What do feminists want?

[shawmutt]

Well, I don't want to rehash the whole episode again, it's covered over 2500 posts on those three blog posts.

I'm just trying to sort out what are stances that can be said to be feminist, and what are part of people's personal baggage. I mean, it's one thing to say there's an issue within the skeptical movement regarding sexism--but what's a man to do about it? In reading through those posts and getting embroiled in the fray a common theme played itself out--I am a white male, in a position of privilege, and am not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the blog's resident feminists.

It aggravates me because no matter what, the people who disagree don't meet their level--and when they do (like a rape survivor who disagreed) they are part of the grand conspiracy of MRAs, PUAs, and other nasty acronyms.

What does a woman at a skeptical conference need to do if she would rather not run the gamut?

When I was in AA I went to my share of conferences. There were a lot of situations that simply wouldn't have occurred if the people involved were elsewhere--and there was no alcohol. I guess there is a level of trust implicit at the conferences, which leads to awkward situations at times.

In a way it's a catch 22 I guess--it would probably improve with more women attending, but if they feel like they are treated like objects more women won't attend.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd sugest that what you really want is equvialent treatment. If men treated you in exactly the same way as they did another man, I'd suspect that you'd end up being offended pretty quickly.

As much as some would like it not to be so, men and women are different and see things from different prespectives and with different understandings. Things that one guy says to another can have an entirely different meaning if they were to say it to a woman, and so men will moderate their behaviour accordingly. Likewise, some things that women would do or say with each other would be high inappropriate to say or do with a man.

As such it's biologically impossible for men and women to treat each other as equals. Equivalents, yes, not never equals.

I agree with your points. I don't think there is a single way to interpret "equal treatment" but perhaps equivalent is more precise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, I have no issue with my biological differences from men and whatever discrepancy results in those differences. And there are always going to be disputes over the significance of the differences. As long as it is the actual and not the anticipated physical inequality that results in some less than literally equal treatment, that's fine.

It's more along the lines of value and presumed inequality where the problems result. And it is a two way street though most of the traffic flows against women. The example of men who experience bias against them when they seek child custody in a divorce is an example of inequality that men get the short stick on. Assertive women are sometimes viewed negatively but so are some passive men.

 

[bookitty]

Well, I don't want to rehash the whole episode again, it's covered over 2500 posts on those three blog posts.

I'm just trying to sort out what are stances that can be said to be feminist, and what are part of people's personal baggage. I mean, it's one thing to say there's an issue within the skeptical movement regarding sexism--but what's a man to do about it? In reading through those posts and getting embroiled in the fray a common theme played itself out--I am a white male, in a position of privilege, and am not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the blog's resident feminists.

It aggravates me because no matter what, the people who disagree don't meet their level--and when they do (like a rape survivor who disagreed) they are part of the grand conspiracy of MRAs, PUAs, and other nasty acronyms.



When I was in AA I went to my share of conferences. There were a lot of situations that simply wouldn't have occurred if the people involved were elsewhere--and there was no alcohol. I guess there is a level of trust implicit at the conferences, which leads to awkward situations at times.

In a way it's a catch 22 I guess--it would probably improve with more women attending, but if they feel like they are treated like objects more women won't attend.

Don't be silly, you can have any opinion you want. You just can't expect everyone to agree with you. And, if your opinion reflects attitudes that have made women uncomfortable in the past, they will associate you with that discomfort. Please note - I am not saying fear, panic, hysteria, rampant misogyny, brutal sexism. Just discomfort.

Making a woman uncomfortable is a really crappy way to interact with her. it rarely leads to anything positive. If the goal is a mutually friendly attraction, you've struck out. If the goal is to attract them to the skepticism/atheism movements in order to swell the ranks, you've made it more difficult. Don't be that guy.

This isn't about all men. In the video that started this Watson says that the majority of people there were great. There was just this one guy who was dense. Don't be that guy.

All the feminist are asking is that some men be aware of context. In Rebecca Watson's case, the context was spending a weekend talking about objectification and then getting hit on in an elevator at 4 AM by someone who had heard all that stuff. This doesn't mean that elevators are off limits for co-ed transportation. Just, if you are one of those guys who doesn't quite get it, take a moment to review the situation to make sure that it is a good idea. Don't be that guy.

