Accounting for Accumulation

THIS!!!!!!!!

Everything she said also applies in any situation where there’s an overwhelming majority of any kind (ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, etc.)

“[…]each individual action does not happen in a vacuum, and your words and actions will be added to a pre-existing pile of experiences that the person you are speaking to has had.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.  This really gets at the heart of why this is a community problem, and why I get so annoyed with those who pick apart each individual grievance to explain why it’s not that bad. 

Preface: I’m gay. As a rule, I *don’t* flirt with women.

> Being propositioned (which can range
> from flattering to deeply
> creepy/frightening,
> depending on the approach) or
> flirted with at a conference will
> not make most women feel
> devalued. Being propositioned
> several times, or feeling like
> most men only approach you
> for the purpose of getting
> in your pants, can.

So, if a man wants to flirt with / proposition you, he should psychically know whether it has happened before in order to be able to determine if it will/won’t make you uncomfortable?

You seem to be implying that men should not flirt with / proposition women at atheist events, because men should just *assume* that based on womens’ previous experences it would make women uncomfortable. You realize, I hope, that if this rule is implemented all it will do is ensure that nice guys who care about how women feel will not hit on you, so the guys who do hit on you will be the not nice ones who don’t care how you feel. Of course, that might make your life easier by ensuring that you can casually dismiss any guy who approaches you, but it will also ensure that nice atheist women and nice atheist men can’t meet at atheist events.

Look, I’m a *gay* man, and posts like yours make me creeped out about the idea of even talking with women in public, for fear they’re going to think I’m hitting on them and get upset about it. When you say things like:

> They will know what it’s like to be scolded about
> “oversensitivity” for expressing discomfort.

…it doesn’t help me feel any less concerned. I’m the guy you could very easily have on your side: I have no sexual interest in women, I completely see women as people, I never objectify women, I don’t want anything out of women beyond simple friendship, and I have frequently spoken out about civil rights of and treatment of women. But the amount of “atheist men are bad and aren’t thinking about how they make women feel” postings across pretty much all atheist online venues have really put me off, to the point that I’ve stopped reading a lot of atheist blogs because I’m sick to death of it. Maybe you should give some thought to how and why you’re pushing away your supporters.

Speaking of accumulation and things getting old…

Hasn’t this poor old bastard horse been beaten to death ALREADY.

Jesus, let’s just rename this blog the “Whiney Women Trying to Be Even More Shrill” website…

 Apparently not.

Perhaps flirting and propositioning shouldn’t commence until some semblance of conversation has taken place and a modicum of mutual attraction has been identified?

Why don’t we just let women be the initiators of flirtatious conversation? Wouldn’t that solve all this crap?

rejoicing already 🙂

I get the “where are you from” all the time (I have an accent)….Since most of the time it is well intentioned I always try to be polite but have to admit that sometimes the accumulation effect gets to me. Oh well…

Great post Claudia!

By having an actual conversation.

If the conversation steers into matters of attraction, that’s flirting.

Oh right…the first thing you notice about a woman is her ability to chat you up….what BS.

Just be honest, if the looks aren’t there, it really doesn’t matter if you are talking to the female Shakespeare, we are drawn to looks first.

Personality is great, and it is a needed component, but if the attraction and looks aren’t there in the first place, the personality and conversation doesn’t matter. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.

”
My question would be how are we to know as individuals what happened in the past to a woman or anybody else that we might strike up a conversation with? ”

You aren’t expected to know.  That would require everyone to be psychic and I’m pretty sure as skeptics and atheists we all agree that’s not possible.

Claudia is trying to get everyone to realized that while there is certainly nothing wrong with flirting, if someone gives you a hesitant or unwarm response, don’t continue to flirt and don’t treat them poorly because they didn’t respond enthusiastically.

What boggles me is why anyone would open a conversation with instant flirting in situations like this.  You’re at a conference with like minded people.  You see a pretty woman.  Do you automatically assume that because she’s pretty she’s not there for the same reason you are, to mingle with people who have the same ideas and who wants to learn more and meet other people just like her?  Maybe she would be open to flirting, maybe she wouldn’t, but if that’s the first thing that happens when she talks to any man at that conference she may come to think they don’t see her as a like-minded individual, but as an object to be looked at.  Then again, she may -love- the attention and enthusiastically respond.  But you’ll never know for sure unless you approach and begin a conversation.

So! What to do?  Approach, start up a conversation, flirt or don’t, but keep in mind this is a person you’re talking to, not just a pretty face and that while they may love the flirting, they may want a conversation too.

This same thing goes for men or trans men or trans women or gender fluid and the list goes on!

I think this is probably a good rule when you are somewhere that is not neccesarily assumed to be for “hooking up” (I’ve been to a few clubs like that, most certainly not my thing, but whatever floats your boat). So it would cover pretty much any atheist meet-up. I happen to think it doesn’t hurt to make the “talk to person first, flirt later” policy a general one, since there are a fair number of women who are put off by being flirted with at once, but so far as I can tell far fewer, if any, who dislike being talked to in a friendly manner.

Just as a personal tip (and this counts inside and outside the community) one way to ensure that a woman doesn’t think you were just there to get lucky is by conversing normally both before and after any flirtation. So if a woman indicates, verbally or non-verbally, that she doesn’t want to be flirted with, stop flirting, but don’t run away. Keep talking, be friendly, have a conversation. That way, whoever you spoke to will know that even if you did have some physical interest, that was in no way the sum total of what she was considered in that interaction.

