Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 3, 2011 8:56 PM

I'm just going to wrap up a few dangling bits.

Good Gawd, I'm not going to come anywhere near to you!

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 3, 2011 9:03 PM

Lotharoo, if you cannot understand the inherent offensiveness and total fail that is comparing the "discomfort" of finding oneself in a situation in which rape is the un-preventable worst-case-scenario to the "discomfort" of having to endure someone chewing gum, you're beyond help.

Posted by: Adam Lee | July 3, 2011 9:04 PM

I'm incredibly disappointed to hear that those ignorant, crass and sexist comments really were from Richard Dawkins. He's said much more rational and sensible things about sexism in the past, and it's a tremendous letdown to hear him now so casually dismissing the experiences and complaints of Western feminists. Shame on him.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 9:05 PM

Carlie:

Caine- yep, you're right. It does piss me off that I automatically get so deferential to certain people, which I did this time as well as the last time.

And even worse, it wasn't even decent arguing. I could tolerate him being sexist more if he at least argued well about it, but that was sub-par by any means.

Yeah, I know. It really was shitty and there's no way around it. It pains me to think of someone so intelligent who refuses to turn that intelligence on his own views.

MAJeff:

The closet is not a good thing, even when rich fucks use it to protect themselves. Part of them is still being fucked over, part of their humanity crushed.

QFMFT.

Posted by: gmontjr | July 3, 2011 9:06 PM

I work with some MRAs, as does my wife. During a work-related meeting, she heard one of them say that this is "the worst time to be a white male in this country" (the U.S., btw). The MRAs seem to be out of their minds. Bumper sticker at work: "A man is not a financial plan" right next to "There is nothing in this vehicle worth your life" WTF??

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 9:07 PM

dugong:

Link to Dawkins's comments plrease?

Oh sorry, Cupcake. Your post, tl;dr. We don't cater to assholes here.

Posted by: scanadensis | July 3, 2011 9:09 PM

I am very sad to find out those truly were the comments of RD.
PZ- thank you for being the voice of reason.

-one of your female readers

Posted by: Zeno | July 3, 2011 9:09 PM

Sometimes (like when I read posts in this vein) it gives me a warm and cozy feeling to consider that I am not on the prowl and none of it applies to me.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 9:11 PM

Women organizing to work against patriarchy and injustice in Islam: Musawah

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 3, 2011 9:12 PM

bygones, Caine

Posted by: Hordak | July 3, 2011 9:12 PM

I just found out about this discussion and I find it ridiculous. A man is insensitive for asking a woman to come home with him for coffee, he gets a no and respects it...? I don't get it. "She felt it was creepy" Well so F***ing what?! That's like the "I'm offended" argument. He did nothing wrong and I'm surprised that people are defending this kind of white noise.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 3, 2011 9:14 PM

MAJeff- thank you for following up on the "closet as privileged place" thing, which I should have cottoned to. So true.

Also, I wish you'd post more. Like you used to. Come back please.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 9:15 PM

Horace - DSK's take would be go ahead and rape a woman if she's known to be a liar, because then you'll get let go even if there's physical evidence that you raped her. The prosecution will know that no matter what the physical evidence, the defense will be able to shred her credibility and there won't be any chance to convict.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/juUhBZgRtY.amT52vBf60tQMMPV8AUYGkWdS_Hz6vMqAf3Zj#35dc0 | July 3, 2011 9:16 PM

...some people muddled the issue by also pretending to be Richard Dawkins.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 9:18 PM

Women fighting patriarchy in Islam: Institut Perempuan

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | July 3, 2011 9:19 PM

Dawkins has written some stuff I've liked. But he lost most of my respect as a human being with his behavior during the period of time when the forums on his web site closed. It doesn't really surprise me to find him being short-sighted, callous, and obtuse.

Just because you understand science, and can explain it clearly, doesn't mean you aren't an ass.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 9:21 PM

British women fighting patriarchy in Islam: Southall Black Sisters

Posted by: NoYourGod | July 3, 2011 9:22 PM

It's simple: http://s674.photobucket.com/albums/vv101/Konradius5/Gary%20Larson%20Comics/?action=view¤t;=AnimalMatingSongs.jpg

Posted by: plien | July 3, 2011 9:23 PM

Because one can care about equality both at home & abroad, i would like to point out that most NGO's on this subject are havily underfunded, mostly because white males like RD do not contribute to them.

For those, who like me are disillusioned by Dawkins is here a link to one of my favorite goals & their special project in Indonesia;
http://www.wpf.org/projects_article/indonesia

Posted by: Hordak | July 3, 2011 9:25 PM

#34 Well if you aren't planning to rape you don't really consider good or bad places to do so. What if he thought she was attracted to him? How would he find out if not asking? If that was his intention at all. This is way out of proportion.

Posted by: vexorian.myopenid.com | July 3, 2011 9:27 PM

I guess that's one of the big advantages over religious institutions and why theists calling this community a religion are very wrong. We do not really have authorities that we would have to agree on everything on.

But regarding the statements made. Yes, the situation of women is terrible elsewhere. But I wonder if perhaps we have the things backward and the priority should actually be the things that happen within our own conventions rather than the things that happen outside. For starters, the best we can do against the abuse from Muslims is call them out and hope the people in those countries hear us within a couple of years. Within our communities though, we can actually make a difference and make sure that the problem goes away.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 9:28 PM

Hordak:

I just found out about this discussion and I find it ridiculous.

Oh well, we'll just run with that and forget all about privilege and the toxicity it generates.

Way to be a douchebisquit, Hordak. Click on the links in #30, attempt to learn something.

Then, take a look here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php#comments and after that, here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/the_decent_human_beings_guide.php

Read, don't spew shit all over.

Posted by: No One | July 3, 2011 9:28 PM

Posted by: strange gods before me

British women fighting patriarchy in Islam: Southall Black Sisters

And one more;

www.rawa.org

Out of the frying pan, into the fire for Afgan women.

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2011 9:30 PM

Dawkins' post can be summarized as follows, "Shut up, bitches. At least we let you drive. That means we should get a free pass to harass you as much as we like." I'm disappointed, but not especially surprised.

A little analogy for those of you who agree with Richard. Suppose you broke your arm and are experiencing pain that you describe as 8/10 from it. Which of the following would you expect to hear when you went to the ER:
1. "That sounds bad. I'd like to give you a couple of milligrams of morphine to take the edge off the pain while we complete the assessment."
2. "Oh, stop whining. There's a guy in the next bed with metastatic pancreatic cancer and a woman two beds over who's been stabbed in the kidneys. Your pain is NOTHING compared to theirs so stop whining about it."

Richard seems to think that answer #2 is best: that if your situation is not the worst possible then you have no right to complain about anything at all.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 3, 2011 9:31 PM

where women don't have to face this dismaying, depressing, common situation of seeing their autonomy disrespected and their compatriots rushing to excuse loutish behavior.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 3, 2011 9:32 PM

But I wonder if perhaps we have the things backward and the priority should actually be the things that happen within our own conventions rather than the things that happen outside. For starters, the best we can do against the abuse from Muslims is call them out and hope the people in those countries hear us within a couple of years. Within our communities though, we can actually make a difference and make sure that the problem goes away.

and you're right: we all have a lot more agency in shaping our own communities, so we should use that agency accordingly.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 9:33 PM

plien, thanks for that link.

British Women Against Fundamentalism in all religions.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 9:37 PM

What if he thought she was attracted to him? How would he find out if not asking? If that was his intention at all. This is way out of proportion.

Posted by: plien | July 3, 2011 9:38 PM

Richard, like every other white male, read the links provided in post #30. Read them again if you still don't get it.

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2011 9:39 PM

I do take exception with one thing Jen said. She described Dawkins as an "ivory tower academic". He's not an academic. As far as I know, he's never authored a first author peer review paper. In sharp contrast with PZ Myers who is an active academic biologist with cites in Nature.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 3, 2011 9:40 PM

Everybody's yelling rape while not even knowing the guys intentions. If he did come on to her did so in a very harmless way and that is in no way sexist.

I've repeated this like trice now? It didn't matter what his intentions were. He approached a woman in a dangerous way, using his privilage and entitlement as a man to solicite a woman's intention in a potentially dangerous situation. That you fail to see how it is dangerous is a privilage for being male.

Posted by: Hordak | July 3, 2011 9:41 PM

#55 Loser? that's great arguing there. If he wasn't planing on raping her his thoughts might not been thinking about where or where not she might think of rape attempts.

Posted by: shawmutt | July 3, 2011 9:41 PM

MRA! PUA! misogynist! Hitler!

There, I summarized all the talking points for the so-called feminists and "allies" here before we get in a couple hundred posts.

Mr. Dawkins, you have been branded a misogynist. Please pull up a chair to the woman hater corner and put on your dunce cap. Here, let me move my chair over for you.

Posted by: Parsley Victorious | July 3, 2011 9:44 PM

This post expresses -exactly- what I've been trying to say to the people I've been discussing this with. Utterly.

From now on, when this discussion arises, I'll simply link people to this article to read my thoughts laid out far better than I'm capable of. Bravo to this.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 3, 2011 9:45 PM

I sarcastically compared Rebecca's plight with that of women in Muslim countries or families dominated by Muslim men.

...from the perspective of a wealthy British intellectual male Richard Dawkins.
A guy who does (nay, can?) not get it.

Posted by: eigenperson | July 3, 2011 9:47 PM

#50 Richard Dawkins (hopefully for real this time):

Imagine you're in an elevator with some guy who intends to hurt you for some reason, and who is stronger than you. You press a button for the fifth floor. The elevator goes to the fifth floor. Just before you get there, the guy stands between you and the door. You scream. People probably hear you, but the next thing that happens is the elevator doors close. You can't get to the buttons even to press the alarm button.

This is a scenario that has probably played out in many people's heads. The point isn't really whether it's accurate or not. (Maybe this is not how elevator criminals operate. I don't know.) But it's a vivid image that definitely has the power to induce fear and anxiety.

Posted by: Mari | July 3, 2011 9:49 PM

@Dawkins, #50:

The thing you're not getting is how terrified Americans are of people they don't know.

"Elevator guy," so called, behaved rudely by making an inappropriate request. He should have kept his mouth shut given the time of night and Watson's stated intention to go to bed, but it's still just rudeness[*] rather than, as you say, violence.

To anyone who has been raised on the 24/7 diet of THREAT! FEAR!! TERROR!!! that permeates the American public sphere, however, "elevator guy's" proposition wasn't just an act of rudeness but rather an implicit threat of sexual assault. That's obviously much, much more serious. To understand why the the American contingent is getting so upset, imagine elevator guy said something like "please stand still so I can rape you." That's how the event looks to a crime-paranoid American and that's what they're so upset about.

I would not be surprised if "elevator guy" was from a country that didn't train its women to be scared of their own shadows and had no idea that his words would be taken in some quarters (n.b. mostly here rather than by Watson) as an implied threat of rape.

[*] If you don't get how the incident was rude, then there's nothing more I can explain to you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 9:51 PM

Here, let me move my chair over for you.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 3, 2011 9:52 PM

Richard Dawkins,

As women, we receive constant conditioning to fear certain situations as dangerous. A situation in which you are in an isolated space late at night with an unknown man who has followed you there is one of those situations that will be triggering all kinds of alarm bells even in women who haven't been assaulted in the past. Being asked by a stranger to accompany him to his room amps it up several levels. This is a script that we see associated with forcible rape - and not only do we see it in the media and hear it as "helpful advice" from everyone from parents to police officers, it is enforced by reality, when women are actually raped or attacked by strangers in isolated places. In a situation where I needed to get out of an elevator, I would be assessing all kinds of risks - what if the place I stepped off the elevator was just as empty as the elevator itself? How many doors would I have to knock on to get someone who could help me? Rebecca suffered one small thing (if I'd been in her place, it would have been a few moments of utter terror - she seems to have experienced it as a moment of creeped-out-ness and frustration). She then responded to it in a completely reasonable and proportionate manner. And was criticized and dismissed for that by all manner of ignorant people, including you. Honestly it's quite frustrating. Especially when you use such a very stupid argument.

Posted by: MGolz | July 3, 2011 9:53 PM

@ vaeosemberg

Anyone who believes the atheist movement is a collective that agrees on every view is wrong; reference the post PZ made last month about the Black Atheists of Atlanta who openly oppose homosexuality.

However, I can understand why people might be disappointed at somebody who the respected for something like that. As you can tell from the length of these threads, this can be a very sensitive issue and a lot of people are really stubborn about their opinions on it.

What it boils down to is this: Dawkins' is a very well-known figure to the public. Although atheists do not agree on the same things, Dawkins' word is the most likely one to reach the most people. The same goes for well-known atheists.

Rational, intelligent women who hear his casual dismissal might reconsider their active participation in any given movement. I can understand; I wouldn't want to participate in a movement where I felt that my situation would be dismissed simply because other women have it worse.

I know it sounds silly, but this sounds to me like an important part of atheism and skepticism because there seem to be complaints of sexism within the so-called "movement". (Realize, that although not all opinions are agreed upon a movement can still exist.) If sexist situations and comments often pop up, no matter the state of women around the world we need to reassess our attitude. Each incident of sexism, whether the woman perceives it or the public ignores it, has the potential to turn people away from the movement.

I'd personally say having as many rational people in the movement as possible is important. The more voices, the more diversity, and the more debate, the better. However, until we can get past the issue of sexism in the West we might be stuck in a loop. Of course, the topic's important, but if we're going to rehash things it makes everything useless.

Example: Yesterday's thread was over 1,200 comments long. The same point is made over and over again without any change in the nature of the discussion.

At that point, it ceases to become a rational debate. It's just people sitting across the thread and, figuratively, yelling back and forth to each other.

Posted by: Opcn | July 3, 2011 9:53 PM

I can't believe this has gotten so much coverage! Yes the guy was being a bit of a creep, no he was not abusing Rebecca. Yes he could have recognized that his advances would not be welcome but no, it is not unforgivable that someone would make that move having heard what she had to say. It's not Richard Dawkin's whose privilege is on display, but that of american women. People will always be propositioning you, just like sales people will always be calling to offer you product, it's part of advertising. You are adults, you can say no, so long as no works they aren't wicked people for asking.

Posted by: makyui | July 3, 2011 9:54 PM

...Wow, I so botched that last line.

"Does this mean the next time I complain about religious discrimination in the US, the people who tell me I'm whining because "real minorities" have it much worse are right?"

Posted by: sailor | July 3, 2011 9:55 PM

@dawins

Richard,

As perhaps the best known member of the reality based community and a educator as well, maybe the thing to apologize for is, from your rather elevated position, using a form of cheap sarcasm to denigrate another member o the community in public. There certainly must be some better way you could have handled the situation.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 9:55 PM

Mari: you are a liar. You have been caught lying multiple times now in these threads. Stop it.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 3, 2011 9:59 PM

I guess I see some relevant points on both sides. But more than anything else, I've got to say, Rebecca's original comments were incredibly benign.

The fact that this conversation has swirled into the giant fury-on-fury maelstrom it has is a clear sign that there are unresolved issues in the community that require resolution.

So, well, here it is. Guess it's time for it to run it's course. Hopefully, in the end, we'll be at least one step closer to a community in which members understand each other better. I'll be listening to everybody. I hope the rest of you listen to each other.

Posted by: tajparis | July 3, 2011 10:00 PM

@Richard Dawkins:

No, I obviously don't get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.

What don't you get? That Ms. Watson made a brief "Hey, men, this comes off as creepy, you might want to avoid it" video, and people are equating that to dismissing the plight of Muslim women around the world. Yeah, I don't get that either.

I missed the point where Ms. Watson compared her experience to being forced to wear a burka, or to being killed for being raped. Can you, since you are the one who made the comparison in the first place, provide a citation for such actions?

She made a brief freaking statement about it, that was it initially. Why did you feel the need to misrepresent the whole nature of this discussion? Don't apologize if you don't want to. Go ahead and entrench yourself in your position. Even the idols of the atheist movement are not infallible, and we are capable of dealing with that, unlike our religious counterparts. But I think you acted like an ass-hat by equating the showing of solidarity with Ms. Watson to ignoring the atrocious treatment of other women.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 10:00 PM

I would not be surprised if "elevator guy" was from a country that didn't train its women to be scared of their own shadows and had no idea that his words would be taken in some quarters (n.b. mostly here rather than by Watson) as an implied threat of rape.

Posted by: makyui | July 3, 2011 10:01 PM

Hordak:

What?! do woman want to be treated like breakable porcelain?

Acknowledging and heeding the very REAL possibility of being raped by a guy whose behavior raises red flags (e.g. ignoring a woman's verbal statement that she's tired and wants to go to bed) = wanting to be treated like breakable porcelain?

What?

If a woman had asked a man the same question, she would never have been labelled sexist and don't say that is because he wouldn't get raped, because nothing implies that's what he wanted to do.

Nothing at all? Because women in RW's exact same situation don't get raped ever, right?

Because a woman has the exact same power over the man as a man has over the woman. Right?

You are creeping yourself out with paranoid thoughts.

Why do you assume I'm a woman?

Posted by: grung0r | July 3, 2011 10:02 PM

prof. Dawkins:

No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here's how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.

Yes, because elevators don't have 'stop' buttons, and the upper floor hallways of hotels are always a hive of activity at 4 am. Also, If a woman screams 'rape', people always will rush to her aid. It's not like we any examples of everyone within earshot failing to act.

Posted by: Quagmire | July 3, 2011 10:02 PM

Thank you, Richard, for stating so eloquently what the rest of us have been unable to convey. The elevator was going to stop in five or ten seconds and there may be any number of people awaiting right outside the door. Nobody with 10% of a brain would attempt a sexual assault under such circumstances.

Prepare to have a bunch of foul names hurled at you by one "Caine, Fleur du Mal" (or whatever) since he/she is incapable of more substantial argument.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 10:06 PM

I keep providing links (#30) which would help to a great degree in understanding privilege, but I'm afraid our group of cupcakes and douchebisquits can't even manage reading (or even the simple act of clicking a link) and when it comes to their comprehension abilities, well...practically non-existent.

*checks for the availability of the heavy duty swooning couch, sees it occupied by a tone troll and a broken string of pearls, and cancels the dramtic swoon*

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 3, 2011 10:08 PM

Opcn: People will always be propositioning you, just like sales people will always be calling to offer you product, it's part of advertising. You are adults, you can say no, so long as no works they aren't wicked people for asking.

I don't think women should either.

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2011 10:09 PM

Note that Richard has not returned to engage with any of the many posters who have critiqued his disturbingly poor arguments. I fear that what we have here is a troll. A well known and, by some, respected troll, but still just a troll. He's no more worth taking seriously than Scott Adams. At this point mockery is the only reasonable approach.

Posted by: DogWhisperer | July 3, 2011 10:09 PM

Quibble with PZ:

but at a point where every woman has the same rights and privileges as every man, where women don't have to fear being raped

I don't think it can ever be the goal that women don't fear being raped. Men and women fear being murdered (men are murdered at far higher rates than women), assaulted, robbed, carjacked, etc, and both men and women are vigilant in some situations against those things. We should definitely reduce the fear of rape, reduce the acceptance of rape culture and empower rape survivors to get justice, but it can't be a goal to actually make women unafraid of ever being raped.

And I don't think this is just semantic --- I think it's important to set realistic goals or else no one will take you seriously.

Posted by: MGolz | July 3, 2011 10:11 PM

@ 50

"Escape" is a difficult word. How strong is this man? If Watson tried to leave the elevator, would he restrain her? He had taken advantage already that she was alone and in a vulnerable situation, consciously or not.

