What do feminists want?

[Aepervius]

Anyway, there are plenty of true forms of sexual discrimination to spend energy on. But I've never understood why a legitimate pass at a woman should be in that category. If the elevator guy had said something more rude like, "You look like you need a man" or something similarly ignorant, that would be misogyny. But simply hitting on you? If that bothered Rebecca, maybe she's not as liberated as she imagines herself.

This is my opinion too.

 

[Antiquehunter]

In any event, if I happen to be in an elevator with the illustrious Ms. Watson at TAM, I am so going to throw a cheesy pickup line at her. Should this happen at 0400h when we're both slightly sozzled, even better. She knows my proclivities, so I would hope her baloney detector filters out any perceived harassment...

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Sorry, you're wrong. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm all for women having the same oportunities, pay, political voice and so on and so forth, but at the end of the day, even when all those things are finally sorted out, men are still going to treat women in a different way than they treat another guys, and generally that's better. They won't say or do things to women that they would to another guy, trust me you're better off with that. Likewise women aren't going to, or at leass shouldn't, treat guys like they do their girlfriends, and if they do, they'll get the same backlash.

Men that actually do treat women like they treat other men are the very ones that feminists hate the most, often calling them misogynist and sexist. Honestly, you don't want any part of that world.

Perhaps I'm in a sort of unique position to see this, but the reality is that women need to understand that they can't and won't ever get men to act like they do. It doesn't matter what you do, men are different to you, they work in a different way. When you understand this, you'll understand what I am saying and also why equivalence is the best it gets.

Okay, first of all I am one of those men and I don't get any backlash.

Secondly, "men" not acting like "women" is just nonsense. The men and the women in my workplace all act differently from each other. No one is ever going to get the other to "act the same way".

 

[TraneWreck]

I tend to disagree with that. I am sorry , but how many of us go in PUBLIC to ask a woman or a man to do the two "back" dance together ? No you do not do in public. You either ask in a place where you can speak to the woman without being overheard and laughed at, or you do it by whispering her if possible in public.

Maybe if it's a friend or someone you've been previously acquainted with, but getting onto an elevator with a woman at 4:00am and propositioning her is a really aggressive move that would understandably make a lot of women uncomfortable. The content of the person's words were innocuous, but Watson was in an incredibly vulnerable situation with someone she didn't know who then tried to hit on her.

I also think it's odd that you're so baffled over the notion of hooking up with someone you meet in public. This is sort of why people go to bars and night clubs.

If a person can't communicate with a woman in a situation where she isn't vulnerable, then there are some bigger issues there.

Asking a woman in a lift at 4am is not being incredibly insensible. If women are so fearful that at such time in an hotel they get asked by a man in a lift alone in a polite way (as opposed to what ? asking her when the lift is full of people ?) then maybe she should rethink if her fear are so warranted.

No, as opposed to asking her in the bar where they'd been for the last several hours. And the politeness of the request is relatively meaningless. When she's alone in that elevator in a foreign country with a person she doesn't know well, a polite request could just be step 1.

Watson's statement on that count was perfectly reasonable. That act made her feel incredibly uncomfortable and she asserted that men should not do this. They shouldn't.

FYI I am not a rape apologist and I despise anybody finding an excuse for rape. But neither do i accept Watson's point that this was incredibly insensible.

Honestly, I don't know how to explain to you why the act of propositioning a single woman on an elevator at 4am in a foreign country (for her) is a troubling move. It should be fairly obvious what's wrong with that.

The problem wasn't the come on, it was where it happened. If you can't flirt and converse and generally progress the situation to a hook-up in a bar, you are sort of pathetic. Yes, rejection may be embarrassing, but intimidating and making the woman feel uncomfortable because you're scared of being uncomfortable yourself isn't a very good excuse.

I think Watson generally made a fool of herself throughout this episode, but she is 100% correct to explain what's wrong with that sort of pursuit. This person ignored her statements in the bar that she wanted to go back to her room and sleep, on what grounds could she trust this person to respectfully acknowledge her rejection of him in the elevator?

It's obviously very good that nothing happened, but Ms. Watson did not know that at the time. That was a situation where a foolish man placed a woman in a needless state of concern and stress. It seems like you're reasoning from the fact that nothing did happen to the conclusion that Watson was irrational for thinking something could happen. Again, had an assault taken place, a huge percentage of the very same people wringing their hands over the notion that perhaps this man acted like a fool would be sanctimoniously lecturing everyone on precautions women should take to avoid assault.