And you don’t sound like a jerk and your questions are in no way dirty. It’s not a crime to want to flirt or to hook up, and questions on how one navigates social situations in a respectful manner are good, and indicate an interest in the comfort of others, which will serve you well no matter your initial intentions.

This is essentially more mind reading BS. People are not responsible for the acts of other people you have previously met. Many people go to conferences to get laid. Many people who go to conferences are also socially awkward. If this is too much for you…  either get over yourself or stay home.

At the best of times figuring out if someone is “interested” can be difficult. If you don’t want to have sex with someone, stop being passive aggressive and tell them, look, not interested. Being an adult means standing up for yourself, expecting people to cater to your unexpressed feelings is what children do.

I think you missed the point a little bit. It isn’t just the flirting, it’s the flirting paired with the larger problem of women again and again voicing an idea which is ignored until a man voices it as well. This does not only happen in this community, but in every day life, however because this is a community that aspires to praise ideas such as equality and humanism, I had hoped for better. 

As tired as you are of seeing blog posts, I can guarantee you the women speaking up are far more tired of being ignored and only gaining attention for their potential as sexual partners. 

When you say things such as: “Look, I’m a *gay* man, and posts like yours make me creeped out about the idea of even talking with women in public, for fear they’re going to think I’m hitting on them and get upset about it.”   
 It seems like to me you are blaming women for reacting to a behavior they have collectively asked the involved men to stop, because women may suspect you of the same thing. (keep in mind we don’t know your sexuality from your face, we are not mind readers).  If you are speaking to a women and listening to her ideas as she should listen to yours, ie, holding a conversation I see no reason why you should be afraid, because that is not the problem. The problem is that at these conferences individual women’s ideas are being ignored, and when they ask that men simply try to be more respectful before asking for sex, that is somehow treated as a completely unreasonable and irrational request. 
Humans are intelligent social creatures, it shouldn’t be so hard to understand how to be simply respectful and that some actions have a context. Many commenters here treat it as if it is some gargantuan task to simply be understanding of our position. Would it really be so terrible to not ask out a women or ask for sex until you have more information about her in general? Is it really so hard for some men to not take offense to the idea that perhaps they shouldn’t  proposition women in some contexts? 

This is not purely in response to you, Thomas, and I apologize, but I am simply sick to death of the whining, “but understanding how to ask out a woman is harrrrrd, social contexts are harrrd!” Well yes, but so is any other social interaction with differing human beings, you figure it out in your situation. 

Thomas, you are sick of these posts, well I am sick of the idea that a straight men’s chance at a date or sex is more important then the chance that women may feel threatened or be unable to voice her ideas after investing time, travel and money to attend a conference in the first place. A conference is supposed to be about the exchange of ideas, with everything else secondary. Women have been saying their ideas are ignored, but that seems secondary to the furor that gets raised at the mention of men being asking to not proposition every potential biological sex partner in sight.

Do you -really- want to be with a woman who says no but means yes?  Wouldn’t a yes in the first place be more satisfying?

You say you recognize there’s a problem, but you don’t offer an alternative solution.  If what she said isn’t helpful or seems wrong to you, then what do you offer instead?  How do we address the issue that some women are uncomfortable being flirted with?

I personally think that conversations are a good way to gauge if a woman is open to flirtation.  I’ve never personally been hit on, so I’ve no reference for this kind of situation.  

Do men normally open conversations with instant flirting?  Or, if it’s obvious the woman isn’t interested in flirting, by verbal or physical cues such as stepping back or turning to face away from the man or mentioning a boyfriend/girlfriend, do men normally ignore these signs?  

The other thing is, this may not be directed at all men, but just the men who are simply at these conferences to hit on women and/or men who ignore the signs that a woman isn’t interested in flirting or something more.

Unfortunately it’s often all to easy to simply say men instead of, “men who do this”, so wording becomes a problem when addressing issues like this.  And even when it is specific, some men who don’t do whatever example is presented, take offense because it’s not specific enough or they fear they’re doing it without realizing.

I think that’s why it’s good to have these conversations. To make people aware and to help them communicate effectively.  The best site I’ve read yet on communication regarding sexual interactions is http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/ .  Many of the entries are not just about communication, but the book Yes Means Yes by Jaclyn Friedman, is most definitely about communication and what she calls enthusiastic consent.

Women are taught to be coy because we’re told that’s what men like. We teach men to be bold because they’re told that’s what women like.  But no one is exactly the same, so assuming all women are being coy or want men who are bold or assuming all men should be bold or want coy women is a very bad assumption to make. We’re all individuals and we need to communicate in order to understand what others want and to show others what we want.

My apologizes for going over long.  But I truly believe communication can the willingness to listen could solve a lot of issues like these. Not just about sexism either.

And as I said in another reply, this goes for all genders.  Some women are bold and they approach coy men and don’t take no for an answer because they think “Oh they’re just playing coy.”  And then it all goes to hell from a misunderstanding.

Actually, the best kind of discrimination is the kind you wouldn’t recognize even if it slapped you across the cheek with a snow shovel. That’s when you usually present the other cheek. Discrimination that’s like porn is the prepubescent version.

There was an attempt to do this at a gamer convention once. It failed quite predictably.

At some conferences they have dots or other kinds of stickers you can put on your tag to identify certain things like “Atheist”, “Skeptic”, etc. One of the sets of dots were for “Hug me!” or “Please don’t hug me.”  How about we do that but with a set of dots that means ‘Flirt with me!” or “Don’t flirt with me?”  Too weird?  Maybe I’m too logical when it comes to things like this.  Liking to be flirted with isn’t a switch that’s always on or off. Maybe I want to be flirted with now, but not later.  Ah well.

