What do feminists want?

[Calculon]

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.

Well....I think she had a bit to do with it blowing up.
http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-33.html

That is my issue with the entire brou haha. I don't have an issue with Rebecca's initial post about the elevator guy.

 

[bookitty]

Well....I think she had a bit to do with it blowing up.

Well, yeah. my bad. Calling out Stef McGraw (sp?) for a video that Watson had seen 24 hours before discussing it may have been more reactionary than needed and that lead to some of the brouhaha.

During the Elevator Gate however, she was calm. Her recounting of it was brief and calm. Even her rebuttal to McGraw was succinct and composed. At no point was she hysterical or overly emotional. She never said that flirting was out of the question and she never said atheist/skeptical women were off limits, or any of the other "OMFG!!! The human race will die out because Rebecca Watson!!!" nonsense that has since been attributed to her.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Women are experts at shaming people. That pretty much sums it up. When it comes to feminists complaining about men hitting on them and how it's wrong... that's all they are doing. Don't take it personally.

 

[shawmutt]

Yes, the whole thing has blown up on the internet but that wasn't Watson's doing.

That's why I was looking for a general response, not a What does Rebecca want? It was completely blown out of proportion on PZ's blog and elsewhere. Reading the posts makes me think feminism is important to the skeptical movement as a whole--but even feminists can't clearly state their motives.

There's the easy stuff to understand--treat women with the respect a fellow human being deserves. It's the nuances I'm trying to hammer out. Or, is it just usual internet drama, there are really no major issues.

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

Look, it may be an unfortunate truth, but regardless of the degree of political liberation, an average woman will be significantly vulnerable around the average man. Maybe she can scream and someone will help, what happens before the help gets there? Maybe she has some mace in her pocket, or maybe that guy has something of his own that will make her stay silent.

There are endless hypotheticals about the way a given scenario could play out, so what? Given the situation, if that man on the elevator had chosen to become aggressive, it's now a matter of getting out with as little damage as possible. Considering those alternatives and the inherent vulnerability, I can see why Watson was troubled. All the BS about that proving anything about sexism is another matter.

I recall that there were a series of rapes that took place on the Blue Line a few years ago. Several of them took place during the day. Women were assaulted and raped in the few minutes it took to get between stops. There were people in neighboring cars, there were communication devices that enabled the women to call for help, none of it mattered. These sorts of assaults can happen rapidly, with little warning.

I also find it odd that you're trying to create some connection between social/political progression and the physical strength necessary to not fear an assault. The two have almost nothing in common. If being a "liberated woman" involves being able to fight off an assailant...well, that's just sort of a bizarre way of analyzing the situation.

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.

That's where you feel vulnerable. I know a lot of women who would feel much more comfortable in the wilderness by themselves than in an elevator at 4am with some potential nutjob.

I don't think you're being misogynistic, I think you're disagreeing about the situation. One of the things I found absurd about Watson's position in all of this was the haste with which she labelled opponents misogynists.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

In some contexts it can be, or at least perceived that way.

 

[bookitty]

Women are experts at shaming people. That pretty much sums it up. When it comes to feminists complaining about men hitting on them and how it's wrong... that's all they are doing. Don't take it personally.

Ah yes, obviously we have come so far in the skepticism community that taking a few moments to offer some well-meant advice is unnecessary. It's all settled. If a man hits on a woman in such a way that it makes her uncomfortable, she should shut up about it so that his feelings aren't hurt.

Seriously, why don't you guys want to know what creeps women out? It seems like a little info might help your chances.

 

[Calculon]

Well, yeah. my bad. Calling out Stef McGraw (sp?) for a video that Watson had seen 24 hours before discussing it may have been more reactionary than needed and that lead to some of the brouhaha.

During the Elevator Gate however, she was calm. Her recounting of it was brief and calm. Even her rebuttal to McGraw was succinct and composed. At no point was she hysterical or overly emotional. She never said that flirting was out of the question and she never said atheist/skeptical women were off limits, or any of the other "OMFG!!! The human race will die out because Rebecca Watson!!!" nonsense that has since been attributed to her.

I have not seen this video. I have seen one by someone who calls herself "Stclairose".

And Rebecca's reply on a blog is not something I would have an issue with either. It was the call out at the conference. If I were to put myself in the shoes of Stef, I would feel bullied.

 

[This is The End]

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."