 

[Visual Purple]

There are some areas that men and women are just plain different. Yes some of us men display attributes and behaviours that are more female, and some females display those that are more male, but that all has roots in the biology of the brain as well.
***

One of the things I'd note as an example of this is that while women have now come to realise that they need their own space and time without the presence of men (such as in gyms) they have also now denied men the ability to have their space without women, in the form of men's clubs. There are those in the feminism movement who would like to see an irradication of masculism and make all men the same as women. It's this sort of thinking that leads to the we should all be equal, but it simply wrong and this is where I have issues.

All of this strikes me as in good faith, but it's nevertheless a fair representation of what my branch of feminism/men's rights is fighting. I don't think that you're wrong that there are some differences on average between men and women, and that biology is behind those differences. However, the variation is large. Worse, there's something of a tendency in society to push people of each sex to act, not according to the natural average for their own sex, but like someone on closer to the extremes. The result is that, in the name of supposedly natural sex roles, many people, men and women both, are being forced into roles that aren't natural to them as individuals. My ideal is thus not to change the roles--make women as a whole more masculine and men as a whole more feminine, but to allow greater flexibility in the roles. I think that this ideal is a common one.

This isn't easy, and your comment about men's and women's spaces shows part of the problem. People's interest in having single-sex spaces is one of those extremely variable traits. It ought to be possible to let people form such groups as they want, except that there's a problem. Historically, the men's club-type settings have been a really important source of connections---the "old boy's club" is a bit more than a metaphor--and a woman, no matter how talented and motivated, would suffer from the lack of such connections. Given that there are differences on average between men and women, the men's club environments would be likely to remain valuable sources of business and political connections in a way that women's groups would not. Different people are going to have different suggestions about how to create a fair result. My own inclination is to discourage officially one-sex groups, except for things like prostate cancer support groups where sex or gender really are a necessary consideration, but to recognize that many groups are going to become mostly one sex.

The elevator guy situation is another complication. Regardless of how gender-typical a given man or woman is, that person's sex is going to determine how he or she thinks about the potential for violence. Men often don't understand why women think the way they do about sexual assault--that it's not just the risk, but the likelihood that, if it happens, a significant number of people will assume that it's somehow the woman's fault. There's an "other hand" on this one. I haven't seen it become an issue nearly as often, but many women don't understand the risk of violence between men. As a woman, I'm not going to catch a beat-down for looking at someone the wrong way in a bar, or whatever it is that's gotten some of my male friends beaten. If I were male, I'd probably have to think about this more.

These differences of experience don't have to do with inherent differences between the sexes--not differences in temperament, anyway. The differences in experience do have a huge influence on how people see things. Anyone who does not take them into account is going to end up acting in ways that come off as highly insensitive. That kind of insensitivity often gets the label of "privilege." Accommodating differences in experience doesn't require equivalence instead of equality. It just require thinking. This is not a special demand on men. Women should be doing it too. Everyone should. Differences of experience based on class, race, and other characteristics that have strong effects are all matters that everyone ought to consider when acting with others. Is this a pain? Of course.

In fact, to do it perfectly is impossible. If you live and work in among a varied group of people, unless you're unusually socially gifted, you're going to screw up over and over again. Just recently, I've made some idiotic assumptions about the experience of a gay parent. Unless there is an acknowledgement that people will screw up and get things wrong simply because the task is hard, it is going to seem as though men are being punished for being men (and white people for being white, and middle class people for being middle class).

 

[Robin]

In general,

They oppose most general notions of the feminine,
and wish to assume most general notions of the masculine for women,
all resting upon a general foundation of antagonism to men.

Feminism is masculism.

It is women who demonstrate how they are against men and don't need men and don't like men by trying to be like men in every way.

Generally speaking.

This is a straw man of the type usually spouted by crusty right-wing curmudgeons.

In fact you will find that feminists across the years have treated the notion of the feminine as having almost spiritual significance - go and look at some of the back issues of "Spare Rib"

 

[Robin]

In general the main themes of feminism have been that a woman who has equal ability to do a job as a man should have the same opportunity for salary and advancement in that job, also that the sexual objectification of women leads to sexual violence against women.

