Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Nodin · 07-07-2011 7:48am

Galvasean wrote: »

So wait, it's sexism to proposition someone now?

Feck.

...to "sexually objectify" them, as she put it.

Personally I think that some people feel the need to hide their own insecurities and fears behind the facade of ideology, and the woman in question is one of them.

Hobbes · 07-07-2011 8:50am

sink wrote: »

Amusing or not, it's a very poor argument, essentially it boils down to 'worse stuff happens, so you have no right to complain'.

I would of taken it as completely blowing it out of proportion. Someone asked her back to the room, she says no. End of story there.

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:13am

Is she related to this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crM_AmZxhmQ

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:14am

I have followed this story from the start; on the night in question Watson had already spoken of her dislike at being hit on at atheist conventions; it was 4 am in a hotel in a strange city, she said she was tired and going to bed, this man followed her into a lift and asked if she'd like to go back to his room for coffee- essentially hitting on her, the very thing she had spoken about previously. Rebecca then posted a very mild rebuke video saying , 'guys, dont do this' and what do ya know, **** storm. Because how dare a woman tell people that she is uncomfortable being propositioned in a lift at 4am by a stranger.
She didn't cry rape, she wasn't crying to the sisterhood, she was not over the top, she wasn't even that accusatory. She simply pointed out that is was an inappropiate thing to do.
I find it MOST telling that people are then keen to dismiss what she said in favour of what they think she said/meant. That was PZ's point all along, and Dawkins, in prattling on about how BAD it is elsewhere, misses the point in by a country mile.

EDIT: for the record, it wouldn't bother me if a man asked me for coffee at 4am, but I'm me, I'm not Rebecca Watson, Rebecca Watson is Rebecca Watson, and intitled to her view and her response without being sneered at or worse made out to be some kind of weird 'feminazi/man hater' for expressing said view or dismissed by Dawkins in such a tedious manner.

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:19am

fatmammycat wrote: »

I have followed this story from the start; on the night in question Watson had already spoken of her dislike at being hit on at atheist conventions; it was 4 am in a hotel i a strange city, she said she was tired and going to bed, this man followed her into a lift and asked if she's like to go back to his room for coffee- essentially hitting on her, the very thing she had spoken about previously. Rebecca then posted a very mild rebuke video saying , 'guys, dont do this' and what do ya know, **** storm. Because how dare a woman tell people that she is uncomfortable being propositioned in a lift at 4am by a stranger.
She didn't cry rape, she wasn't crying to the sisterhood, she was not over the top, she wasn't even that accusatory. She simply pointed out that is was an inappropiate thing to do.
I find it MOST telling that people are then keen to dismiss what she said in favour of what they think she said/meant. That was PZ's point all along, and Dawkins, in prattling on about how BAD it is elsewhere, misses the point in by a country mile.

Just because she doesn't like it, doesn't make it mysogonistic. She can say it's inappropriate but it doesn't make it so! Grabbing her boob would've been inappropriate. Asking her back for coffee? Not at all!

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:21am

Kizzonian wrote: »

is this serious? like is this actually a thing? do people actually care about this? maybe i dont understand what happened properly i dunno but this sounds like the most ridiculous topic i ever read about on boards.ie

Yes, people care. If you don't understand what happened who are you to judge how ridiculous the topic at hand?

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:22am

fatmammycat wrote: »

Yes, people care. If you don't understand what happened who are you to judge how ridiculous the topic at hand?

He said "maybe i don't understand.......". He them went on to say it was ridiculous.

Seems like he understands perfectly to me!

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:22am

MrStuffins wrote: »

Just because she doesn't like it, doesn't make it mysogonistic. She can say it's inappropriate but it doesn't make it so! Grabbing her boob would've been inappropriate. Asking her back for coffee? Not at all!

I didn't say anything being mysogonistic. Grabbing her boob would have been assault.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:22am

MrStuffins wrote: »

He said "maybe i don't understand.......". He them went on to say it was ridiculous.

Seems like he understands perfectly to me!

If you don't understand a topic on what grounds do you dismiss it as ridiculous?

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:23am

fatmammycat wrote: »

I didn't say anything being mysogonistic. Grabbing her boob would have been assault.

No, SHE said it was mysogonistic. It's not mysogonistic at all.

But i'll concede this, having seen a picture of her I now think it was inappropriate for the guy to approach her. What was he thinking?

seamus · 07-07-2011 9:23am

tawnyowl wrote: »

The circumstances were also a factor:
It happened in a lift - quite enclosed.

