Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

Atheists appear to agree on one thing and argue about everything else. That's not a religion

The history of Religions and the world would tend to disagree with you there S

nozzferrahhtoo

Dades wrote: »

Do we know for sure this guy was privy to all Watson's previous comments about how she's uncomfortable with being hit on?

Could he have just been just another head in the room who missed this 'warning' and had a few too many pints?

We know nothing at all for sure alas, just what is reported to us and of course we know nothing of the guy himself or what his take is on it or his side, or even if he exists and was not just made up to make a point about men.

For all we know... and I paint this picture solely for highlighting just how little we know.... she completely missed the joke and he ACTUALLY intended to fake hit on her as a tongue in cheek response to her comments about not liking to be hit on. It was 4am and her own words she had had a few... maybe she entirely missed the pun.... especially given it was a bad one.

Just one of the many possibilities to add to your own above.

Delirium

Had read over the thread and had a look at a video where Rebecca describes what happen.

My understanding she was on a panel and spoke about sexist/misogynist attitudes in the atheist community. Later she was having drinks and talking to some people at the bar, which I presume had the guy in question as part of the group.

It's not clear to me if the guy saw her talk on the panel or if she talked about he same topic while at the bar.

She says goodnight to the group at 4am, and heads for her room. The guy gets on the elevator with her. Makes an offer of conversation and coffee, which may or may not have been code for "do you want to have sex?".

She says in the video that this made her uncomfortable, she's perfectly entitled to feel that way. I can't find anywhere if she informed the guy, or just said no thanks. There also is no mention as to how the guy reacted.

I didn't see anything about her saying the guy was sexist/misogynist, but I did see her refer to some people that responded to her video as such.

How do we not know that the guy wasn't at the convention but joined the group at the bar and was impressed and possibly attracted to Rebecca? He could be totally oblivious to what she had said earlier and how he subsequently made her uncomfortable in the elevator.

It's a strange one to figure out where the problem was. Lets assume she's right and the guy was hitting on her. What's so difficult about politely declining the offer and they both go their separate ways?

robindch

fatmammycat wrote: »

her discomfort is her discomfort, you don't get to decide it is misplaced, she had ALREADY spoken of her discomfort at being hit on at conventions, then this guys hits on her at 4am in a fecking lift. What are you not understanding here? She didn't accuse him of rape OR of being a potential rapist, she asked – mildly- that men not to do something that makes her uncomfortable.

That's worth remembering, but it's not the issue here, at least for me anyway.

What I think is the issue is that there's a whole lot of people sounding off about other people's motivations, without seeming to make much of an effort to figure out if what they're saying is accurate. Hence it's spiralling out of control, as unsubstantiated accusation meets unsubstantiated accusation, and nobody appears to be paying much attention to the facts, or at even the possibilities.

Was the guy in the lift really after a bit of skirt, or was he mildly (or completely) plastered and fatally forgetting what Watson had said earlier on while innocently asking her if she wanted a quiet cup of coffee?

Is Watson right to complain about guys hitting on her when she calls herself a "skepchick"? I don't know, but if she's going to play the "chick" card herself, then she may need to make it clearer that she's not buying into all the secondary meanings that go along with that.

Dawkins initial response was insensitive, but his follow up clarifications are worth reading. I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss them or him, particularly in the quasi-racist way that's happened -- referring to the fact he's a rich, elderly white guy and declaring that he could therefore not understand anything about the oppression or "objectification" of women. Did Dawkins know that Watson was tired of being hit upon? Was he aware of the other crap that Watson had received by email? Did he know that she's recently divorced?

Is it legitimate to say that a guy inviting a girl for a cup of coffee is "objectification"? I think that, in particular, is nuts.

Whatever about the rights and the wrongs of it, I certainly don't think that it merits the kind of spiteful personal attacks that have appeared up on skepchick yesterday:

http://networkedblogs.com/k4Wfk

.

tawnyowl

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I'm probably missing something there. But it's a blog. One user has a name called Richard Dawkins, the post just before it is by chigau (happy) and the post before that is by "The Janine Is A Lonely Hunter, OM"

Is it possible at all that people are not using their real names on the comments section? Or is there any other reputable source saying this is real? If it was by Dawkins I'd imagine it'd be confirmed elsewhere.