At this point, "just saying no" is null. What Watson, and most feminists, are claiming in my interpretation is that men do not understand that they take advantage of these situations without imagining the possible fear it might cause.

It's a call for empathy; at least in the US, it is very common for women to be blamed for rape--depending on the way she dresses, the way she acts, and the safety precautions she takes. It can, for many women, inspire a fear of these situations. Yes, nothing happened. But why cause meaningless fear when you can fix it through simple understanding.

I doubt most men who put women into these situations have nefarious intentions by any stretch of the word. So, if Rebecca Watson identifies her situation as creepy and explains why, then she calls for consciousness of the situations, saying that men need to treat women with more respect, and stop assuming that a question with two answers, yes or no, is harmless.

I'm probably not explaining this well, but I feel like a multitude of polite reactions is important. At least, if my opinion is incoherent and illogical, then you can refer to other, differently-worded arguments.

Posted by: jcmccreight | July 3, 2011 10:12 PM

Can someone explain to me how the usage of the word "fuck" made the rest of my argument unintelligible? It doesn't seem to have that effect when PZ uses it.

Posted by: Raskolnikov35 | July 3, 2011 10:13 PM

My estimation of Richard Dawkins has gone up considerably. I agreed with everything he said before, and don't think he has anything to apologize for. Also, I think Justicar and Nectar have been the stars of these conversations and the only voices of sanity in this liberal cesspool (along with Richard). I despise the rest of you.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 10:13 PM

Dr. Dawkins,
I'm not sure how else to put it that it hasn't already been put.

The question that Rebecca Watson was addressing was why there aren't a lot of women in the atheist movement, right? And she was doing that as an intro to discussing sexism in religion, by way of saying that we can't cast the first stone and all.

To make that point, she used a story of a guy who hit on her in an elevator at 4am. It was boorish at best, predatory at worst. In any event, it's behavior that we ought not to expect from men who respect women. Respect for her would mean talking to her in some other way than the first statement to be a sex proposition. Respect for her would mean to accept when she said she was going to bed that he missed his chance to talk to her for the night. Respect for women in general would mean not putting her in that position in the first place because he had paid enough attention to what women go through to know how heavily they are counseled through their lives against being in such situations and realizing what it looks like from her point of view (which is what the Schroedinger's rapist post is about).

Her only point was that if men in the skeptic/atheist movement want to see more women involved, they would be best served by thinking about how they treat women so that women don't need to be annoyed by drunk conference-goers accosting them in elevators at all hours of the night.

And for that, look at the response she got. Look at what people called her. Look at how they blew her response all out of proportion, including you. Look at how they came up with every possible excuse in the book to justify the guy's actions and say that what she was saying was worth absolutely nothing.

Is that extremist levels of sexism equivalent to being stoned for going outside without a male relative escort? Of course not. And she never said it was, nor did anyone else defending her position. She didn't say that being stuck in that elevator was something that would irrevocably harm her (although it could have led to that, and she didn't know that it wouldn't, and she's been taught by authority figures since she was young that indeed it could be the result). She simply said that it was the kind of thing that makes conferences more of a hostile environment that discourages women participation.

Then Stef McGraw said that she overreacted and there was no sexism. No sexism in a man cornering a woman and propositioning her. No sexism in him assuming she'd be interested in his advances, in him assuming that she didn't really want to go straight to bed, in him assuming that there was no way she'd potentially see a threat in a big man cornering her in a small space, in simply assuming that his desire to talk to her overrode all of the "go away I want to go to sleep" signals she had been sending off and overtly stated. That was pretty shortsighted, and Rebecca called her out on it in the way it should be done, openly and with attribution, re-explaining her position. And then she got called even more of an overreactive bitch.

What about this do you think is overreacting and not sexist?

Posted by: ahtripp | July 3, 2011 10:14 PM

I know I am old fashioned (even though I am 20 years old,) but quite simply, there is no excuse to ask a woman back to your hotel room at 4 AM. Or vice versa. It's incredibly poor form.

Sorry, but I think there are SOME uses for the old-school manners. Mainly the the respecting women aspect. Because as far as I am concerned, it's all men's fault. And I am one. We have fucked up beyond all measure. Women, take over. Please. Save us from ourselves. We are, at least 60% of us, if not far more, unbelievable assholes. I am ashamed of at least one member my gender every single day.

Moral of the story: don't be a schmuck and act like a lecher at 4 in the morning. Or anytime, really.

Posted by: llewelly | July 3, 2011 10:14 PM

Richard Dawkins | July 3, 2011 9:32 PM:

Very few people have bothered to explain exactly why.

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2011 10:16 PM

The elevator was going to stop in five or ten seconds and there may be any number of people awaiting right outside the door.

I seriously have to wonder if people who make this sort of an argument have ever been in an elevator. Cupcake, how hard do you think it would be for a larger, stronger person to block a smaller one from getting to an elevator door? Or stop them from pressing a button to get off on a nearby floor in the first place? While we're on the subject, have you ever visited a hotel? Most random guest floors in hotels are not hopping places at 4 am. Not even in the middle of major conventions where people are still drinking downstairs in the bar at 4 am.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 10:16 PM

Mari

I would not be surprised if "elevator guy" was from a country that didn't train its women to be scared of their own shadows and had no idea that his words would be taken in some quarters (n.b. mostly here rather than by Watson) as an implied threat of rape.

That isn't why women are so scared of rape. They are scared of rape because it is REALLY FUCKING COMMON, and when it does happen women are BLAMED for it and have very little chance of getting a conviction for what happened.

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | July 3, 2011 10:19 PM

I don't think that there's any reason to assume Dawkins is reading any of these responses.

I also think a lot of people are talking about 'rape,' when the question is about whether a woman can attend a gathering of atheists expecting to interact as an equal, or whether a woman who attends a gathering of atheists should expect being the subject of unwanted sexual attention as the cost of admission.

I have seen enough of these conversations to think that the latter is the case. So I don't go to atheist gatherings.

I don't need to go to the atheist gatherings in order to try to explain my position, or to argue my right to be there, or anything. If a time comes, in some distant future, when I hear more people talking about the words and ideas and sessions and panels of specific women, and fewer people talking about the sheer fact of the presence of women as a problem to be solved, maybe I'll check one out.

But I expect that by then I'll be too old to care.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 10:20 PM

Stray Cat:

Does that make sense?

No, because you're making the same inane assumptions as many of the MRAs in this thread and the previous two threads. You're also missing the point by a mile.

What is with the insane reluctance to actually listen, to read and to educate yourselves?

Again, see #30. Click the links. Read and read again and again until comprehension sinks in. Then, see the links in #116. If more of you were willing to be quiet for a while and read, you might actually gain some insight and answers.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 3, 2011 10:21 PM

Why is it a big deal that Richard Dawkins does not see eye to eye with you on this particular issue? As far as I can see, he wants to fight for stopping FGM, women's right in muslim countries, equality of pay, stopping violence against women and many other issues that are important to women.

1. Because it smacks of someone who very publicly leads an international effort against say, the most horrific animal abuse, while dismissing the fact that his best buddies routinely hit their dogs and keep them chained in isolation because "that's not as abusive."

2. Because Dawkins fails to recognize that it's the daily, commonplace incidents of disrespect and harassment of women that keep some (many?) of them from becoming a larger, more public force in the atheist world. Which means he's inexcusably oblivious, or he doesn't give a rat's ass. In either case, his opinion is repugnant.

Ugh. Dawkins. Such fail as a humanist and a empathetic, caring person. Just ugh.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 3, 2011 10:23 PM

Caine (#127):

I've got a lot of things on my reading itinerary. I hope you'll forgive me if I decline to read a couple links posted by a nasty stranger.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 3, 2011 10:25 PM

#113, yours has gone up, mine has gone down an equivalent amount. I guess the Universe balances after all.

That Raskolnikov35 endorses him at all is a strike for me.

Did he ever explain how the women on this board were "over-privilaged"?

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2011 10:25 PM

As far as I can see, he wants to fight for stopping FGM, women's right in muslim countries, equality of pay, stopping violence against women and many other issues that are important to women.

I see no evidence of this. He's interested in using FGM and other forms of oppression that women face in Islamic countries to justify his position that women in "western" countries should just shut up and make his coffee already, but I don't know of any time when he actually spoke out against FGM or violence except when it fit his rhetorical needs. He's essentially like Bush and Cheney and their revolving concern for women's rights in countries they want to invade.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 10:29 PM

Global Fund for Women, funds Musawah and many other projects.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | July 3, 2011 10:29 PM

Dr. Dawkins, it pains me to say this because I admire your writing and speaking very much, but you're acting like a disingenuous ass.

Dozens of cogent and calm posts, here and elsewhere, have explained exactly why your comments were problematic and dismissive of women.

Yet you ignore those dozens of posts to focus on flamboyant strawmen erected dishonestly by misogynist trolls, and take those strawmen as your own arguing points. It says very poor things about your willingness to discuss in good faith.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 3, 2011 10:31 PM

Mox

It isnt.

It is.
And the reason this thread has lasted this long is because you guys fail to see that it is. The elevator guy was using his privilage and entitlements in a dangerous way. Rebecca Watson had every right to feel unconfortable, because for many other people (like her) they don't have the privilage of feeling safe in that situation.

Posted by: Sean | July 3, 2011 10:32 PM

@59
Dawkins is not an academic? As far as you know is not very far at all, is it?

Posted by: Multicellular | July 3, 2011 10:35 PM

Richard Dawkins @50

You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.

Really? You don't think someone bigger and stronger than you couldn't stand between you and the buttons before they begin assaulting you? Without resorting to the "F" word, your reasoning is flawed, flaccid and failed.

Posted by: Philip Legge | July 3, 2011 10:36 PM

Dear Richard,

I imagine you would be aware of Isaac Asimov’s essay on The Relativity of Wrong? A point which can be derived from Asimov’s analysis is that a slightly oblate rotating spheroid Earth is a slight improvement on a exactly spherical Earth and that both are huge improvements on the flat Earth model – but all three models are wrong to rather obvious varying degrees. What was of interest to Asimov was the amount they differed from the physical reality of the planet itself.

Your initial comment pointed to a very flat Earth indeed, perpetrated by misogynistic religions and governments and which is a heartbreaking reality for far too many women in the world: a clear and present wrong. However when you unthinkingly dismissed the sexist behaviour dispensed by an almost equally oblivious male to Rebecca Watson, you were overlooking the fact that even in the Western World, we don’t have the optimally correct oblate rotating spheroid of the conceptual model.

If anything, the political culture in the right wing of the US wishes to deny that the earth is a globe and would wish to go back to the black and white days of the flat earth: how many acts of legislation regarding women’s bodies have passed the US legislatures this year? With the greatest respect I think you still need some further consciousness-raising with respect to feminism. It’s on-going process, not an achieved goal that you did some time ago and can subsequently forget about.

It’s the relativity of wrong, Dr Dawkins. Obviously you’re not as ludicrously wrong as the flat earthers. But no one’s conceptual model of a globe or spheroid earth is going to match the physical reality of the microscopic variance of the world; your view is still wrong – to some degree. Please give consideration to serious thinking on it.

Regards, Philip

Finally, since it hasn’t been posted in this thread so far as I’m aware (but I’m probably well behind the rate of this thread now). How many men need this sort of consciousness-raising in the West?

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2011 10:36 PM

He is a busy guy, realistically you cannot expect him to post much on internet discussion threads.

Fine, internet etiquette says that a person is only obligated to post when he or she feels like it on the subjects that he or she feels like addressing. However, given that Richard parachuted in and complained that no one had explained to him why they thought he should apologize, it seems reasonable to think that he might want to read people's responses and see if they clarified things for him. And maybe even give a quick response like, "Ok, I understand your point of view, even if I don't agree" or "I never thought of that. You've got a good point at X, Y, Z" or "Idiots, how dare you question ME?" Or SOMETHING? If he doesn't want to learn why many people on this board think he is behaving badly, why did he ask the question?

Posted by: Heather | July 3, 2011 10:38 PM

I have to say, as a woman, that I find all this Sturm und Drang fucking hysterical.

Not even Rebecca claimed she was fearful of being violently assaulted by this man, or even suspected that he might have felt her up or said more vulgar words to her than he did. She simply felt a bit unnerved by his approach, and that's her privilege.

I know I wouldn't give much of a toss, personally - though I'd probably refuse as Rebecca did if this really was my first time talking to the guy. I think the guy's approach was a bit tactless, but that's all I consider it. That's it. That's the end of the fucking story. No fucking tears. No gasps and whines about the plight of women. At least let it be known that not all women are such delicate flowers as those crying rivers of Rebecca's account of her ordeal. I have a vagina, and you do not speak for me.

Thank you for listening.

Posted by: Williwaw | July 3, 2011 10:39 PM

"No, I obviously don't get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting."

Welcome to Pharyngula, and don't hold your breath.

Posted by: Lotharloo | July 3, 2011 10:40 PM

@Stray Cat:

I recommend reading her last link.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 10:42 PM

but coffee elevator dude has received vitriol far and away beyond the level he deserves for how wrong he was.

Posted by: Mari | July 3, 2011 10:42 PM

#116:

> No one, least of all Watson, said or implied EG was a rapist.

Watson didn't.

Her defenders, on the other hand, have spent the past two threads telling everyone that "Elevator Guy" was in the wrong to hit up Watson because rape happens in elevators. You don't get from premise #1 (it's bad to hit up women in elevators) to premise #2 (hitting up a woman in an elevator will make her fear she's going to be raped) without at least implying an intermediate premise: men--such as "elevator guy"--who hit up women in elevators are likely to be rapists.

Anyone who doesn't find that argument problematic needs to check their sense of entitlement at the door.

This is an entirely independent matter from pointing out that "Elevator Guy" was wrong to approach Watson in the first place.

I now await screaming rants about being a liar, sockpuppet or idiot for pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 10:44 PM

I also think a lot of people are talking about 'rape,' when the question is about whether a woman can attend a gathering of atheists expecting to interact as an equal, or whether a woman who attends a gathering of atheists should expect being the subject of unwanted sexual attention as the cost of admission.

You can't untangle the issue of sexual objectification from rape in this culture, not when rape happens so often and women are held responsible. It is called rape culture, and it influences how men and women interact. When women are a thing to obtain and extract sex from, and Real Men take it as a conquest, shit gets complicated. There is a direct relationship between the threat of male sexual violence and the way that women are sexually objectified in our culture. A woman who is simply annoyed by repeated flirting from some dude, who doesn't make a point of really forcefully rejecting his advances, might get blamed if he does take it too far. This whole ordeal is so telling in that rebecca's behavior has become the main focus instead of elevator dudes. God, and the shit she puts up with from men- she has a freakishly high level of tolerance for this kind of crap from men. No wonder though, look at what happens when she gets the nerve to speak up about it.

Also, do you think that no one has been raped at an atheist or skepticon? There was a string of forced sexual encounters at an Amazing! meeting one year, one dude forced his tongue down the throats of 3+ women at various points in time. I am not very popular and I heard about it. I have seen the way that the sex ratio makes for a bunch of men crowded around single women. I wonder what else has happened?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 3, 2011 10:45 PM

Welcome to Pharyngula, and don't hold your breath.

That's don't hold your fuckin' breath to you, asshole.

;)

Posted by: Opcn | July 3, 2011 10:45 PM

#151 I like what you have to say about it.

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | July 3, 2011 10:47 PM

The next time you hear someone wonder why there are so many more men than women active in the atheist community, give them a link to this conversation.

Apparently, I should come to atheist gatherings. And the enticement I get- the only offer- is that, while I should to be expect to be hit on anywhere and at any time, I'll be expected to decline politely and keep my mouth shut about how I feel about it, and everyone's pretty sure I won't actually be assaulted, because that's only happened a few times.

And I still have to pay.

And this is more fun than staying home and reading comic books all weekend why?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2011 10:48 PM

Many people seem to think it obvious that my post was wrong and I should apologise. Very few people have bothered to explain exactly why.

Richard Dawkins, shut the fuck up. On this topic you are a mental midget, so shut up, sit down, and try to listen to the adults talk.

----------------------------------------------

Here's hoping there's going to be a fairly interesting SGU coming up.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 10:49 PM

Anyone who doesn't find that argument problematic needs to check their sense of entitlement at the door.

I now await screaming rants about being a liar, sockpuppet or idiot for pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2011 10:50 PM

@Randomfactor

The bad ones tend to argue against feminism on the internet.

Posted by: karenm77 | July 3, 2011 10:50 PM

Posted by Mox (#134):

The notion that "any unwanted advance is always inappropriate" is flat out absurd on its face. Men will make sexual advances and women make it clear when they are not wanted. Or vice-versa. Of course this guy was clueless and context is always neccesary - PZ's post before this covered this quite nicely. It was a clumsy and a stupid attempt at it. But is it evidence of mysoginism and sexism? No - it is just a clueless guy trying to get laid.

Clueless guys trying to get laid with women they don't even know are gross. It's creepy to think it's reasonable to proposition for sex someone you've never, ever talked to before. It's misogynistic and sexist because of how hotly it's being defended that men just have a right to do this, and that the feelings of the woman so propositioned--Rebecca, in this case, who had already declared that she no longer wanted company--are not important. What is important, these clueless guys and their defenders say, is that we continue to allow men to proposition women they don't know for sex and not be called gross or creepy for trying to do so.

Had Elevator Guy followed Rebecca into an elevator and asked for her money and then she complained about it later, no one would have said boo about it. They might have even taken her side and agreed with her, even if he'd backed off as soon as she said no. If she'd said that being asked for money by strangers in tight places with no one else around made her uncomfortable, we'd all agree. We'd express sympathy, perhaps. But because he asked her for sex (and don't even play this game where you quibble about how asking people back to a private hotel room for coffee might mean a beverage)--and because we live in a misogynistic, sexist culture that defends the right of men to ask for sex from women whenever they want and insists on the accommodation of women to not make them feel bad about it--Rebecca is somehow humorless, mean, hysterical, paranoid, and/or abusing her power.

Of course no one should try to stop clueless guys from getting laid. After all, they are men first, right?

Posted by: webriggs | July 3, 2011 10:53 PM

Wow! I just wandered into this blog after a weekend at the cottage (dial up is hell) and we have three threads on sexual advances. Holy shit! How do you all have the time to hang on to this for so long?

I skimmed a few comments and don't have the interest to read any more. I just want to say that I'm so glad to be so very far away from all of that business. Never was one for one night stands, even when I was single. The only woman I want to shag is the one I'm married to; a true living goddess, if ever there was one.

In the 20 years we've been together, I, like PZ, have been propositioned from time to time, but was happy to gracefully decline. Super keen on getting down and dirty with the wife. And after all this time it would be rather uncomfortable to be doing the beast of two backs with someone else.

Soooo glad to be very far away from that whole singles scene.

For you guys who are out there in the singles scene, just one word to keep in mind. Respect. The instant you start to disrespect the woman you are interested in connecting with, you lose your DHB card. When you disrespect them, you debase yourself.

I could go on, but it's late in the east and time to sleep.

Oh, and PUAs are bottom feeding lowlife. They have no self-respect, as well as no respect for others.

Posted by: aleopold | July 3, 2011 10:53 PM

Richard and others,
I am a female, and have also found myself in uncomfortable situations with unsolicited advances (and I know men that have also experienced this). That being said, I think this has all been a big misunderstanding, turned into a witch hunt by many (not all). Richard clearly stated that his purpose wasn't to imply that sexual assault is something to be dismissed. Rather, that in this case, no one was assaulted. Those attacking him as a misogynist need to take a step back, and review his writing/speeches where he is always adamant about equality between sexes. Communication is tricky at all levels - especially when conveying intent in a blog post. While Richard is generally very explicit in his posts, these were ambiguous enough for differing interpretations. Recognize that, and quit flying off the handle.