Claudia isn’t saying that you need to approach every woman like she’s a rape victim. What she’s saying is (Claudia, correct me here if I’ve misread you) IT’S RUDE to treat women at atheist conventions as if all they’re there for is sex. That’s not the same as not hitting on them. Chat first, proposition later.

Hasn’t this poor old bastard horse been beaten to death ALREADY.

Says the guy who’s ‘contributed’ to every single conversation on the topic……

When did I, or anyone else in this thread, say that you should ignore looks?

However, I think you’ve just stumbled upon your issue here.  Apparently anytime you have a conversation with a woman, it’s because you’re somewhat attracted to them and are at least partially exploring the possibility of sex.  What you apparently fail to understand is that some people, including the women you’re conversing with are only interested in conversation (even if they find you attractive).

There’s nothing inherently wrong with starting a conversation with the aim of seeking sex, but if the other person is not interested in that, you should be able to quickly pick that up and stop the flirting.  Other humans don’t have all the same feelings and motivations as you.  If you understand that and can act accordingly, super!, this article wasn’t aimed at you.

Your answer to the question of is a proposition a “sexist act” seems  ridiculous  to me.  You are saying the accumulation of propositions is the problem.  I am sure that is annoying, but it doesn’t make any individual proposition “sexist”.  If it is not the same person making the accumulating propositions, it is not reasonable to hold people responsible for the actions of others. 

It is not just the accumulation of an action that can cause an issue. Flirting can make some people feel included, while it can make others uncomfortable and push them away.  Just because an action affects you a certain way does not mean it will affect everyone else the same.  If flirting is “sexist” solely depends on the intent of the person flirting.

I have yet to see any non anecdotal evidence that defines what are the problems.  Until you can define the problem, you can’t begin to find a solution. 

All I can say is…….after the frustration and disappointment I’ve experienced getting involved in so many of these discussions lately, I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to have such an intelligent, articulate, calm, reasonable and fair voice around…..

big kudos, Claudia 🙂   for this and your OP

If you think this is getting old, try dealing with men’s sexist behavior on a regular basis. That gets old too and unless you are willing to change your sex, you do your best to cope with it… for the rest of your life.

So, complaining about how terrible it is to read a succession of posts on sexism/misogyny in the atheist community doesn’t really inspire all that much sympathy. Compare reading a few posts on a website and then (maybe) thinking about what is said to a lifetime of developing coping strategies in dealing with people’s prejudice and sense of entitlement.

What do you suppose an atheist’s response would be if a Christian showed up here and said, “Are you guys still talking about this stuff? Get over it already.” That’s easy enough to say when the culture you live it gives the lion’s share of power and privilege to your group.

That’s just the thing. Atheist spaces devote a lot of verbiage to challenging the near universal privilege that societies grant to the religious. So, when the men in those spaces complain about having their privilege challenged, it stands out in bold relief as being pretty darned hypocritical.

The comments to these posts are so odd to me.  They always seem to degenerate into the minutia instead of addressing the bigger issues. 

As a civilized society, have we not generally determined how to behave with one another in a respectful manner?  Are the general social rules that difficult to follow?

We all seem (for the most part) to know how to behave in a work enviromment with others from a sexual attraction perspective.  It seems that the same approach should be taken at an atheist convention, which is really just a professional conference. 

I have seen many comments from men on this blog that come across as very hostile and sexist when the post is related specifically to sexism in the atheist community, but I have seen the same men post comments that are very equality-based when not discussing this particular line of sexism.  I think these men are making themselves look worse than they are.  I suspect that there is a lot more agreement to the general principals expressed by women here than are articulated when the post is directly about sexism in the atheist community, and I can’t figure out why that is.
 
 

Who’s ‘judging’ them?   We’re merely talking about some general helpful advice to consider when interacting with others.

Watch it Mike, such reasonableness might be a ‘challenge’ for some 🙂

Because some men are boring wastes of oxygen too and really do only have sex on the brain when talking to a woman.

I think your summary is exactly on-point. I don’t think any of us are saying never proposition women ever, but thing is, context and delivery are everything. A question will be better-received than a demand, and a question to someone who, though conversation and maybe a bit of flirting you’ve identified as potentially receptive will be better-received than having the proposition be your opening line.

Another big thing as well that I don’t think is given enough attention is how you react if someone turns you down. Calling names and cutting off the conversation are great ways to make the person who just turned you down feel like you were only considering them “below the neck”. I know it hurts to be turned down (I’ve been turned down when asking people out on dates before), and I do sympathize, but it’s no excuse to generally act like a jerk afterward (unless the person went out of their way to be hurtful with the turn-down, in which case they probably deserve to be called names even if I think taking the high road is usually better). Further, one of my closest friendships sprung of a conversation with a turned-down proposition in the middle of it, so even if you misread the other person, don’t assume you’re completely out of luck… instead of getting a sex partner, you might get a friend, and that’s not a bad thing on its own, either.

I think this concept applies to all potentially romantic encounters: A few of my male friends have complained about women who proposition them right out of the gate. I think it’s the same underlying irritation over being valued for their appearance over who they are. I know that when women proposition me with the same sort of attitude (though it doesn’t happen as often mainly because though I’m bisexual, I don’t go to a lot of the local GLBT meeting spots and community gatherings – for pretty much the same reason as we’re currently discussing… inconsiderate sexual behavior is not a gender-specific issue), I find it just as irritating as when men do it.