At 4am in the morning - not many people around then and CCTV might not be checked until morning.

Tbh, I don't see how her misplaced discomfort is any kind of factor. If the above two were factors in her reasons for not liking this, then we could equally accuse her of misandry for assuming that any man who shows an interest is a potential rapist.

Complaining about a man propositioning her in a fairly respectable manner is a first-world problem. There was no harm in what he said, he didn't do anything disrespectful. Shocking that he might think that a woman would be interested in a romantic encounter, how dare he!

Just to note: If a man were propositioned by a woman in an elevator at 4am, he wouldn't be in slightest offended or otherwise think that he was being disrespected. So there's no reason to assume that when the roles are reversed, that the man is acting disrespectfully. There's a double standard at play here, and it's not on the part of propositioner.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:25am

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, SHE said it was mysogonistic. It's not mysogonistic at all.

But i'll concede this, having seen a picture of her I now think it was inappropriate for the guy to approach her. What was he thinking?

Excellent, dismiss her genuine concerns and then comment on her looks, well done.

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:25am

fatmammycat wrote: »

If you don't understand a topic on what grounds do you dismiss it as ridiculous?

He understands perfectly. His statement was slightly sarcastic. Haven't you ever heard a sentence start like this before?

"Maybe i'm crazy, but........"

This is not an admission of being crazy. Get it?

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:26am

fatmammycat wrote: »

Excellent, dismiss her genuine concerns

She was not concerned, she was uncomfortable. She had no reason to be concerned. Nothing happened.

and then comment on her looks, well done.

Thank you

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:28am

seamus wrote: »

Tbh, I don't see how her misplaced discomfort is any kind of factor. If the above two were factors in her reasons for not liking this, then we could equally accuse her of misandry for assuming that any man who shows an interest is a potential rapist.

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.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:29am

MrStuffins wrote: »

He understands perfectly. His statement was slightly sarcastic. Haven't you ever heard a sentence start like this before?

"Maybe i'm crazy, but........"

This is not an admission of being crazy. Get it?

Its a dismissal based on not understanding, yeah I get it, I also get you. You're unwilling to think about Rebeccca Watson's point at all and the crack about her looks proves something.

seamus · 07-07-2011 9:29am

fatmammycat wrote: »

she asked – mildly- that men not to do something that makes her uncomfortable.

Maybe he missed it. I did.

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-07-2011 9:30am

fatmammycat wrote: »

I find it MOST telling that people are then keen to dismiss what she said in favour of what they think she said/meant.

The problem is that she is doing the same thing herself now.

Dawkins was pretty dismissive and tactless in his reply to her complaint about the event, but all he did was to dismiss the event. This one... single.... isolated event.... in comparison to the horror around the world. What she is now saying he has done is... in her words....

So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.

Was dawkins tactless? Yes. Was he overly dismissive? Yes. Did he do ANYTHING of the sort described in the above quote however? No.

What we have here is a simple break down in communication between two grown adults. Nothing more, nothing less. Each has managed to miss the point of the other entirely.

The question now is can they act like adults, re-establish discourse and rationally work out where the other one is coming from? I would hope the answer is yes, but now that she is calling for all kinds of boycotts of Dawkins and so on I doubt it.

I had the pleasure of being the person who met Watson at the airport for AAI and had her in the car with me for a long time (Dublin Traffic). I had never heard of her before and in that drive I managed to build a healthy respect for her, her mind, her opinions and her maturity.

Alas this storm in a tea cup, and how she has reacted to it, has eroded much of that away again. Disappointed is the only word for what I feel right now. There simply is no other emotion attached to how I feel about her performance here.

To be honest I am disappointed in both of them. I am disappointed in Dawkins for being AS belittling as he was with his “Dear Mulima” letter, even though his general point was sound enough. I am disappointed in Rebecca for completely missing the point he was making too within that over done pseudo letter.

I think she has just snapped due to a long accumulation of bad men, emailed threats of rape and worse. She has just snapped at the wrong time. She says herself that:

so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists.

Clearly she has felt a cumulative rage... most of it justifiably so... but has snapped at the wrong time, at the wrong person, for the wrong reasons. The personal insults and talk of boycotting is just a childish tantrum and nothing more and makes neither of them look good in this.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:31am

"Just to note: If a man were propositioned by a woman in an elevator at 4am, he wouldn't be in slightest offended or otherwise think that he was being disrespected. So there's no reason to assume that when the roles are reversed, that the man is acting disrespectfully. There's a double standard at play here, and it's not on the part of propositioner."