PZ Myers confirmed it as soon as he could by checking the IP address.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php

There were a couple of fake messages, but I gather they were deleted and the ones under Dawkins name that were the subject of controversy are genuine.

tawnyowl

seamus wrote: »

Maybe he missed it. I did.

PZ Myers covers it in this posting - it's the part that begins "Since Richard Dawkins has responded and is asking for an explanation of what he is missing, I'll try to oblige."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php

Count Duckula

The staggering character assassination in the letters to Dawkins that Watson is pushing on her site is astounding, especially given that this all exploded because she was outraged (perhaps rightfully so) at the reaction she got to her initial complaints.

Nodin

Morgase wrote: »

Watson didn't do very much wrong with her original video which said "Guys, please don't follow a woman who has recently come to a strange city, who you don't know very well into a lift and proposition her" (paraphrasing). I seriously can't see what the big deal is with saying that she's not comfortable with that kind of behaviour. That's all she said, she wasn't screaming sexism or misogyny.

Koth wrote:

She says goodnight to the group at 4am, and heads for her room. The guy gets on the elevator with her. Makes an offer of conversation and coffee, which may or may not have been code for "do you want to have sex?".



She says in the video that this made her uncomfortable, she's perfectly entitled to feel that way. I can't find anywhere if she informed the guy, or just said no thanks. There also is no mention as to how the guy reacted.

She said she objected to being "sexually objectified". Her saying 'I am not comfortable with being approached' would be fair enough.

Count Duckula

And to all those saying that they will no longer buy books written by Dawkins for themselves, or for others, or attend his lectures, or have anything whatsoever to do with him; surely they were not buying his books before based on his opinion towards women? His attitudes towards feminism and women's rights did not enter the equation - they bought his books because they agreed with his writings on atheism, and they wanted to both listen to those views and share them with others.

How does his behaviour here influence that? Are these people now going to avoid his works (which they previously felt were very good), simply because they vehemently disagree with his opinions on a topic entirely unrelated to the subject matter? Do they refuse to read any book written by a man before 1900?

MagicMarker

fatmammycat wrote: »

But he has disregarded everything she said before the event. She said she was tired, she said she was going to bed, she spoke of her dislike at behing hit on, and then she's hit on in a confined space at 4am.

How do you know he heard any of this?

Rev Hellfire

MagicMarker wrote: »

How do you know he heard any of this?

How could he not have ! Clearly she was the most important person in the hotel and everyone there would have being intently hanging on her every word.

This all smacks of an ego wanting more me time and stirring a pot to ensure they get it.

Count Duckula

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

How could he not have ! Clearly she was the most important person in the hotel and everyone their would have being intently hanging on her every word.

This all smacks of an ego wanting more me time and stirring a pot to ensure they get it.

In fairness, the pot only got stirred when people like Myers waded in. Watson merely made a point (one I disagree with, sure), but seemed to be seeking no more attention than any other "celebrity atheist".

Bottle_of_Smoke

Who is this person? Is she an author or something?

Anyway seems like a horrible cry for attention. She's open that it wasn't a sleazy approach. f*cking hell he could have been just been enjoying the conversation and was seeing if she wanted to hang out.

The amount of strawman attacks on Dawkins in the thread was hilarious. This forum is a much better place.

Dawkins first response was a bit irrelevant but reckon he was just astounded that she thought it worth commenting over such a non-event

Dave!

fatmammycat wrote: »

makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Is "sexualize" another word for "make sexual approaches towards"?

Because eh that's kinda how sexual encounters are supposed to work.

One person makes an approach, if the other person consents then they do the pants-off dance. If they don't consent, then the encounter ends there (unless there is a rapist involved). It's pretty standard stuff.

As far as I can tell, the dude took the rejection on the chin and then went to his own room for a tug.