You could not have made up a story that paints you any more sexist.

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

All I get is that you are completely wrong. "Biological switching" indeed, but not between gender!

You're entire theory is that women and men cannot learn to treat each other equally because they don't treat each other equally by nature.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In some contexts it can be, or at least perceived that way.

Heck, it can be dodgy even if the person is disabled. It is always a judgment call.

Funny story about chivalry, at my community college class was a girl from down South. She was ending her semester and was so happy to return home because people up here were "mean". When asked what she meant, she said guys didn't go out of their way to open doors for her. The class was 90% female with a female instructor and they all bemoaned the death of chivalry. I went form eye rolling to face-palming.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

It was the idea the elevator in a hotel was a place a woman was especially vulnerable that I was referring to, not the creeped out part.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Ah yes, obviously we have come so far in the skepticism community that taking a few moments to offer some well-meant advice is unnecessary. It's all settled. If a man hits on a woman in such a way that it makes her uncomfortable, she should shut up about it so that his feelings aren't hurt.

Seriously, why don't you guys want to know what creeps women out? It seems like a little info might help your chances.

Certainly men should learn from their mistakes. But it is a given that mistakes will happen, this doesn't mean you are not a decent human being or that you should feel bad. Learn and move on. Women are free to speak up and shame men all they want (and many do!), what I stated is that men should not take it personally when that happens. Reading and discussing about these topics online is not really going to help, most people will have to learn by experience...what is creepy for one guy could also be really cool for another guy. What one girl is creeped out by may not creep out another girl.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Look, it may be an unfortunate truth, but regardless of the degree of political liberation, an average woman will be significantly vulnerable around the average man. Maybe she can scream and someone will help, what happens before the help gets there? Maybe she has some mace in her pocket, or maybe that guy has something of his own that will make her stay silent.

There are endless hypotheticals about the way a given scenario could play out, so what? Given the situation, if that man on the elevator had chosen to become aggressive, it's now a matter of getting out with as little damage as possible. Considering those alternatives and the inherent vulnerability, I can see why Watson was troubled. All the BS about that proving anything about sexism is another matter.

I recall that there were a series of rapes that took place on the Blue Line a few years ago. Several of them took place during the day. Women were assaulted and raped in the few minutes it took to get between stops. There were people in neighboring cars, there were communication devices that enabled the women to call for help, none of it mattered. These sorts of assaults can happen rapidly, with little warning.

I also find it odd that you're trying to create some connection between social/political progression and the physical strength necessary to not fear an assault. The two have almost nothing in common. If being a "liberated woman" involves being able to fight off an assailant...well, that's just sort of a bizarre way of analyzing the situation.

The world I occupy is not as dangerous as the one you are describing. Very few guys are looking to assault women any chance they get. I can recall being actually threatened by men in any situation less than a half dozen times in my life and I have been in a gazillion places such aggression could have occurred.

I am by no means reckless. The situations I found myself in were from sheer stupidity and I learned quickly from those mistakes. But the world is safe for the most part. People are good for the most part. The only places I stay away from are high crime areas like Mexico currently is and places where soldiers have free reign to harass the local population as was the case when I was in Nicaragua.

Let me give you an example. The first time I traveled out of the country I had been traveling around for several months in the US in a small pick up with a camper shell. I sold it in Florida before going further. The guy who bought it told me how dangerous it was in the Dominican Republic where I was headed. This was the first story of many I heard again and again about how dangerous [X] was and how much they hated Americans or whatever the current fear mongering story was. But every time with the exception of Nicaragua I found the claims of danger couldn't have been further from the truth. Central Park in NYC was way more dangerous than the DR. Camping on the beach in HI was dangerous as was wandering into the wrong neighborhood in Amsterdam. But compared to the land area of the globe, these places represent a tiny tiny fraction of the planet.

That's where you feel vulnerable. I know a lot of women who would feel much more comfortable in the wilderness by themselves than in an elevator at 4am with some potential nutjob.

While the chances of coming across a bad guy a couple miles down a trail in the wilderness is extremely unlikely, if you did, there would be no one around to help. If I hike alone, I take a gun. Never had to use it, but I'm sure there would be no other chance of getting away in such an isolated place.

I don't think you're being misogynistic, I think you're disagreeing about the situation. One of the things I found absurd about Watson's position in all of this was the haste with which she labelled opponents misogynists.

