....can't seem to remember that being the problem meself. Its when 'coffee?' leads to 'YOU'RE SEXUALLY OBJECTIFYING ME' that the problem begins.
Your best best would be to wear a wedding ring to stop most guys approaching you.
Then approach the guys you are interested in, would save you a lot of hassle.
Ah but the person asking to see the watch was also only looking for your consent, not threatening to rob it, but it would still make most people nervous.
With men making up the majority of my friends since school days, I've never had an issue approaching men in a social situation. I'm now married - have been for years, I wear a thick wedding band...seriously, doesn't make a blind bit of difference.
Presumably much like the portion of women who'd jump at the chance of an invite to a strangers room off a 4am lift invitation, a portion of married women who would be interested in such a dalliance automatically makes such approaches unobtrusive and not annoyingly wearisome?
They can be nervous. That isn't the issue. The issue is when you spray the person with mace and start screaming 'thief! thief!'
My issue is not that this creeped Watson out. It is that she and others have turned this into the notion that she some how avoided a potential raping. That is nonsense. Now he might have been thinking about raping her, who knows. Watson, to her credit, didn't stick around long enough to find out. But in all likelihood he probably wasn't. He was probably a social awkward idiot.
You cannot simply go from a creepy situation to the idea that a rape was about to take place.
I can imagine being approached when your married very tiresome.
Surprised it happens so much to married women though.
Hmm apparently Elevator-guy has come forward
Chances are nobody cares but I stumbled on it and thought I would share. I can't quite tell if it is real or a joke...
I had a quick look through and can't find the relevant post - any clues? Cheers!
Mellow greetings, everyone. I noticed a link from your site to mine because of this entry, and I've quickly read through the last 22 pages involving this kerfuffle. I don't aim to make any complete argument at the moment as in the fullness of time I'll have a complete vivisection of the Rebecca Watson ordeal. However, I will make notes on a few misrepresentations of the actual facts - note, misrepresentation doesn't impute one's motives. It is simply that there exist statements which claim x is the case when x+a is actually the case. Never ascribe to malice that which is explained by ignorance and all that jazz.
Suffice it to say, some people here have been arguing on a rather curious set of facts which are either a.) not borne out by the evidence or b.) omit countervailing evidence even when said evidence is on the same document. I am under the impression that one of them is a moderator. This does not affect my decision to make an argument.
I will, of course, be happy to answer any particular questions on which I have data, and I'll state outright the confidence of the claim based on the available data. For instance, in the blog post I've done about Rebecca Watson's consistent history of using to her advantage any position of power she's given to punish as well she can those who have the temerity to not agree. This is something I can trace back directly to her early days on JREF fora, culminating in the decision to ban her ass made by James Randi himself. This goes straight up through the Stef McGraw incident following the elevator incident.
This isn't an argument; it's an assertion for the purposes of this post; if people are curious they can read my blog entry on it, or do the detective work themselves.
Also, I should like to take exception to a trope which has been running rampant by a certain subset of the population here; viz., Rebecca Watson was stating she felt uncomfortable. This is true, but not accurate as it's incomplete. The message of her actual claim, explicitly made one notes, has been too narrowly tailored to drive a result favorable to Rebecca Watson and her coterie of people. She goes on after that piece to admonish all men to not do that. That is to say, she couples 'I felt creeped out' with 'therefore, you 3.5 billion people may not approach a woman in an elevator at 4am and invite her for sex'. Some will say she didn't say that, and that is technically true. She didn't say these precise words. She said that it creeps her out, men may not do that because it's uncomfortable being "sexualized" in that way. So, she's not saying he invited her up for sex, but there is no other plausible reading of this.
If she's not aiming to imply a sexual motivation, she wouldn't have mentioned a sexual motivation. It's akin to saying look, the reason we're not hiring you isn't because you're black . . . See? They've settled it right out of the gate, except that this is transparently not the end of the question "was it about race?" I digress.
Her opening gambit is to marry her discomfort to the supposed sexualization. To say otherwise is to quotemine her. Remember, she is a communications major, and this is her livelihood - she makes pretty good money making people hear what she needs them to hear without needing to say it. It's a little something known as working an audience.
Further, she goes on to explicitly say that for Dawkins to have not taken her mere discomfort seriously trivializes her experience. In the selfsame document, she ties this all directly to sexual assault.
Further, and this is convoluted somewhat, she has a post which has as its opening salvo praise lavished on certain other prominent bloggers. Oddly, I wasn't among them - wonder why! On that list you will find Jennifer McCreight, among others, whose blog post is endorsed without caveat. It is therefore reasonable to presume that she agrees with the totality of the message.
Jennifer McCreight in turn takes Dawkins to task. Yesterday, Jennifer McCreight writes another post saying she fully endorses Rebecca Watson's article (to which there's a hyperlink) with only one caveat; viz., she disagrees that Dawkins' books and lectures should be boycotted. It is therefore reasonable to to conclude that everything else in Rebecca Watson's article has full support. Mind you, we now have a web: Watson links to McCreight fully supporting McCreight. McCreight in turn writes another post linking back to the post linking to her own site saying she endorses part and parcel minus the caveat earlier mentioned.