Of course their are many different feminists with different aims and objectives as well.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Maybe if it's a friend or someone you've been previously acquainted with, but getting onto an elevator with a woman at 4:00am and propositioning her is a really aggressive move that would understandably make a lot of women uncomfortable. The content of the person's words were innocuous, but Watson was in an incredibly vulnerable situation with someone she didn't know who then tried to hit on her.

I also think it's odd that you're so baffled over the notion of hooking up with someone you meet in public. This is sort of why people go to bars and night clubs.

If a person can't communicate with a woman in a situation where she isn't vulnerable, then there are some bigger issues there.



No, as opposed to asking her in the bar where they'd been for the last several hours. And the politeness of the request is relatively meaningless. When she's alone in that elevator in a foreign country with a person she doesn't know well, a polite request could just be step 1.

Watson's statement on that count was perfectly reasonable. That act made her feel incredibly uncomfortable and she asserted that men should not do this. They shouldn't.



Honestly, I don't know how to explain to you why the act of propositioning a single woman on an elevator at 4am in a foreign country (for her) is a troubling move. It should be fairly obvious what's wrong with that.

The problem wasn't the come on, it was where it happened. If you can't flirt and converse and generally progress the situation to a hook-up in a bar, you are sort of pathetic. Yes, rejection may be embarrassing, but intimidating and making the woman feel uncomfortable because you're scared of being uncomfortable yourself isn't a very good excuse.

I think Watson generally made a fool of herself throughout this episode, but she is 100% correct to explain what's wrong with that sort of pursuit. This person ignored her statements in the bar that she wanted to go back to her room and sleep, on what grounds could she trust this person to respectfully acknowledge her rejection of him in the elevator?

It's obviously very good that nothing happened, but Ms. Watson did not know that at the time. That was a situation where a foolish man placed a woman in a needless state of concern and stress. It seems like you're reasoning from the fact that nothing did happen to the conclusion that Watson was irrational for thinking something could happen. Again, had an assault taken place, a huge percentage of the very same people wringing their hands over the notion that perhaps this man acted like a fool would be sanctimoniously lecturing everyone on precautions women should take to avoid assault.

At the risk of opening a huge can of worms...

I've met Rebecca several times and consider her a friend & an acquaintance. She also is perfectly capable (in my estimation) of defending herself verbally and physically.

Now - I don't know the full context of what happened the night in question. I gather she and this male fellow were in a bar, having drinks, and a conversation. I don't know for how long this conversation lasted, nor if any 'hints' were dropped by either party.

The fellow arranged to be in the elevator at the same time as Rebecca, and made what on the surface sounds like a rather innocuous suggestion. However we don't know the context of that suggestion - if he said it like Hannibal Lecter and went 'fwupfwupfwupfwupfwup' afterwards, then obviously, Rebecca has every reason to be alarmed. We don't know.

I don't necessarily find anything particularly creepy about making a 'move' in an elevator. Assuming there was a conversation leading up to the shared elevator ride where there appeared to be enough of a 'connection', then, while its not the most typical place to 'make the move', it also is not necessarily indicative that the person making the move is the Green River Killer.

Rebecca obviously defused the situation and moved on, and good for her. She had any number of options - this was happening in a hotel, so presumably there are security cameras and alarm buttons in the elevator & fire alarms in the hallway. Knowing Rebecca, if she felt that she was being sexually or physically threatened, she had lots of 'outs' - I am enough of a feminist to say that she is perfectly capable of managing this situation effectively, in the event she was in real and imminent danger. There is a difference to being a little weirded out by someone who is perhaps smitten & liquored up, and feeling threatened that one is about to be raped.

Now - she is of the opinion that the guy was creepy and was out of line with his 'move'. I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one - she received an offer that bothered her. The words, written down and without context, seem pretty milquetoast, but I wasn't a fly on that elevator wall. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

What I don't really understand is the ridiculous amount of attention and debate that has ensued. Its starting to look a wee bit like attention seeking and blog-headline grabbing to me. Rebecca is, I believe, single, and she is an attractive young woman. She also attends a lot of conferences and meets a lot of people. She is probably going to get propositioned again in her life, some by suave Romeos, and some by creepy Quasimodos. If she applies this much drama to each of those situations, I'm not sure there is sufficient bandwidth to accomodate.

-AH.

 

[Belz...]