ETA: The reason the MRA and PUA accusations are getting thrown around is because so many people are defending the right to be that guy. They refuse to even consider the possibility that a woman would feel uncomfortable in that situation. If you're fighting for the right to be that guy or fighting against the idea that such guys exist, then you are pro-creeper.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's never going to happen, men and women have different biological switching, they do things and determine things differently. The whole idea that they can be the same is rubbish and in the end that means that the only way men and women are going to be able to get alone is to recognise that difference and moderate their behaviour about the other so as not to offend them or give out the wrong signals.

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.

This is an odd viewpoint as I see it. One of the things which has bothered me more than other things is this very attitude you speak of. It's an issue of your making, not one biology makes.

I've grown up with friends who have always hung out in a coed groupings. I've never felt the need for a girls' night out or anything remotely close. My son seems to have a similar experience. There are guys and gals both in their crowd and they don't treat the gals any differently as far as I can tell.

I think your attitude is cultural and nothing more.

To finish, let's look at an example:

A man has been speaking at a conference and after chatting and drinks, heads to the elevator to head to his room. Another man runs after him and gets into the elevator, then says, "I found the stuff you have been talking about really interesting, would you be interested in coming to my room and discussing it futher."

Compare that to this....

A woman has been speaking at a conference and after chatting and drinks, heads to the elevator to head to her room. A man runs after her and gets into the elevator, then says, "I found the stuff you have been talking about really interesting, would you be interested in coming to my room and discussing it futher."

and then this...

A man has been speaking at a conference and after chatting and drinks, heads to the elevator to head to his room. A woman runs after him and gets into the elevator, then says, "I found the stuff you have been talking about really interesting, would you be interested in coming to my room and discussing it futher."

Get the difference and why men and women can never actually be equal.

You are distorting the difference. Say that guy said to the other guy, "I find you interesting", wouldn't the fact the interest was sexual have the same implications regardless if it were male/female or male/male?

 

[epepke]

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.

That's what people say, and I get it.

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.

Right. Here, I'm saying something very simple. I hope that because of our last exchange that you'll listen.

If you tell me that I should treat a woman differently from how I should treat a man, fine. I'll probably do it. I'm sensitive to socialization and expressed desires and so on. However, a couple of things are clear:

1) You are asking me to treat women differently from men.

2) If I do that, then I have to treat women differently from men.

This seems to me very simple. I'm an adaptable human being. I can do these things.

However, if I do that thing, then I'm doing that thing, because that's the thing I'm doing, and that's what you asked me to do.

But if I do that, it meant that I cannot treat a woman as an equal. I have been specifically asked by you not to treat a woman as an equal. You ask me to treat her as something other than an equal, that is, differently.

Then, if someone tells me that treating a woman that way, that is, not as an equal, makes me an anti-feminist or misogynist or whatever, I am just going to laugh, because I was specifically asked by women to behave that way.

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'm not defending the guy, especially not on social grounds. Certainly, from mere politeness, he should not have spoken to her at all after the bar. I wouldn't have done such a thing (though, at the bar, I might have invited her to an afterparty).

But that's an individual thing. What this huge drama has become is the idea is that no man should ever treat a woman as an equal at a skeptics' convention ever. His behavior is not simply an individual social error; it is amplified to be emblematic of what All Women Face™ by All Those Male Creeps™. That is not supportable by a particular social faux pas, but it is applied to all men and all women. We know this because Rebecca Watson did not simply let the whole thing die but instead made it into a myth that had something to do with Women and Men.

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.

You know, there's something to that question. I'll ask a different question. What do I have to do if I want to speak at a conference and not run the gamut?

I'm a pretty good speaker, and I've gotten a lot of reactions. A lot of times people want to have an intellectual conversation with me. Sometimes crazy people want to argue with me. I also get some propositions for sex, but they're usually a lot more blatant. It often involves women telling me that they were "turned on" by what I was saying, and/or they couldn't take their eyes off of me. Most of the time this was fun. Sometimes (always at least once at every convention), it was very creepy.

What can I do about it? Nothing. All I can do is handle situations as they arise and not make a big deal about it.