The points made about fear/terror spread by the American media are valid.

Posted by: Heather | July 3, 2011 10:54 PM

This place is such a fucking cesspit…

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2011 10:54 PM

Richard Dawkins, for the love of Nogod; STOP DIGGING

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 10:56 PM

Stray Cat:

You'd probably have more success getting across if you'd stop labeling all men under the same broad brush.

Thanks ever so much, cupcake. How about you just attempt to learn something? I haven't noticed you dealing with some of the most vile, disgusting people you'd hope to never meet over the last two days.

If you bothered to read the links provided, you might actually have a clue as to why many of us are tired, past annoyed, frustrated at having to constantly repeat the same points over and over and over and over and over and over, dealing with people calling us stupid, paranoid, hysterical emotional cripples and on it goes. Well over 2,000 posts now, most of them written by MRAs who have no use for women outside of using them for their needs and don't consider women to be fully human.

It's just been a joyride. So pardon the fuck out of us for being a tad short on patience.

You could do wonders if you could manage to be quiet for just a while and educated yourself, but no, much better to scold us for our sorry manners.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 10:57 PM

Association for Women's Rights in Development, which works in many majority-Muslim areas.

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | July 3, 2011 10:59 PM

Maybe it isn't religion that causes the sexism and racism and violence after all. Maybe people just suck.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 10:59 PM

@Caine and skeptifem:

You'd probably have more success getting across if you'd stop labeling all men under the same broad brush.

Oh no, you're right. All this time I have been defending the right of women not to be raped, I may have inadvertently hurt the feelings of a man. And if I did, it would totally entitle that dude to ignore everything I have to say. It would be much better to act like every guys mom and protect their feelings to my own detriment.

...

you do know where you are posting, right?

I don't owe men shit. they, as a class, as in all of them, benefit from my oppression. There are plenty of dudes out there like PZ or Robjert Jensen or Jackson Katz who understand that they should let women talk about feminism how ever they want to, its our movement and it is about freeing women from male oppression. You might find this post helpful in figuring out my attitude about dudes in general:

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/07/05/why-i-hate-men-part-1-and-then-it-hit-me/

Posted by: The Picard | July 3, 2011 11:01 PM

I feel compelled to comment and say that I too can't see that the "elevator guy" did anything wrong. It's a sad day when simply propositioning someone can in any way can be seen to "disrespect their autonomy" and be interpreted to mean something sinister or threatening. After reading many of the complaints, I'm left with the question, "Yeah, but what did he actually do that was so bad?" You have to actually do something bad before you can be accused of doing something bad.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 3, 2011 11:04 PM

We don't like assprints on them. Snorfle.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 11:04 PM

And you win the Internets for Keyboard Cowboy of the Night award! Congratulations! I'll drink a beer in your honor!

Oh, and don't quit your day job. I imagine you are as bad at that as you are at your alleged humor.

Posted by: RemembersABeach | July 3, 2011 11:06 PM

And another drink to Dawkins, the man who dares combat the militant feminists and their loyal dogs on this, the front line of the MRA war! HURRAH!

Mr. Dawkins, when you are being held up as a hero to the MRAs, it's time to consider that you may be in error.

Posted by: shawmutt | July 3, 2011 11:07 PM

Put me in an elevator with a big gay man hitting on me and I'll be worried about rape.

O.M.F.S.M--Shawmutt's a homophobe!

Thankfully I'm vigilant (as is my wife). ;-)

Posted by: makyui | July 3, 2011 11:08 PM

I know I wouldn't give much of a toss, personally...

At least let it be known that not all women are such delicate flowers as those crying rivers of Rebecca's account of her ordeal. I have a vagina, and you do not speak for me.

Good for you.

Maybe you shouldn't try to speak for other people, then?

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 3, 2011 11:10 PM

Caine (#185):

Thanks ever so much, cupcake. How about you just attempt to learn something? I haven't noticed you dealing with some of the most vile, disgusting people you'd hope to never meet over the last two days.

I read the last of the links at the recommendation of one of the other commenters. It was pretty good and I understand her point. Privilege is an important concept to keep in mind, and it can be a struggle to understand it outside of one's own context.

But, it would be easier for me to take you seriously if you, say, didn't bust out the weird name-calling at absolutely everyone right out the bat.

There are some pretty crummy comments on this blog by people reacting to Rebecca's original remarks. As I said before, they were pretty benign, and her objectors were completely blowing them out of proportion. Richard Dawkins' original comments comparing first-world sexism to female genital mutilation was among the most misguided of those.

But, here is where it would be nice if you'd practice what you preach and do a little listening: If you sweepingly lash out at men like you have been, people are just going to shut down and stop listening to you. You're going to look as irrational and tweaked out as any of the folks freaking out over Rebecca's original remarks. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're just venting and not really out to educate anybody. Which shouldn't surprise me. This is Pharyngula after all.

Enjoy the steaming pile.

Posted by: shawmutt | July 3, 2011 11:10 PM

crap, post #201 is a quote from post #96 strange gods before me ॐ

Posted by: Randomfactor | July 3, 2011 11:11 PM

The solution, it seems to me, is quite simple. All the EG's out there simply need to refine their approach. What they should do, is practice. And since there are relatively few women at atheist conferences (why, I can't imagine) they should practice on random men who happen to share the elevators with them at 4 am. Perhaps even Mr. Dawkins might be so favored.

Once EVERYONE at atheist conferences has an equal chance of being bothered while trying to go catch some sleep after a long and eventful day, perhaps the male/female ratio in attendance will become more balanced--although probably overall attendance numbers would suffer.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 11:12 PM

Randomfactor:

Certainly. What are the classes of men, and how does one differentiate them one from the other at 4 am in a hotel elevator? Are the bad ones all one color, perhaps, or are some of those dark-skinned ones perhaps not as bad as others?

:snortle: Thank you for that.

Josh @ 174 and Carlie @ 176 :resounding applause: Outstanding posts.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 3, 2011 11:13 PM

If you sweepingly lash out at men like you have been, people are just going to shut down and stop listening to you. You're going to look as irrational and tweaked out as any of the folks freaking out over Rebecca's original remarks.

Wrong. Wrong on substance, and wrong on prediction.

Posted by: Randomfactor | July 3, 2011 11:15 PM

Elsewhere (on a website I have all-but-abandoned as no longer worth my time) I have a tag line which says "we can do better than this." Which I think is what RW was saying. Especially if we (correctly) point out that most mainstream religion aids and abets ill-treatment of women...we can do better than we're doing.

Posted by: saerain | July 3, 2011 11:16 PM

Oh look a privilaged dumbass. How about the fact that the gay man (even the big ones) have to hide the fact that he's gay because the striaght guy might assult him for being a fag. And said straight guy might get away with using "gay panic". Fucking double standards, eh? You have so much more privilage.

Posted by: Rumtopf | July 3, 2011 11:17 PM

Ah, the clueless guy defense. Perfect, when the whole fucking point of Rebecca Watson's original post was to let the self-proclaimed clueless guys in on some simple tips. How hard is it to actually listen to what women say, maybe even make a step in the direction of not being clueless? Oh right, that would involve actually giving a shit about women.

Intent isn't fucking magical either. If you ignore what a woman says, and her body language(the cold shoulder is not actually a challenge guys), you'll make her uncomfortable. She doesn't know you, she doesn't have the privilege of trusting a complete stranger, it's nothing personal. Act like a creeper and you'll be perceived as a creeper. This is NOT the woman's fucking fault. Please get a clue.

Posted by: vexorian.myopenid.com | July 3, 2011 11:18 PM

#34 Well if you aren't planning to rape you don't really consider good or bad places to do so.

What if he thought she was attracted to him? How would he find out if not asking?

Posted by: The Picard | July 3, 2011 11:19 PM

Another clueless MRA who can't shut the fuck up and listen. Not the proposition per se is the problem. Doing it in an enclosed space without escape was the problem. What part of that don't you understand? Oh, that's right, none of it as you don't understand toxic male privilege, which is what the rest of us are talking about...

Posted by: pteryxx | July 3, 2011 11:20 PM

The Picard @193: After reading many of the complaints, I'm left with the question, "Yeah, but what did he actually do that was so bad?" You have to actually do something bad before you can be accused of doing something bad.

From the lady herself:

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.

The polite response here is "Oh, I didn't know that made women uncomfortable. I won't do that anymore."

A somewhat more problematic response is "Oh, I didn't know that made women uncomfortable. Why do they feel that way?"

A terrible response is "She shouldn't feel uncomfortable. That hurts the GUY's feelings."

No, you don't get to dictate what another person should feel. Especially when you have a vested interest in ignoring their feelings for your own benefit.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 3, 2011 11:20 PM

Cute dodge. May I pet it?

No, but at this rate I'd run you over with it. It's a Neon so it won't hurt as much.

You are ignoring the fact that most straight men are not victims of violent sexual assult and that he has the privilage of not worrying about those things. If you had reading comprehension skills...

Posted by: Utakata | July 3, 2011 11:21 PM

I believe PZ did an excellent job of calmly explaining why you where wrong without using the word fuck in every sentence, Richard @ 50.

I think this is one of those cases that can easily be resolved if one where to put themselves in another's shoes. I would be mortified if I where in Rebecca's elevator situation. I think most reasonable people would. Just saying.

Posted by: Opcn | July 3, 2011 11:22 PM

@ Caine, Fleur du mal

EG isn't being accused of something he didn't do, but he is still being held accountable for it. Accountability and responsibility can be different things. I read all the links, I watched the video as soon as it was posted by Rebecca too.

Sometimes when it seems like someone doesn't understand it's because you are making unwarranted assumptions.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 11:22 PM

Who are you to tell anyone to listen? All you have to say is, "I'm fucking right goddammit so shut up and accept what I tell you!"

Posted by: Jessa | July 3, 2011 11:23 PM

This topic has been completely derailed from what it should have been: a discussion over the prevalence of socially inappropriate behavior by men at conventions.

Yeah, because the one of the last times we had a discussion about socially inappropriate behavior by men at conventions it went over so well and wasn't derailed by MRAs at all.

Posted by: makyui | July 3, 2011 11:23 PM

Those attacking him as a misogynist need to take a step back, and review his writing/speeches where he is always adamant about equality between sexes.

Those that are defending him need to take a step back and re-read the part where he said that when an American woman complains about sexism or being treated like an object, she's dismissing the suffering Muslim women have to endure.

Then realize that what he's saying is that bitches ain't shit, unless they're being stoned to death or having their clitorises chopped off or actively being raped.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 11:27 PM

But, here is where it would be nice if you'd practice what you preach and do a little listening: If you sweepingly lash out at men like you have been, people are just going to shut down and stop listening to you. You're going to look as irrational and tweaked out as any of the folks freaking out over Rebecca's original remarks. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're just venting and not really out to educate anybody. Which shouldn't surprise me. This is Pharyngula after all.

Enjoy the steaming pile.

Yep, I bet a lot more dudes would listen to me if I was polite and pretty, and perhaps brought along some home-baked pies to my discussion of why their privilege ruins the lives of women. Oh wait, they wouldn't, they would just find it much easier to condescend me. You're talking to someone who got socialized their whole life to be nice and polite. I tried that shit. The results are exactly the same. Some people are not open to having their privilege challenged, and if they want to hear a "please" before they stop stepping on my neck...well, why the hell should I have to ask?

I am unconcerned with the experiences of men in general. I am not a marketer trying to win over a demographic with my message. I am honest and say what I mean. People who don't like it can fuck right off.

Posted by: jack.rawlinson | July 3, 2011 11:27 PM

The elevator incident demands…a personal rejection and a woman nicely suggesting to the atheist community that they avoid doing that. And that is what it got. That is all Rebecca Watson did.

Oh, come off it, PZ! That is NOT all she did, and this late attempt to wave away the thing she did that most of us are criticising her for is almost bloody Orwellian! She used her time as a public speaker to shame not only this guy - who we all (or almost all) admit behaved oafishly and inappropriately - but another person (who also happened to be female) who suggested she overreacted.

For having the audacity not to toe the holy Rebecca Watson line that a drunken late-night pass in an elevator reflects unthinking white (why only white? Do black guys never do this?)) male privilege, Stef McGraw got singled out by name during that public speech. This was unpleasant and excessive, and it does not seem unreasonable`to wonder whether Watson was motivated - at least in part by - petulance at having her opinion questioned.

The reactions of Watson's defenders since then - here and elsewhere - have been frequently appalling almost to the point of sinister. Those who attempt to defend McGraw and her stance on this are declared to be either cluelessly sexist (if male) of else not true scotsmen - oh sorry, I mean feminists - if female. Frankly they remind me of the spart-like Socialist Worker crew who used to try to close down honest dissent at university political meetings back in the seventies. It's revolting, and they should have a bloody good look at themselves.

Dawkins's sarcastic snipe was justified. Watson and crew are in danger of becoming absurd idealogues, and they need a wake-up call. And if the sort of self-righteousness they've displayed over this storm in a coffee cup reflects the way the atheist "movement" is headed, count me out. They're making it start to smell of dogma and doctrinaire intolerance, and I'd hoped I'd left that rank nonsense behind when I ditched religion.

Posted by: shawmutt | July 3, 2011 11:28 PM

Gyeong Hwa Pak, fly like Pikachu's G6

No, but at this rate I'd run you over with it. It's a Neon so it won't hurt as much.

You are ignoring the fact that most straight men are not victims of violent sexual assult and that he has the privilage of not worrying about those things. If you had reading comprehension skills...

So much e-rage! Put me in an elevator alone with anyone at 4am and I'm vigilant. Hell, 4am is vigilant hour for me baby! um... yeah, that's why I conceal carry, because I am aware there's a big bad world out there with big bad people looking for victims. But yeah, I'm a white male, so I don't know anything about it.

But seriously, I'm starting to get it now...anyone who doesn't agree with you is part of the conspiracy...ahem, I mean...part of the privileged...

And Neons suck!

Posted by: kaylakaze | July 3, 2011 11:29 PM

That is all Rebecca Watson did.

That's FAR from all she did. If that were all she did, there wouldn't be an issue. Hell, this isn't even about EG, it's about what she did to Steph.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 3, 2011 11:32 PM

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are separate issues.

Only in the same manner that red light and blue light are separate kinds of electromagnetic radiation.

Posted by: Mox | July 3, 2011 11:33 PM

Thanks karenm77,

I appreciate the kind response free from profanity. It didnt occur to me to think about who might have started the hysteria. That is actually a good point. I just dont feel like reading through all the nonsense again - lets hope this issue dies soon.

Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | July 3, 2011 11:33 PM

Christopher Hitchens has noted that his fear of the potential for violence by groups of men approaching him would increase if he knew that said men had just come out of a place of worship. I can understand that.

I have even less trouble understanding and believing that a woman's fear of the potential for violence from a strange man would tend to increase if that man had managed to arrange to be alone with her in some isolated place, even without any further come-on or proposition.

Of course women wouldn't have to deal with having their fight or flight triggers primed if men could follow some simple sexual assault prevention tips:

http://tumblinfeminist.tumblr.com/post/5532695085/fool-proof-sexual-assault-prevention-tips

Posted by: Wittgenstein's Ghost | July 3, 2011 11:35 PM

Due to the type of culture we live in, women can justifiably be creeped out or scared if they are in an elevator alone with a man, even if he doesn't look at or speak to them. Just check out the rape statistics. A free woman in America has more chance of being raped than a man in prison does.

Now in the case of Rebecca's situation, the guy might have been a nice person and was just oblivious to the situation or atmosphere he was creating. Rebecca talking about this on YouTube "raises conciousness" of the situation and others like it. If my memory serves me right, Dawkins is in favour of raising conciousness, right?

Posted by: vaeisenberg | July 3, 2011 11:35 PM

@MGolz
I know it sounds silly, but this sounds to me like an important part of atheism and skepticism because there seem to be complaints of sexism within the so-called "movement". (Realize, that although not all opinions are agreed upon a movement can still exist.) If sexist situations and comments often pop up, no matter the state of women around the world we need to reassess our attitude. Each incident of sexism, whether the woman perceives it or the public ignores it, has the potential to turn people away from the movement.

I'd personally say having as many rational people in the movement as possible is important. The more voices, the more diversity, and the more debate, the better. However, until we can get past the issue of sexism in the West we might be stuck in a loop. Of course, the topic's important, but if we're going to rehash things it makes everything useless.

I agree with having as much rational people in the movement as possible. The thing i perceive as erroneous is that while you recognise that what some consider "sexism" will repel some atheists from joining any such active movement, there are again, people who'll be repelled if you actively embrace what some consider "extreme feminism" In the end, atheist movement should IMO keep to issues related to atheism, as the lack of gods is a scientific conclusion.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 3, 2011 11:36 PM

Spot on, Jen. Who'd have thought I'd live to see the day Richard Dawkins clutches pearls over naughty words.

No kidding! Dawkins is the guy, after all, who let out a great big "FUCK" in the middle of an academic panel discussion that has been plastered all over YouTube. What's wrong with the word "fuck"?

Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 11:37 PM

mox

The problem I have with this is the reaction by all the hysterics. The cries of mysoginism, the characterization of RD and others in my position as anti-women, enemies of feminism, etc. I repeat: this is not evidence of mysoginism and sexism.

Do you know where the word "hysterics" originated? Do you think that there are better people to judge what is antifeminist than actual feminists?

I find the talk about rape and sexual violence that women have to deal with to be pretty interesting - as if men dont ever have to deal with violence in their lives. I live in a rough neighborhood in one of most crime infested cities in America, and you bet that sometimes walking home at night I picture men with guns coming out of the darkness and demanding my money.

You wanna know what the difference is? No one would call you a whore and tell you that you deserved it if you got mugged. If you called the police they wouldn't make you prove to them that you weren't actually a charity, and if they caught the guys you wouldn't have to make a case in court that you didn't enjoy opening your wallet for them. It is unlikely that your family would refuse to believe you when you talked about it and its also unlikely that you would see a bunch of stories in the news where people just like you were being called liars and told they enjoyed the crime perpetrated against them. You wouldn't hear a bunch of stories about how you can't really mug anyone, it is just a bunch of people who got talked out of their cash and changed their mind in the mornings. You haven't met many people who confess to being mugged who think they secretley deserved it for not staying inside that night. You don't find people who pay to watch videos of staged muggings for fun (the fun part being the crime itself instead of some larger story), like you can with rape themed pornography. I could go on and on. Crime itself is scarring and horrible enough, but its the social environment and the rape culture that make it so fucking unbearable to be a victim of rape or sexual assault in this country.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 3, 2011 11:39 PM

Nobody ever propositions me anymore :-(
Maybe I should get an elevator.

Posted by: saerain | July 3, 2011 11:40 PM

Repeat after me: You have the privilage to not worry about these things because your chances of danger in the this situation is not the same as a woman's chance.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 3, 2011 11:42 PM

More American Muslim women fighting against patriarchy: Muslim Women's League

Posted by: Rumtopf | July 3, 2011 11:43 PM

@Scented Nectar

Thanks for letting me, and the women who would be really uncomfortable in that same situation, know that it's all just in our heads.
Who said anything about a crime, anyway? I saw a woman asking the men who apply to please not do things that can make women uncomfortable. Radical!

Posted by: carried.hither | July 3, 2011 11:44 PM

I'm a white male Lurker who spent many years in a situation that frequently resulted in me being cornered, beaten, assaulted, and physically/emotionally abused by a number of other white males on a daily basis, so I believe that I have at least some standing to speak about living in fear. . .

Anyway. I don't have a quarrel with RW's feelings on what happened with elevator guy. A situation that makes you uncomfortable is just so.

