

As I already said, most women don’t have a problem with ‘romantic interest’ arising out of a conversation, but that’s not what we’re talking about and it’s ingenuous of you to confuse them. The problem isn’t ‘showing interest’, it’s ASSUMING it’s acceptable to ask strange women for a casual bang.

I must say, your blanket rule is a fascinating thought — an atmosphere like that which hopefully pertains at one’s work, where as a blanket rule it is considered inappropriate and a distraction from the purpose of the group to assume the women present are there as sex toys.

If such a blanket rule on propositions for casual sex were instituted, and flirting and romance became necessary prerequisites to sex, would that seriously ruin the entire conference for the men present? Or do you and they insist that it can’t be a fun experience for the men unless those who wish to do so are ENTITLED to pester everyone present about their boners?

But apparently you are saying that it is unreasonable to tell the men that as a blanket rule women do not expect and do not welcome being propositioned.

So you’re saying that all women, all the time, are opposed to being propositioned? I know quite a few fellow women who would disagree.

I wasn’t in the elevator, and neither was anyone else here. Thus far all I’ve heard of it is he asked her to his room for coffee. Yes, this was probably a thinly veiled proposition for sex…but do you know that? I don’t think anyone does except Watson and the man who spoke to her.

Like I said, a civilized discourse about appropriate times and methods of flirting/propositioning/whatever would be immensely helpful. Instead, people resort to exaggeration and generalizations.

I’ve pretty much said all I’m going to say on the topic. I’ve got more important things to worry about. But feel free to continue to misconstrue my intentions.

And in the interest of complete clarity, I’ll point out again that I am a woman.

What does your gender have to do with the discussion? Do you think women and men will necessarily see this differently?

Why do we have to read anything into the interaction in the elevator other than what was reported? Why should we assume that the facts were different than as presented?

Why do we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the motives of a man who at the least felt entitled to follow a woman with whom he had never exchanged a word into an elevator and ask her to come back to his room to be alone with him KNOWING she was likely to “take it the wrong way” but still dismissing any discomfort that might cause her? No matter what the reason for the invitation?

On what basis do we shame and denigrate the motives of the woman who pointed out that was creepy? A woman who I would note protected the man in question by refraining from naming him because she was using the BEHAVIOR as an example to make a point and not trying to bash the person individually.

The thing I find interesting is that, as a woman yourself, your own inclination is to take it for granted that there is LIKELY to be a reasonable explanation for his behavior because you apparently think the norm is that men are ENTITLED to ask for sexual contact with strangers, but you are skeptical of her motives because it is unreasonable of a woman to criticize a man.

Which is exactly the kind of culturally imbeded sexism she was saying permits this behavior to continue.

I got to go with Team Elevator Guy.

that Elevator Guy needs to start his own blog. His side of the story is the only one that hasn’t been told yet and clearly this story doesn’t have enough drama yet.

Lena wrote:

Bringing up rape and misogyny IS relevant to the discussion,but that doesn’t mean that the elevator guy is being accused of rape and misogyny. It means that we live in a world where all kinds of sexist ideas are internalized, and, most often subconsciously, those ideas influence our actions and our responses to the actions of others. So when it comes to rape, while most women aren’t constantly thinking about getting raped, many of us do feel uncomfortable in certain situations, like a strange man following us in an elevator at 4 in the morning and asking us to go their room even though we had made it clear that we’re tired and want to go to bed. That man most likely didn’t have any nefarious intentions, but his actions still come across as creepy. Neither side is the bad guy. But for any men who might care about such things, Rebecca was letting you know that you shouldn’t do that because it would creepy out many women

One of the fairest, most level-headed comments I’ve read about this entire thing…..

Kudos 🙂

When I complained about men following my to my car after atheist meetups, people told me to get over it too (or to bring a male escort to avoid confusion). This is why I don’t go back.

There are other places to socialize – classes, volunteering, political organizations, the arts. Why spend your time where people are just going to defend it if people “accidentally” touch you inappropriately or try to corner you?

Sometimes when you volunteer at a soup kitchen, a mentally ill man will make an inappropriate or even scary statement, but the big difference is that the community will censure that behavior. In the atheist community (in my experience), the priority of protecting the potentially shy or awkward man who just wants to get laid is more important than a woman who wishes to defend her boundaries. It’s just the group norm.

You have a choice – deal with the frustration of being touched and cornered while being called names for trying to change the group norm or leave.

The most infuriating responses to this entire deal have been like DarkSun’s sickening display. Something happens to make a woman uncomfortable, and when she speaks up about it, you have a group of people screaming “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?!?! THEY’RE THE REAL VICTIM HERE!!!” and trying to silence the woman’s concern.

What “Elevator Guy” did was creepy and inappropriate, but like a bunch of commenters have said, it’s likely he was just socially awkward and didn’t consider how threatening that situation could be perceived. I can certainly sympathize with the socially awkward part. But that’s the real lesson here: he and I, and most other men, don’t generally have to consider being assaulted from such an encounter, and this can lead us to forget how it might be perceived by a woman in the same situation. That is the very definition of male privilege, and that should be the lesson here. But instead too many other men are trying to silence women and make themselves the victim somehow.

Sadly this happens every time women express concerns about sexism. The women are painted as over-reacting, hysterical, emotional, man-hating feminist misandrists who are just trying to neuter men’s natural urges.

I don’t agree with Hemant that we need to stop talking about it, or stop giving a shit. That such a relatively minor expression of concern turned into such a “shitstorm” means that we should KEEP talking about it, because this is something we need to sort out as a community.