I'm not sure what "a woman" can do about it. I'm not even sure what "a woman" means. I am a man, but I react as an individual.

I don't know that there's anything that a randomly selected woman can do about it that is different from what I can do about it. Of course, making a big deal about it and saying that it is emblematic of What Woman Face, and getting people like P.Z. Myers to have predictably macho outrage, seems to be an option available more to women than to men. I don't find it a particularly noble choice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

(What annoys men and women in feminism is the fact that) it seems to be
more than just about equality. It is about similarity. Feminists seem to aggressively oppose any and all gender roles, even when both men and women want to use them.

You are stereotyping women who doth protest. I don't fit your definition of feminist but I have no doubt most people who know me well would consider me a feminist of some degree.

 

[shawmutt]

Making a woman uncomfortable is a really crappy way to interact with her. it rarely leads to anything positive. If the goal is a mutually friendly attraction, you've struck out. If the goal is to attract them to the skepticism/atheism movements in order to swell the ranks, you've made it more difficult. Don't be that guy.

This isn't about all men. In the video that started this Watson says that the majority of people there were great. There was just this one guy who was dense. Don't be that guy.

All the feminist are asking is that some men be aware of context. In Rebecca Watson's case, the context was spending a weekend talking about objectification and then getting hit on in an elevator at 4 AM by someone who had heard all that stuff. This doesn't mean that elevators are off limits for co-ed transportation. Just, if you are one of those guys who doesn't quite get it, take a moment to review the situation to make sure that it is a good idea. Don't be that guy.

Fair enough bookitty, thanks!

ETA: The reason the MRA and PUA accusations are getting thrown around is because so many people are defending the right to be that guy. They refuse to even consider the possibility that a woman would feel uncomfortable in that situation. If you're fighting for the right to be that guy or fighting against the idea that such guys exist, then you are pro-creeper.

Honestly those threads were insane and I'm not quite sure what stance I was taking after the 20th or so post. I just know I'm now a misogynist, PUA, and MRA, and troll--and lumped in there with Richard Dawkins and a rape survivor among others. I don't know about the feminism movement in general, but arguing with those particular feminists really did seem like I was arguing with conspiracy theorists.

I don't discount that the woman in that specific situation would feel uncomfortable. It's also not something I personally would think of doing. I also realize that really ****** things would be said if something did happen to Ms. Watson. I just wonder how so many people can come to so many conclusions about the guy based on hearsay. It was an unpleasant encounter that turned into the epitome of everything that is wrong with men in the skeptical movement.

 

[Calculon]

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.

I thought it was a reply to a tweet, not a video.

I have seen a video response, but the person calls themselves "Rose", not Stef.

But yes, for me the issue blew up because the student who made the tweet that disagreed with Rebecca was "called out" at the conference. Rebecca had a very unfair advantage by being a speaker and should have replied via tweet or her blog, IMO. This whole event has soured my opinion on many things.

To get back to the OP, I don't know what "feminists want", even though I am female (don't even bug me about using that word, if you were thinking about it) as all women are different. I just want to be judged by my own abilities and not perceived issues because I am a woman.

I also would not want to be asked to go to a strange man's room I don't know at 4am, especially while in a closed space. Some women won't mind. But when in doubt, just don't speak to a woman that doesn't know you when she can't easily get away. The "elevator guy" could be a creep, could be an unaware clod, but he might also have acted how he did because Rebecca is famous in the community, and famous people get more strangers thinking they have a right to approach them. Either way, I enjoyed TAM last year and hope to this year.

 

[Rufo]

[...]
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.
[...]

Doesn't the apology sound like an effort to remedy that problem, though? A failed effort, obviously, but still an indication that he was afraid to be misinterpreted.

Of course, I don't mean to say that people should be able to get away with anything by apologizing first, but if he did want an intellectual exchange, how should he have phrased it?

[...]
I'm just trying to sort out what are stances that can be said to be feminist, and what are part of people's personal baggage. I mean, it's one thing to say there's an issue within the skeptical movement regarding sexism--but what's a man to do about it? In reading through those posts and getting embroiled in the fray a common theme played itself out--I am a white male, in a position of privilege, and am not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the blog's resident feminists.