I'm careful not to confuse the forest for the trees, but there are a lot of unlikeable feminists on PZs blog

I think the issue, at least on that blog, is that there are too many smart people. I forgot where I heard it, it might have been on SGU, but two smart people arguing is about the worst situation you can have. Each has valid, well-thought out points, and can't figure out why their opponent doesn't get their point of view. Add internet magic, and it becomes a cesspit of name calling and accusations of poor reading/writing abilities.

I don't think having two idiots or one idiot and one smart person talking helps, though.

 

[Belz...]

I have no problem why someone would take issue on a personal level of being treated like either some kind of invalid/child/incompetent.

So being nice to someone is treating them like an invalid ?

 

[Sun Countess]

Now - I don't know the full context of what happened the night in question. I gather she and this male fellow were in a bar, having drinks, and a conversation. I don't know for how long this conversation lasted, nor if any 'hints' were dropped by either party.

Full context is important. They did not have a conversation in the bar. A man that she had never spoken to before followed her into the elevator and said to her, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting. I'd like to talk to you more; would you like to come to my room for coffee?"

The fellow arranged to be in the elevator at the same time as Rebecca, and made what on the surface sounds like a rather innocuous suggestion. However we don't know the context of that suggestion - if he said it like Hannibal Lecter and went 'fwupfwupfwupfwupfwup' afterwards, then obviously, Rebecca has every reason to be alarmed. We don't know.

I don't think it matters as much how he said, but where he said it, and that he used a not-so-subtle proposition as an opening line. Is this something that men typically say to women they've never met? And are women supposed to be okay with that? I think that Rebecca's reaction was very appropriate. She told him "no" and nothing further came from that encounter. She took a few moments on a video blog to relay the conversation and tell other men who attend atheist conventions that it's a creepy move that women don't appreciate.

I don't necessarily find anything particularly creepy about making a 'move' in an elevator. Assuming there was a conversation leading up to the shared elevator ride where there appeared to be enough of a 'connection', then, while its not the most typical place to 'make the move', it also is not necessarily indicative that the person making the move is the Green River Killer.

I hope a little more context helps you recognize why this is not okay. You assumed there was a conversation leading up to it, where there wasn't. And honestly, even if a guy and I had made what seems like a connection (at four in the morning, with booze in the system), I'd rather not be propositioned in an enclosed space.

What I don't really understand is the ridiculous amount of attention and debate that has ensued. Its starting to look a wee bit like attention seeking and blog-headline grabbing to me. Rebecca is, I believe, single, and she is an attractive young woman. She also attends a lot of conferences and meets a lot of people. She is probably going to get propositioned again in her life, some by suave Romeos, and some by creepy Quasimodos. If she applies this much drama to each of those situations, I'm not sure there is sufficient bandwidth to accomodate.

I think that Rebecca's response was completely appropriate. She didn't go looking for headlines. She mentioned the encounter toward the end of a ten minute video blog. She was summing up by saying she'd had a great time in Dublin, that most people enjoyed her talk, that most men are "getting it" when it comes to feminism and atheism, except this one guy who followed her into an elevator and propositioned her.

The drama has come in because a lot of people have castigated her for characterizing this guy as creepy and a lot of guys have tried to give excuses as to why this guy was completely within his rights to try to get laid wherever and whenever he wants, without any regard to how the woman may feel. Women want to feel like equals, and not like objects on display, where men are allowed to "shop" at will: "She Pretty. Me like. Me want." And that somehow it's all okay because he took no for an answer and didn't force himself on her.

Obviously, women want to hook up as much as men, but the negotiations should be made where both parties are on an equal footing. Women shouldn't have to be rejecting random propositions from total strangers as we go about our daily business. One thing that I think has been glossed over in all the discussion is that this guy didn't even give Rebecca a reason to want to speak with him any further. "I find you interesting, and I'd like to talk to you." It was all about what he wanted and bringing that shiny pretty object into his room. What was she supposed to get out of this deal?

I honestly don't want to be mischaracterizing this guy's intentions, as I think he was probably a little drunk and a lot socially awkward, and maybe didn't think about how what he was doing could be perceived. Rebecca found his actions justifiably creepy and wanted to make a point that women aren't going to be spending time and money to hang out at atheist conventions if they're going to be subjected to unwanted sexual advances by total strangers, particularly ones which are made right after they've left the security of a group.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Full context is important. They did not have a conversation in the bar. A man that she had never spoken to before followed her into the elevator and said to her, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting. I'd like to talk to you more; would you like to come to my room for coffee?"

