What do feminists want?

[sgtbaker]

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



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?



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.

Do you have the same exact interaction with every one of your friends or do you adjust your behavior around how you know your friends will respond? The vast majority of people do the second. What would be a high five-worthy joke in one circle, you might not ever dare say in another. It's about realizing that the conversation is not entirely about what you want to express but rather, about how your audience will receive it.

My monthly atheist meeting is about as "in the skeptical society" as I will ever get so I don't know what it's like for a public figure like Rebecca Watson; an insightful and intelligent woman, who happens to be young and attractive. It must get really tiresome to voice something she feels could really make a difference and get responses like, "you're hot!"

 

[bookitty]

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.

I am sorry about messing up you name. It was not intentional and I'll be more careful in the future.

What you're supposed to do is pretty easy. You're obviously smart, you're not a knee-jerk reactionary to women's issues and you seem open to mutually beneficial conversations. In other words, you're normal. So go about your normal day at, let's say, the convention.

During the day, if you come across any small clues that you're making someone uncomfortable, pay attention. If a guy says "Oh please, let's not go over the DBAD meme again. I can't deal with another argument!" save your DBAD points for the next group. If a woman says "I'm here alone and that elevator guy thing kinda freaked me out. I'm so glad that I haven't had to deal with anything like that." don't hit on her.

Treat your fellow attendees like individuals that have background experiences different than yours and play it safe when you have some clues as to what those difference might be.

 

[shawmutt]

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

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

It is a pretty good link, but one part of its premise is flawed--any man with a daughter has a better idea how women feel I can't look at anything objectifying women without thinking "she has a father..."

(OK, just about to hit reply, but remembered the mess from before--this is stated with tongue firmly in cheek , I understand where the privilege thing is coming from--I just think it was overused a bit in those discussions)

eta:And I think the funniest thing I read out of all those thousands of posts (jeez, did I really read thousands of posts?) was on blog post #1 "Forget sexism and the "doability" of Watson. Clearly the skeptical movement is doomed because all of the members are so socially inept that they can't pass a Turing test."

That had me laughing!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

OMFSM. Talk about misogyny! It's a hotel elevator for crying out loud, not a back alley.

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.

Now I'm confused about your position. Perhaps we just see the elevator/vulnerable issue differently. And Dublin, a foreign country? Sheesh, how is that different from NYC or Miami if you are from LA? A foreign city? A foreign state?

Mexico City, Quito, Bangkok, those are foreign cities, but Dublin? I can't see it. I've been in several dangerous situations I regretted finding myself in. The only one that was in a foreign country was in Managua. The rest were all in the US. Perhaps that has given me a different perspective than you have.

 

[Calculon]

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?

I think I know this guy...and if it is the same one, he has been told but refuses to believe that he is anything but a nice, friendly guy and he has a few friends who defend him no matter what. But he always seems to be most interested in new single women who come in the group who don't know the dynamics yet nor his reputation. One of his defenders said it was no issue as both are adults...but one person is using an advantage they have to catch a new person off guard.

I think I successfully cock-blocked (I really like that term....no one get mad at me) his most recent attempt.

 

[bookitty]

I think I know this guy...and if it is the same one, he has been told but refuses to believe that he is anything but a nice, friendly guy and he has a few friends who defend him no matter what. But he always seems to be most interested in new single women who come in the group who don't know the dynamics yet nor his reputation. One of his defenders said it was no issue as both are adults...but one person is using an advantage they have to catch a new person off guard.

I think I successfully cock-blocked (I really like that term....no one get mad at me) his most recent attempt.

Thank you for cock-blocking (I know, I know, it's gendered but it's so perfect.) the people on either side of me when I was approached became very interested in the floors and walls all of a sudden. It isn't a huge thing but it bugs me that everyone just accepts it as part of the package for women who have paid hundreds of dollars to be there.

I keep wondering if he's the reasons that suggestions like "Create a safe-room, for women only" keep coming up when people talk about getting more women to meetings and conferences.

 

[bookitty]

Do you have the same exact interaction with every one of your friends or do you adjust your behavior around how you know your friends will respond? The vast majority of people do the second. What would be a high five-worthy joke in one circle, you might not ever dare say in another. It's about realizing that the conversation is not entirely about what you want to express but rather, about how your audience will receive it.

My monthly atheist meeting is about as "in the skeptical society" as I will ever get so I don't know what it's like for a public figure like Rebecca Watson; an insightful and intelligent woman, who happens to be young and attractive. It must get really tiresome to voice something she feels could really make a difference and get responses like, "you're hot!"

Also, even one is truly dedicate to treating everyone the same, they are at a disadvantage if they are not bi-sexual. Unless straight men want to start hitting on other straight men in order to treat them the same way they treat women.