I think you are taking it the wrong way. The part to take to heart is that being in a position of privilege, you should make an effort to understand situations you have never been in, and could not possibly be in. This doesn't mean you're not allowed to have an opinion, but it does mean you will have to thread lightly when discussing the subject. That discussion could probably have benefited from both sides threading more lightly, for that exact reason.

Concerning this and how it all relates to feminism, I think Visual Purple's post is an excellent exploration.

It aggravates me because no matter what, the people who disagree don't meet their level--and when they do (like a rape survivor who disagreed) they are part of the grand conspiracy of MRAs, PUAs, and other nasty acronyms.

I didn't read the whole original discussion, but it seems to me like the issue got severely polarized early on. At some point in a discussion like that, sensible people on both sides will just lose their patience and essentially give up.

 

[bookitty]

If you tell me that I should treat a woman differently from how I should treat a man, fine. I'll probably do it. I'm sensitive to socialization and expressed desires and so on. However, a couple of things are clear:

1) You are asking me to treat women differently from men.

2) If I do that, then I have to treat women differently from men.

This seems to me very simple. I'm an adaptable human being. I can do these things.

Wrong. I am asking not asking you to treat everyone differently, I am asking you to treat everyone better. Recognizing that a man and woman alone in an elevator might make the woman a bit edgy, is not asking you to treat her differently. It is asking you to be aware of your surroundings and the people in it. We should attempt to avoid making people in general uncomfortable.

You can't just ignore societal influence and say "Oh I want to treat everyone the same." We are social animals, these social influences do affect us. if you jokingly call your friends the n-word, you wouldn't expect that same word to get the same reaction in a different setting. Nor would you argue that you should be able to treat all people the same.

 

[bookitty]

Doesn't the apology sound like an effort to remedy that problem, though? A failed effort, obviously, but still an indication that he was afraid to be misinterpreted.

Of course, I don't mean to say that people should be able to get away with anything by apologizing first, but if he did want an intellectual exchange, how should he have phrased it?

This is pretty much the sticking point. He shouldn't have phrased it as a personal invitation at all. He could have said "Great talk!" or "Do you mind if I email you some questions I have." or "Will you be at the final breakfast tomorrow?" and there would have been no problem.

The idea that he isn't entitled to make his play, just in case, is what all the MRA stuff is about. Because what he wants isn't as important as what Watson had made very, very clear that she did not want.

I think you are taking it the wrong way. The part to take to heart is that being in a position of privilege, you should make an effort to understand situations you have never been in, and could not possibly be in. This doesn't mean you're not allowed to have an opinion, but it does mean you will have to thread lightly when discussing the subject. That discussion could probably have benefited from both sides threading more lightly, for that exact reason.

Concerning this and how it all relates to feminism, I think Visual Purple's post is an excellent exploration.


I didn't read the whole original discussion, but it seems to me like the issue got severely polarized early on. At some point in a discussion like that, sensible people on both sides will just lose their patience and essentially give up.

Many women have been frustrated or annoyed by situations just like this one. To not be heard, again (!) was hard to take.

 

[epepke]

Wrong. I am asking not asking you to treat everyone differently, I am asking you to treat everyone better. Recognizing that a man and woman alone in an elevator might make the woman a bit edgy, is not asking you to treat her differently. It is asking you to be aware of your surroundings and the people in it. We should attempt to avoid making people in general uncomfortable.

No, that's the thing. You are asking me to treat women qua women differently.

You can't just ignore societal influence and say "Oh I want to treat everyone the same."

I'm not the one saying this. This is really, really simple. I can easily treat people according to their differential behaviors and expectations. And if it turns out that women expect one thing, and men expect another, then what of it?

We are social animals, these social influences do affect us. if you jokingly call your friends the n-word, you wouldn't expect that same word to get the same reaction in a different setting. Nor would you argue that you should be able to treat all people the same.

Fine. Then I won't. I'll treat people differently. So then, therefore, I'm going to treat people differently.

And then, when a feminist says that it's bad to treat men and women differently, and you should treat men and women equally, how is that supposed to square that the idea that you should treat them differently. Hint: it cannot.