I meant you came across as misogynic, not me. What I meant was I don't mean to accuse you of that. I don't know you well enough to know one way or the other. But the idea women are vulnerable in places that just don't seem to warrant it seems misogynistic to me.

 

[TraneWreck]

The world I occupy is not as dangerous as the one you are describing. Very few guys are looking to assault women any chance they get. I can recall being actually threatened by men in any situation less than a half dozen times in my life and I have been in a gazillion places such aggression could have occurred.

This is mostly straw. It doesn't matter what most people will do most of the time, it's purely an issue of whether Rebecca Watson was rational in being apprehensive about that type of confrontation. She didn't know this person, she merely knew that he had already ignored her wishes by pursuing and propositioning her, she had no way of knowing how he would react to rejection and she was incredibly vulnerable to an assault, even if some combination of screaming and fighting back could eventually have brought help.

The behavior of the man placed her in fear and stress needlessly. That, in and of itself, is poor behavior. It's simply a matter of statistics and reality that the male-female dynamic leads to abuse more frequently. If it were a young boy in that elevator, it would be a similarly inappropriate situation for many of the same reasons (and at least a couple more).

I am by no means reckless. The situations I found myself in were from sheer stupidity and I learned quickly from those mistakes. But the world is safe for the most part. People are good for the most part. The only places I stay away from are high crime areas like Mexico currently is and places where soldiers have free reign to harass the local population as was the case when I was in Nicaragua.

People were raped, assaulted, robbed, beaten and even murdered on a fairly regular basis in my pretty safe Northside neighborhood. That doesn't mean at every moment people were on the verge of being attacked, but it does mean that a woman expressing fear over, say, being approached at a bus stop when she was by herself is not being irrational.It's great you've never been harmed, but a lot of women have. And that's more or less irrelevant to the question of whether Rebecca Watson was rational to express concern over the incident in the elevator.

While the chances of coming across a bad guy a couple miles down a trail in the wilderness is extremely unlikely, if you did, there would be no one around to help. If I hike alone, I take a gun. Never had to use it, but I'm sure there would be no other chance of getting away in such an isolated place.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. The question of whether a woman can potentially protect herself is different from the question of whether it's appropriate to behave in such a way that makes another person fearful when they're vulnerable.

I meant you came across as misogynic, not me. What I meant was I don't mean to accuse you of that. I don't know you well enough to know one way or the other. But the idea women are vulnerable in places that just don't seem to warrant it seems misogynistic to me.

Alright, I guess we'll just make sure that "misogny" no longer has any meaning.

Here's the definition: "a hatred of women, as a sexually defined group" Perhaps you're using it in some sense that has evaded the dictionaries, but to extend that term to cover the act of respecting the worldview of women, we've long since jumped the shark with that term.

The extent of my argument is that Rebecca Watson was not irrational or hysterical to explain that she felt uncomfortable when a man pursued her from a bar and propositioned her in an empty elevator very early in the morning. I am arguing that it was very rational to experience fear and stress in that situation, and that it wasn't a good move by the man.

How this has turned into "hatred of women" is anyone's guess.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know what else to say, TW. I don't find the elevator scenario a place I'd be especially concerned about female vulnerability and IMO like the guy who thought I needed help crossing a tiny creek, I think that specific belief of yours is sexist**. It's just opinion. It isn't a straw man, it's a matter of where one draws the 'vulnerability line' on the continuum.

It's been said here the issue was objectifying women more than the issue was a pick up line delivered in a place the woman in question felt threatened. Again, it's just how we are perceiving this differently.

**As for the term, misogyny, dang. I am using the wrong word. Sexist would have been a better choice. It wouldn't be the first time I let the definition of a term drift until it didn't mean in my mind what I thought it did.

 

[caniswalensis]

To borrow from Mallory; Their own way.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's been said here the issue was objectifying women more than the issue was a pick up line delivered in a place the woman in question felt threatened. Again, it's just how we are perceiving this differently.

Except I'm not the one that felt threatened. It's odd to call me sexist in proxy for a woman who was expressing that position. She was not generalizing to all women, she was talking, specifically, about how she felt (the generalizations that came after were bizarre and not supported by the incident).

All I've done is point out that there was good reason to feal scared in that situation. That's not to say that all women will feel afraid or that they should feel afraid, it's simply supportive of one person's feelings and those that would feel similarly.