I am however failing to see how the Guy's behavior, however lame, is symptomatic of a diseased society.

I'm not even debating the fact that we do live in a society that treats women unfairly in a number of ways.

I'm not debating that following her to the elevator wasnt a dick move.

I just don't get that its inherently a sexist move.

What if he had been propositioning another man? Still a dick move.
What if elevator guy had been elevator gal? Still a dick move.
What if he had jumped into that elevator to ask for a smoke, a piece of gum, or a dollar for the vending machine?

Dick move? Sure.
Indicative of a sense of masculine superiority? Maybe yes and maybe no, but why assume yes?

What I'm getting at is that I feel like its unfair to say that the guy, or a random guy in a similar scenario, is smugly entitled woman-hater rather than just a moron. . .

So yeah. Hey everyone.

Posted by: butterflyfish.heidi | July 3, 2011 11:44 PM

When I was in college (UMass Lowell), we had an escort service where male volunteers were on-call to walk us to our dorm from the parking lot at night. This is because women had been raped walking the 700 feet or so between the parking lot and the dorm.

Please imagine that at 17 years old, every time you came home after dark (dark being at about 4:30 pm in the winter), you saw a streetlight shining on a call box with a great big sign that said you might need protection to walk the 700 feet to your building. There were also helpful reminder signs prominently displayed inside the building, next to the night security guard's desk at the front door. Men's dorms did not have need of a security guard. Welcome to our world.

Also, when someone tells you, "this makes me feel uncomfortable, please don't do it," mutilated Africans and the fact that it wouldn't make *you* uncomfortable are irrelevant.

Posted by: vaeisenberg | July 3, 2011 11:45 PM

Argh.. the formatting messed up! (it seems to have treated the empty line as a place to end the italics tag.)

In post #255 , only the third paragraph is mine - the second was supposed to be still me quoting (italics) MGolz.

Posted by: saerain | July 3, 2011 11:47 PM

Jack Rawlinson:

The reactions of Watson's defenders since then - here and elsewhere - have been frequently appalling almost to the point of sinister. Those who attempt to defend McGraw and her stance on this are declared to be either cluelessly sexist (if male) of else not true scotsmen - oh sorry, I mean feminists - if female. Frankly they remind me of the spart-like Socialist Worker crew who used to try to close down honest dissent at university political meetings back in the seventies. It's revolting, and they should have a bloody good look at themselves.

Sinister? Putting "feminists" in italics as if to use scare quotes? Calling people who object to this bullshit "socialists" (and implying it's sinister itself to be a socialist)?

You're stark-staring bonkers. Seriously. The fuck is wrong with you?

Posted by: vexorian.myopenid.com | July 3, 2011 11:47 PM

No escape? I am now really puzzled. Here's how you escape from an elevator. You press any one of the buttons conveniently provided. The elevator will obligingly stop at a floor, the door will open and you will no longer be in a confined space but in a well-lit corridor in a crowded hotel in the centre of Dublin.

No, I obviously don't get it. I will gladly apologise if somebody will calmly and politely, without using the word fuck in every sentence, explain to me what it is that I am not getting.

Richard

Prof. Dawkings, I will begin by saying I respect and admire you. Anyway, I think that this is the problematic part. If I were a woman trying to run away from a man, I imagine it would be very hard to press that button without fighting. Even if I do press the button, it will take a while before the elevator reaches a point in which the door can open and I can go out. So I would still have to fight for those 3 seconds it takes the elevator to open. Fighting is a gamble and a very risky one.

When I try to imagine myself in this situation. Even a dark alley sounds better than an elevator. Because then I can try running away and there is a larger chance I could get away without having to fight. So, when I try to imagine things, it seems to me that elevators are really a bad place to ask people out.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 3, 2011 11:49 PM

The behavior of elevator dude was threatening, even if he didn't intend it to be so.

One night, my husband, kids, and I were leaving an family-oriented event in a downtown urban area. Although we left with a crowd of people, we found ourselves the only people headed to the particular garage where we had parked. So no one around on an urban street at night. In a city where street mugger murders aren't uncommon.

Then at the entrance to the garage, a young man approached us and stood much closer than we were comfortable with. He asked if he could have some money for a cab since he needed to go home and had missed the last bus. (Oddly, this seems to happen more frequently than one would think, as I hear similar stories a lot.)

Anyway, you can better believe that all of us--husband, myself, kids--felt threatened no matter what the stranger's intentions were. My hair stood on end and I got that prickly feeling of fear on my scalp.

Maybe he was telling the truth. Maybe he was just a stranger in need, unlikely as that was. Maybe he was just trying to get a few bucks from us for drugs or booze or whatever and never would have resorted to violence. But he could have had a weapon. How would we know?

Stranger. Dark street. Late at night. Deserted area. Approaches and gets too close for comfort.

Damn if I cared what the stranger's intention was. He put me and my family in fear for our lives, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that.

That he didn't pull out a weapon and harm us is irrelevant to how we felt. That he might never have intended to hurt or even scare us is irrelevant to how we felt.

That the only consequence of my husband's telling him to head east until he found a police officer and tell her/him his story was a loud string of profanities that followed us as we entered the garage, still afraid he might follow us, is irrelevant to how we felt in the situation we found ourselves.

If we hurt the feelings of the stranger or other panhandlers, too bad. His behavior was creepy and threatening. Even though we had places to run. Even though we could have yelled for help and someone might have heard us. (Because no mugger would ever shoot a fleeing victim, or follow them, or forgo an attack because someone might respond to our screams before he could attack us, right, Dawkins?)

Which is the same way most women feel about being on an elevator with a unknown man who hits on her.

Don't like that guys? Then don't do it. And stop telling us that women shouldn't be afraid of you, cause you're not a threat. If you're not a threat, don't engage in threatening behavior.

Posted by: Trouble | July 3, 2011 11:51 PM

(why only white? Do black guys never do this?))

That reminds me of this urban legend.

To those who can't imagine the danger element of being in a lift alone with a guy who's showing a presumptuous interest in you - imagine instead if it were an evangelist: "I heard your talk and I was interesting in finding out why you hadn't let the love of Jesus Christ into your life." Of course someone who did this to an atheist stranger (who'd be desperate to escape) would find themselves mocked for such cluelessness. Difference is there's be fewer folks to say "hey, a guy's gotta try."

If you're going to ask anyone for anything, doing so in a way that's not in a million years going to succeed is not only going to result in failure, it's going to make the askee uncomfortable and annoyed, especially if they come from a non-confrontational culture. Try asking a sales clerk for a 90% discount sometime and see where that gets you.

Posted by: hillaryrettig | July 3, 2011 11:51 PM

@Richard,

The privilege thing, and the silencing thing. Also, because mild forms of sexual oppression and severe forms have the *same root* - women reduced from full human status to the status of sex object for the use and pleasure of, and control by, men.

MLK, Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." As with all rights issues, one needs to be vigilant about the small offences lest the culture adapts and then tolerates the bigger ones.

The elevator offender was not just a dolt, but a dolt acting on certain premises - for instance, that he has the right to importune her sexually. Even if the woman didn't feel threatened at all - and she had every reason to feel threatened - those premises would still be active - and a threat to women everywhere.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 3, 2011 11:55 PM

1) There is no privelege issue here because it is problematic to lump men together in a social context as much as it to lump women together. Women & men are far more alike than different-- so snap out of your feminist indoctrination.

It isn't problematic when women make up the majority of rape victims and men make up the majority of rapists (like more than 99%). How do you discuss abortions/pregnancy as social issues if you think that the realities of life are essentially the same for men and women? There may not be many significant inherent differences, but the defacto differences make for a BFD when discussing social problems.

2) Okay who's going to call out skeptifem for the man hate in post 191?

you could read the post I linked to and see how little of a shit I give about your perception that I hate men. I hate masculine dudely men, which is to say, the majority of them, because masculinity is bullshit. Its hateful destructive bullshit that most men buy into and get indoctrinated into growing up. Pharyngulites mostly seem to agree with that notion.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 3, 2011 11:58 PM

But seriously, I'm starting to get it now...anyone who doesn't agree with you is part of the conspiracy...ahem, I mean...part of the privileged...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2011 11:58 PM

I give up. I'm going to sink back into lurking, this is all far too depressing.

Oh, Ashley. I'm so sorry it's doing this to you, but believe me, I understand all too well. Drop into TET if you feel like it.

About Tam, in the previous thread, Ted had some great advice as did KnottyNiki.

Posted by: bowedoak | July 4, 2011 12:00 AM

Caine,
116
First lets get one thing out of the way:

You said "No one, least of all Watson, said or implied EG was a rapist."

I did not say he was a rapist either. I said he was being called a "potential rapist", and he has been.
From the Name Names blog comments that you linked:

"Elevator Guy was playing rapist wannabee so strongly that even normally clueless me recognized it."

"And if you were trying to understand why Rebecca had that perception instead of trying to excuse the would-be rapist, then you'd realize it as well."

"Well of course you don't do it, but you're supposed to be flattered at the opportunity and not complain about it because it's every man's right to bother you in elevators and make you wonder how close you are to being raped!"

"I can say exactly what made elevator guy rapey.
1: Alone in an elevator. When a lion isolates something, it is because it is prey - so approaching a woman in an isolated setting? Predatory."

"He could have just as easily realized that he didn't have time to subdue, strip and copulate with his chosen target before the elevator reached a floor with people and so chose to abort his planned rape once it was clear that she would not go willingly to the crime scene."

In 1200 posts, the word rape is mentioned 337 times. In post 116 you talk about this being a situation where things could go extremely bad. Are you seriously now saying that the extremely bad thing you were referring to was NOT rape?
Those links in #30 you keep insisting everyone just read, they mention rape, a lot.

So lets not try to say that rape is not an issue being discussed here or that people are NOT calling this guy a potential rapist. They are and it is.

"This is not about being in an elevator with someone the woman knows. She's in an elevator with an unknown factor."
Where does Rebecca say that in her video in the discussion of elevator guy. She doesn't. She never says he is unknown to her.
She said that his words were:
"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting and I would like to talk MORE"
More means that they have spoken prior to this.

Now, I know that Rebecca has been on at least one panel with Dawkins,(Using him as an example only) but does that mean that they know each other? If they only know each other from that Dublin panel, I think it's pretty safe to say that he could still be considered an unknown factor.
But see, to us, it seems like he would be "Someone she knows."
Either way, sexual assault occurs much more frequently among people who are known than people who are unknown so that whole point is moot. She could have still been made to feel uncomfortable and creeped out if it was a man she knew sexualizing her.

The question is still valid. If the man in the elevator was a man we all "know" or some of us "know" would it change the way we view the situation? Would it make a difference to hear his side of the story before we all jump to the conclusion that the situation could have led to something bad.

Lastly,
You said that my comments were coming from a place a privelege, and I take that to mean that you must think I am a man.
I am not.
I am a woman. I am a rape survivor.
I was also deposed on a case where a frequent customer where I worked was arrested and charged with rape.
He would probably still be in jail except that his ex girlfriend (the accuser) insisted 17 different times that she was raped by him at a time when he was at the restaurant I was hosting at, sitting 6 feet from me, in view of 22 people over 4 hours. And he did not have a twin.
Rape is serious shit. Being accused of rape because you dumped your girlfriend is pretty heinous.
It is very hard to accept every rape accusation at face value after you have seen someone nearly go to jail on an accusation that you know is false.

If one person, only one, on these comments said that this guy was a "wanna be rapist", everyone should step back and take a breath and make sure calling THIS particular man a potential rapist is crossing a line.
It IS acceptable, imo, to discuss rape in general and the fear of rape to educate those who don't understand why a woman might be afraid in the elevator alone with a man who propositions her.
But being attacked by people you know should also be part of the overall discussion because if what we are trying to do is educate and not just attack the people who don't get it, the overwhelming majority of women who will be raped, will be raped by a man they know.

You can call me an MRA for wanting more facts, but you probably should not be doing it on a science blog that usually discusses secularism.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 4, 2011 12:01 AM

Making your own arguments is hard, eh makyui?

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 12:01 AM

@286: Yeah. Better approach, off the top of my head:

[Several hours before 4 in the god damn morning]
"Hi, I'm ______. I enjoy _____ about your [talk/writing/work]. [Genuine, interesting question.]"

[... Banter...]

"Do you have to be anywhere? I'd love to continue talking over an iced mocha latte."

Bam! Innocuous, non-confrontational, much more appropriate. And if at any point she seems uninterested or preoccupied, walk away.

Posted by: brotheratombombofmoderation | July 4, 2011 12:03 AM

If we want to keep atheist conferences as male-only events with very little gender diversity, we on-track for doing just that.

If we want to improve conference attendee awareness for power and privilege differences and thereby make the events more welcoming to others, we may want to see what other large conferences do about raising awareness about power and privilege.

The Unitarian Universalists have conference attendee guidelines that are designed to address these concerns:

Anti-Racism, Anti-Oppression, Multiculturalism
http://www.uua.org/ga/values/13298.shtml

Something like this could be adapted for use at atheist conferences (modifying the language to make it less "religious" where appropriate). Unitarian Universalists are one of the few sexuality-positive religious groups and one of the few religious groups that friendly with atheist groups (individual like Be Scofield are exceptions to this "friendly to atheists" generalization).

Greta Christina has already written about the mistakes about racial and gender inclusion on the gay rights movement and how those past mistakes continue to hurt them today:

Getting It Right Early: Why Atheists Need to Act Now on Gender and Race
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/09/race-sex-atheism.html

Race, Gender, and Atheism, Part 2: What We Need To Do -- And Why
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/09/race-sex-atheism-2.html

One would hate to see history repeat itself with the atheist movement.

Posted by: freebornjayne | July 4, 2011 12:05 AM

If the world were perfect, I would agree that this was zero-bad. If I were Our Lady FreebornJayne on High, Creator of Earth and all Her People, that would certainly be the case. Thoughtless and a bit rude, perhaps, to proposition someone elevator guy had never even spoken to, but not worrying or gross or creepy in any way.

I am not deity, this world was not created, and it is not perfect. Women simply do not have the same experiences in life as men do. This is the kind of situation we are taught to fear.

I can remember a day in school (about aged eleven) when all of the girls were called into the library to watch a video while all of the boys went to have ice cream outside (we did get our ice cream eventually, but that's besides the point). The video went like this: A woman, on her own, walks into a confined space late at night. A man, bigger and, presumably, stronger, follows her, and has the weight and physical power to trap her if he so wishes. He makes a lewd remark. Superimposed are the words THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU.

Sound familiar? This was a video about the precautions women are expected to take (from age eleven, apparently) in order to avoid being blamed when they are assaulted. This was the first of many lectures, self defences classes, chain letters explaining why you should never wear a pony tail because it gives rapists something to grab you by, and so on, ad infinitum. Month after month, year after year, being told that if YOU don't think about these things, you will be as good as complicit in YOUR OWN RAPE. It kind of gets to you after a while, you know?

As I say, the boys were never shown this video. They never got those lectures, or those chain letters. How would they know that such a situation would be, at best, annoying, at worst, terrifying and triggering? Nobody has ever thought to teach them.

I think Dawkins is clueless rather than malicious. I think that's true of a fair number of the dissenters on these boards, except for the obvious misogynists and trolls. Elevator guy was probably clueless as well. But we only stop being clueless when someone bothers to tell us we are wrong, and we LISTEN TO THEM. It is hard to accept that we are mistaken, as I'm sure we all know from personal experience. It is hard to admit our views and comments were hurtful. It's hard to listen, and consider, rather than blindly defend.

But we must. For the sake of scepticism, of rationality, of science, we must.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 4, 2011 12:05 AM

One would hate to see history repeat itself with the atheist movement.

One is, unfortunately, already experiencing that hate.

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 12:06 AM

@298: Yes, that too. Respond to the person and the situation, not your preconceptions.

Posted by: vaeisenberg | July 4, 2011 12:07 AM

@skeptifem
You wanna know what the difference is? No one would call you a whore and tell you that you deserved it if you got mugged.
Neither rape or mugging is "deserved" however, the "asking for it" stuff gets commented on both rape and mugging - cases such as someone obviously having an expensive phone / other gadget out in public.

If you called the police they wouldn't make you prove to them that you weren't actually a charity, and if they caught the guys you wouldn't have to make a case in court that you didn't enjoy opening your wallet for them.
It's partly because of false accusations Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of false rape accusations going on. If say,even a tenth of the folks who call 911 because they were mugged made it up the police would be similarly reserved. (like in the UK there was recently the case of a woman claiming two soldiers raped her, which she invented.)

It is unlikely that your family would refuse to believe you when you talked about it and its also unlikely that you would see a bunch of stories in the news where people just like you were being called liars and told they enjoyed the crime perpetrated against them.
You often get that reaction from other family members if you accuse one of them of any crime, the more serious, the worse this will be. Cognitive dissonance isn't unique to rape.

You wouldn't hear a bunch of stories about how you can't really mug anyone, it is just a bunch of people who got talked out of their cash and changed their mind in the mornings.

That's because of the dumb practice of calling "rape" other things than actual violent rape, or rape achieved by threats of violence, and sliding into territory where it's naturally going to be word against word (people generally don't fuck in front of audio-enabled cameras). Furthermore, even with coercion a'la Strauss-Kahn it's a very different class of crime. In the same way, someone conning you out of your money isn't a mugger.

You haven't met many people who confess to being mugged who think they secretley deserved it for not staying inside that night.
I agree, this is bad and harmful

You don't find people who pay to watch videos of staged muggings for fun (the fun part being the crime itself instead of some larger story), like you can with rape themed pornography.
What about action movies and games like GTA series? The latter actually has mugging in it.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/juUhBZgRtY.amT52vBf60tQMMPV8AUYGkWdS_Hz6vMqAf3Zj#35dc0 | July 4, 2011 12:08 AM

Larry Poppins

If I've learned anything new its to take the next elevator if it looks like I need to share it with a solitary woman...

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 4, 2011 12:09 AM

For all you people who are having hysterics

And the hits just keep on comin'.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 12:09 AM

makyui:

Stray Cat:

But, it would be easier for me to take you seriously if you, say, didn't bust out the weird name-calling at absolutely everyone right out the bat.

Tone trolling? In MY Pharyngula?

Heh. I see that our little Cupcake didn't bother much with the substance of my posts. Especially as xe pulls out the "right out the bat" business after I made it a point to explain that this thread is in three parts and has been ongoing for two days and thousands of posts now. Hardly "right out the bat", at least for anyone who had any comprehension abilities.

Larry Poppins:

I have now finished reading all the posts in all three threads which has taken me many hours. I really have to hand it to Caine, Carlie (you are my fucking HERO!) Strange Gods, Josh and everyone else who has been persevering against the tide of trolls.

Thank you, Larry. And thank you, thank you, thank you so very much for taking the time to read! You're fabulous.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 4, 2011 12:11 AM

Skeptifem:

That makes sense. I even think I personally get it a little. I'm sort of an effeminate man and find entertainment media to be largely testosterone-soaked to a point where I just want to choke. That culture is disgusting. For what it's worth (though you probably don't give a shit) I think a lot of men are victims of it too. The traditions behind that idiocy is a cage for all of us.

Posted by: Dark Jaguar | July 4, 2011 12:12 AM

So I've been a huge fan of Richard Dawkins for some time. It's a downright shame that now I have to qualify that when I tell it to people... When I saw the posts by him, I decided the best thing to do was to not make any judgement until I found out who actually made the post, Richard or someone else.