Hey now, don’t get down on teenagers. I know lots of teens who have more sense than EJC and more maturity too!

It’s sad that people like this exist, but there will always be those few who are so stubbornly ignorant they refuse to be willing to listen to others and learn.  The rest of us just have to make sure it’s clear they don’t speak for anyone but themselves and those like them.

It’s not just atheist communities where the “talk first, flirt later if appropriate” should apply. One that leaps to mind is RenFaire. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen guys in Medici garb sporting a codpiece go up to women, waggle their eyebrows and kiss them on the hand, expecting to be greeted with a titter and a swoon. For fuck sakes dude, if you’re not a charming casanova OUT of your RenFaire garb, you’re not going to suddenly turn into an irresistible chick magnet just by donning a doublet and tights. Oh god those tights. I want to poke out my eyes. I can’t imagine how creepy it must be for most of the women.

I’m mildly concerned people will start to think he’s some sort of a feminist Poe (a Sue?), because he’s so stereotypical he hardly seems real, sometimes.

  This discussion is not new to any established democratic society. I think they used to call it the “War of the sexes”  I suspect we give to much sway to those that choose to be offended the most.   The truth is no matter what rules of engagement that are proposed someone will most assuredly find a way to get offended.  This is not to invalidate any ones feelings.  Feelings are what they are.

  Unwanted advances are a matter of fact and to “do away” with them may also do away things that are spontaneous and romantic.  How many stories have you heard about older couples and their cute and clumsy beginnings.   It seems to me that this conversation started because it was wondered upon why there are not more woman in atheist gatherings and I feel, at least in part, that this discussion started as a defensive reaction  to that. 

  Or I could be wrong…..

That was the most depressing thing I ever read.

I don’t think Claudia is asking that people never flirt.  There wouldn’t be romance and love and babies and doting grandparents if people never flirted.

This doesn’t have to be a war of the sexes.  It can be a jumping off point of learning for everyone.  Conversations that start with flirting can be awkward if the person being flirted with isn’t interested.  If it’s obvious that person isn’t comfortable or interested, back off, talk about something else, engage other people to join the conversation or offer an apology and move along. No need to take it personal that someone wasn’t interested.  No need to make it about anything beyond two people not on the same page.  

And the best part is, maybe you meet someone who will make a good friend instead.  

Of course if that person is interested there’s no guarantee that you’ll continue to be interested as you continue talking to them!

Conversation is how we know. We simply need to keep in mind that we’re all individuals and we all react in different ways and that is absolutely okay.

Unless they’re jerks. Then screw ’em and walk away!

Ideally… but as  skeptic, I deal in reality, not feminist utopias.

Seriously, if we’re talking about the same person being repeatedly annoying a woman, and ‘no means no’, obviously I’m with the feminists, but this…. don’t offend me, I’m a woman crap doesn’t wash. Learn to say no, stand up for yourself, and stop expecting the world to take care of you. Men want to have sex, maybe with you, maybe not. If you’re not interested, you say you’re not interested. People can’t read your mind, nor should they be expected to.

 It’s not helped by the fact that, all claims to the contrary, “no doesn’t *always* mean no”
Generally speaking, if you treat all nos as no you will get into a lot less trouble with accusations of sexism, racism, rape, etc.  If the person is being coy, let them be the one to clarify that they really consent.

The biggest problem I personally see with this whole “Can I flirt with you at a con?” question is not the intial flirtation.  If a woman could decline interest without fuss, and just be treated like any other atheist, this would be no big deal.  Instead when she says no, she’s not believed. Or the reaction she gets is as if she said “you can never flirt with anyone ever, again” instead of “don’t flirt with me right here, right now.” Or she only included in conversations with flirtation that are terminated when she declines interest–as Claudia said previously.  

So please, let no mean no,  and then still treat us like human beings, and you can flirt to your heart’s desire.

Your point, there Gloria?

The example of the atheist conference keeps being used. There are many events going on. Perhaps her day is well planned out. Then a talk gets canceled. There is a basic no/yes possibility. And of course if she comes back later, great. (so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Dawkins talk ;p )

You’re right some people ignore non verbal cues. I can only speak for myself and my friends that I’ve asked… I don’t think guys ignore them as often as you might think. I’m betting they are likely just not received.

heres the single reason women will be propositioned at a conferance,atheism as a belief system says”this is it,your one shot at life,go for it ,theres nothing else”,so a room full of “white males”,with this belief says why not go for it,the wifes at home, my consceince is only my perverted upbringing,so why not. and if you think most men with this mindset would rather your opinion or your ass,most will go for the latter,then give lipservice to your opinions,,,sorry to put it so bluntly

Easily misunderstood as cosplay in a geek setting? 😀

Here’s the heart of your problem:

“Conversation doesn’t matter”

(This is also the heart of women’s problem here, too.)

You apparently don’t consider women to be people who are worth sharing ideas with, as you presumably do men. 

This is what women are objecting to — being treated as good for nothing but sex.  And you’ve just basically said that you consider women good for nothing but sex, and you only enter into conversation with sexually attractive women.

To address your suggestion that words like “sexism” and “misogyny” be expunged from this discussion, I’d like to say that though I understand where you’re coming from, I have to disagree. I get it, I do. You see the word “sexism” or “mysogyny” in a post, and you groan internally because you know that what’s happening next will be a high-drama pissing contest. Trust me, this happens to the girls as much as to the guys. From that perspective, it makes sense to discard buzzwords that turn people off and try to address each problem individually.