**As for the term, misogyny, dang. I am using the wrong word. Sexist would have been a better choice. It wouldn't be the first time I let the definition of a term drift until it didn't mean in my mind what I thought it did.

So where's the discrimination? Where's the stereotyping?

Obviously there are some women who have nothing to physically fear from some men, but that's not true as a matter of statistics, and obviously isn't true in the case we're presented. Are you arguing against the notion that women are victims of sexual assault at a significantly higher rate than men (and almost all sexual assault against men is perpetrated by other men)?

To be clear, here is the essence of my position: women are not irrational for feeling concerned, off-put, and even scared when strangers pursue them until they're isolated then proposition them.

I guess if you just "feel" that this is a sexist position, we can't have a conversation about this, and believe me, I've been called worse, but this is certainly a perplexing position you've adopted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except I'm not the one that felt threatened. It's odd to call me sexist in proxy for a woman who was expressing that position. She was not generalizing to all women, she was talking, specifically, about how she felt (the generalizations that came after were bizarre and not supported by the incident).

All I've done is point out that there was good reason to feal scared in that situation. That's not to say that all women will feel afraid or that they should feel afraid, it's simply supportive of one person's feelings and those that would feel similarly.



So where's the discrimination? Where's the stereotyping?

Obviously there are some women who have nothing to physically fear from some men, but that's not true as a matter of statistics, and obviously isn't true in the case we're presented. Are you arguing against the notion that women are victims of sexual assault at a significantly higher rate than men (and almost all sexual assault against men is perpetrated by other men)?

To be clear, here is the essence of my position: women are not irrational for feeling concerned, off-put, and even scared when strangers pursue them until they're isolated then proposition them.

I guess if you just "feel" that this is a sexist position, we can't have a conversation about this, and believe me, I've been called worse, but this is certainly a perplexing position you've adopted.

How can this be that difficult?

I find your view that women are vulnerable in a hotel elevator to be insulting. Are men vulnerable in hotel elevators? Are women incapable of crossing a small creek without falling in?

It's just my opinion of the situation. There is no right or wrong to argue here unless you want to dig up some data about how many assaults occur in hotel elevators.

Yes, any person, male or female, could be assaulted anywhere. Does that translate to any place a guy ever propositions a woman is wrong because the woman is vulnerable?

 

[Delvo]

One of the things I found absurd about Watson's position in all of this was the haste with which she labelled opponents misogynists.

Well, it is Rebecca Watson we're talking about. That's her shtick. If we were consecutive customers at a salad bar and assembled otherwise identical salads but she put catalina dressing on hers while I put ranch on mine, she'd speechify in one medium/setting or another about how ranch dressing is misogynist. What else would she be expected to do? Someone who didn't find some way to insert that accusation at somebody somewhere wouldn't have been Rebecca Watson.

And that, right there, is the only reason there's anybody talking about this at all: not because the incident happened and it had worried her at the time, but because she then chose to use it to characterize a larger group of guys who weren't there and aren't like that guy, then she publicly lashed out at someone else for having the gall to disagree with her on any part of that in any way, and she probably had some readers reading her behavior in this case in light of past signs of similar behavior & attitudes which made this particular case seem bigger/worse than it really was just because it was her (the "there she goes again" effect).

It was the idea the elevator in a hotel was a place a woman was especially vulnerable that I was referring to

Do you not believe that elevators can be closed from the inside in such a way that it's very difficult and time-consuming to get them opened again from the outside?

 

[TraneWreck]

How can this be that difficult?

I find your view that women are vulnerable in a hotel elevator to be insulting. Are men vulnerable in hotel elevators? Are women incapable of crossing a small creek without falling in?

And I find your notion that women should be able to protect themselves from sexual assaults to be Pollyannaish. The statistics are as they are. It's unfortunate, but women do have more to fear in that situation than men.

But in your attempt to generalize my claims to make them appear like sexism, you're skimming over relevant facts. All things being equal, a woman on an elevator with a man alone in a hotel probably has little to fear. When that man begins propositioning her, she should be a little more concerned about the direction. When it's a man that was at the bar when she explained she was going to bed and had not spoken with her directly, who then follows her until she's alone to proposition her, the concern increases.

Again, the only relevant point is whether Rebecca Watson was rational to explain that 1) this was off-putting behavior and 2) request that men not approach her that way.