I read in his books about "consciousness raising" (we in the states use the phrase "raise awareness") and the example he used was specifically about raising awareness of how language often refers to the male sex (he went off on a tangent about using sex instead of gender, but hey I hate the word "blog" so to each their own). An example would be something like the word "manhole". Now, "personhole" is simply unwieldy and odd sounding, but being aware of that sort of thing is still important and useful, and it was a good comparison. At no point did he claim that pointing out the historical gender bias of the english language somehow diminishes the seriousness of real woman's equality issues, going as far as to note his own attempts to be more inclusive of both sexes in his day to day speech.

So, his comments on this issue just boggle my mind. Propositioning a woman at 4 in the AM in an elevator just after hearing her explain she's tired and needs some sleep seems far greater an issue than accidentally referring to "mankind" in a speech instead of "humanity", and somehow this gets a pass?

Dawkins is right that there are far worse issues, and honestly this is merely rude, not a crime against humanity like the stuff he listed, but I don't think anyone was trying to make a comparison to those issues. It's raising awareness, consciousness raising, of an ongoing issue and a request for men to take a second to think about a woman's point of view. That's it. Hopefully he'll live by that other wonderful thing he posted, about the teacher shaking the hand of the one to point out he'd been wrong about something for so many years and thanking that person. This is the time for Dawkins to do that.

I've personally found phrases like "sweet heart" and "cup cake" when tossed at the end of a statement clearly criticizing someone (very justified in this case) to come off as very patronizing. I know it's intended to be a way of salvaging some level of politeness, but in a discussion like this, personally I'd just scrap it altogether.

Posted by: saerain | July 4, 2011 12:13 AM

What language are you speaking, saerain?

If you were confused by my fumbling of the blockquote tag, I apologize. I did place them on the second quotation, but it's too late for me to see what I did wrong with them.

If you were confused by what I said about your perception of JR calling anyone socialist, I don't know what to tell you. You'll see what you want, I suppose, but I saw a comparison of the behavior of certain participants in this mess to that of the Socialist Worker, not ‘you are a socialist if you disagree with me!’ or any variation thereof.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 4, 2011 12:13 AM

Caine,

Your posts had substance?

*looks back*

Dammit. Same old repeated-over-and-over shit. And I was excited that maybe I'd missed something.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/r5LB7t06xuBa.Mqxdiz6gYY7DYFQx6G_9EA-#ab6b1 | July 4, 2011 12:14 AM

This sounds like ridiculous feminist nonsense to me, if the gender roles were switched here no one would really care. The guy was obviously creepy but I've seen far worse and it isn't the end of the world so just get over it.

Oh noes my hero Dawkins has said things I don't like, I'm going to throw all his totally unrelated evolutionary biology books in the trash, and tear down the poster of him that is hanging on my wall.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 4, 2011 12:16 AM

I know it's intended to be a way of salvaging some level of politeness, but in a discussion like this, personally I'd just scrap it altogether.

Posted by: Andyo | July 4, 2011 12:16 AM

Posted by: Opcn | July 3, 2011 9:53 PM

I can't believe this has gotten so much coverage! Yes the guy was being a bit of a creep, no he was not abusing Rebecca. Yes he could have recognized that his advances would not be welcome but no, it is not unforgivable that someone would make that move having heard what she had to say.

Why dontcha read first? Sigh
We: The guy was creepy!
MRAs: It was perfectly fine.
We: If you don't think that was creepy, consider how women can feel around strange men (lots of links to very educational material)
MRAs: OMFG! STOP THE PRESSES!!! MISANDRISTS SEZ ALL MENZ R RAPIST!!!11!!1!!
We: Moron.
MRAs: OMG!!! Insults!!!

It's not Richard Dawkin's whose privilege is on display, but that of american women. People will always be propositioning you, just like sales people will always be calling to offer you product, it's part of advertising. You are adults, you can say no, so long as no works they aren't wicked people for asking.

Yeah, it's perfectly fine for people to intrude on your space to call you and advertise.

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 12:18 AM

This sounds like ridiculous feminist nonsense to me, if the gender roles were switched here no one would really care.

One of my mom's friends had a creepy habit of pinching my buttcheeks when I was like... 10. It disturbed me greatly. (One day I yelled at her for it and she laughed. Then I never saw her again.)

Posted by: bowedoak | July 4, 2011 12:20 AM

Skeptifem #314
Sorry, I know the post was really long so I can see how you missed the relevant part, so to repeat
The woman said "I was raped at this time by this man."
But the man was sitting 6 feet from me, and was seen by a bunch of people at that time and the two previous hours and the two hours after.
She did not say, he raped me last week, last month, last year. She said he raped me at 7:15 on Thursday. She was accusing him of rape because he broke up with her. Which she later admitted to to avoid being charged herself.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eITV6bEl1IqRjWoNfe8SVwtpJ4A8tajdeG.4rplXm9lmng--#2454e | July 4, 2011 12:21 AM

I don't see how this gal expects to be taken seriously if she throws a hissy fit about something as trivial as this. For that matter, I wonder what it says about the folks who tisk tisk about this non issue on this site, including PZ who apparently is determined to do a holier than thou number. In an imperfect world, he should pick his shots instead of acting like a sort of atheistical Savonarola. Has everybody really signed on to a prissy purity code of conduct that somehow puts asking somebody over for a drink in the same universe with actual bad behavior.

Phooey.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 4, 2011 12:22 AM

One of my mom's friends had a creepy habit of pinching my buttcheeks when I was like... 10. It disturbed me greatly. (One day I yelled at her for it and she laughed. Then I never saw her again.)

Because you roasted her and then ate her, right? Right?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 4, 2011 12:23 AM

After all, the guy asked the woman back to his room for coffee, and then accepted when she refused. How dare he!! -orion

No shit, Sherlock! Now, where did he do it? When did he do it? What were the circumstances? How many people were there? Were there things he could have done differently to make the encounter safe for the other person. And don't you fucking tell me that asking someone to go back to your hotel room for coffee isn't about sex.

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 12:23 AM

@330: It happens. Women can be creepy too. It was dealt with swiftly when it was brought to everyone's attention.

Posted by: shawmutt | July 4, 2011 12:25 AM

Andyo #325

MRAs:

What shape of tinfoil hat do you find most effective at keeping the MRAs away?

I don't think the argument was made that it's "perfectly fine", the argument was made that it's not a crime.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 12:26 AM

Has everybody really signed on to a prissy purity code of conduct that somehow puts asking somebody over for a drink in the same universe with actual bad behavior.

According to Yahoomess, a man following a lone married woman into an elevator at 4AM, after hearing that she was tired and going to bed, and asking her up to his room, after listening to her talk about how disturbing it is to be treated like a sex object, is not "actual bad behavior" and is a "prissy purity code of conduct".

Thanks for that, buddy. Couldn't have done it without you.

Posted by: reasonwithme | July 4, 2011 12:27 AM

I went into this debacle with an open mind. I originally read Dawkins' and Pz's remarks first. I thought, as is usually the case, things were either embellished or glossed over from the original story. After watching Rebecca's video, I was quite confused. I thought maybe there was another video where she went into more detail, but, no, that was it. A guy went into the elevator with her after her talk and asked her for tea. She declined and he left her alone. It's the most benign, non-story, and grossly inflated story I've heard of. I 100% agree with Dawkins. I'm saddened that this is even contentious. And for those attacking Dawkins saying that because A is bad and B is worse, it doesn't mean that A is not relevant.......A in this case, is not remotely bad, it's a perfectly normal interaction and to be honest, probably the most polite invitation I've come across. Dawkins hit it perfectly on the head when he paralleled the story of the wafer:

"If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics' privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn't physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 4, 2011 12:28 AM

I don't see how this gal expects to be taken seriously if she throws a hissy fit about something as trivial as this.

In an imperfect world, he should pick his shots instead of acting like a sort of atheistical Savonarola.

asking somebody over for a drink in the same universe with actual bad behavior.

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 12:29 AM

@343: And RW was perfectly in her right to feel uncomfortable and share her thoughts and feelings on the matter.

What is your point again?

Posted by: skeptifem | July 4, 2011 12:29 AM

Skeptifem #314 Sorry, I know the post was really long so I can see how you missed the relevant part, so to repeat The woman said "I was raped at this time by this man." But the man was sitting 6 feet from me, and was seen by a bunch of people at that time and the two previous hours and the two hours after. She did not say, he raped me last week, last month, last year. She said he raped me at 7:15 on Thursday. She was accusing him of rape because he broke up with her. Which she later admitted to to avoid being charged herself.

How do you know the time of her accusation? Are you basing it off what your accused friend said or some other source? If you were an alibi why weren't you in court testifying? Or did he just go to jail pending some other action (as in he wasn't convicted and thrown in prison)?

My point isn't that all rape accusations are true. I am sure some of them are false. My point is that there isn't a reason to believe that false rape accusations get made more often than for other crimes, which is to say it rarely happens. I also hear this whole argument about "knowing" some guy who was innocent and was accused pretty often and the evidence isn't usually very compelling. People are very willing to believe women simply lie about this to the cops because... its fun? I don't know. almost no one gets convicted of rape. the conviction rate is like 6% and the reputation of the woman is ruined (like in the kobe bryant case where she was shamed out of her case). For the most part you can trust someone when they tell you that they were raped.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 4, 2011 12:30 AM

skeptifem:

you should totally check out Robert Jensen's work. He is awesome and he writes about that exactly. I know there are some dudes out there like that, and they are pretty cool, but I will usually assume a dude is an asshole until he proves otherwise. You seem to be doing alright. Some of the pharyngula dudes are also tolerable. You should stick around, you will probably fit in.

Thanks. Really, that means something significant to me.

I don't comment much, but I've been reading PZ for a long time via RSS. I hardly ever read the comments. Heh, I should've figured any remarks on tone wouldn't go over well. ;)

Funny thing. This whole discussion is actually about tone of a sort, isn't it? Or at least the appropriateness of context and level of baseline respect for another human being, which I think is at least tangentially related.

Posted by: dangeraardvark | July 4, 2011 12:30 AM

I'm with Dawkins. Stop acting as if the Pharyngulite groupthink is the end-all be-all on these issues. Fail the Feminism purity test and you're out of the club, I guess.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 12:31 AM

Kobra:

One of my mom's friends had a creepy habit of pinching my buttcheeks when I was like... 10. It disturbed me greatly. (One day I yelled at her for it and she laughed. Then I never saw her again.)

Christ, that's creepy. Seriously creepy.

Posted by: Mari | July 4, 2011 12:31 AM

Why dontcha read first? Sigh We: The guy was creepy! MRAs: It was perfectly fine. We: If you don't think that was creepy, consider how women can feel around strange men (lots of links to very educational material) MRAs: OMFG! STOP THE PRESSES!!! MISANDRISTS SEZ ALL MENZ R RAPIST!!!11!!1!! We: Moron. MRAs: OMG!!! Insults!!!

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that "elevator guy" was likened to rapist.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php#comment-4310377

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 4, 2011 12:34 AM

@makyui:

Yep, pointing out the privileged things that you're saying is having nothing to say. Gotcha.

I have no respect for people whose idea of engagement is "LOOK AT THIS LINK IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING." There is no one website with all the answers to any one issue. It's lazy as hell.

If you've got a brain in your head, fuckin' show me. Don't rely on proxies. Then you're a hack.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 4, 2011 12:35 AM

Goodnight pharyngula. I gotta go take care of my bunnies and sleep.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 12:37 AM

Markita:

I once listened to a rapist explaining what happened when a woman tried to talk him out of raping her: "She was starting to make sense, so I hit her a few times with a hammer." We simply cannot assume that a criminal will just let us peacefully leave when an awkward situation turns into a dangerous one.

QFT. The first time I attempted to say something to the man who raped me (I was trying to get the beating to stop, even for a few minutes), he strangled me. Did it several more times to make sure I wouldn't be able to talk in an effective way.

Posted by: ted | July 4, 2011 12:37 AM

Richard Dawkins,

What Josh said at 174.

If a woman gives a talk about how she would rather not be propositioned, it's rude and dismissive to do so. Especially if said clueless idiot follows her into an elevator at 4:00 AM to make his pitch.

Having the entire atheist/skeptical community respond to her gentle admonition to avoid such behaviour by calling her hysterical is a bit shocking. Frankly, if women want a constant reminder that they're second-class citizens within their group, they can go to church.

Posted by: cafeeine | July 4, 2011 12:39 AM

While I usually lurk, I find that I have a nice little anecdote that fits this argument, placing me (sort of) in the place of the Elevator guy.

About a month ago as I was returning to my office after an errand, I saw the unfortunate feline victim of a hit-&-run on the side of the road. I also noticed that about 10 feet from the dead animal, a woman was unloading groceries from her car, in her driveway, with two young children running about her. My thought at that point was to tell her about it, so she can keep the kids away. I approached her so I can say this quietly so that the children might not hear, at which point she recoiled from me toward her car in fear.

Now, I'm usually the first to point out my own social ineptness, and even though in retrospect I shouldn't have been shocked by that, I was. From the woman's perspective I was a unknown large-ish, (at-the-time-sorta) unkempt man walking towards her and her children for no apparent reason. She was right to be scared. That my intentions were pure didn't matter, she didn't know them. That this incident happened in the middle of the day on a bright sunny street, visible by any passersby or neighbors didn't matter when I was within 3-steps distance.

I blindly assumed that my intentions would be as clear to her as I perceived them to be, while she was faced with an unknown, potentially harmful stranger with two kids around and her hands full of groceries.
I wasn't even thinking of this woman's position, I saw her just as someone who needed to be informed and I approached her as I would have anyone in the same situation.

I was completely flabbergasted by her reaction, having never received anything like it before, and backed away blurting something about there was something nasty on the street corner and to keep her kids away (which in hindsight would have been best shouted from the sidewalk to begin with) and probably left her puzzled but I hope relieved.

I had read about, and understand the rationale behind Shroedinger's Rapist. I've read in one of the almost 3000 posts that it remains (justly so) a problem for women. What seems not to have gotten through the heads of some of the people of my sex is that it is also a problem for us men.

I do think its unfair that I was considered a possible threat in this situation when I am nothing of the sort, but its not the woman's fault. It is also unfair to her to have to consider any stranger in this situation to be a potential danger.

A lot of the opposition in this thread, including Dawkins, which I find disappointing, make a lot of noise about the Elevator guy's motives being honest. However, his motives are irrelevant. What's relevant is that he failed to realize the situation he was putting RW into, just as I failed to realize the position I was putting that woman into, until I saw her step back. (he either failed to realize, or refuse to give a damn, I can't tell with the information I have). This is a reality of the daily lives of women, and therefore should become a reality for the men who want to share the same society with them.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 4, 2011 12:40 AM

Makyui,

Lazy hack.

Posted by: philipachand | July 4, 2011 12:42 AM

Man with the beard gets it right again. Thank you, PZ for the update to this post, and I think we should all thank RW for keeping her head down. It befits everyone to remember that it was just a small offhand comment that started this. All the heavy arguing has been done by non-RW people.

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 12:43 AM

@360: "Anything that makes women unnecessarily uncomfortable is bad."

True, and that door also swings both ways. Though, I don't see any women advocating making men feel uncomfortable.

"It isn't hard to figure out. But it starts with shutting up and actually listening to women."

Yes, and lip-service doesn't count for much in regards to this.

Posted by: cafeeine | July 4, 2011 12:44 AM

@371
Man with the beard mutton chops gets it right again.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 12:44 AM

barfy:

Thanks, Caine, Fleur de Mal.

End of thread. Good night.

Thank you, barfy. G'night.

Skeptifem, G'night to you and the bunnies. Hmmm, I should see where the rats are...

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 12:46 AM

@378: Mao, Mao, Hitler! is the new Duck, Duck, Goose.

Inform everyone immediately.

Posted by: mikeyB | July 4, 2011 12:48 AM

I don't understand why RD seems to take this so personally if he had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 12:50 AM

Unthinking fool.

Irony of the evening.

So much for name-calling making people not take you seriously, eh?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 12:51 AM

Cafeeine @ 367:

I had read about, and understand the rationale behind Shroedinger's Rapist. I've read in one of the almost 3000 posts that it remains (justly so) a problem for women. What seems not to have gotten through the heads of some of the people of my sex is that it is also a problem for us men.

I do think its unfair that I was considered a possible threat in this situation when I am nothing of the sort, but its not the woman's fault. It is also unfair to her to have to consider any stranger in this situation to be a potential danger.

Great post, Cafeeine. Thank you, very much.

Posted by: Andyo | July 4, 2011 12:52 AM

Posted by: Mari | July 3, 2011 11:11 PM

This topic has been completely derailed from what it should have been: a discussion over the prevalence of socially inappropriate behavior by men at conventions.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are separate issues. Conflating the two and slyly arguing by implication that all men are animalistic rapists is not the way to deal with the former.

People have already figured you out, you might as well stop. You don't just outright lie, you fill your posts with half-truths and willful misrepresentations, peppered with innocuous platitudes so you appear reasonable. All this with the pretension of superiority to "both sides". That makes you a special kind of sleazy.

Posted by: saerain | July 4, 2011 12:53 AM

I don't understand why RD seems to take this so personally if he had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Stray Cat | July 4, 2011 12:54 AM

So much for name-calling making people not take you seriously, eh?

Did you want to be taken seriously? I figured you liked juvenile exchanges.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 4, 2011 12:55 AM

I hate so many of you (and you know who you are).

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 12:55 AM

Dangeraardvark:

So I'm sure it feels like you're in some sort of moral majority. But you're not. In fact, the reason the comments blow up in these threads is precisely BECAUSE you're not.

Because that sort of thing never changes. Gay acceptance is not a majority position in the US now, because it was a (less than 20%) minority position a couple decades ago. Right?

The fact that "no religion" isn't a majority position now means that it never will be. We should just stop trying, right?

Civil rights are never fought for, ever. And are never gained unless they always were there.
Right?

I don't know what you think you're doing other than being as divisive as possible.

So in other words, the best way for us to make our case is to not make our case. You realize that's what you're saying, right? Because the only way to not be "divisive" on a position where people might disagree is to never speak that position.

Posted by: KJinAsia | July 4, 2011 12:57 AM

I wonder how many instances there are of a man and woman, unknown to each other, co-incidentally sharing an elevator late at night together at hotels around the US in a given year.

I wonder how many rapes take place in hotel elevators in a given year in the US.

I'm guessing the chance of being raped in this situation is so small as to be negligible. It may be zero.

The fear may be real, but it's irrational.

Do we really think that society is well served by encouraging it's citizens to try to anticipate the irrational fears of others and go out of their way to be sensitive to them?

To me, that seems a slippery slope to a dysfunctional society. Maybe we should all work on recognizing when our fears are irrational.

Posted by: ted | July 4, 2011 1:00 AM

@397 KJinAsia - Hey, may you want to read the other comments before repeating bullshit that has already been dealt with.

Posted by: Jessa | July 4, 2011 1:01 AM

I don't see how this gal expects to be taken seriously if she throws a hissy fit about something as trivial as this.

Good thing, then, that she didn't do that. Unless "Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that" is now considered a "hissy fit".

Posted by: Kobra | July 4, 2011 1:03 AM

@397:
First off, society is already dysfunctional. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any need for civil rights activism. Even a zero slope gets us there.

Second, put things into perspective. What is being discussed here is this:

Woman: "When a guy does this, I feel uncomfortable. Please don't do it."
Some people: "Waaaah! Why shouldn't we?"
Commenters: "Because making someone feel uncomfortable is a dick move."
Some people: "Uncomfortable? That doesn't make sense."
Commenters: [Reasons]
Some people: "Waaaah! I'm not a rapist."