The issue I have with that is that I don’t think we can effectively deal with these issues unless we see that certain problems are related to one another. It’s the combination and accumulation of many different smaller issues that together contribute to an atmosphere that is unwelcoming or even hostile. Unless you are able to talk about it as a larger issue I don’t think you can really solve it.

One thing that is difficult to understand and even harder to change, is that an environment can be sexist (or racist, or homophobic etc.) even when the majority of people mean well. When a significant number of women report being treated only as possible conquests at meet-ups, or see their ideas dismissed, or see that every time complaints about bad behavior come up, there seems to be a lot more concern in ensuring it’s Very Clear that not all men are like that or you could be mistaking their intentions than there is in acknowledging and trying to deal with the original issue, then there is a problem, even if the overwhelming majority of people involved would blanch at the notion that they are in any way sexist.

Finally I’ll just take up this space to add something I ommitted from the original post because it was already too long (I know, you’re shocked I’m long-winded). Another factor contributing to the problem, besides accumulation, is combination. Maybe you got approached by a few guys at a conference who, the minute they figured out you weren’t into them, left. Shit happens. Maybe later you were listening to a discussion and saw how a woman made a given point, which was basically disregarded, but some time later you saw a guy making a very similar point given a lot more attention. Huh. Maybe a few weeks later you’re checking out a video by a YouTube atheist who happens to be female, and see that a fair proportion of the comments are of the “You’re really hot” or “Tits or STFU” variety. Things that may seem like individual assholes or coincidences, when taken together, can start to seem a lot more like part of a pattern.

So now I’ve repaid you your essay with one which is at least as long 😉

Thanks for the tip and I’m glad this is getting positive feedback. It’s a very fine line that people walk in any new social encounter, especially when we’re talking about adults who may or may not want to get laid.

Perhaps one might also counsel patience in cases like this. If a person is focused entirely on sex they tend to treat people as the most immediate path to that goal and behave in such a fashion that they think they can get there in as little time as possible. That not only degrades the person being flirted with, it degrades the forceful person who ends up relying on well-worn lines and innuendo, like some magic trick that, done right, makes the intended’s clothes disappear. Even if people can’t bring themselves to think of other people as human beings (which is one hell of a problem in and of itself), shouldn’t they at least think of themselves as human beings instead of sex-seeking missiles?

This is largely in response to s0mething The Other Weirdo said above, about “no” not always meaning “no.”

First off, that’s bullshit. I needed to get that out of the way.

Now, suppose you are at a conference, you see a woman you find attractive, and you talk to her. Eventually, the talk goes to taking things to another level (if you know what I mean.) She says no.

Maybe she says it politely, maybe rudely, maybe in an utterly neutral tone. It makes no difference, because she said no.

1. Do you assume she is a mature, intelligent, autonomous adult (which she is) and either (a) dial it back and continue a civil, adult conversation; or (b) say a few polite pleasantries and move on?

OR

2. Do you assume that, since “no” might not really mean “no,” that you should keep at it, or even double down on your flirting? Anything, really, to indicate that you are not giving up? (This is the logical result of believing “no” might not mean “no.”)

Option 1 allows you to move on and meet even more awesome people, eventually finding someone you can have a mature adult relationship with (which leads to freaking awesome sex).

Option 2 leads to either extreme social awkwardness (or a restraining order), or sex that you had to talk someone into.

Here’s my actual question from all that buildup: If you choose Option 1, and it turns out she actually did mean “yes,” what exactly have you missed out on? How much infinitely worse is your life going to be because you missed out on getting laid when someone said no to you and you believed them? If sex is more important to you than being a decent human being, at least be honest about it.

The bigger point, which many guys on here seem determined to miss because *they* are “nice guys,” is that it’s fine to flirt, but try talking first. It’s not hard to tell if someone is at least enjoying talking to you. If they’re not, or if they say no to anything, move the hell on.

Finally, my own conclusion: this is not a bunch of atheist women whining. This is a bunch of dudes whining because they have to face the fact that women aren’t there first and foremost for them to fuck. Get over it.

Sorry Karen, but there is no strawman there, but you do ignore the glaring fact that your whole argument (or the side it seems you are advocating) is based on a false at worst, or untested at best, hypothesis.

There is no strawman here sweetie, but there is a huge hole in your side’s stance. Again, when I say hole, I mean the hole in the argument, not the hole that seems to be the root cause of this “debate”….

I want to go on record as applauding JRB for this post.

And I want to add a note to EJC that when someone collectively refers to women as “gals,” women tend to stop listening and dismiss their input as irrelevant.

I’m a pretty nice guy. Been looking forward to going to conferences in the future. But starting with the famous elevator-gate and the many posts before yours are honestly making me not want to attend for fear of bumping shoulders with a woman that’s been hit on all day… Forget even making eye contact and saying hello.

There is a difference between noticing looks and acting as if looks are what is most important in an individual, whatever the gender.

I’m not talking about what you notice, but what you value.

“Your whole argument hinges on an incorrect hypothesis; that those with
penises are a collective group of barbarians all out to rape, pillage
and undermine the vaginal agenda.”

This is one glaring strawman.  Obviously, no one is making this argument.

It’s very clear that productive discussion with you isn’t possible, unfortunately.

Just treat women like regular human beings and you’ll be fine.  Really.

I do. I would. Misquoting Freud: Sometimes a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee. You know?

It’s really looking like there are a lot of ladies walking around with a chip on their shoulder.

You know, your own opinion of what you think constitutes common guy culture isn’t all that positive or mature. Constantly insulting each other and neglecting to wear clean clothes?