Strawman.

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:33am

fatmammycat wrote: »

Its a dismissal based on not understanding, yeah I get it, I also get you.

You obviously don't. I've explained to you how the structure of his sentence works. Is English your first language?

You're unwilling to think about Rebeccca Watson's point at all

I understand her point quite well. I just disagree with her. She needs to suck it up.

and the crack about her looks proves something.

Yeah, proves that i'm frickin' hilarious!

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:34am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The problem is that she is doing the same thing herself now.

Dawkins was pretty dismissive and tactless in his reply to her complaint about the event, but all he did was to dismiss the event. This one... single.... isolated event.... in comparison to the horror around the world. What she is now saying he has done is... in her words....

Was dawkins tactless? Yes. Was he overly dismissive? Yes. Did he do ANYTHING of the sort described in the above quote however? No.

What we have here is a simple break down in communication between two grown adults. Nothing more, nothing less. Each has managed to miss the point of the other entirely.

The question now is can they act like adults, re-establish discourse and rationally work out where the other one is coming from? I would hope the answer is yes, but now that she is calling for all kinds of boycotts of Dawkins and so on I doubt it.

I had the pleasure of being the person who met Watson at the airport for AAI and had her in the car with me for a long time (Dublin Traffic). I had never heard of her before and in that drive I managed to build a healthy respect for her, her mind, her opinions and her maturity.

Alas this storm in a tea cup, and how she has reacted to it, has eroded much of that away again. Disappointed is the only word for what I feel right now. There simply is no other emotion attached to how I feel about her performance here.

To be honest I am disappointed in both of them. I am disappointed in Dawkins for being AS belittling as he was with his “Dear Mulima” letter, even though his general point was sound enough. I am disappointed in Rebecca for completely missing the point he was making too within that over done pseudo letter.

I think she has just snapped due to a long accumulation of bad men, emailed threats of rape and worse. She has just snapped at the wrong time. She says herself that:

Clearly she has felt a cumulative rage... most of it justifiably so... but has snapped at the wrong time, at the wrong person, for the wrong reasons. The personal insults and talk of boycotting is just a childish tantrum and nothing more and makes neither of them look good in this.

I agree with much of your post and clearly this situation had spirialed– her reaction to Dawkins is def a culmination, yet I totally understand her anger towards the dismissive and angry reaction of her original and rather mild rebuke. Men( some) sure hate to have their behaviour challanged it seems, even the 'enlightened' atheists.

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:35am

fatmammycat wrote: »

Men sure hate to have their behaviour challanged it seems, even the 'enlightened' atheists.

I'm sorry but i find this sexist and would like to over-react here if I may?

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:36am

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm sorry but i find this sexist and would like to over-react here if I may?

Do what you wish, I am done talking with you.

seamus · 07-07-2011 9:38am

fatmammycat wrote: »

Strawman.

Actually that's not the purpose of the statement.

Part of the argument here revolves around the idea that some woman feel somehow belittled if they are hit on by men in certain circumstances. However, a man never feels belittled if the roles are reversed.

So a man who propositions a man is not in his mind disrespecting her, belittling her or otherwise dismissing her intellect. A man doesn't consider such a proposition to be disrespectful (certainly the incident inquestion was not). How she feels about it is quite irrelevant, because its the intention that's important. I have no time for people who get offended about things which were not intended to cause offence.

She can go on and on about disliking it all she wants, but the man has not wronged her. He has not shown her any disrespect, but she has decided to misinterpret his actions as such.

Morgase · 07-07-2011 9:40am

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.

The woman had been speaking about how annoying it is to be hit on at these events and then he goes and hits on her. I reckon Dawkins knows what he did was a bit silly, but had to respond with a snide remark instead of saying "yeah, in the cold light of day it does seem a bit inappropriate" or just saying nothing at all.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:42am

seamus wrote: »

Actually that's not the purpose of the statement.

Part of the argument here revolves around the idea that some woman feel somehow belittled if they are hit on by men in certain circumstances. However, a man never feels belittled if the roles are reversed.

So a man who propositions a man is not in his mind disrespecting her, belittling her or otherwise dismissing her intellect. A man doesn't consider such a proposition to be disrespectful (certainly the incident inquestion was not). How she feels about it is quite irrelevant, because its the intention that's important. I have no time for people who get offended about things which were not intended to cause offence.