Third, it isn't about the statistics of rapes in elevators. It's about the statistics of rape, and the circumstances of being in an elevator with no means of escape. You are literally cornered in a small space.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | July 4, 2011 1:07 AM

I like to walk at night, though I seldom do any more, and one of my techniques was to dress and walk more or less like a guy. On one occasion I was rather shocked to see another woman cross the street to avoid me. I didn't think my 'look' was particularly convincing and depended more on the lack of traffic and fading into the shadows when not on a main street.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | July 4, 2011 1:07 AM

If you want to be a woman and not be propositioned when you don't want to be, you could always be fat. You won't be propositioned when you want to be propositioned, either, and you give up the right to proposition anyone else, but at least most men fight shy of you.

/snarky self-hatred

Posted by: crowepps | July 4, 2011 1:09 AM

Is the point that if I'm walking around with a penis, I have to be sensitive to all the bad things people with penises have ever done? What if I'm brown, which I am? Am I supposed to make sure to stay in well lit areas and keep my hands out of pockets?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/juUhBZgRtY.amT52vBf60tQMMPV8AUYGkWdS_Hz6vMqAf3Zj#35dc0 | July 4, 2011 1:10 AM

KJinAsia,
What? Read the blogs!

Posted by: dangeraardvark | July 4, 2011 1:11 AM

Wait, so this whole kerfuffle is about how to effectively get laid?

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 4, 2011 1:11 AM

I don't see every atheist blogger needs to weigh in on it. we don't need this kind of drama.

Congratulations! You just added to it.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | July 4, 2011 1:12 AM

I didn't think my 'look' was particularly convincing...

A swaggering woman would make me wary just as much as would a non-swaggering man. Just saying. Men are not the only people who occasionally walk around looking for trouble.

Posted by: crowepps | July 4, 2011 1:13 AM

@Badgersdaughter -- your point is so true that one red flag of possible child sexual abuse is the girl gaining an enormous amount of weight in an attempt to become unattractive enough for it to stop.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 1:14 AM

ashleyfmiller:

KJinAsia Unlurking just for you, to point you to a sexual assault in an elevator that made the news just yesterday. Muah!

Strong evidence that KJinAsia lied about wondering about it, since if that was the case xe would have looked it up (and realized it's not all that fucking rare), but instead instead of doing that, xe decided to tell us that it probably hardly ever happens.

So that xe could then tell us that we're just making a bunch of noise over nothing. Because rape ain't no big deal, y'all.

Telling a woman that she's a giant pile of shit for telling a man that he acted like an inconsiderate creep, though. Great hornytoads, them's fighting words!

Posted by: shripathikamath | July 4, 2011 1:15 AM

PZ, you wrote an entire article on the proper etiquette of making sexual advances to a woman at an atheist conference.

Quit picking on Dawkins for fucking up (he did fuck up, but it is a far cry from saying he does not get it at all.), and exacerbating the issue. Yes, it is creepy what happened to RW, but this dissection of privilege is a bit holier-than-thou.

I am not asking that you quit because Dawkins is right, but because you are making a bad situation worse.

And yes, sometimes it is appropriate to point out that a worse situation existing than yours should give you pause.

It was but two days ago, on this very blog that you poo-poohed the "over-the-top" calls to ban male circumcision because female circumcision is much worse.

Posted by: oihorse | July 4, 2011 1:15 AM

Only a few months ago I was watching Rebecca's initial actions of turning the mirror back on the atheist / skeptic / humanist blogs and conventions. And to think people laughed then like there was nothing to be found. That it was all good.

Look at the inferno now, how it rages over blogs and thousands of posts in mere days.

Bravo Rebecca, bravo. Drag the status quo out into the Sun and watch it squirm and writhe. This is change, and hopefully progress. This is history in the making.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 4, 2011 1:16 AM

By the way, can anyone point me to that one comic about discussions of feminist views on the internet...the one with all the figures with the male symbol on their face representing entitled idiots...used a lot of blue and pink, not necessarily to denote male and female? I don't remember who drew it or what site it was on, but it depressingly seems to describe this situation and every other one to a "t".

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 4, 2011 1:18 AM

Daredevil Dan:

If the pro-creeper crowd hasn't figured out what the problem is after ~2500 comments, it's not going to happen.

Oh, trust me, I know. This ain't my first rodeo.

But there are people (and there will be people) that will have "light bulb moments" from threads like these. Several have said so during the course of this debacle. Even if we don't get through to the loudest defenders of creepitude and sexist behavior doesn't mean that we won't get through to someone.

And that is what I tell myself to take some of the sting out of the rampant cluelessness that is on display.

Posted by: Andyo | July 4, 2011 1:19 AM

See Mari, this is a prime example:

Posted by: Mari Author Profile Page | July 4, 2011 12:31 AM

Why dontcha read first? Sigh We: The guy was creepy! MRAs: It was perfectly fine. We: If you don't think that was creepy, consider how women can feel around strange men (lots of links to very educational material) MRAs: OMFG! STOP THE PRESSES!!! MISANDRISTS SEZ ALL MENZ R RAPIST!!!11!!1!! We: Moron. MRAs: OMG!!! Insults!!!

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that "elevator guy" was likened to rapist.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php#comment-4310377

WTF is that? More half-truths and out-of-context willful misrepresentations. You link to a post with quotes from another post, without linking. And these quotes are taken out of context. The thread evolved to discussions of rape situations because of the obtuseness of the MRAs. I can't follow all your multiple levels of links cause you've demonstrated to be a "baffle them with bullshit" person, so link directly to full comments by those you're criticizing, please. I don't need a link to a summary from another one of you.

But I will say this. I can't control what everyone says in a 2000-post thread. The complaints of the MRAs and tone trolls though, are not about one or two individuals.

Posted by: Thanny | July 4, 2011 1:20 AM

Creepy, inappropriate, inconsiderate - pick any adjective you want centered on ineptitude. No one is claiming the elevator guy comported himself at all well, or that Watson is a tool for having felt uncomfortable.

But sexist and misogynistic? No. No rational person can believe so. The closest approach to sexism here is on the part of people who think any man in an elevator is a probable rapist (not that it necessarily *is* sexist, since rape does happen, and can happen in elevators - something Dawkins would do well to recognize, though he's still correct that nothing bad happened). Doing something that a woman does not like is not sexism or misogyny. That's not what those words mean.

Getting lost here is the real objectionable thing that Watson did, which was to abuse her speaking position by lobbing one-way criticism at another woman, who had disagreed with Watson about the elevator incident. This is something that PZ has utterly failed to understand, probably because he has such a big pulpit, and doesn't know what it's like to be criticized in a way that doesn't allow a response (though he should, given what Mooney and Kirshenbaum did to him in Unscientific America).

Anyone tempted to respond to this with invective shouldn't bother. A shred of human decency on display is one of my minimum standards for giving a shit about what someone else says. A shocking number of people here are showing none.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 4, 2011 1:21 AM

but it is a far cry from saying he does not get it at all.

On the contrary, it's crystal clear that he doesn't get it one bit. And frankly, some of us who held him in quite a bit of esteem are still smarting from that nasty and sarcastic letter to "Muslima" that he wrote on the first thread.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/r5LB7t06xuBa.Mqxdiz6gYY7DYFQx6G_9EA-#ab6b1 | July 4, 2011 1:21 AM

I've never been pro-creeper, I just said that it wasn't a very big deal despite all the feminist paranoia.

Posted by: ted | July 4, 2011 1:22 AM

I don't mean to be insensitive about this, but I so don't care. If Rebecca had a problem with something someone said, she can handle it herself. I don't see every atheist blogger needs to weigh in on it. we don't need this kind of drama. This should be between Rebecca and the guy in the elevator. No one else should care about it.

So weird. This whole thing started because Rebecca took 45 seconds out of an 8 minute video to calmly mention an odd and exasperating situation that served as an example. She really didn't make a big deal out of it. Then the pro-making-women-uncomfortable crowd decided to play with it for a while.

Might want to consider dropping "I don't mean to be insensitive" from your vocabulary and just sticking with the more honest "I so don't care."

Posted by: bowedoak | July 4, 2011 1:24 AM

Here is a link to a child rape-obesity connection article that talks about the study. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1364930

here one is about where most rapes occur (in the home of the victim by a non-stranger)

http://www.teenagerie.com/2011_04_10_archive.html
for those interested.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 4, 2011 1:26 AM

This should be between Rebecca and the guy in the elevator. No one else should care about it.

Everyone who is interested in getting more women to attend atheist/skeptic conferences should care about it, because every time the issue of why conferences are mainly white men, women say that when they do go to these conferences, men proposition them, sometimes more crudely than others. Sometimes they are physically assaulted. And frequently insulted and hassled when they say, "No, thanks."

Really, should it be necessary for women to say they need a "safe room" where they can go when they feel threatened at these conferences? Because that suggestion was made in one of the "How can we get more women to come to the conferences?" threads.

Beyond that, women who have attended report being disrespected and when they complain, having their complaints dismissed "oh, men will be men. Deal with it, gals. Don't whine. Don't complain. You're just being silly. We don't intend to alarm you. We just want to fuck you."

And yet the question: "Why don't more women come to conferences?"

The clueless comments from people who say that RW had no right to suggest that men refrain from behaviors that make women uncomfortable is a damn good explanation.

Aided and abetted by the men who tell women what to feel and say, or better yet, not to say anything.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 1:26 AM

Shripathikamath:

It was but two days ago, on this very blog that you poo-poohed the "over-the-top" calls to ban male circumcision because female circumcision is much worse.

I don't see any mention of circumcision in a two-day span, but I'm willing to bet, since it's generally how it goes, that it was because men were crying about male circumcision IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT FEMALE CIRCUMCISION.

Which isn't even remotely the same as this scenario, because even if an American woman isn't as bad off as a middle eastern muslim woman, she's not as well off as a man in EITHER country, even a fucking circumcised one.

Posted by: abb3w | July 4, 2011 1:27 AM

With more posts in the new thread than I've read through from the last, nigh-nil chance catching up before next shutdown at this rate.

[Round2]@733, strange gods before me ॐ: Privilege is a descriptive concept, what you're referring to as an is-concept.

Hm. As a societal construct, it has status as an is-concept. However, in that sense, ethics and morality are also descriptive is-concepts. In so far as privilege involves an ordering relationship on one's choices of action (from "permissible" to "impermissible"), privilege thus initially seems to taxonomically resemble an ought-concept. I'll also note that the "White privilege" entry linked @42 (spotted scanning) mentions that is a normative concept - linking back to "ought" territory.

Contrariwise, within this particular discussion, the social context is effectively fixed; as such, it's as much an is-concept as morality within the context of Biblical Inerrancy (or at least, some less blatantly self-contradictory start). Furthermore, it's not so much concerned with the ordering of choices by A, as the inequality between orderings of choices by A and choices by B. While I'm incompletely convinced, that does sway me toward asking about this point of the usual philosophy professor I usually bother for that sort of technical expertise.

Also, scanning through the thread I notice [Round2]@34 suggests (and is apparently agreed) that the term is being used as term of art; that it's not so much the difference in choice orders, as the resultant difference in experience from difference in environments. That is, "male privilege" being shorthand for "male SENSE OF privilege". I'd certainly agree "sense of privilege" is an is-concept.

Separated by a common language?

[Round3]@0, PZ: What these situations demand is an appropriate level of response

Alas, the subsequent threads seem to involve a progressive divergence of level rather than convergence.

Posted by: Daredevil Dan and his Nude Aerial Stunt Team | July 4, 2011 1:28 AM

Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart:

But there are people (and there will be people) that will have "light bulb moments" from threads like these. Several have said so during the course of this debacle. Even if we don't get through to the loudest defenders of creepitude and sexist behavior doesn't mean that we won't get through to someone.

True, and I count myself among those experiencing those light-bulb moments in the past. Not from this particular thread per se, but in general, hearing women's frank opinions in a forum where they can't be shouted down very easily has given me much food for thought and led me to reevaluate a lot of preconceptions.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Posted by: mikee | July 4, 2011 1:29 AM

@cafeeine #367

Thanks for sharing your experience. I think what you had to say was insightful and empathetic.

Posted by: Shala | July 4, 2011 1:31 AM

Also it's 2:30 a.m. for me and I'm not going through 2500 comments at the moment but in general whether it's a woman or a man who invites me back somewhere in an elevator at 4 a.m. I am going to find that very odd at the very least. At that point in the morning, alone with someone I don't know, the only thing I want going down on me is the elevator.

Posted by: shripathikamath | July 4, 2011 1:33 AM

I don't see any mention of circumcision in a two-day span, but I'm willing to bet, since it's generally how it goes, that it was because men were crying about male circumcision IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT FEMALE CIRCUMCISION.

"Based on generally how it goes"?

:-)

There is a certain irony in that.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 4, 2011 1:34 AM

Thanny:

But sexist and misogynistic? No. No rational person can believe so.

Hey, guess what ladies! A strange man who has never talked to you before propositions you in an elevator and that's not a symptom of a sexist culture!

*sigh* It's sexist 'cos men feel like they can (and here it is again) treat women as objects. It's a symptom of a sexist culture because no matter what Elevator Dude's intentions were, he had zero regard for RW's comfort/safety.

A guy that that is aware of his privilege wouldn't have pulled a creepy stunt like that because he would have realized that it screamed "UNSAFE! DANGER!" to the woman in question.

How is this so fucking difficult to understand??

Posted by: crowepps | July 4, 2011 1:36 AM

Doing something that a woman does not like is not sexism or misogyny. That's not what those words mean.

The part that IS sexism and misogyny is the part where the woman says "I don't like that and other women don't like that" and all teh Menz are outraged and scream, "How DARE women criticize a man doing his clumsy best to perpetuate the species -- woman should accept they have a social duty to tolerate propositions and be pleasant in turning down any man who wanders by and says 'wanna fuck?'. Women who worry about being raped hate men!"

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 1:38 AM

Thanny:

Doing something that a woman does not like is not sexism or misogyny.

Unholy fuck, do you ever miss the point. It's about EG's privilege, which allowed him to think that waiting until a woman (who he had not said one word to previously) was in a closed elevator (with no immediate means to get out) was a prime time and place to hit on her.

She's trapped, there aren't people wandering about at 4 a.m. and it is a situation with the potential to go very bad.

Again, it's about privilege, which does harm to men and women. And privilege is part of sexism.

Go to post #30, click on the links and do some reading. Try to educate yourself, try to learn why privilege is so toxic when one is blind to it.

Posted by: Daredevil Dan and his Nude Aerial Stunt Team | July 4, 2011 1:39 AM

Leaford:

And now, I'm 42YO and alone. While people around me have met their spouses in EXACTLY all those creepy ways that I always refrained from. Hitting on a co-worker. Hitting on the waitress. Hitting on a stranger on the bus, or in an elevator.

That "whoosh" you hear is this entire multi-thousand line comment thread going completely over your head.

The fact that you're 42 years old and alone is not the result of the fact that you aren't propositioning strange women for sex in elevators at 4:00am. At the risk of presuming, I'd suggest that you get some hobbies that don't involve a computer keyboard.

Posted by: freebornjayne | July 4, 2011 1:40 AM

By the way, I too would like to thank all of the regulars for not letting people get away with crap behaviour, no matter how well respected they otherwise are. I might be mostly a lurker, but it reassures me to know that if I do share an experience on Pharyngula, it might be mocked by a troll, but it will also be defended by several people who I respect (including PZ himself, of course). Reading these threads also gives me the confidence, and the knowledge, to speak up for others when I get the chance. People can whine all they want about the aggressive tactics not working, but the truth is, little by little, they do.

Posted by: KnottyNiki | July 4, 2011 1:42 AM

Caine:

Oh, I quite liked douchecake. It has flair.

Thanks, I think I'll keep it!

With that, I'm going to attempt something like sleep now that the neighbors have stopped with the fuckin fireworks.

Posted by: Shala | July 4, 2011 1:43 AM

Anyone not understanding why this could be considered creepy:

Imagine a person in a dark alleyway who asks you to come back to their place. Think for a moment on how, at the very least, that'd be unsettling for you. Now realize that an alleyway would actually be closer to more people (even if they're asleep) and have more room to leave than an elevator at 4 a.m. and you start to get just why that was so inappropriate to begin with.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 1:45 AM

Leaford:

But I also get what you don't.

Uh-oh, here it comes...

Guys do it because it works.

Beating a dog every time it barks works, too, but it's usually not the most effective nor acceptable way of going about it.

And guys like me, nice guys who don't want to be that creep, guys who don't hit on women in inappropriate situations find ourselves always waiting. Waiting for that appropriate moment, with that right girl, that just never comes.

"The Nice Guy TM:

Related to the MRA, the Nice Guy TM comes to feminist spaces for the main purpose of pointing out one specific “oppression” he has to face daily–his inability to get a date with a conventionally attractive woman. Oh, the poor dear!"

Source: https://bettyshangout.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/a-guide-to-anti-feminist-trolls-part-1/

Somehow, I don't think the fact that you can't ask up a woman in an elevator or in some other compromising position is your problem. Lots of men have gotten nice, happy dates without being an entitled creeper.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 4, 2011 1:47 AM

But sexist and misogynistic? No. No rational person can believe so.

Men feel free to hit upon women in elevators and other places where women aren't necessarily looking for "a 4 AM cup of coffee in my room" [wink, wink] because the men think of how they feel about the circumstances, not what the woman may feel. Or they dismiss her feelings as less important than his "needs." And men feel free to do that because of male privilege in this society.

And that is sexist.

Posted by: Shala | July 4, 2011 1:49 AM

Lots of men have gotten nice, happy dates without being an entitled creeper.

In my example with my current bf, I started dating him after speaking with him for about 5 years as a friend. Did I find him attractive before we went out? Of course. I just didn't feel the need to be a creepy person constantly trying to bring that sort of shit up. After we talked for that long, we realized we really cared for each other a lot and he asked me out.

Even if it takes some time, just treat human beings as equals and things should go well for you.

Posted by: gex | July 4, 2011 1:50 AM

Since RW can't know what EG would/could do, the best thing apparently is to act as though he couldn't possibly be a rapist. Then, if he does rape her, she should go back in time and do something to protect herself. See? Simple. This way dudes don't have to feel insulted by a woman taking measures to stay safe. /snark.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 4, 2011 1:50 AM

Yahoomess:

I have sometimes been critical of blue stocking feminism myself, but I think it is cruel of whoever cooked up this bit to make such brutal fun of the whole movement with such an obvious parody.

Oh, fuck you.

Posted by: Shala | July 4, 2011 1:53 AM

You are aware that most people don't use their real name on the net, right?

That would have horrible implications in the case of yahoomess IRL

"Well hello there Yahooafaj;lfioaseghjfeuiopasg, how's it going today?"

Posted by: Anti-Theist | July 4, 2011 1:55 AM

This is precisely why women should at the very least have a friend that escorts them to and from their hotel rooms if elevators or confined spaces are a present danger. Ireland is not the safest country in the world. There are gangs of yobs and ultra-nationalists there. Especially taking into account the religious infighting of Christianity.

Women should be armed and know how and when to use weapons. Punishing the victim has got to end. Blaming the tools has got to end. It's childishness. Weapons provide equality and increase security. If they didn't, do you think Prime Ministers and people who live under threats like Ayaan Hirsi-Ali would have body guards that carry weapons? They prevent crime. The mere thought or uncertainty over who does or does not possess weapons can be a deterrent.

Weapons in many forms have merit as tools for self-defence. Pepper sprays, tasers, firearms, knives, etc. Good people should know how to defend themselves without making poor judgements (i.e. excessive force, unlawful use or display) and legislation should exist, world-wide, to allow (at least) small people such as women and small men, the handicapped, etc. to take proper educational courses on proper use of weapons for self-defence and to possess these weapons. Preferably, non-lethal weapons since I do not like to see people die any more than any other sane person does. But we must remember who initiated the violence and hold them to a higher standard than the victim because the blame lies on the criminal.