Why does this matter?
Well, in this whole web, which we can now merge as a set since it's a neat circle, a perfect circuit indeed, one will find that Dawkins is told that because he's never been called a ****** (untrue; southpark did an episode about this showing him screwing another guy among other things), a ****** (technically not true, but I'll grant it to avoid being persnickety), a Kyke (again, not true; he's part of the Jew conspiracy), or a **** (again untrue. This is among some of the milder things Dawkins has been called).
She presses on to explicate that he can't understand the fear of sexual assault because he's privileged by being a.) white, b.) British, c.) male, d.) stupid, e.) highly education, f.) a denizen of some supposed ivory tower, and g.) rich. Note, he's privileged against having to consider the mere petty inconveniences these oppressed women fear every day because he's male and it is thus not a concern for him.
Also note that this is completely untrue. Dawkins in 2006 posted an article detailing the sexual abuses that befell him by a priest.
Anyway, this is already longer than I'd planned, but there was a lot of stupid in the last 22 pages which required a once over. All of this will be explained more fully in my blog as I continue evaluating and collecting data.
Disclaimer: my earlier contributions on this topic were entirely satirical; however, among the ridicule I'm heaping on Rebecca Watson, and others, there is actual meritorious, legitimate analysis. I try to make the derisive ones obvious that they're satirical. But apparently I've not succeeded since the person whom I herein quote failed to notice I'm not actually elevator guy. So, if you do happen to go my blog, and decide to send me some hate mail over the tone and content of my satirical videos, do be sure to write them well. Nothing is more offensive than a person who's outraged enough to take action, but lacks the energy/ability to write a coherent message in support of opposing the thing about which they're outraged. Thanks in advance.
I find curious the fact that people have no cognitive dissonance whatever (with very few exceptions) to the fact that Rebecca Watson "named and shamed" an unknown female blogger named Stef McGraw during Watson's own keynote speech, a small part of which she rewrote specifically to call McGraw out on the carpet knowing full well McGraw wouldn't be given any opportunity to respond on equal footing. This lady Watson calls out in the section of her speech where she's explaining the rape mail she gets, and the threats of other forms of sexual assault. Then she goes on to say that McGraw's blog disagreeing with Rebecca Watson's position is a "threat" that is "harming" women, is itself sexist and misogynistic and is a great disappointment to see someone so young doing so much harm to actual women.
But the guy who "corners" her in an elevator and "sexualizes" her and put her in fear of being "sexually assaulted", well, his identity she decides to protect. The features of elevator guy that she will describe make him indistinguishable from someone she's just invented. There is no reason to think a.) "he" was male, b.) he sexualized her, c.) even existed, d.) was heterosexual, or e.) was after nothing more than coffee and conversation.
Remember, she was an invited and paid speaker at this convention. But so many of the people who see rape, oppression and misogyny behind every zipper find it nigh impossible that at a conference where she's an invited speaker there might exist in the audience someone who would . . . wait for it . . . want to talk to her. I can understand their recalcitrance. Having heard her speak before, I can definitely see why someone would find it hard to believe anyone would be interested in hearing her twice. But he was drunk, so we can't rule that out.
She refuses to even describe his clothes. Remember, she claims he was in the bar along with PZ Myers, Aronra and a few others. Surely a man who is that kind of threat needed to be called out so that all of the bar people could help get his description out? One of them probably saw the guy. If he was a threat to the extent saying her discomfort isn't a big deal is trivializing her experience because of Schroedinger's Rapist and potential sexual assault (which Rebecca directly says herself), then why was she not balls deep in trying to wake everyone up to let everyone know that the creepy potential rapist asked her to coffee?
Faced with being "cornered" in an elevator by a man who is "sexualizing" her after she told him not to, she escapes by the skin of her teeth and runs straight to
Yet, all of you "skeptic" people are swallowing hook, line and sinker her story on no evidence at all. Remember that when you're discussing EG or Dawkins; you're arguing about a man who may not exist, and even if he did, is guilty of no crime.
But facts don't seem to matter here, as Churchill would say, "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
Rebecca Watson delenda est!
If it's permitted, I can link you to the correct entry. If not, go to the one titled "Welcome to my blog, now get the **** out"
And then there are a couple of other posts about her detailing various related concerns. You can ignore the Paula Kirby one; the event organizers somehow managed to find a panel they luckily couldn't stick Watson on.
Rebecca Watson delenda est!
I wouldn't consider this of the x variety or the x + a variety if you'd put
yourself through the torture of reading this thread, more like a statement
of the xಠ _ಠa variety because there were occasional glimmers of sense.
Yes, I was careful to point out that there some people who were just very wrong; this implies the existence of some who were less wrong, to include possibly even people who were correct.
Indeed, I noted in the very first sentence that I read the entire thread.
And I thought this thread was daft already... the plot thickens.
That's more than can be said for most contributors.