She can go on and on about disliking it all she wants, but the man has not wronged her. He has not shown her any disrespect, but she has decided to misinterpret his actions as such.

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.

Seamus, I'm not trying to argue with you, I get your point, and I don't think what this man did was so terrible: what I DO think is awful is the reaction to it, the willingness of people to make what she said out to be an all out feminist assault on the male species, it wasn't. But it was the touchpaper that brought an awful lot of poor attitude out of the wood works and shows the atheist community in a very poor light.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-07-2011 9:45am

this is just.. incredible

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 9:45am

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.

Seamus, I'm not trying to argue with you, I get your point, and I don't think what this man did was so terrible: what I DO think is awful is the reaction to it, the willingness of people to make what she said out to be an all out feminist assualt on the male species, it wasn't. But it was the touchpaper that brought an awful lot of poor attitude out of the wood works and shows the atheist community in a very poor light.

How do you know this? Maybe Watson is just being very cocky here in presuming the guy wanted sex and not actually coffee? She's presuming the guy was attracted to her and wanted to have sex with her, even though he said nothing of the kind. Perhaps he was a homosexual man?

Actually, the fact that she jumps to a conclusion about his wanting to have sex fits a massive stereotype and, to me, is the biggest piece of sexism in this entire story! How dare she think that this guy's interest in her intellect and ofference of coffee was sexual?!

Morgase · 07-07-2011 9:49am

MrStuffins wrote: »

How do you know this? Maybe Watson is just being very cocky here in presuming the guy wanted sex and not actually coffee? She's presuming the guy was attracted to her and wanted to have sex with her, even though he said nothing of the kind. Perhaps he was a homosexual man?

Actually, the fact that she jumps to a conclusion about his wanting to have sex fits a massive stereotype and, to me, is the biggest piece of sexism in this entire story! How dare she think that this guy's interest in her intellect and ofference of coffee was sexual?!

Coffee in a hotel room at 4am = sex. Everybody knows this.

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-07-2011 9:49am

fatmammycat wrote: »

I agree with much of your post and clearly this situation had spirialed– her reaction to Dawkins is def a culmination, yet I totally understand her anger towards the dismissive and angry reaction of her original and rather mild rebuke. Men( some) sure hate to have their behaviour challanged it seems, even the 'enlightened' atheists.

Indeed, but I think in this case the problem really is that what the guy did wasnt all THAT bad. It sounds to me like he was in the elevator, realised she was an astoundingly intelligent and very pretty girl that he might never get a second shot at... and just chanced his arm. Tactless? Yes a bit. Totally bad form? Not SO much. But thats a different discussion.

The main issue with this story is that there are now many different discussions going on and mens behavior is only one of them. The tactless response of Dawkins, despite his main point being sound, is a second. The plight of women around the world is a third. The behavior of grown adults in the fact of a break down in communication is a fourth. A fifth could be the fact that Myers, Dawkins and Watson are, whether they like it or not, public figures and they really should know how to deal with things like this better.

And because of those many different areas of discourse, all of them at varying levels of validity, and peoples willingness to obfuscate the borders between each of them.... we can alas therefore expect not just this thread, but entire situation.... to drag on to lengths it simply does not deserve.

It was a tiny almost meaningless event, and due to a simple miscommunication between 2 grown adults it is going to reach a point that people are just going to be sick hearing about it. Even some people already are.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:50am

Her exact words in fact-
"Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

And that was all she said before the whole thing snowballed.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 9:53am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, but I think in this case the problem really is that what the guy did wasnt all THAT bad. It sounds to me like he was in the elevator, realised she was an astoundingly intelligent and very pretty girl that he might never get a second shot at... and just chanced his arm. Tactless? Yes a bit. Totally bad form? Not SO much. But thats a different discussion.

The main issue with this story is that there are now many different discussions going on and mens behavior is only one of them. The tactless response of Dawkins, despite his main point being sound, is a second. The plight of women around the world is a third. The behavior of grown adults in the fact of a break down in communication is a fourth. A fifth could be the fact that Myers, Dawkins and Watson are, whether they like it or not, public figures and they really should know how to deal with things like this better.

And because of those many different areas of discourse, all of them at varying levels of validity, and peoples willingness to obfuscate the borders between each of them.... we can alas therefore expect not just this thread, but entire situation.... to drag on to lengths it simply does not deserve.

It was a tiny almost meaningless event, and due to a simple miscommunication between 2 grown adults it is going to reach a point that people are just going to be sick hearing about it. Even some people already are.