I am so deeply, incredibly, and profoundly exhausted by this. This shouldn’t have been a big deal. It should have consisted entirely of something like this: Guy gets in elevator with girl. Guy hits on girl. Girl is creeped out. Girl refuses. Girl talks about the incident for MAYBE 15 seconds in an 8 minute video. People think a bit, and it’s done. In the end, no big deal.

But no. Instead, I find myself arguing and arguing and arguing with men who INSIST that either a) she had no right be creeped out b) she had no right to say anything about being creeped out. “Overreaction!” they shout, “overreaction!” And I am disheartened. My sister was raped by a man she knew who was walking her home after dark. My best friend was raped by her cousin in her own home. I was sexually abused by my father. Rape is a very real part of women’s lives. The idea that we have no right to have or speak about an emotional response that stems from this reality is appalling. Men can go on long tangents about women “overreacting” once they have stopped rape, and not before. Until then, please respect us when we tell you we are afraid, uncomfortable, or creeped out even if you don’t understand it.

I have been reading some of the comments on this and the other post about this. I believe there has been way more reaction to this then there needs to be. When I was younger I probably would have been the guy in the elevator. I wouldn’t have seen it as something creepy and hell I don’t see it as anything creepy now. When I was younger I would have done it because there might have been a chance of sex and being younger I wouldn’t have been doing much thinking with the big head. I was also a lot more shy when I was younger and had a hard time exposing myself to being turned down in front of other people. If I was to ask today it would actually be for coffee and conversation.

I think there isn’t really enough information to say one way or another what this guy was wanting. The people who have decided he was a creep scare me almost as much as real creeps do. Some of the best times I have had without sex have been times where I just walked up to complete strangers and started a conversation. The people who are trying to defend him are forgetting that we live in a society that makes sex the most important thing to many guys. This also scares me just not quite as much as those making the assumption that he was a creep.

Has anyone asked the question how would she have reacted had this been a stranger she found attractive? I have seen both males and females who were about to fall asleep, wake right up when they became attracted to someone. Was she creeped out because she wasn’t attracted to him? I know I have gotten reactions like this even when it was in a public area. Yes I’m not an attractive male so I actually have to work harder to find females who are actually not focused just on looks but on conversation. Everyone really does need to look at themselves and ask why they are over reacting to this.

I have to say – I’ve just spent a good hour reading through various blogposts and comments about this, and I’ve got to be honest, at least as far as I can see the vast majority are completely overreacting.

Yes, the elevator guy was a bit inappropriate, yes, I can imagine it being an uncomfortable situation to be in and no, there was nothing wrong with the segment of the video in which Rebecca calls him out on it. Note that she never says that men propositioning women are always wrong, or inappropriate: her exact words are that “I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and—don’t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable”.

Fair enough. I’d like to be clear that I absolutely agree with this: I’ve been propositioned in similar places before, unexpectedly. It is uncomfortable.

That said, what I don’t agree with is this suggestion that any man who ever propositions a woman, in whatever place, couched in whatever terms, is necessarily wrong to do so. I think that’s just as depressing a statement to read as its opposite.

By all means pick your moments (and a hotel elevator at 4am isn’t a great one) but I think sometimes even a rebuffed proposition can be a good thing. I was once propositioned, turned the guy down, and ended up becoming good friends with him – in a way we never would have been able to had we not (both!) made our intentions clear to begin with. And I can’t imagine I’m the only one. Not being able to acknowledge that there might be sexual attraction between two people is just as unhealthy an idea as not being able to acknowledge that there might not. And, if you think that is the case, surely it’s better – and healthier – to ask, thus allowing both parties a fuller understanding of each other’s motivations?

Or have we genuinely reached such a breakdown between the sexes that we can’t see where each other is coming from? If that’s what’s going on here, count me out.

“Nice guys wouldn’t proposition her. Since they are propositioning her they have provided proof themselves that they are creeps.”

Bullshit. It takes more than propositioning to make a guy creepy. What were his motives? It’s quite possible he was genuinely interested in what she had to say in addition to being attracted to her.

I’m pretty sure the problem was that he was not very attractive to her. Had some attractive guy stayed up till 4 in the morning to listen to her preach, and then asked for an extra dose in her room I’m sure she would not have found it creepy. In fact she would have been flattered.

If he was just out for a quicky he probably misjudged how liberated she was. Apparently she’s not like those two feminist women who shacked up with Julian Assange on their first encounter.

If it’s perfectly legitimate for women to approach speakers, rock stars, and sports players for sex, then the door swings both ways.

… and yes there is the possibility of a creepy female stalker.

That is unless you are saying that there are innate differences between men and women, but that kinda blows a hole in the parts of the fundamentalist feminist agenda.

I am baffled by this line “Everyone is overreacting. All of you. (Yes, you too.)” since I am in the „Team I Don’t Give a S*it”.

Am I exagerating with my non-shit-giving. Should I be extreeme? Should I bomb somebody?

Seriously, I hate atheist drama.

Seriously, I hate atheist drama.

If only one could eat atheist drama, we could eliminate hunger. It may leave a bitter aftertaste, but unlike my patience and optimism, it is never in short supply.

No shit.

This was a very mature response. You really showed that woman, didn’t you.

Heaven forbid a woman points out something men do that makes them uncomfortable.

You’re so enlightened to take a label for yourself over accepting that women’s rights are human rights and sexism hurts men too. By all means, continue looking at atheist conferences as a feeding frenzy and not at the woman you’re making a pass at. Does she want the same thing? Did she tell you she was tired? Did you introduce yourself or just rush to your goal? Did she lead a speech against what you were going to do?