It’s kind of funny that you think we’re the ones who are saying that all guys are barbarians.

Given your self-indicated level of maturity, there’s really no reason to continue interacting with you.

Not to mention EJC’s use of the word “shrill.”

That’s the attitude I generally take. If you tell me “no”, you will never hear from me again, even if you really wanted to. It’s not that I care about your feelings, it’s that I have to protect myself.

Wow! This is the dumbest thing I’ve heard on this thread, or on any thread. Even Christian ones. Oh, and a nice bit of racism there. How nice.

And by “screw ’em and walk away!” I assume you mean to make like Eric Cartman and not like a five dollar whore.

Why? Because I disagree with you?

No, because you view the world through a child’s eyes. We’re done here.

Jesus, just kiss already and get it over with

Two points about privilege and one possible solution.

First, it boggles my mind how much privilege men have that some people who comment on this issue (men and some women, too) are willing say to 50% of the population, “That’s the way it is, deal with it,” and believe that’s why women should give up on expecting to be treated with the same general respect afforded men by men and women.

In other words, these philosophers think the burden is entirely upon women to accommodate a possible cultural and/or biological inability of men to treat women as they treat other men. It’s not.

Second, I belong to another historically male-dominated community, but one that has improved dramatically in its treatment of female scholars since the 1970s. This is because groups of male and female scholars within it started to focus on women’s issues as they pertain to our discipline and our professional organizations actively sought out women to join in conversations. The result? Conferences today are more welcoming and a much more positive experience for women than what my mentors tell me it was like even only fifteen years ago. More women have joined the discipline. And I work in a niche field that was started by a conservative women in the 19th century.

I think women need to organize more within the secular community. If the only visible female presence is in some individuals sprinkled in the audience and occasionally speaking onstage, it’s going to take us a long time to bring about real change in how women experience these events and how everyone views our place within the community.

This might seem like “special treatment” to some at first, but you really can’t overcome the privilege problem by doing nothing. Combating privilege is not an attack on the privileged group, but on their power monopoly. To people not familiar with the concept of privilege: I am not at all trying to attack men by suggesting that women organize. I like most of the men I know. If you’re a man (esp a man who reads Friendly Atheist), then I’d probably like you as much as I’d like anyone. Men’s contributions are certainly just as worthy as women’s contributions to the community. But there’s a real problem here and while the “proposition” question promotes a good discussion about boundaries, whatever the answer is to that question will not solve the larger problem.

Your essay may have been long, but again provided nothing to the discussion but more anecdotes and hypotheticals.  You are making an assumption (that the behavior is related to sexism).  What I think Greg is saying is do actual, tangible and unbiased research.  If you want to correct the problems, we need to know what they are and what are the root causes.  Just because you think it is sexism, doesn’t make it true.

I’m sorry you see people pointing out actual problems as them having a chip on their shoulder.  Not really the same thing at all.

Excellent points, Greg.  The continued misapplication of the “sexist”
and “misogynist” labels is undoubtedly hurting the whole dialogue.

The recent Ben Radford ordeal/flub is making for a perfect example, with so many of his opponents casually slinging said labels at him for what appears to be nothing more than his ignorance on the subject.  And that is _not_ helping to advance the discussion or to help him to see if/where he’s wrong.  Nor does it help when other high-profile bloggers are irrational dicks about it.

Since I have a penis it is my problem. Or was this article about some aliens?

It would be nice if some guys were less arsehole like. It would be nice if some ladies were more forthcoming.

Since I have a penis it is my problem.

Uhm, what?  what does merely having a penis have to do with whether or not you’re “part of the problem”? (and that’s what Karen’s comment was about ~ the issue of being ‘part of the problem’, NOT about it being your problem)

You just said that you do treat women like “regular human beings”, so why are you assuming that any of this ‘advice’ is being directed at you?

Man, now I really wish Karen’s comment could be posted somewhere as a sticky….

The ladies talking earlier about all these men that hit on them at conferences (whether or not the guys are assholes).  Even though I’m not looking to hook up, those ladies are on the extreme defensive side.  I’m “just another guy looking to notch my belt” if I talk to them.

Yes, I remember that post.  You want to give all the nice guys a gold star for their name tag so we know who is not a part of the “problem”?

Cheers. 😉

I probably missed a gap here or there but the sentiment remains.

Unfortunately, our patriarchal society conditions us to _expect_ males to initiate conversation.  Silly and outmoded, I know.

In light of the parts of this post saying you have to read a situation to determine if something is appropriate I’d like to point out that a lot, like, a metric-shittonne of people are either very bad at or entirely incapable of reading things like social and non-verbal cues. Perhaps we need to agree on a system of discrete, non-confusing symbols that can help illustrate things you want to be known (Jen at BlagHag mentioned a conference she went to where they put stickers on their nametags to signal whether it was appropriate to, for instance, hug someone).

I’d also like to share something my counsellor told me. If you’re in a situation where people are being confusing or you don’t know if something is appropriate or not, just don’t say anything. There’s almost never a time where it’s unacceptable to be quiet.

I find this all quite sad. Going to use a personal anecdote here, and hopefully some of the guys responsible for this problem learn from it. Once at a club a friend of mine had his eye on a particular lady, anyway they ended up hooking up and her friend and I were left at the bar trying to have a conversation. After awhile she said, why don’t we go somewhere quiet, my reply was “Great idea, we can hear each other much better then!” (I was and still am completely oblivious, which my wife finds cute)

We ended up finding a all night pizza place and sat talking, eating pizza and drinking wine until sunrise. Ended up in a relationship, even though that was the last thing either of us had in mind when we went out that night. When you meet a lady, try and connect with something other than base instinct.