I don't think it matters as much how he said, but where he said it, and that he used a not-so-subtle proposition as an opening line. Is this something that men typically say to women they've never met? And are women supposed to be okay with that? I think that Rebecca's reaction was very appropriate. She told him "no" and nothing further came from that encounter. She took a few moments on a video blog to relay the conversation and tell other men who attend atheist conventions that it's a creepy move that women don't appreciate.


I hope a little more context helps you recognize why this is not okay. You assumed there was a conversation leading up to it, where there wasn't. And honestly, even if a guy and I had made what seems like a connection (at four in the morning, with booze in the system), I'd rather not be propositioned in an enclosed space.

I think that Rebecca's response was completely appropriate. She didn't go looking for headlines. She mentioned the encounter toward the end of a ten minute video blog. She was summing up by saying she'd had a great time in Dublin, that most people enjoyed her talk, that most men are "getting it" when it comes to feminism and atheism, except this one guy who followed her into an elevator and propositioned her.

The drama has come in because a lot of people have castigated her for characterizing this guy as creepy and a lot of guys have tried to give excuses as to why this guy was completely within his rights to try to get laid wherever and whenever he wants, without any regard to how the woman may feel. Women want to feel like equals, and not like objects on display, where men are allowed to "shop" at will: "She Pretty. Me like. Me want." And that somehow it's all okay because he took no for an answer and didn't force himself on her.

Obviously, women want to hook up as much as men, but the negotiations should be made where both parties are on an equal footing. Women shouldn't have to be rejecting random propositions from total strangers as we go about our daily business. One thing that I think has been glossed over in all the discussion is that this guy didn't even give Rebecca a reason to want to speak with him any further. "I find you interesting, and I'd like to talk to you." It was all about what he wanted and bringing that shiny pretty object into his room. What was she supposed to get out of this deal?

I honestly don't want to be mischaracterizing this guy's intentions, as I think he was probably a little drunk and a lot socially awkward, and maybe didn't think about how what he was doing could be perceived. Rebecca found his actions justifiably creepy and wanted to make a point that women aren't going to be spending time and money to hang out at atheist conventions if they're going to be subjected to unwanted sexual advances by total strangers, particularly ones which are made right after they've left the security of a group.

Fair enough - and I made the classic posting mistake of writing my bit and then going out to review source info, which showed that the 'context' assumptions / benefits of the doubt I was making don't appear to apply in this case. The lack of prior conversation, combined with 4am, an elevator, shaken & not stirred, does lend an air of creepiness to the encounter. That said - there are plenty of socially awkward / quirky skeptics & atheists in our circles, and I'm sure this isn't the first (nor the last) Rebecca has rebuffed an overture from someone with all the grace of a pimply-faced 13 year old at their first mixer.

So, to resummarize from my perspective:

- It sounds like Rebecca was subjected to an unpleasant encounter, which she managed deftly.

- She elected to use that encounter as a speaking point both online & in a topic where she could make a comparison

- She happened to make use of comments by someone who had a differing point of view, and that seems to have twisted many peoples lacy underthings in many different ways.

My personal preference would be for this to be laid quietly to rest, with everyone taking away the obvious learning points.

- Think before you make a pass, and consider the thoughts of others.

- Consider that sometimes mountains get made of molehills, especially when you have a measure of notoriety / celebutante status.

 

[TraneWreck]

The reason this became a larger issue is that after the situation you described (elevator encounter, video blog, reaction), the issue ballooned when a student posted a video response to Ms. Watson's video, arguing against her position. Ms. Watson chose to bring up this video and name the student at a conference a couple weeks later.

This had the effect of tossing gasoline on the fire as now there are about 20 different issues being dealt with at once:

Sexism in the atheist community, the specifics of the elevator encounter, a lot of whining on twitter from various sources, the appropriateness of calling out a student by name at a conference where that student wasn't able to respond...etc.

I agree that it's a lot of dumb drama, but the underlying issue (sexism in the skeptical/atheist community) is certainly valid. This whole thing has become unfortunately personalized, making it ridiculous on a number of issues and crowding out any legitimate discussion.

 

[bookitty]

It has already been pointed out that context is important. In this case it is especially so.

Rebecca Watson was a speaker on a panel at that conference. Her entire talk was about sexism and on being a atheist activist while female. More importantly, she talked about being objectified within the atheist community and how that made her uncomfortable. Later that evening, many of the attendees and speakers gathered in the bar and casually went over the days topics, including Rebecca's.