Summary. It's bad to treat men and women differently. It's also bad to treat them equally. Therefore, it's all bad, and probably all the fault of men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
David, it sounds like you and I are in similar places with our biology. I have what is sometimes termed as "a well developed feminine side" as well, in fact very much so. I stradle the male and female worlds and so can see the huge differences. I have had to learn to put on a mask so I can live in a male world and fit in with them when they are alone and can be open; it's vastly different to how they are when women are present. I get to see how women treat each other, and how men treat each other, and then compare it to how they both treat the other sex compared to that. Strangely women are more likely to try and treat men the way they treat other women, and then wonder why it blows up on them, men treat women very different to how they treat each other, which IMO is just as well as most women would be highly offended if a man treated them that way. These are differences that just can't be changed since it is part of the biology and who we are, and it's why we can never be "equal" as much as some want it to be like that. In the end equivalence is the best it can be (or if you prefer, equal in rights, but different in being), because the sexes will always be different, despite those of us the sit in the gulf between them not quite part of either world, but having a foot in both.

This seems so contradictory to your other expressed attitude that men and women have unequal social biology. I think the continuum of men and women's biologies both physical and social/emotional overlap but perhaps are on shifted bell curves.

The idea men and women are as different as you make them out to be makes me wonder what you think about yourself. Do you see your "well developed feminine side" as somehow abnormal? I like my assertive side. If I didn't have it, I'd never have been able to do the things I've done like travel around the world by myself, have a career, a son, all those things that make me not average, but I most definitely consider myself normal.


There are lots of people both men and women whose social side would bore me were I to hang out with them. I really think you are confusing cultural differences with biological differences.

 

[bookitty]

epeke, There's a guy at TAM that hits on every woman there in the most blatant and rude way. From what I can tell he has been doing this for years but nobody names names. (Oh look, I'm not either!) For the record, he's not a popular author with a magazine but the plebeian version lacking the books, look, and wit. At this point, there are several people who know exactly who I'm talking about.

I was warned about this man beforehand a couple of times. By the time he pulled his crap on me, I was not only ready for it but considered it a joke. When will the horror descend! and all that. However, I had the luxury of feeling perfectly safe. I was there with IIG and I had two people I trusted standing with me. If I wasn't a member of the IIG, I would have been there as a single woman alone. I would not have been warned. I would have no way of knowing if his bluster was social-ineptitude or checking victims for weakness. It would have made me very uncomfortable.

As far as I can tell, this guy has been getting away with this for years, even though he's known to be somewhat aggressive and anti-social. Why? Why has no-one told him to tone it down, or suggested that he check his baggage at the front desk or even perhaps stay home until he's learned a few manners. Why should every woman who goes to TAM have to worry about dealing with him?

 

[bookitty]

Also, this:
https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/

Possibly the best link to come out of the Pharyngula mess.

 

[epepke]

epeke, There's a guy at TAM that hits on every woman there in the most blatant and rude way. From what I can tell he has been doing this for years but nobody names names. (Oh look, I'm not either!) For the record, he's not a popular author with a magazine but the plebeian version lacking the books, look, and wit. At this point, there are several people who know exactly who I'm talking about.

It's "epepke."

OK, so there's this guy. I'm not he. Now tell me what I'm supposed to do.

It's really that simple.

 

[TraneWreck]

I thought it was a reply to a tweet, not a video.

I have seen a video response, but the person calls themselves "Rose", not Stef.

I may have this confused, so don't take this as gospel, but I believe "Stef" was a speaker at a conference and "Rose" was the person who posted the YouTube video.

I read about 2 of the twitter posts before the silliness overwhelmed me, so there might be a lot I've missed.

But yes, for me the issue blew up because the student who made the tweet that disagreed with Rebecca was "called out" at the conference. Rebecca had a very unfair advantage by being a speaker and should have replied via tweet or her blog, IMO. This whole event has soured my opinion on many things.

I agree. It was a very poor way to handle that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....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.

At least not the way she described the encounter. The idea it is insensitive to flirt or ask, that's crazy. How is any man or woman supposed to let the other know they are interested? It's only disgusting when the guy implies you need his attention, and I can't for the life of me figure out why any guy would use such an insulting pick up line. Surely it could not have been successful ever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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".

Exactly.