Rebecca is obviously a very intelligent and good young woman. She is also attractive and one thing I've found is that young, attractive women get a lot of ruffians' commentary. I've heard it myself and I've stood up to people much larger than myself to defend them. She reacted appropriately. I did not find her or PZ's remarks out of line. It appears Sir Richard misconstrued her statements as an overreaction. The "elevator" or "lift" man should have held his invitation for a public area or simply slipped her a note with his room number and asked her to read it later if she would. Doing that would have been more appropriate given the conditions of the event in question.

Being that this occurred in Dublin, and self-defence is frowned upon, I can see how she would be worried about a stranger's invitation in a confined space. You see, the criminals there know that women can't be legally armed for the most part. Making it much easier to select a target for predatory crimes such as rape.
This, to me, is a crime in and of itself.

More on this premise. Women should not have to feel like they are the weaker sex. Being armed makes a woman feel more confident because she can react to threats with equal or greater force if necessary. Their perspective is different from a large male that looks intimidating. Do you think that "lift man" would have invited a 30 year old Arnold Schwarzenegger back to his room for a cup of coffee? And if you do, do you think he'd do so without consideration for HIS OWN safety? See how this differs from Rebecca's situation?

I purchased pepper spray and a 500kV taser for my former girlfriend to carry. She still does so where it is legal and avoids places where she cannot carry them legally unless she has an escort. She has a permit and has taken about 200 hours of training in self-defence and the use of these weapons. She is also a crack shot with firearms, but unfortunately, they are not legal in many countries. Ours was a long distance relationship.

In her country, she can carry these weapons legally with the permit, which involved extensive training requirements, checks into personal history and mental evaluation before one can even purchase the weapons.

On to the story: She was approached at 7PM by a large male who asked her where she lived. He was heading straight for her, at a brisk walk. She asked him to stop where he was because she felt uncomfortable with him. He did not stop and he shouted profanity at her. So she pulled out her taser and pressed the button. The pulsating electrons got his attention. He stopped and called her a female canine and walked the opposite direction. Fortunately, he was not committed to his original intentions or she would have been in for a serious fight because he was about twice her size. This deterred him.

Fotunately, this was in the States, where people have so much freedom to defend themselves. I know this was brandishing and I don't condone weapon displays in public, but there was a real threat. No one else was present. She was in a confined space. A large man asked a personal question. My point is: Lawful, good people, should be armed. Especially women!

I don't think Sir Richard is sexist, racist, bigoted, trite, or even "privileged." He is a good person that knows right from wrong. He has, after all, devoted much of his time and fortune to disseminating truth that raised tremendous awareness about the aforementioned crimes against humanity. The personal attacks on him are unwarranted. The internet is not always the best medium for people to express themselves because it does not allow (in text form) for facial expressions, intonation, and gesturing. Facets that may be critical to communication.

None of our ancestors and thus none of us would be here today if it weren't for weapons and the ability to defend the "self" and others. I know this is shrouded in controversy, but it is about time we said it.

A false sense of security exists in our world today. Those who have never been threatened or attacked are often unable to see the threats. (For more on that thought, I recommend Sam Harris' 2005 Idea City video on Youtube from RationalResponse's channel here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWLSMFPUM8g ..He explains that moderates can often not see the forest for the trees. This not only applies to religion, it can apply to the topic I have mentioned here and quite well.) As does paranoia. Somewhere in between lies sanity, which normal brains have and can express their self-preservation instincts appropriately when a threat display occurs. We must not be afraid to protect the lives of good people, including ourselves! Sometimes, this means being quiet and learning when it's appropriate to ask personal questions of people.

Hopefully, this has not come off as a right-wing approach to this debate. It is one that must be said. Imagine a world where women can and do fight back. That's a world where more bad people are afraid to be themselves.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 4, 2011 1:57 AM

Here's an idea, Yahoomess. You see that "search ScienceBlogs" box up in the upper right hand corner? Try entering in "posted by: Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart, PhD, MD, Esq (ODS)" and then you can judge for yourself whether or not I've tripped Poe's Law.

You fucking ass clown.

Posted by: saerain | July 4, 2011 1:59 AM

Dr. Audley:

Hey, guess what ladies! A strange man who has never talked to you before propositions you in an elevator and that's not a symptom of a sexist culture!

Why exactly is the default assumption that he views her as something less for being female rather than that he doesn't understand just how unlike him Rebecca is?

Posted by: Michel | July 4, 2011 1:59 AM

Lots of people for which I have great respect end up disappointing me one day or another. Remember Lawrence Krauss backing up his friend in court for abusing minors. Thanks PZ for never letting me down, but I am ready for the day you might.

I guess this is a pretty weird one for Richard since he probably isn't accustomed to being told he is wrong by people who's opinion he values. I can see the point he makes, but I still disagree with him.

I could say it really makes me mad when a girl is dishonest with me for the sake of not hurting my feelings (don't do that...). I have a right to say it, and recommend honesty. I think Rebecca did something perfectly analogous to that. I took her advice seriously, even if I would never approached her the way the elevator guy did. She also made me think a lot about the whole thing, for which I am grateful.

I am still a fan of Dawkins. His comment here doesn't weigh very heavily against all he did right, but that is only because what he did right was so enormous. Same thing for Lawrence Krauss. I am still convinced I could have a perfectly sensible conversation with them about the things I disagree with them. I think everybody is pretty quick to pass judgement, which I think, is what this whole issue is all about, on so many levels.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 2:02 AM

tatarize @ 480:

Since I don't worry about my safety on account of my gender, I don't possess a well attuned skill-set to avoid being creepy or perceiving it.

I can go ahead and reread Schrodinger's Rapist and understand that enclosed places, alone, is generally creepy. And understand that I'm not the best person to understand, keeping track of one's perceptual deficits is critical for any skeptic. It's not as if I blame creationists for thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old, they just don't know any better. And to some extent the same is true for me(n). Which, coincidentally is why threads like this are vital, because raising awareness is the only way people will become aware.

Terrific post, tatarize. Thank you.

Posted by: crowepps | July 4, 2011 2:04 AM

So, Anti-Theist, I live in Alaska where there are lots and lots of guns readily available. How many men that annoy me do I get to 'terminate with extreme prejudice' before somebody starts worrying that perhaps I'm kind of trigger happy?

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | July 4, 2011 2:07 AM

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-16/news/29687596_1_assaults-robberies-cops

Thursday, June 16, 2011

A Bronx teen has been arrested in a string of sexual assaults and robberies [...]

Damien Pacheco, 17, of High Bridge has been charged with attacking three young women [...]

In the first incident Sunday, Pacheco allegedly dragged a 42-year-old woman out of an elevator of a building on Tinton Ave. and sexually assaulted her, cops said.

[...]

Investigators say they have also tied Pacheco to an episode on May 30 when a 33-year-old woman was attacked inside an elevator on E. 165th St. in Morrisania and forcibly touched.

---
Elevator != Safe place to be alone with a man, especially one whom you don't know. Especially a man who might have followed you from a more public place just to get you alone. Especially a man who uses the opportunity to suggest that you go with him into territory controlled by him because he wants something from you and doesn't care that you've already said you're tired and want to go to sleep.

It's not about EG's intent, it's about his lack of awareness. And this primarily as an example of how even supposedly nice guys at atheist conferences need to work on making those conferences comfortable and inviting places for women to go.

Unless they're fine with being total misogynist assholes (which is what I am becoming convinced is actually the case).

Posted by: eigenperson | July 4, 2011 2:08 AM

#487 saerain: By itself, yes, that is an indication of someone behaving rudely (or stupidly, if you prefer). It could also be a culturally conditioned behavior.

The real indication of a sexist society, though, is that there are people swarming over this blog and others telling RW that it was inappropriate to call his stupid and rude behavior what it was -- stupid and rude.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 2:09 AM

Shripathikamath:

I agree, which is why I don't and didn't find *that* ironic, and now find it amusing that you choose to throw that air-ball.

Then why did you quote that particular part of my statement and then call it ironic?

If you're going to deliberately express yourself poorly in some attempt to laugh at my attempts to figure out what the fuck you're talking about, then don't bother. I'm not exactly a tough fucking target, and that your making YET ANOTHER comparison of male circumcision with FGM is more important.

The fact that you think it's appropriate to compare telling a woman that her problems with misogyny ain't shit because other women suffer worse FROM THE SAME PROBLEM (i.e. misogyny), with telling men to shut the fuck up and stop derailing topics that have fucking nothing to do with them (except, you know, as sources of said misogyny)... well, it says a lot more about you than it does about me or PZ.

I could, but then you could look it up too.

I did. You said two days ago. Didn't see it. Don't blame me for your mistake, plz.

Now that you've corrected yourself, I've found it, and yup, it's a complaint at men who derail and silence topics about misogyny and FGM so that they can lament the horrible oppression they suffer by having their foreskins removed.

Do I need to explain again what the difference is? Hint: one is a derailment by men of a topic about the oppression of women, and the other is telling a woman that she can't complain AT ALL because she doesn't have it as bad as middle eastern women.

See the difference?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 4, 2011 2:14 AM

1)a single incident of a man behaving creepily? possibly just individual assholery. Every single discussion of women at atheist conferences turning up men behaving creepily towards women? symptom of a cultural phenomenon

2)wtf is it with the "guns solve all social problems" brigade?

Posted by: dustycrickets | July 4, 2011 2:16 AM

@crowepps
" I'd say he was a liar myself."

Well... this is a true story...and he did occasionally succeed...so...
It seems like some women though he was a jerk ( I tend to agree) but others apparently not...

Posted by: orion | July 4, 2011 2:17 AM

Aritna Cage

"....No shit, Sherlock! Now, where did he do it? When did he do it? What were the circumstances? How many people were there? Were there things he could have done differently to make the encounter safe for the other person. And don't you fucking tell me that asking someone to go back to your hotel room for coffee isn't about sex...."

So what? What planet do you live on where men aren't entitled to ask a woman back their room - even if it is for sex? Stop being so precious. The guy asked - she said no. That's the end of the story. He didn't force himself on her. He didn't not take no for an answer.

And what is all this crap about 'making the encounter safe for the other person'. The encounter WAS perfectly safe for the other person - it was simply her deluded mind that made it into something it wasn't.

Did you click on the video I linked to? Are you saying that women are entitled to feel threatened if they are alone in an elevator with a black man - because we all know black men are rapists and criminals aren't they?

Or may - just maybe - this whole thing is a problem only in the paranoid minds of a few people who want to make it a problem.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 2:18 AM

Anti-Theist:

My point is: Lawful, good people, should be armed. Especially women!

Oh for fuck's sake, another idiot who thinks guns solve everything. They don't, you dipshit.

As for your impassioned plea as to Richard Dawkins' innocence and pure nature, you can shove it. This is not the first time Richard has said sexist things, displaying a very healthy amount of privilege. His first two posts in the first part of this thread were vile.

Your hero doesn't have any more of a clue than Elevator Guy when it comes to privilege and just how toxic it is. He's not helping. And neither are you.

Posted by: crowepps | July 4, 2011 2:21 AM

This may explain it -- apparently denying men sex violates their Constitutional rights --

Richards says denying his request for erotic material subjects him to a "poor standard of living" and "sexual and sensory deprivation."

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/07/03/1799190/jail-inmate-lack-of-porn-violates.html

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 2:21 AM

Classical Cipher:

Put the blame where it belongs.

Sing it!

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 4, 2011 2:23 AM

and once again, the very concept that a woman would need to be armed (and how would she do that, in a foreign country?) at a conference is just thoroughly depressing.

but I guess arming everyone and their dog is much easier than actually fixing the problem

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/eITV6bEl1IqRjWoNfe8SVwtpJ4A8tajdeG.4rplXm9lmng--#2454e | July 4, 2011 2:24 AM

To who ever posts as Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart PhD, MD, esq (ODS): Thanks for confirming my suspicion that your made up name does come from a Woodhouse novel. I knew it couldn't be real, what with all the titles. I wonder if you are also supposed to be a scratch golfer, a black belt karate champion, and a prize wining pastry cook?

Of course it's P.G. not P.H. Woodhouse. Sorry about the typo. Still, I continue to believe it isn't very nice of you to make fun of feminism with your posts even though I have to acknowledge the wittiness of some of your come backs. I thought "Oh, fuck you" was especially clever.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 4, 2011 2:25 AM

Unholy Can of Spam, the MRAs are making me sick as they spill into every place on the Internet. Justicar, who PZ graciously retweeted a few days ago, is over on Twitter raging against Jennifurret for no fucking reason at all. He's a veritable Max, that one!

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | July 4, 2011 2:26 AM

wtf is it with the "guns solve all social problems" brigade?

RIGHT?

I'm so glad y'all have retroactively solved the thorny problem of my rape. How could I not have thought of it? If only I'd been packing heat, in my own bed, when I'd just showered and put on a nightshirt and laid down to sleep next to my intimate partner! Because I totally would have blown my intimate partner's face off all over the bed we shared, right? And the cops would have totes understood, right?

Yep, guns for all, that's the answer!

Posted by: Timaahy | July 4, 2011 2:28 AM

#516

"Ooh! Ooh! Someone abuse me... please!"

Posted by: s.d.mortimer | July 4, 2011 2:29 AM

#73

Posted by: Mari Author Profile Page | July 3, 2011 9:49 PM
@Dawkins, #50:

The thing you're not getting is how terrified Americans are of people they don't know.

"Elevator guy," so called, behaved rudely by making an inappropriate request. He should have kept his mouth shut given the time of night and Watson's stated intention to go to bed, but it's still just rudeness[*] rather than, as you say, violence.

To anyone who has been raised on the 24/7 diet of THREAT! FEAR!! TERROR!!! that permeates the American public sphere, however, "elevator guy's" proposition wasn't just an act of rudeness but rather an implicit threat of sexual assault. That's obviously much, much more serious. To understand why the the American contingent is getting so upset, imagine elevator guy said something like "please stand still so I can rape you." That's how the event looks to a crime-paranoid American and that's what they're so upset about.

I would not be surprised if "elevator guy" was from a country that didn't train its women to be scared of their own shadows and had no idea that his words would be taken in some quarters (n.b. mostly here rather than by Watson) as an implied threat of rape.

[*] If you don't get how the incident was rude, then there's nothing more I can explain to you.

It must be, American television certainly likes to pump up the fear in people, it certainly disturbs me every time I've turned the television on in the States when I've traveled there.

I think, while the action was rude, can certainly fall under the 'Tone' argument.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 2:31 AM

Jadehawk:

wtf is it with the "guns solve all social problems" brigade?

Fuck if I know, I wish they'd all shut up. The first one sent me unsolicited email. I wasn't impressed.

Posted by: dustycrickets | July 4, 2011 2:32 AM

@ Caine
"Being aware of your privilege helps to make you a better person."

That really seems to be the nugget...for me anyway....

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 4, 2011 2:35 AM

That is your right. I am not implying that you be forced to do any thing against your will.

I dare say, most women would prefer to be able to exercise their right to be free from being harassed, insulted, denigrated, and propositioned by men who are supposed to be their allies.

What you are suggesting is that our options are to freely choose to carry a weapon of some sort, or be forced to be the recipients of male boorishness or worse. Some choice!

When do I get to shoot? When a stranger fondles me at a party? When a stranger gropes me on the bus? When an acquittance corners me in his home and suggests we fuck?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr3fDs9SKkl4raiVIj78emqiZVKi-JHsM | July 4, 2011 2:36 AM

I think Dawkins is spot on and makes a fantastic point about the massive over reaction of a probably silly man offering an invitation for coffee.

To put that in any feminine context was stupid and insensitive to the many women around the world have genuine problems that endanger and often take their lives.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x_UPHxAv0tkD6WXMnVOr9_vNFg--#b6686 | July 4, 2011 2:38 AM

After some thought about skeptifem's postings here I have to conclude that she is out of bounds with her recent posts.

She sounds like she has been a victim of some sort, so I can understand the passion she feels.

This does not mean we should not point out the problems in her posts and in a recent response about male rapists and female victims.

Rape is a crime, but it is one of many that both males and females inflict upon other females AND males.

What are the stats for the how many males are victims of crimes perpetrated by other males? does it matter? do beta males matter to feminists?

Finally, statistics can be a bad way to generalize about a population and provide some, but not all support for claims & arguments in the {social} sciences.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 2:39 AM

I think, while the action was rude, can certainly fall under the 'Tone' argument.

A tone argument is when you argue that someone's point can be disregarded because they used a naughty word and called someone a rude name.

Telling a man who behaved in a creepy and inappropriate way that he was behaving in a creepy and inappropriate way is not a tone argument.

Telling a man that you really don't appreciate being sexualized after having talked about how you really don't like being sexualized is not a tone argument.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 4, 2011 2:40 AM

abb3w

That is, "male privilege" being shorthand for "male SENSE OF privilege". I'd certainly agree "sense of privilege" is an is-concept.

No, male privilege does not reduce to a having a sense of privilege.

(Why in the hell are you lecturing unceasingly on something you've obviously never studied? How irresponsible is that.)

Male privilege refers to the actual advantages conferred, by society, upon men, as men.

Posted by: Anti-Theist | July 4, 2011 2:41 AM

"Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal Author Profile Page | July 4, 2011 2:18 AM

Anti-Theist:

My point is: Lawful, good people, should be armed. Especially women!

Oh for fuck's sake, another idiot who thinks guns solve everything. They don't, you dipshit.

As for your impassioned plea as to Richard Dawkins' innocence and pure nature, you can shove it. This is not the first time Richard has said sexist things, displaying a very healthy amount of privilege. His first two posts in the first part of this thread were vile.

Your hero doesn't have any more of a clue than Elevator Guy when it comes to privilege and just how toxic it is. He's not helping. And neither are you."

I have no heroes and am merely stating my perceptions based on the evidence presented in the first article above and discussing why I think women have to be more careful. It's difficult to see people's perspectives.

You have no need to use profanity at me.

Please show me where I said guns solve every thing? In fact, the word "guns" does not even come up in my post. Please, by all means, remain unarmed if you desire to do so.

It's an important part of this conversation. What else can give women an advantage over a larger, stronger, probably better prepared attacker than weapons (of all types)?

We are all animals. Animals use their weapons, intelligence, and instincts to defend themselves.

Why am I being attacked for caring about the safety of women? I'm seriously interested to see why such hostility exists towards my post above.

Also, why is there such an irrational fear of weapons? Weapons don't deploy themselves. Mentally ill people may use weapons for bad deeds, but so do good people (i.e. law enforcement, honest people defending themselves, etc).

:(

Posted by: crowepps | July 4, 2011 2:42 AM

After some thought about skeptifem's postings here I have to conclude that she is out of bounds with her recent posts.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 4, 2011 2:44 AM

I wrote

acquittance

When I meant "acquaintance." Clicked the wrong word in spellcheck. Heh. Aim is getting bad. Maybe I should head to bed.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2011 2:45 AM

The only way I can make sense of it is if you assume that he chose that moment to come onto her because he knew she would feel trapped.

Nobody gives a fuck about his intentions. Nobody has to give a fuck about them.

Women are raped in elevators!

I'm open to be called out on my cluelessness here

Good, because you're going to be, for being a clueless gobshite

but I, too, if I were the personally confident sort who didn't understand boundaries much less have any fucking respect for them and thought that the twitchings of my dick were more important than a woman's comfort/safety/autonomy, would have assumed that the scene was, although clumsy, not threatening; and, in fact, somewhat less inconsiderate than making the same inept proposition in the company of others.