 

[TraneWreck]

OMFSM. Talk about misogyny! It's a hotel elevator for crying out loud, not a back alley.

Are back alleys where a majority of sexual assaults occur? And I don't know what misogyny has to do with it, I've acknowledged that almost everything Ms. Watson said about the incident was absurd. I find her statement about the inappropriateness of the proposition to be about the only thing I agree with her on. She was isolated and vulnerable. It was fortunate nothing happened, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a concerning situation.

You can view it how you want, maybe you would have been perfectly comfortable in that situation, but I don't find it in the least unreasonable for a woman to be put-off under those circumstances.

Now I'm confused about your position. Perhaps we just see the elevator/vulnerable issue differently. And Dublin, a foreign country? Sheesh, how is that different from NYC or Miami if you are from LA? A foreign city? A foreign state?

Mexico City, Quito, Bangkok, those are foreign cities, but Dublin? I can't see it. I've been in several dangerous situations I regretted finding myself in. The only one that was in a foreign country was in Managua. The rest were all in the US. Perhaps that has given me a different perspective than you have.

The specific country matters less than the unfamiliarity with the system. Can you just call 911 in Dublin? I have no idea, I doubt she did, either. What would she do if this guy became aggressive?

I don't think Dublin is extraordinarily dangerous (though I did have a friend find himself under attack by a gang over there), but the issue is the reasonability of Ms. Watson's fear/discomfort in that situation. Being in a foreign country creates additional stress.

 

[Calculon]

Thank you for cock-blocking (I know, I know, it's gendered but it's so perfect.) the people on either side of me when I was approached became very interested in the floors and walls all of a sudden. It isn't a huge thing but it bugs me that everyone just accepts it as part of the package for women who have paid hundreds of dollars to be there.

I keep wondering if he's the reasons that suggestions like "Create a safe-room, for women only" keep coming up when people talk about getting more women to meetings and conferences.

MANY of us noticed his last attempt..and agreed that it was bad. But addressing it head on is hard. Do we tell the new person his reputation and have her think we harbor creepy guys? Do we tell him to knock it off and create another rift when he will not acknowledge his close attention should not happen to all new single female visitors/members? So giving the new female another person to talk to so she feels she is not being crowded was done and worked.

Life would be easier if this guy would think about more than his needs/wants. And I think most guys are better than him, for the record.

 

[TraneWreck]

Thank you for cock-blocking (I know, I know, it's gendered but it's so perfect.)

In the spirit of feminism:

Clam-jamming? Muff-rebuff? Beaver Dam?

 

[shawmutt]

In the spirit of feminism:

Clam-jamming? Muff-rebuff? Beaver Dam?

Organ-grinding.

Ouch.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

It would never bother me if a guy wanted to be chivalrous. I have had on occasion however, a guy get offended when I didn't want or need his help. For example, once in the Dominican Republic I was walking down a trail with a group of people. A lot of guys in the DR have the typical Latin male complex. We crossed a very small creek and I told the guy offering his hand to help me across that it wasn't necessary. He was offended and made a snide comment that if I fell it would be too bad. The creek was so ridiculously easy to cross I was surprised by the comment.


Interesting side note: I've been in a couple situations where it was advantageous to be from the 'women are liberated in' USA when traveling to a country with very regressive male-female roles. I was traveling with a male friend in Fiji, for example, and we went to a farm. I was able to see all the stuff the women were doing and also go into the 'men's building and share kava with them. My male friend could not go into the houses the women showed me. No one cared that I went in the men's building.

And in the DR in my story above, I was able to hang out with both groups after the guys and gals split up. We went to a house in the country to have a picnic. Once we got there the guys went off playing dominos while all the gals went in to cook. But the ladies had the last laugh. They ate most of the meat out of the soup while they were cooking.


It's interesting to see the contrast of cultures where gender separation is so different from in the US. When you see how bad it can be, the problems of gender inequality in the US seems less. And there are ways people make up for their inequality in other cultures that one might not expect.

 

[bookitty]

MANY of us noticed his last attempt..and agreed that it was bad. But addressing it head on is hard. Do we tell the new person his reputation and have her think we harbor creepy guys? Do we tell him to knock it off and create another rift when he will not acknowledge his close attention should not happen to all new single female visitors/members? So giving the new female another person to talk to so she feels she is not being crowded was done and worked.

Life would be easier if this guy would think about more than his needs/wants. And I think most guys are better than him, for the record.

Actually, the nice thing is that the jerk stands out. People know who I'm talking about because the choices are very limited. This says many awesome things about the majority of people at TAM. (Also reflects my experience at TAM. Almost person I met, regardless of gender, was warm, welcoming, and enthusiastic.) Again, it's not that sexism within the skeptical and atheist communities is a huge, insurmountable problem. Just that it hasn't quite been eradicated.