I think it has def reached saturation point all right, but discourse is good, even if it get fiery at times- far better than blanket dismissiveness. PZ did some fantastic break downs I think.

Count Duckula · 07-07-2011 10:01am

I discovered this little furore a few days ago, and have been following with interest as all sides of the atheist spectrum wade in with opinions and comment. I read as Dawkins made his uncharacteristically ill-thought response, as PZ Myers desperately tried to make himself seem "enlightened" with an attack on male sexuality, and as Watson exploded in a ball of self-righteous fury at the prospect of men daring to try and defend the most heinous crime of asking a woman out.

So far I have being enlightened to learn that it is not right to proposition a woman. It makes us "creeps" or "weirdos" to do so; we are objectifying her, and that's simply not on.

Male sexuality is now something to be feared and reviled. It makes right-thinking women uncomfortable, and if we ever dare to express it by approaching a woman then we are monsters and rapists and deserving of disgust. This fundamentally boils down yet again to the feminist tenet that no man can be trusted, ever. We are all rapists in one form or another.

To make a woman feel uncomfortable at any time is not on, and we as men must do everything in our power to appease that discomfort; even if the cause of her unease is both unreasonable and entirely in her own head.

If simply "being in the same elevator" with a woman - without propositioning her - is enough to cause distress (as claimed by Phil Plait in the linked Bad Astronomy blog), what is a man supposed to do? Are we supposed to wait until the next one, lest the feminist who shares the lift with us reel in terror at the inevitable assault we will deliver the moment the doors are closed? Yet then are we not making special exceptions owing to her gender, which will lead to anger and ridicule further down the line when we insist on treating women "differently"?

And to approach a woman - to ask her if she wants a coffee, or would like to grab a meal - well, now, that's just wrong. How insufferable that a man might find a woman attractive - that he might be objectifying her! - and want to see if she feels the same. How revolted must a poor feminist feel when a man approaches her and asks her out; how degraded that he must view her simply as a bag of flesh to have his way with.

Yet... was sexual empowerment not one of feminism's great victories? Does it not delight that a woman's sexuality - rightfully - is no longer the domain of men, of religion, of others in society? It is hers to enjoy, to be proud of and to praise? Yet if a man wishes to indulge in his sexuality, he becomes a creep and a weirdo.

It becomes a double-standard. A woman can express her sexuality, can proposition men, can flaunt her liberty. To suggest she should not is it to be a dinosaur and misogynist; it is her right as a human being. A man, on the other hand, cannot. To express his sexuality, to proposition women, to flaunt his sexual liberty - all of these can and will lead to outcry and outrage from the feminist lobby. All of these displays make him an aggressive sexual predator; a man who can't be trusted. Apparently, as a man, enjoying sex and being a rapist are two sides of the same coin.

It seems a man's best bet is to withhold his sexuality until such a time as a woman calls him to display it. He must not approach her; he must not ask her out; he must not find her attractive unless she first states that she finds him attractive. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that most of these feminists are straight. That they do, in their core, find some men attractive. That, if they fantasise, they fantasise about encounters with attractive men. How... disquieting must it be to find attractive the very gender you revile; to be both repelled and attracted to male sexuality. I pity these poor women.

But, at the end of all this, the one lesson I have learned is that it is better to remain steadfastly asexual. To suggest to a woman that you find her attractive - nay, to even find her attractive in the first place - is abhorrent, gentlemen. Cut it out.

I think next time, I'll take the stairs.

Rev Hellfire · 07-07-2011 10:01am

If she's such a precious delicate thing, perhaps she should get a male relative to escort her in public places. Its a dangerous place out there with people randomly striking up conversations and offering coffees.

MrStuffins · 07-07-2011 10:02am

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If she's such a precious delicate thing, perhaps she should get a male relative to escort her in public places. Its a dangerous place out there with people randomly striking up conversations and offering coffees.

I was in Spar this morning and bought the newspaper. The lady behind the counter said "Would you like anything else?".

It's obvious what she meant! I hate being sexualised in Spar!

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 10:07am

Count Duckula wrote: »

I discovered this little furore a few days ago, and have been following with interest as all sides of the atheist spectrum wade in with opinions and comment. I read as Dawkins made his uncharacteristically ill-thought response, as PZ Myers desperately tried to make himself seem "enlightened" with an attack on male sexuality, and as Watson exploded in a ball of self-righteous fury at the prospect of men daring to try and defend the most heinous crime of asking a woman out.