All things considered, I say yes. Evidently this is equivalent to arguing that women are helpless. Hell, even if Watson was perfectly in a position to protect herself, maybe she had cyborg arms, it's still inappropriate to place someone in an uncomfortable position like that. This guy behaved really poorly, not because he was a misogynist, but because he was a douche.

It's just my opinion of the situation. There is no right or wrong to argue here unless you want to dig up some data about how many assaults occur in hotel elevators.

This isn't a very productive way to argue. I could equally respond by saying, "Hey, nothing we can do about it, I think you're sexist for dehumanizing and ignoring Watson's claims that she was uncomfortable. You're ignoring and invalidating her opinion as a woman, which is sexist. No right or wrong, you're just a sexist, I don't know why that's hard to understand." Deploying loaded terms without bothering to justify the claim is just poisoning the well.

But fine, let's look at some evidence. I don't have any broad studies at my fingertips, but here are some cases:

Police arrested a 21-year-old man in connection with two sexual assaults in elevators in Brooklyn.

Cops say Rayquan Williams, of East Williamsburg, followed two women into elevators in Williamsburg, told them he had a weapon and proceeded to sexually assault them. One of the victims got away.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...Brooklyn-Elevator-Sex-Assaults-113614679.html

A 61-year-old man from India who was visiting his daughter was charged Monday with second-degree sexual assault after he allegedly kissed and fondled a woman as they rode an elevator in her apartment building two weeks ago.

Siva R. Yannam followed the woman into the elevator on Aug. 2 at a building on Bear Claw Way in Madison, made small talk and then grabbed the woman, who was loaded down with groceries, according to a criminal complaint.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...98a-11df-998d-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1RCVEANKr

The NYPD has released a video of a suspect accused of raping a woman in Washington Heights early Monday.

The man allegedly followed his 42-year-old victim into the elevator of her building near West 179 Street and St. Nicholas Avenue around 3 a.m., police said. Once inside, he sexually assaulted her, then fled the scene, police said.

http://www.dnainfo.com/20101020/was...ted-washington-heights-elevator#ixzz1RCVew92C

A man in his early 20's who seeks out unsuspecting women in elevators is being sought in a string of seven sexual assaults that have taken place in Manhattan and the Bronx since Jan. 15, the police said yesterday.

''This is a pretty slick guy,'' Deputy Inspector Susan Morley, commander of the Special Victims Unit, said at a news conference yesterday, describing the attacker's ability to disarm his victims with small talk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/n...ance-tape-is-sought-in-7-sexual-assaults.html

A woman who says she was sexually assaulted by a worker at Centennial Hills Hospital has filed suit against the hospital, its parent company and other health care entities alleging negligence, false imprisonment, emotional distress and assault and battery.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/18/hospital-sued-over-alleged-sexual-assault/

There are plenty more results. How many would you like to see in order to acknowledge that elevator assault isn't just a made up notion? Scrolling through google I bet I could get you 50 stories with relative ease, and that's just in the US. You're welcome to google it for yourself.

Being alone in an elevator is an incredibly vulnerable situation for a woman. Notice that these assaults can occur during the day when plenty of people are around. Sometimes weapons are used, but they can begin with innocuous small talk. Hell, they even have these guys on videotape and they manage to offend over and over.

This is just evidence to show that Rebecca Watson's statement was a reasonable one. Maybe you're never afraid when you're alone in an elevator, good for you. I'm not demanding that you, or any woman, be fearful. That doesn't mean that women who are nervous in such situations are irrational.

You can continue to attempt to personalize this and attack me as a sexist, but the facts of sexual assualt show that women are far more likely than men to be victims, and male victims are almost always attacked by other men. Given that assaults on elevators are hardly a rare occurance in addition to the other specifics of Watson's situation, and it was perfectly reasonable for her to point out the inappropriateness of the behavior of that man.

Yes, any person, male or female, could be assaulted anywhere. Does that translate to any place a guy ever propositions a woman is wrong because the woman is vulnerable?

Oh please. I won't get upset when you call me sexist, but let's at least carry on this conversation without generating goofy misrepresentations of each other's position.

I've been clear that this specific proposition would have been perfectly appropriate had it taken place in the bar. Following a woman until she is alone, then coming on to her is a suspect move. It doesn't mean assault is assured, as this situation proves, but it does give a woman a reason to be worried.