ETA: Oh but yes, please warn people away from this guy. Even other guys who might be a bit taken aback by his attitude and think it reflects the group. By admitting that you are aware that it is a problem, even if it is one you haven't figured out how to address, you are making people feel safer. They are not alone in confronting this, they have allies who are just as frustrated or uncomfortable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... 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.

So is that sexism or simply being socially challenged? After all, wouldn't feminists want sex as much as the next person? Why would a talk about sexism make one think hitting on that woman would be offensive?

Honestly, I just don't get it.

 

[bookitty]

So is that sexism or simply being socially challenged? After all, wouldn't feminists want sex as much as the next person? Why would a talk about sexism make one think hitting on that woman would be offensive?

Honestly, I just don't get it.

Because in her lecture, she specifically said that being objectified made her uncomfortable. She was asking that she not be made uncomfortable because she is female. She wasn't talking about sex in general or saying that feminists should refrain from it. She only said that she found it uncomfortable.

And it was probably a lot more uncomfortable at 4 AM in an elevator.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... 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.

And herein lies the crux of the matter. Some feminists sometimes make any reference to sex at all offensive. I say "make" because I think this is one of those situations where it is a personal choice to be offended.

Value me less or say something offensive like, "you need a man to fix that attitude or yours" and every gal should be offended. But expecting guys to know you do or don't want their sexual attention? I don't see how a guy is supposed to automatically know that.

I understand this attitude exists, "don't sexualize me". But I don't share it as being offensive per se.

 

[bookitty]

And herein lies the crux of the matter. Some feminists sometimes make any reference to sex at all offensive. I say "make" because I think this is one of those situations where it is a personal choice to be offended.

Value me less or say something offensive like, "you need a man to fix that attitude or yours" and every gal should be offended. But expecting guys to know you do or don't want their sexual attention? I don't see how a guy is supposed to automatically know that.

I understand this attitude exists, "don't sexualize me". But I don't share it as being offensive per se.

Well, she tried dedicating an entire panel discussion to it and that didn't work. What would you suggest?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are back alleys where a majority of sexual assaults occur? And I don't know what misogyny has to do with it, I've acknowledged that almost everything Ms. Watson said about the incident was absurd. I find her statement about the inappropriateness of the proposition to be about the only thing I agree with her on. She was isolated and vulnerable. It was fortunate nothing happened, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a concerning situation.

You can view it how you want, maybe you would have been perfectly comfortable in that situation, but I don't find it in the least unreasonable for a woman to be put-off under those circumstances.



The specific country matters less than the unfamiliarity with the system. Can you just call 911 in Dublin? I have no idea, I doubt she did, either. What would she do if this guy became aggressive?

I don't think Dublin is extraordinarily dangerous (though I did have a friend find himself under attack by a gang over there), but the issue is the reasonability of Ms. Watson's fear/discomfort in that situation. Being in a foreign country creates additional stress.

I'm sorry. But what I'm having a hard time with here is the idea one wants to be liberated at the same time one is playing up the vulnerable woman theme. I don't mean to imply Rebecca did this at all, I'm looking at this in more general terms. You seem to be seeing it that way, that we weak little girls are vulnerable in a hotel elevator. I just don't see that situation as dangerous in any way. If a gal screamed there's be dozens of people in the hall in seconds.

Hiking alone in the wilderness, that feels vulnerable. Walking down a dark deserted street alone in any place, foreign or not, that feels vulnerable. But not in a hotel elevator. I can't help how I view the situation. I don't mean to insult you. It comes across as misogynistic, sorry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, she tried dedicating an entire panel discussion to it and that didn't work. What would you suggest?

Personally, I don't find that particular battle worth expending any energy over. There are so many more serious causes for feminists to be concerned about. I find nothing offensive about having a guy attracted sexually to a gal unless it is your boss or something.

 

[bookitty]

I'm sorry. But what I'm having a hard time with here is the idea one wants to be liberated at the same time one is playing up the vulnerable woman theme. I don't mean to imply Rebecca did this at all, I'm looking at this in more general terms. You seem to be seeing it that way, that we weak little girls are vulnerable in a hotel elevator. I just don't see that situation as dangerous in any way. If a gal screamed there's be dozens of people in the hall in seconds.

Hiking alone in the wilderness, that feels vulnerable. Walking down a dark deserted street alone in any place, foreign or not, that feels vulnerable. But not in a hotel elevator. I can't help how I view the situation. I don't mean to insult you. It comes across as misogynistic, sorry.

How does feeling uncomfortable and a little creeped out translate to" weak little girls?" Perhaps we should allow that Rebecca, who was in that situation, has the clearest perspective on how she should feel about it. Especially because her response, at the time and afterward, were in proportion to the incident. Yes, the whole thing has blown up on the internet but that wasn't Watson's doing.