So far I have being enlightened to learn that it is not right to proposition a woman. It makes us "creeps" or "weirdos" to do so; we are objectifying her, and that's simply not on.

Male sexuality is now something to be feared and reviled. It makes right-thinking women uncomfortable, and if we ever dare to express it by approaching a woman then we are monsters and rapists and deserving of disgust. This fundamentally boils down yet again to the feminist tenet that no man can be trusted, ever. We are all rapists in one form or another.

To make a woman feel uncomfortable at any time is not on, and we as men must do everything in our power to appease that discomfort; even if the cause of her unease is both unreasonable and entirely in her own head.

If simply "being in the same elevator" with a woman - without propositioning her - is enough to cause distress (as claimed by Phil Plait in the linked Bad Astronomy blog), what is a man supposed to do? Are we supposed to wait until the next one, lest the feminist who shares the lift with us reel in terror at the inevitable assault we will deliver the moment the doors are closed? Yet then are we not making special exceptions owing to her gender, which will lead to anger and ridicule further down the line when we insist on treating women "differently"?

And to approach a woman - to ask her if she wants a coffee, or would like to grab a meal - well, now, that's just wrong. How insufferable that a man might find a woman attractive - that he might be objectifying her! - and want to see if she feels the same. How revolted must a poor feminist feel when a man approaches her and asks her out; how degraded that he must view her simply as a bag of flesh to have his way with.

Yet... was sexual empowerment not one of feminism's great victories? Does it not delight that a woman's sexuality - rightfully - is no longer the domain of men, of religion, of others in society? It is hers to enjoy, to be proud of and to praise? Yet if a man wishes to indulge in his sexuality, he becomes a creep and a weirdo.

It becomes a double-standard. A woman can express her sexuality, can proposition men, can flaunt her liberty. To suggest she should not is it to be a dinosaur and misogynist; it is her right as a human being. A man, on the other hand, cannot. To express his sexuality, to proposition women, to flaunt his sexual liberty - all of these can and will lead to outcry and outrage from the feminist lobby. All of these displays make him an aggressive sexual predator; a man who can't be trusted. Apparently, as a man, enjoying sex and being a rapist are two sides of the same coin.

It seems a man's best bet is to withhold his sexuality until such a time as a woman calls him to display it. He must not approach her; he must not ask her out; he must not find her attractive unless she first states that she finds him attractive. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that most of these feminists are straight. That they do, in their core, find some men attractive. That, if they fantasise, they fantasise about encounters with attractive men. How... disquieting must it be to find attractive the very gender you revile; to be both repelled and attracted to male sexuality. I pity these poor women.

But, at the end of all this, the one lesson I have learned is that it is better to remain steadfastly asexual. To suggest to a woman that you find her attractive - nay, to even find her attractive in the first place - is abhorrent, gentlemen. Cut it out.

I think next time, I'll take the stairs.

How tedious. Oh yes, Watson speaks for all women, she's our guru don't you know. Or no wait, maybe, just maybe Watson spoke of her own experience and you're using that experience to prop up your soap box.

Count Duckula · 07-07-2011 10:12am

fatmammycat wrote: »

How tedious. Oh yes, Watson speaks for all women, she's our guru don't you know. Or no wait, maybe, just maybe Watson spoke of her own experience and you're using that experience to prop up your soap box.

Then perhaps Watson should stop addressing all men when she speaks of an experience she had with only one

But given your penchant for drastic generalisations in this thread when it comes to male behaviour, I do appreciate your hypocrisy.

fatmammycat · 07-07-2011 10:15am

Meh, makes no odds to me if you think I'm a hypocrite or not. I don't speak for an entire gender either but for myself.

Anyway, I've got to go to work. Bye.

Dades · 07-07-2011 10:27am

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?

seamus · 07-07-2011 11:17am

There is good from the incident.

It proves conclusively that any assertion of Dawkins being the "leader" or mouthpiece of atheism to be completely unfounded.

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

Wibbs · 07-07-2011 11:24am

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 · 07-07-2011 11:26am

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 · 07-07-2011 11:57am

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 · 07-07-2011 12:00pm

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 · 07-07-2011 12:13pm

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 · 07-07-2011 12:20pm

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 · 07-07-2011 12:29pm

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 · 07-07-2011 12:33pm

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 · 07-07-2011 12:56pm

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 · 07-07-2011 1:05pm

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?

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Comments