At 4:00 AM, Rebecca said that she was tired and was going to bed. The so-called Elevator guy, who was an attendee at the conference and had been at the bar, (but hadn't spoken with her at all) followed her into the elevator and asked if she wanted to go to his room. This isn't simply a case of a guy making a pass in a very poorly chosen environment. It's also a man choosing to ignore what a woman has been saying.

It's that last bit that has the feminists all riled.

 

[bookitty]

And for those who are convinced the Rebecca is a drama queen, here is what she actually said:
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.

Funny, if people had just said "Yeah, that might not be the best way to go about things." there would be zero drama right now.

 

[Antiquehunter]

It has already been pointed out that context is important. In this case it is especially so.

Rebecca Watson was a speaker on a panel at that conference. Her entire talk was about sexism and on being a atheist activist while female. More importantly, she talked about being objectified within the atheist community and how that made her uncomfortable. Later that evening, many of the attendees and speakers gathered in the bar and casually went over the days topics, including Rebecca's.

At 4:00 AM, Rebecca said that she was tired and was going to bed. The so-called Elevator guy, who was an attendee at the conference and had been at the bar, (but hadn't spoken with her at all) followed her into the elevator and asked if she wanted to go to his room. This isn't simply a case of a guy making a pass in a very poorly chosen environment. It's also a man choosing to ignore what a woman has been saying.

It's that last bit that has the feminists all riled.

Understandably so. I agree, now that I've read the facts as reported of the incident, that the actions of the guy were creepy and discomforting for Rebecca. I'm not necessarily willing to say the guy was being misogynistic - having been to a number of skeptical events, I am willing to extend a bit of rope here to suggest they guy is just very socially awkward. Maybe not. The bottom line is that it made Rebecca a bit uncomfortable. My impression is not that Rebecca felt she was getting into a DANGEROUS situation, she was uncomfortable. And, as someone who personally would think twice about getting involved in a verbal or physical dust-up with Ms. Watson, I think she was perfectly capable of defusing the situation. And did so.

That there has been discussion ad nauseum online in various fora, and Richard Dawkins having made a comment that is equal parts reasonable and equal parts desconstructable into a comment made by a misogynist pariah, does suggest that perhaps the skeptical community doesn't have enough of real substance to discuss at the moment.

Rebecca has made her point. Guys (including guys who belong to our little 'club') need to do a better job of considering the feelings of women before making an advance. And perhaps all of us should stop taking ourselves quite so seriously - maybe just step it down a notch.

The gossip whore in me can't wait to see the fireworks in 10 days in Vegas...

 

[epepke]

I don't think it matters as much how he said, but where he said it, and that he used a not-so-subtle proposition as an opening line. Is this something that men typically say to women they've never met? And are women supposed to be okay with that?

Before getting to those questions, I'll talk about something I know more about. That is something that men typically say to men they've never met at conventions all the time. It frequently happens to me. The "don't take this wrong" is a form of reassurance to the effect of "this is not a gay pickup." (Sometimes they say "I'm not gay or anything, but..." I thought this was a bit silly, as it wouldn't matter too much to me if they were.)

So, yes, really, men who have never met each other, who are both going to the same hotel, and who are at the same convention, do this to each other all the time, even (and perhaps especially) in the middle of the night. Honestly, they do. Usually, it's a relatively unknown man approaching a better known man, like one who has just given a speech.

Now, you ask if women are supposed to be OK with that. Frankly, I don't think you care what I think about that. Also, I don't care. I don't care what "women" do. I don't even think there is a concept of "women" in general. That's your bag, not mine. There are women I find annoying, but I can avoid them and find other women who are more to my liking. I have absolutely no desire to say what women should find OK.

At the same time, you and others are trying to convince me (sometimes with rhetorical questions) of what women should find OK.

Almost everybody seems to know that a statement like this, which is completely ordinary amongst men, should or does mean something entirely different between a man and a woman. It has to be a thinly disguised pick-up, as it is impossible for a woman to be "interesting" for any reason other than her vagina. (Again, I'm not the one making the claim; I'm observing and reporting.) It must be a crude, transparent attempt specifically to do the horizontal bop. Maybe it's heinous, and he's a creep, or maybe he's being polite, and she should lighten up, but there seems to be no doubt that he's a horndog with One Thing on his Mind™.