RW might have a point if the guy was persistent and kept at her in some way, but he simply made the advance, was shot down, and left it at that.

That's how the world is supposed to work.

Dave!

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Who is this person? Is she an author or something?

Anyway seems like a horrible cry for attention. She's open that it wasn't a sleazy approach. f*cking hell he could have been just been enjoying the conversation and was seeing if she wanted to hang out.

The amount of strawman attacks on Dawkins in the thread was hilarious. This forum is a much better place.

Dawkins first response was a bit irrelevant but reckon he was just astounded that she thought it worth commenting over such a non-event

She's a blogger on Skepchick, and she's a panelist on the Skeptics Guide podcast (in my sig).

axer

This is madness.

Did SkepChick think of Elevator guy's uncomfortableness when she implied that he was some sort of sexual predator who made her feel uncomfortable when she posted a public video about the incounter? He did nothing wrong but asked her if she wanted to converse over coffee.

She was prejudging him in what I would considering ironically a sexist way i.e. man asks woman does she want to come to his room for coffee and a chat because he thinks she is an interesting person which she prejudges as man wants to have sex with her or possibly rape her. What a complete overreaction! I would think she has a point if he was aggressive verbally or physically in any way but there is no mention of that at all.

Dawkins was correct in what he said in that this is not a case of him comparing bad with much worse suggesting that the bad doesnt matter - he is saying that what she experienced doesn't even make it onto the scale of badness in the first place.

Madness! She owes the elevator guy and Dawkins an apology for her childish behaviour!

Ickle Magoo

She stated she was tired and going to her room.

She feels it was completely inappropriate to follow her into a lift and then at 4am in morning suggest she goes to his room for a "coffee" - I can see where she's coming from tbh...approaching someone in a hotel, that you don't know at 4am to invite them to your room because you've had a few jars and are a bit horny is a bit desperate and creepy - she would hardly be alone in not appreciating that particular gem of an approach.

Count Duckula

The problem comes as to where to draw the line.

Do you blame elevator guy for making a proposition in an elevator (where she could not get away) when there was no one else around, thus making her uncomfortable? If he'd stopped to think for a moment - especially given the nature of the speech she had just given - he might have realised that it would make her at the very least uncomfortable, and may even have scared her. Is it therefore his fault for being such an "insensitive cad"?

Or is RW at "fault" for being uncomfortable in the first place? She had nothing to feel uncomfortable about, as it turns out. He was a normal man, who asked a question, was rejected and then went on his merry way. Any threat, terror, discomfort or intimidation was entirely in her own mind. Is it therefore her fault for feeling such discomfort and expecting others to alter behaviour to compensate for that?

Count Duckula

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

approaching someone in a hotel, that you don't know at 4am to invite them to your room because you've had a few jars and are a bit horny is a bit desperate and creepy

But why is it creepy? Desperate, sure, I agree with you. A last roll of the dice, I guess, for a horny man with a skin-full. But creepy? Is the fact that it's construed as "creepy" not a direct indication that a man showing sexual interest is something to be feared?

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

She stated she was tired and going to her room.

She feels it was completely inappropriate to follow her into a lift and then at 4am in morning suggest she goes to his room for a "coffee" - I can see where she's coming from tbh...approaching someone in a hotel, that you don't know at 4am to invite them to your room because you've had a few jars and are a bit horny is a bit desperate and creepy.

But we dont know this is the case - this is all pre-judging the man just because he is male then he must have:
1. Been drinking thus was somewhat tipsy
2. Been horny
3. Was desperate and creepy because he asked someone did she want to have a chat and a coffee.

What if the guy was none of the above but is being made out to be the above just because he asked, really nicely I think, if she wanted to have a chat and a coffee. If he was a female would he be labeled as being the listed descriptions above? Is it not ironic that a woman making a point about feminism started all these sexist attacks against the man?

Count Duckula

To be fair, if he were female the invitation would likely have not had sexual undertones and would have been received totally differently.