A night spent eating pizza and drinking wine is much preferable to bumping uglies behind the dustbins for 20 minutes, and usually brings far better rewards.

Whilst atheists really only have a lack of belief in god in common, I’d like to think that we got to our lack of belief through using rational thought, logic and common sense, surely then as rational human beings, we’re all capable of controlling our base urges? We should be able to connect with each other, regardless of gender on a higher level than sex.

So guess what I’m saying is that if you’re looking for a quick romp between the sheets, try a bar or a club, not a convention where people are trying to share ideas and philosophies. There is appropriate place for each activity desire.

P.S.  I’m not a man-hater.  I think a lot of men are wonderful.  I hate to see some unknown percentage of immature individuals polarize an issue that shouldn’t even need to *be* an issue. 

So if the first words out of a guy’s mouth is “hi, you’re cute, can I
have your phone number” or somesuch, I’m going to assume that he’s after
what’s below my neck, not above

Is this hyperbole?  Or do people really do that sort of thing?  Perhaps it’s cultural (statistically you’re probably from the US (?), I’m from the UK), or rather naive (me being a male who doesn’t like the macho, testosteroney culture and who doesn’t move in those circles), but the idea of those being the first words out of someone’s mouth seems laughably desperate and transparent.  Would that ever work?

While I am on your side 100%, yes, there have been comments that could easily be construed that way.  It’s a small leap from saying that sexism is a problem at atheist conferences to saying that atheist men are the problem, and all of the sudden you have defensive guys who aren’t willing to listen anymore, like EJC here for example.

Unfortunately, I also don’t know how else to put this so that people who don’t already get it can come to understand.  Claudia’s done a fine job pulling some guys on board here, but our work is clearly not done.

I’m personally awful at picking up cues like that.  Just ask my wife.  We almost didn’t start dating because I couldn’t figure out if she was interested and she probably wouldn’t have taken the initiative on her own.

That said, I think it’s far more likely to get “I’m busy” if the woman is busy.  Unfortunately, I’ve seen friends get the “I’m busy” answer as an alternative method of saying no (when the woman feels unable to outright reject someone either out of fear or wanting to avoid causing pain) many times, so if I had ever gotten that myself I’d probably just assume I had no chance even if being busy was the absolute truth.  In fact, it happened so often that when I got rejected, I found it refreshing that the women were…quite plain in their rejection.  🙂

I think you can answer your own question by figuring out if your standard for intelligence is consistent between men and women.  If you’re just picky about who you call smart, that’s one thing, but if a man can have a couple good ideas and you think he’s smart, but a woman has to be Marie Curie or France Anne Cordova for you to think her intelligent, then there might just be a problem.

WE WOMEN on this atheist board, who will be the women at atheist conferences, are telling you that we mean it when we say, “No means no.”  I’m sure there are women in the general population who don’t say what they mean and expect you to play along.  Not one of them has commented here to encourage it.

Actually “DCW”, if anything, you don’t have much in the way of reading comprehension, because what this poster was saying was pretty much spot on.

There was nothing childish in his post, but there certainly was from you…

Oh yes, what was it you were wont to say at the end of your post…”We’re done here”.

Common guy culture IS immature and nasty. Jesus dude, that is why if I were a woman I would be a lesbian.

They are self created problems Karen, not real problems.

And yes, on the whole, American women have HUGE chips on their shoulders.

It all depends what your goal is, doesn’t it?

If you want to actually get anywhere, then you want to be careful not to behave in such a way that no-one you’re talking to wants to listen to you. 

If you don’t care about that…

Just so my opinion is crystal clear:

The problem isn’t with the people when they use such words when they do apply. The problem is with the people who use the words when they don’t apply. 

Essentially, people who [i]feel[/i] they are using it correctly should make sure they [i]are[/i] using it correctly.

And that’s how their power as conversation stoppers gets neutered the easiest – [b]by using them correctly[/b]. 

Actually, no, you don’t completely get what I was saying. Partly, but not fully! 🙂
My point isn’t just that using words like sexism prevent a discussion taking place – there are actually times when I’d say the terms are used very worthily. My point is that this doesn’t seem to be one of those discussions. Just so we can get our terms clear here, when I talk about something like sexism, I’m talking about the pretty standard dictionary definition:

sexism:

1. attitudes or behaviour based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.

I just lifted that from the first online dictionary I came across. They’re all pretty much the same.

Now, as far as I can see, nothing that you are describing can reasonably be described as sexist (by that definition). That is my problem here.

The waters are made muddier, of course, by the fact that sexual attraction is (usually) based upon genders (leaving aside asexuals, bisexuals, and pansexuals for the moment).  But I don’t think anyone would reasonably cause sexual orientation sexist, would they? My point is that the reason behind the propositioning and even perhaps some of the comments on the YT videos seems not to be caused by sexism, but rather by sexual attraction.

When you add the gender disparity in events, then suddenly you have a pretty compelling reason for the uncomfortability some women are feeling, without bring sexism into the picture at all. 

In fact, looked at that way, sexism just looks like a red herring. Does that better explain what I said?

Of course, if true, the suggestion that ideas aren’t being taken seriously because of gender would certainly be sexist, but for something like that anecdotes are the worst possible thing to build an argument on. You need a study that makes sure that men aren’t finding the same thing; that age isn’t a factor; that position in the organisation/academic world/etc. isn’t a factor; and even then you have still more factors like skill of communication, or how well known the people involved are, and countless other ones that you have to rule out. There are so many things it might be.