It's not just the suggestion that there is a sexual element involved. That is, of course, true. Conferences are charged with sexuality, even if they only include heterosexual men. People who go to conferences know how to use that sexual (in want of a better term) energy, to channel it into enthusiasm about the subject matter.

Not is it the possibility, even the likelyhood, that there was some desire to plook her. There probably was.

It is the certainty that plooking was all that it was about and the insistence that everyone agree on this even before the discussion starts.

Now, I'm not at all convinced that all women believe this way. I didn't get that vibe from Donna Cox, Carolina Cruz-Neira, or Theresa Marie-Rhyne. In fact, Theresa invited me to a panel, and years later, we had lots of fun going to the Pioneer's group and generally hanging out.

But if you do, or if Rebecca Watson does, then go for it. I am not the boss of y'all. Do what y'all please. I'm just saying that it amounts to a demand for men to treat you very differently from how they treat other men. If you like that, fine. If you want to call that "feminism," fine. But it's not about equal treatment. At all.

 

[bookitty]

Understandably so. I agree, now that I've read the facts as reported of the incident, that the actions of the guy were creepy and discomforting for Rebecca. I'm not necessarily willing to say the guy was being misogynistic - having been to a number of skeptical events, I am willing to extend a bit of rope here to suggest they guy is just very socially awkward. Maybe not. The bottom line is that it made Rebecca a bit uncomfortable. My impression is not that Rebecca felt she was getting into a DANGEROUS situation, she was uncomfortable. And, as someone who personally would think twice about getting involved in a verbal or physical dust-up with Ms. Watson, I think she was perfectly capable of defusing the situation. And did so.

That there has been discussion ad nauseum online in various fora, and Richard Dawkins having made a comment that is equal parts reasonable and equal parts desconstructable into a comment made by a misogynist pariah, does suggest that perhaps the skeptical community doesn't have enough of real substance to discuss at the moment.

Rebecca has made her point. Guys (including guys who belong to our little 'club') need to do a better job of considering the feelings of women before making an advance. And perhaps all of us should stop taking ourselves quite so seriously - maybe just step it down a notch.

The gossip whore in me can't wait to see the fireworks in 10 days in Vegas...

I really doubt there will be fireworks. Neither Dawkins nor Rebecca are very attached to what was, after all, a simple little anecdote meant to teach.

I also doubt that those laptop warriors who so enjoyed telling Watson (and any woman who agreed with her) to just stfu will have (pardon the expression) the balls to say it to her face. I expect there will be a lot more people who admit to lurking the various threads than mention their participation in them. And there you go, some good will come from all this. Those very few obnoxious people who think TAM stands for The Adult Meatmarket, might tread more gently.

I don't think the "Elevator Guy" is a misogynist. Maybe he sees himself as feminist-friendly, or maybe he's one of those "I love women!" types (who defines women as those he finds attractive.) None of that matters and it doesn't excuse him for the habit of not bothering with empathy.

 

[Ray Brady]

So, yes, really, men who have never met each other, who are both going to the same hotel, and who are at the same convention, do this to each other all the time, even (and perhaps especially) in the middle of the night. Honestly, they do.

In my half century on the planet, I have never once had another man invite me back to his hotel room to discuss my interesting ideas. If men want a late-night gabfest, they do so in the hotel bar. When the hotel bar closes, they go to bed.

 

[bookitty]

epepke, men and women are both human but because of a huge variety of social, economic and physical difference, have different responses to the same situation.

For example - if it is you and PZ Myers on the elevator, neither one of you is worried that the other might get grabby. Neither one of you is assessing the exits. Neither one of you has been hearing, for your entire life, that you shouldn't have gotten in the elevator and if anything really bad happens that it will be your fault.

Worst case scenario - Elevator Guy is a rapist. Watson narrowly escapes getting raped. She blogs about it. How many people here would be saying "Well, what did she expect, getting into an elevator with a strange man at 4 AM?"

So no, in many cases treating a women as if she has the same comfort zones as a man is inappropriate. Both men and women have situations in which they are more careful, those situations are not always the same.

But really, if a woman has just given a lecture on how she'd rather not deal with any sort of sexual advance, wouldn't it be polite to respect that. Even if the guy was sincerely asking for an intellectual exchange, he knew (based on starting with an apology) that it would look otherwise.

I suppose the question is - What does a woman at a skeptical conference need to do if she would rather not run the gamut? Especially if giving a lecture on that very thing doesn't work.