Ickle Magoo

Count Duckula wrote: »

Or is RW at "fault" for being uncomfortable in the first place? She had nothing to feel uncomfortable about, as it turns out. He was a normal man, who asked a question, was rejected and then went on his merry way. Any threat, terror, discomfort or intimidation was entirely in her own mind. Is it therefore her fault for feeling such discomfort and expecting others to alter behaviour to compensate for that?

I think this is something a lot of guys just can't wrap their heads around. It's a feckin pain in the arse to be propositioned and fed lines as you just try to go about your day with absolutely no encouragement whatsoever. At work, going to your hotel room, at the gym - everywhere. It just becomes tedious and annoying - I'm sure guys think they are just innocently chancing their arm at the end of a night but after years of it just becomes eye-rollingly predictable. Especially given really obvious situation when she's said she's tired, going to her room and not given any invitation that she wants coffee in someone else's room.

Now, I'm not a blogger or author or whatever RW is - I just tell my pals about the tw@t that accosted me in the hotel stairwell slurring and holding a tent in his pants trying to talk me into a "coffee" in his room, or the guy in the lift that kept trying to catch my eye as I was on my way back to my suite. It gets to the stage where you feel like wearing a sign saying "You know what? If I'm interested, you'll be the first to know - otherwise take it as read that I'm not"...so on that point, I can understand her initial reaction.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

But we dont know this is the case - this is all pre-judging the man just because he is male then he must have:
1. Been drinking thus was somewhat tipsy
2. Been horny
3. Was desperate and creepy because he asked someone did she want to have a chat and a coffee.

What if the guy was none of the above but is being made out to be the above just because he asked, really nicely I think, if she wanted to have a chat and a coffee. If he was a female would he be labeled as being the listed descriptions above? Is it not ironic that a woman making a point about feminism started all these sexist attacks against the man?

I was just responding to the claims made here that it was just a poor guy after a few drinks chancing his arm. Not really - feminist or no I think most women get fed up with continually dealing inappropriate and uninvited attentions.

axer

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think this is something a lot of guys just can't wrap their heads around. It's a feckin pain in the arse to be propositioned and fed lines as you just try to go about your day with absolutely no encouragement whatsoever. At work, going to your hotel room, at the gym - everywhere. It just becomes tedious and annoying - I'm sure guys think they are just innocently chancing their arm at the end of a night but after years of it just becomes eye-rollingly predictable. Especially given really obvious situation when she's said she's tired, going to her room and not given any invitation that she wants coffee in someone else's room.

Ok, so males should not talk to females that do not know them and suggest going for a coffee and a chat because that means they must be trying to get into your pants.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Now, I'm not a blogger or author or whatever RW is - I just tell my pals about the tw@t that accosted me in the hotel stairwell slurring and holding a tent in his pants trying to talk me into a "coffee" in his room, or the guy in the lift that kept trying to catch my eye as I was on my way back to my suite. It gets to the stage where you feel like wearing a sign saying "You know what? If I'm interested, you'll be the first to know - otherwise take it as read that I'm not"...so on that point, I can understand her initial reaction.

and this is my problem with the sexist interpretation of the encounter.

So he is male so:
1. he must be a twat
2. it was an accostation i.e. forceful
3. he must have been drunk to make have violate the rule that he must first seek permission before talking to a woman who doesn't know him
4. he must have had an erection i.e. a bit of a perve
5. he must have really meant sex instead of coffee

Just wow.

Ickle Magoo

axer wrote: »

Ok, so males should not talk to females that do not know them and suggest going for a coffee and a chat because that means

Well, it would be nice if they had the cop on not to of their own volition. Or alternatively accept the person they are propositioning at 4am, uninvited, with no encouragement when the other party has stated they are tired and going to their room may consider it an annoyance.

axer wrote: »

and this is my problem with the sexist interpretation of the encounter.

So he is male so:
1. he must be a twat
2. it was an accostation i.e. forceful
3. he must have been drunk to make have violate the rule that he must first seek permission before talking to a woman who doesn't know him
4. he must have had an erection i.e. a bit of a perve
5. he must have really meant sex instead of coffee

Just wow.