So it’s clear: I can understand that it might feel as though it is sexist to the person suffering it, but that doesn’t mean it actually is.  For example (and this is just a hypothetical):

It is possible that two people go to a job interview, one man, and one woman. The man gets the job and the woman doesn’t. The woman might feel this was as a result of sexism. And it might well be! However, the fact she feels that way doesn’t mean it actually is sexism – the man may simply have been the best man for the job. Even if their credentials are identical, he might have had a fantastic interview.

There are other extremely plausible possibilities for what’s happening, that don’t include sexism, and yet it is being assumed de facto in blog posts that sexism is the cause. And that is the problem in these conversations: it’s a bit like being assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Because sexism is such a powerful word, if it is invoked wrongly, then there is going to be both tonnes of indignation in the resultant ‘discussions’, and also scepticism the next time it is invoked.

I strongly feel that if the words are used with responsibility, conversations actually have a hope of getting somewhere.

Let’s assume for a moment that if we look deeply into this, we’ll find that sexism actually is the cause of everything that is being complained about. Isn’t it still better to wait until we have deeply looked into it before labelling it as such?

Maybe I could distil my initial essay and this one into one short-ish sentence. I’m advocating caution in jumping to conclusions, and caution in using divisive language where it isn’t warranted.

I have to be honest – I feel like I’m walking a tightrope at the moment. I certainly don’t think I’m in any way sexist, and I can’t stress enough how much I am fundamentally against it and yet I fear there will be people who take me as being such. (Indeed, I’m pretty sure that’s already happened – I hasten to say not by you.) So – yeah – there’s another disclaimer! 🙂

Oh, and nothing wrong with a good long essay or two – just as long as people are respectful, and know when to stop, they are the best kind! 🙂 Although perhaps threaded comments aren’t the best place for them… (!)

Hopefully I’ve clarified what I wanted to say.

Ahhhhh, from the mouths of babes…

It might work with some women, perhaps if they are powerfully attracted to the guy or looking to get over a bad breakup, but I don’t think I’ve met anyone it worked on, and yes, I’ve been approached like this (thankfully only a couple times).

Interesting. Who authorized you to speak for all atheist women attending atheist conventions? Or did you mean just the half-dozen or so of you that have commented?

Sweet. Everything I would want to say but in a concise single post.
Thanks!

I don’t think there is necessarily a specific set of “general social rules”.  I would think the Athiest community draws from a number of diverse communities.  There are significant differences in acceptable and expected behavior in the numerous communities in our various backrounds.

I have seen no examples, only that this is how women or women they know feel.  I often think the my ideas at work are ignored, that I am not always taken as seriously as some co-workers.  But when I talk to those co-workers, they often feel the same way.  Most people have a hard time being objective about their situations.

I have no problem understanding that some of the women posting on this site feel that they are treated as sex objects.  But I think there needs to be more objective evidence that they are actually being treated as sex objects.

Assuming, of course, that I want anything more from her than a one-night standYes, well, I was hoping you were following why-is-the-other-person-here-? rule, the one where you consider the other persons agenda before engaging them in an activity.  According to this rule you ask for authors for autographs at signings, not when they’re out for lunch with their family.  You befriend baristas at a friend’s party, not while they’re at work in the cafe.  You sell to people when they’re at the flea market, not when they’re in the emergency room.

I’m not saying that you have to limit your interactions to only what you both came here to do.  Like if you go into a blind date, and it just so happens that you work out to be a great business deal between your companies.    But if a person goes on a date with the intention of using the date to get a business deal, then the date becomes a one sided opportunity to sell.  Pretty soon that other person will know that their dating interest is being exploited.  They will avoid dates with that first person, or people like them.   

So, going back to flirting, if you think its likely a woman is there to have a one night stand (like say a bar, or the club, or a speed dating night), then by all means chat her up and leave if she’s not interested.  But if she’s there to hear some great atheist speakers and get involved with the atheist communities, but what she gets is men solicit sex, she is going to find that her interest is being exploited.

What I hope is that you mean you pick up girls in bars and parties, and you are friendly but sexually disinterested during lectures, work, volunteering. and other places women are not necessarily looking for hot sex–since you can’t go back and forth from friends to sexual interest.

When I say no, I mean no. Quit patronizing women (and other men) by telling them what they think and what they mean. You are not expected to read my mind, but listen to my words. And most of the time its really obvious if someone is interested or not by paying any attention whatsoever to their non-verbal cues. 

I always thought having a vag was enough. Damn.

You most definitely do not sound like a jerk! Others have already responded – I just wanted to let you know I (and undoubtedly other women here) appreciate you asking genuine questions 🙂

Yes to this. Thank you, Fred!

A young male member of my family has NLD (non-verbal learning disorder), meaning he truly can’t interpret body language, facial cues, etc. When in high school, he got in a bit of trouble because he was staring at girls in his classes, and it creeped them out. He meant no harm – he just had no idea that this was a creepy thing to do. When he found out that it was considered creepy, he didn’t freak out, get angry, say “well I didn’t mean it in a creepy way, there was no threat, what’s their problem?” He listened, asked questions, learned, and stopped doing it because he didn’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, purposely or inadvertently.

What gets me about this whole discussion (not just here, not just this thread) is that some men immediately make assumptions and/or get defensive and upset rather than asking questions to clarify points that they either don’t understand or take issue with.