Fixes that the fuck for you.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | July 4, 2011 2:46 AM

Anti-Theist, while I also advocate self-defense training, I cannot, nor can my arnis teacher, ever say that's a foolproof solution to the situation.

The fact one has to watch their back continually is already an indicator something is inherently wrong with that society, and teaching people a tricks like eye-gouging, or crotch and throat grabs isn't going to fix it.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2011 2:49 AM

And making emails and statements addressed to "all men" are not acceptable, equality works both ways and if you think you have a right to talk down to ALL men your just as bad as the idiots you claim to hate. Hello, I'm a privileged douchebag who needs to go fuck himself.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 2:49 AM

It must be, American television certainly likes to pump up the fear in people, it certainly disturbs me every time I've turned the television on in the States when I've traveled there.

No, it must not be. Mari is a morphing troll who has been spending a lot of time in this waaaay over 2,000 post thread lying, twisting and distorting every thing xe possibly can.

For fuck's sake, we aren't all idiots drooling in front of the television, getting hyped up on violence.

The sane voices are no longer being heard. We have been consistently speaking out about privilege and the harm it does to men and women. I keep providing links (#30), yet few people are bothering to read or educate themselves.

We have tried and tried and tried and tried to explain that women must do risk assessment all the time, that we must always live with caution in mind and that it would be incredibly helpful for people to learn about privilege and understand their own and how it impacts other people. Having to do risk assessment and be cautious does not make us hysterical, stupid, paranoid, drama queens, liars or emotional cripples living in "abject fear" - those are just some of the things people like Mari keep calling us.

But nooooo, you waltz in and latch onto a piece of MRA shit and declare "it must be! American TV! Scary!" Seriously? For Chrissakes.

By the way, the incident with Rebecca Watson and Elevator Guy did not take place in the U.S., it took place in Ireland.

Posted by: saerain | July 4, 2011 2:51 AM

Nobody gives a fuck about his intentions. Nobody has to give a fuck about them.

but I, too, if I were the personally confident sort who didn't understand boundaries much less have any fucking respect for them and thought that the twitchings of my dick were more important than a woman's comfort/safety/autonomy, would have assumed that the scene was, although clumsy, not threatening; and, in fact, somewhat less inconsiderate than making the same inept proposition in the company of others.

Posted by: saerain | July 4, 2011 2:53 AM

Seriously, whether or not you care about them, was I talking about his intentions?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkdkQLVRhHPoZmOmd0_EJpzwgY25tKhcyg | July 4, 2011 2:54 AM

Who the fuck cares about this kind of non-event?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm5UbdajNPPy1Ue7LfSyPMNiC_SsiUrHj0 | July 4, 2011 2:55 AM

I have to raise an eyebrow at Richard Dawkins here. His eloquence and creativity in his comment was above most other people as per usual, but below his usual, admirable standard. Hearing that that was really him is ... frankly... surprising. I would have expected less ellipsies and more fancy vocabulary. ;) But then, this was just a blog comment.

As for the much more important contents: How CAN a person who keeps saying that moderate religion is an enabling factor for radical religion dismiss moderate misogyny on the grounds that really terrible misogyny is much more worrisome? That is plain hypocrisy!

I really, really admire RD, but that was really disappointing.

Well, I guess that is the fate of someone who is actually not a religious leader, but a figure of a thinking, critical, skeptical movement: We know to disagree with him. :)

Posted by: saerain | July 4, 2011 2:57 AM

It's very helpful, thank you. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 2:59 AM

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that your made up name does come from a Woodhouse novel.

Oh Christ, you stupid douchebisquit. Audley's nym does not come from a Wodehouse book.

I know where it came from and I can guarantee you that it didn't come from any book.

Now, shut the fuck up and stop your pointless whinging.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkdkQLVRhHPoZmOmd0_EJpzwgY25tKhcyg | July 4, 2011 3:02 AM

I am with Dawkins here. Words were spoken. If anyones felt uncomfortable during that situation, its mostly an issue between the parties involved. I am just stunned that this is raising that much of a storm.
I have no explanation for the googlemess.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2011 3:03 AM

Seriously, whether or not you care about them, was I talking about his intentions?

Are you fucking stupid?

This is what you wrote.

The only way I can make sense of it is if you assume that he chose that moment to come onto her because he knew she would feel trapped.

You're assuming that women have the luxury of thinking, in a situation that is highly suspicious, that she doesn't have to worry about a man's intentions at all, so she should just let him hit on her.

You're assuming that there is never fucking context to make her doubt his intentions. Like following a woman you've never spoken to into an elevator at 4 am to hit on her.

You assume she has the luxury of thinking, "he's perfectly harmless."

You assume that this won't be said about a woman if she's raped,"She was asking for it for being alone in a hotel elevator with a strange man at 4 a.m." and thus, nobody has to take her claim seriously or punish the man.

That's why you're a privileged douchebag who needs to go fuck himself.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2011 3:05 AM

I am with Dawkins here. Words were spoken. If anyones felt uncomfortable during that situation, its mostly an issue between the parties involved. I am just stunned that this is raising that much of a storm.
I have no explanation for the googlemess. Hello, I'm a privileged douchebag who needs to go fuck himself.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 4, 2011 3:07 AM

Who the fuck cares about this kind of non-event?

Seems like lots of people fucking care about this incident. And if they don't, they should:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php#comment-4310938

But maybe you're one of the people who don't care if the atheist conventions are mainly attended by white men.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkdkQLVRhHPoZmOmd0_EJpzwgY25tKhcyg | July 4, 2011 3:08 AM

"Hello, I'm a privileged douchebag who needs to go fuck himself."

Hi I'm a fat dyke and I am furiously enraged. More Ice cream.
See, that goes both ways.

Posted by: CodeNameYvette | July 4, 2011 3:09 AM

Winner of the top reasoned response goes to Aquaria at 569.

Posted by: PeterParker | July 4, 2011 3:11 AM

A long comment, I'm afraid, but I've got stuff to do so it will be my only one.

Rebecca Watson took half a minute to warn male audience members not to act like creeps by inviting women to their rooms at 4.00 in an elevator. Judging from many of the comments these days..this warning was badly needed.

Somehow, the fact that she named names freaked some people out to the point that the regular Laptop Militants have had to do damage control during 3 separate threads already.

Come on people, give them a break. They've got to eat, sleep, they've got mortgages to pay, private lives to live, and people to see.

I agree 100% that it's wrong to use worse incidents as a form of censorship to stop people from talking about more mundane situations.

It's a common tactic.
Only a few days ago, Slavoj Zizek was quoted as saying to a crowd of left-wing Anti-Zionist Israelis that anybody from the Democratic Republic of Congo would happily sell his mother into slavery for a chance to move into the West Bank.

Some of the Israelis obviously took that as Zizek's way of saying "so shut up already about the occupation".

Sometimes this is in fact meant as a tactic to shut people up, other times it is only meant to ask you to keep a bit of perspective (before being sucked into a 3 thread long display of obsessive passive aggressiveness).

I imagine Richard Dawkins is not unfamiliar with this tactic and that he would agree he didn't mean it as a way to censor people.

If my assumption were correct, it would mean that the way some people who reacted to RD made use of the censorship straw-man (a few actually bothered to admit what was probably actually RD's point; there are more serious issues to focus on).

Since I do not think he meant it as a way of telling you to Shut the Fuck Up, I am one of the few who thinks Richard Dawkins was correct to point out that some of the cyber-outrage on display these past few days on the blogosphere might have been more evenly matched to a meatier subject than the Rebecca Watson non-incident.

PZ:

"Women have their genitals mutilated, are beaten by husbands without recourse to legal redress, are stoned to death for adultery, are denied basic privileges like the right to drive or travel unescorted. These are far more serious problems than any American woman faces"

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali & her AHA foundation there's a misconception among North Americans that all these issues you mention as separate from the problems faced by "any American woman" actually take place RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSES.

Honour killings (being killed for supposed adultery or premarital sex) and genital mutilation of girls, actually take place in North-America and are happening to American citizens.

Posted by: Daredevil Dan and his Nude Aerial Stunt Team | July 4, 2011 3:12 AM

Aquaria, you're totally cracking me up now :)

It's time for this thread to die. What good could be done has been done, if any.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2011 3:15 AM

Hi I'm a fat dyke and I am furiously enraged. More Ice cream.
See, that goes both ways.

Do you have a point that isn't on top of your head?

What's wrong with being a lesbian?

What's wrong with being outraged at men being priviledged douchebags?

And just what the hell is wrong with ice cream?

There's something wrong with you, boy, that you think any of that is an insult.

But go ahead and confirm what a privileged douchebag you are. It's amusing to see you set yourself on fire that way.

Posted by: CodeNameYvette | July 4, 2011 3:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcTP7YWPayU

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 3:17 AM

Shorter CodeNameYvette:

I don't get it, but that doesn't matter. Bitches ain't shit and they really need to shut up.

Googlemess:

"Hello, I'm a privileged douchebag who needs to go fuck himself."

Hi I'm a fat dyke and I am furiously enraged. More Ice cream.
See, that goes both ways.

No, it doesn't go both ways. "I'm a fat dyke and I am furiously enraged. More Ice Cream" is a stupid non-sequitur and isn't applicable.

"I'm a privileged douchebag", however, is a perfectly apt descriptor for multiple people in this 2,000+ thread.

When you show up and act the douchebisquit, with utterly no interest in educating yourself about privilege and how it effects men and women, you are indeed a privileged douchebag.

Not that I'd expect someone as poor at thinking as you are to understand that. Sometimes, an idiot is an idiot is an idiot. You're the idiot.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 4, 2011 3:21 AM

I am with Dawkins here. Words were spoken. If anyones felt uncomfortable during that situation, its mostly an issue between the parties involved. I am just stunned that this is raising that much of a storm.

It's part of a social pattern, which is why people (especially women) who recognize that pattern are calling for it to stop.

I will excerpt rlaw from the first thread, whose reply has been apt for many others.

What everyone who is disagreeable about Rebecca Watson is saying is that she's wrong to have the feelings she has about the matter. No one seems to be saying that most women wouldn't feel similarly in that sort of a situation. No, that would be too germane to the topic. You're all just arguing that being a woman and feeling threatened is wrong.

If you believe these things, yet want more women in the skeptic movement, look into a mirror: you are part of the problem.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2011 3:23 AM

I called Poe on your original post because I thought it was so over the top that you really could read it as a parody of feminism. If you go back to the original incident, you'll find that the guy in question didn't proposition Ms Watson. He asked her over to his room for coffee. Hello, I'm a privileged douchebag who needs to go fuck himself.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 4, 2011 3:25 AM

Yahooidiot:

Turning this nonevent into a sermon on male privilege is simply comical.

Oh, you think so? It is about privilege, cupcake. Perhaps if you'd been following the thousands of posts from the beginning, you'd grok that. You're just an extra spayshul idiot, aren't ya? Here's an idea, why don't you shut the fuck up and read for the next while:

First: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php#comments

Second: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/the_decent_human_beings_guide.php

Read, don't spew shit all over.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 4, 2011 3:27 AM

I called Poe on your original post because I thought it was so over the top that you really could read it as a parody of feminism.

And Aquaria shouldn't be ashamed of herself for calling me a douchebag?

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2011 3:28 AM

And Aquaria shouldn't be ashamed of herself for calling me a douchebag?

Hahahahaha. You wish, fuckface.

Calling douchebags douchebags is one of my charms, dear.

Do keep up.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | July 4, 2011 3:29 AM

http://www.trentonian.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3171769

One girl was molested in December 2009 at the Holiday Inn in Trenton. A second was assaulted in April 2011 at the Hampton Inn in Napanee. Both hotels sit next to Highway 401.

Police announced soon after the second attack that the cases might have been committed by the same man. The descriptions of the attacker in each are similar and both were relatively bold attacks, occurring in the presence of other children and in common areas of the hotel.

In the Trenton case, the girl was molested in a corridor, while in Napanee a group of children was followed onto an elevator, police said. He assaulted the girl and fled when the elevator doors opened.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/22/walmart-supreme-court-decision-shows-cluelessness-on-gender-bias.html

But this was not my first newspaper job, so I wasn’t surprised when a high-ranking male editor groped me in the elevator one day; the same thing had happened at my previous newspaper, with an editor I’d never even met before stepping into the elevator.

Nor was I surprised when a successful female journalist who was reportedly joining The Times came in for her final interview with the editor who had groped me. After that interview, she was abruptly eliminated as a new hire.

“What happened?” I asked my department head, who—like everyone else with power in the newsroom—was white and male.

“I guess she didn’t put out,” he replied with a feral grin.

In fairness, I should add that I didn’t “put out” to get hired by the Times—but neither did I report having been groped by one of its top brass. I had tried that at my previous newspaper, but when I told the (married) executive editor about the guy who assaulted me in the elevator, he laughed, exclaimed, “That dirty old man!”—and then asked me out himself.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | July 4, 2011 3:30 AM

The All Women's Action Society and Empower Malaysia are members of the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality along with Sisters in Islam.

Posted by: Anti-Theist | July 4, 2011 3:32 AM

"Posted by: casimir.fornalski Author Profile Page | July 4, 2011 3:01 AM

Anti-theist:

Many of us are humanists as well as atheists, and a tenet of humanism is that people are capable of doing better than relying on violence as a means to solve problems.

You can call it what you want, offense, defense, etc. The point is once you advocate the necessity of weaponry as a practical solution for societal problems, you are advocating for violence. We would much rather live in a society where people didn't have to worry about defending themselves from other people all the time.

This is why people rightfully reject the idea that it is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves. It is the other individual's responsibility to not violate the rights and dignity of other people. It's really that simple. And when others reject that idea as naive, impractical, and impossible it reflects a profound cynicism about the potential of human beings.

And frankly, I find the whole "humans are animals" argument very tired and pointless. Yes, we are animals. But we are animals capable of some truly amazing things, including self-examination and the willful effort to make things better for everybody. You may be content to hold us to the moral standard of insects, but I honestly believe we can do better. "

I'm with you entirely. I did not intend to be derogatory with my "animals" reference. I see all animals as valuable. It would pain me beyond imagination to ever have to harm another being. I dream of such a world as you've expressed so briliiantly. Unfortunately, this is an impractical position at present. Not all Humanists (I consider myself one, albeit a realist) see it as reality at present the way you appear to because they know there are people, that while they should not want to harm others, are harming others. Harris, Hitchens, many others have discussed this into oblivion.

Wishful thinking is not going to change people whose minds are incapable of functioning properly unless technology and science are allowed to provide the answer. The inability to love others is a huge problem we all face. Religion carries the psychopath into new heights. When one among us hates others who have done nothing to harm them, they are criminals. Evil animals that desire to control others and subvert the truth or at least the search for truth.

Until we embarrass the fictitious, supernatural, religious, and mentally damaged people out of this equation, the problem is real and cannot be dreamed away. That's like fighting Islam with Islam. It won't work. You cannot convince Islamists that believe the Qu'ran is the ineffable word of allah that it is just a book if they won't even listen to you. Why should they, after all? They are not threatened in the slightest if their numbers continue to grow as they are. I would gladly give every thing I have (my own life) if it would solve this problem. But it won't unless a great deal of change occurs in the way we think of one another.

Not until people who use reason and rationality are foremost or at least in the seat of authority. This is one of the really good reasons for a global governance scenario. A world where division is frowned upon globally. Where initiations into ways of thinking that are based on reality, evidence, justification, etc begin early in life so that people can formulate and know the differences between falsified hypotheses and truths based on laws and morality that we all possess, yet some have lost-possibly forever. Science is our greatest hope for a future where violence, tribalism, racism, sexism, criminality, hatred of all kind are eradicated or decreased to the levels of near-extinction.

Posted by: jcmccreight | July 4, 2011 3:34 AM

I'm encouraged that this time it took nearly 3,000 comments for someone to finally call me ugly. We're making progress, guys!!!

Seriously though, thanks to all the sane commenters here. I don't think I have as many people willing to put up with the crappy comments on my blog, so wading through it had filled me with despair.

Posted by: CodeNameYvette | July 4, 2011 3:36 AM

Acquaria said

"What's wrong with being outraged at men being priveledged douchebags"

You are going to eat yourself. Do you really see the world as so totally black and white? Women are victims men are privileged douchebags. Try considering the other point of view instead of digging yourself a little hole. Sexist behaviour isn't limited to men. In the same way being a priveledged douche bag isn't limited to men. A much more accurate phrase (yet equally wrong) would be;

"what's wrong with being outraged at all Americans acting like privileged douchebags"?

I can handle the stupidity and clumsiness of men in my country much more than I can handle the cultural myopia of privileged middle class Americans of any gender. I also object to the idea that anyone disagree with the original poster (all those long years back - what started the war again? - nobody can remember) is somehow sexist or stupid.
It can't be that lazy Americans with a demand for free speech and a penchant for killing faceless human beings in far corners of the world whilst consuming far more than their fair share of global resources are a privileged group.

Privileged groups come in all guises. Google "When She Was Bad" by Patricia Pearson for a description of female violence against men. Your black and white argument is a failure.

http://www.amazon.com/When-She-Was-Bad-Innocence/dp/0140243887

To borrow a phrase from the original posting;

"A word to the wise" all of you; get a grip.

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 3:38 AM

I've put enough time into this non-issue this morning already.

Here's what I don't get.

If this was such a non-issue, then why did people start coming out of the woodwork to tell Rebecca that she acted inappropriately by -- gasp! -- daring call this guy out because he acted inappropriately?

Dawkins being one of them.

Maybe if there weren't a bunch of privileged idiots trying so very hard to put her in her "place", we wouldn't be so god damned pissed off about it?

Posted by: Agi Hammerthief | July 4, 2011 3:39 AM

"Schrödinger’s Rapist"
derived from Schrödingers Cat I suppose, oh thank you very much.
So all men are rapists, some just don't know untill they are put in a situation where they can be?

yes I have read that post, I do agree with it to about 99% it's just the base premise the naming implies that's totally inappropriate.

Posted by: saerain | July 4, 2011 3:41 AM

That summarizes some of the less sane feminist arguments I've seen, Agi. ‘You would if you could and you know it!’

Posted by: makyui | July 4, 2011 3:42 AM

CodeNameYvette:

If you don't have a fucking clue what's going on, the ideal thing to do is to see what's going on, not to twist it up into a completely distorted image of what is actually going on, and then scold us based on your distortion.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 4, 2011 3:44 AM

Agi and saerain,
If you've read that piece, and that's the message you came away with, you seriously did not even attempt to fucking read for comprehension. I don't mean that in the "you missed important subtleties" way, either. Try again.

Posted by: CodeNameYvette | July 4, 2011 3:45 AM

At #592

Love that victim status you have there.

"In fact, the next time someone calls me a tranny faggot I should just blow it off because at least he didn't brutally murder me. You know, like what often happens a short time after people use those words. Once I'm actually attacked, THEN I can complain. Provided I'm still alive."

So what do you do when someone calls you a tranny faggot? Do you assault them? Make a complaint? Call them a Dickhead and walk away? You appear to be calling them murderers. Some black people might think I'm a moron for telling them to blow off racist words, others might actually do just that. Its good that you can speak for black people too.

Whilst I know it is horrible to receive insults, I've had more than my fair share of them. Action and crucially here the threat of action is a whole other level of event. Much as you'd like to equate words with actions there is no equivalence.

Posted by: Philip Legge | July 4, 2011 3:46 AM

Posted by: Agi Hammerthief Author Profile Page | July 4, 2011 3:39 AM # 609

Way to go, you completely missed the point!

The idea is, how is any woman supposed to know that a particular man is or is not a rapist. It’s not as if you can tell whether a man is a rapist or not simply by looking at him.

Please read the links here before trying to post anything further.