Yay to defending a guy you don't know in a situation you didn't witness - is that any odder or OTT compared to anything RW has done?

By the by, I can assure you he was all of those things - he saw me coming, wouldn't let me past him, it was not coffee on his mind and unless he had very odd trousers on he was, actually, pitching a tent. I don't have any footage so you'll just have to take my word for it...or infer again that I'm lying. :rolleyes:

tawnyowl

Count Duckula wrote: »

But why is it creepy? Desperate, sure, I agree with you. A last roll of the dice, I guess, for a horny man with a skin-full. But creepy? Is the fact that it's construed as "creepy" not a direct indication that a man showing sexual interest is something to be feared?

Context is very important - it was at 4am (few people up at that time) in an enclosed space.

Put it this way - if someone approaches someone in an isolated place, it can be unnerving. If that someone makes that kind of approach, ignoring that they've made someone uncomfortable, then someone who is safety-conscious will wonder what else they'll ignore.

Women are generally more safety-conscious than men, in part because the average man is stronger than the average woman.

Rev Hellfire

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

By the by, I can assure you he was all of those things - he saw me coming, wouldn't let me past him, it was not coffee on his mind and unless he had very odd trousers on he was, actually, pitching a tent. I don't have any footage so you'll just have to take my word for it...or infer again that I'm lying. :rolleyes:

Yes that makes sense, because that guy is all guys :rolleyes:

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think most women get fed up with continually dealing inappropriate and uninvited attentions.

Well, how often does it happen? RW mentioned it was happening down the bar every 45 minutes or so. And fair enough, that's a pain in the ass and she's right to complain about it. It's the subsequent character assassination of Dawkins which seems out of order to me.

But for lads, well, out in the far east, for example, it happens regularly -- nice-looking girls catching one's eye, flashing smiles, occasionally brushing up against one, sometimes even going so far as to grab an arm, late at night in a hotel lift. And don't get me started about masseurs offering massages with happy endings.

All of these things I can well do without and it does take time to get used to. But a short gracious reply usually does the trick and I don't see it as "sexual objectification" any more than feel I've received a dose of "eater objectification" while being served in a restaurant. Maybe some girls out there do view guys as objects, but a lot I know don't.

Ickle Magoo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes that makes sense, because that guy is all guys :rolleyes:

Point out where I said it was all guys?

The point I did make is it's not a once off, hell it's not even unusual - so to the sentiment "guys, don't do that" - I see where she's coming from, absolutely.

seamus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's a feckin pain in the arse to be propositioned and fed lines as you just try to go about your day with absolutely no encouragement whatsoever.

I do completely understand this. But I'm struggling to think of an alternative that avoid having women irritated, but at the same time doesn't sterilise the sexual experience by turning into "organised mating". Men chasing women is the sexual dance we've been at for millions of years. Trying to insert abstract modern notions of mutual respect or feminism is going to be difficult because sexuality doesn't care about such things. Sexuality wants to get laid.

Ideally women would be approached when they want to be approached - or women would more often take the initiative and approach men - but unless you're going to wear an "Approach me/Don't approach me" sign on your head (though it's debateable whether that would be heeded), then I fear that dealing with unwanted attention is a fact of life that women will have to continue to deal with.

There is of course a flipside to the "don't approach me" problem. If men don't approach women because they've been told it's potentially disrespectful, then unless women take the initiative to approach men then it's not going to work.
I've heard both sides of the coin out of the same womens' mouths: Complaining when men do come up and talk to them, but equally complaining that certain individual men don't come up and talk to them.

There is of course the eternal issue that an attractive man who flirts with women is a charmer or a ladies' man. An ugly guy who does the same thing is a creep.

I think the best we can hope for is a little respect on both sides - the guy doesn't act pushy or sleazy about come-ons and the girl is honest and respectful in responding and saying, "No, thank you". It's unfortunate that a guy who appears to have been acting entirely within the realm of respect has sparked a debate on the actions of a subset of idiots who hit on everything that moves.