How can Dawkins redeem himself?

[Mycroft]

We still have nothing but RW's speculation that EG heard said comments and/or understood the message the way RW insists he must have. According to RW, "I'm going to bed" contained an awful lot more information between the lines that she was certain everyone was obligated to understand.

A pretty small issue.

Her negative opinion of EG's actions did grow in her subsequent comments to the level of 'sexist objectification' of her.

Yeah. The internet does that to people and their opinions.

 

[blauregen]

Time and time again I see men making unwanted passes at women because the former just ignore the signals given by the women that they are not interested. I think it's a combination of stupidity and egoism, and a lack of respect for women and girls frankly.

Here is an interesting blog-entry on the topic of ignoring signals. It is admittedly about a more grave topic than simple come ons, but it may be interesting nevertheless.

 

[blauregen]

Still, this is the essence of what happened:

RW: Guys, don't do that.

Phil, PZ: OMG WE MEN ARE SUCH MISOGYNISTS.

Dawkins: PZ, are you being serious? THAT'S what you think misogyny is? It's just bad manners! HERE is a real example.

RW, PZ, Phil, and a decent portion of the blogosphere: OMG, DAWKINS JUST SAID THAT MISOGYNY ONLY COUNTS IF IT'S EXTREME! WHAT ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS?!

Dawkins: ???

***

Hmm, not how I read it.

RW: [As an example.] This guy there got into the elevator with me, and approached me. Guys don't come on to me me where I can't get away and when I just said I'm done. It creeps me out, and many women who wrote to me feel similar, and it could scare them away from the skeptics/atheist-movement.
Stef and others: Hey, don't tell the guys not to hit on us. How should we get laid otherwise? Getting laid is awesome.
PZ: She has a point, not taking into account her feelings and the situation when coming on to her is disrespectful to her as a person. This could be a problem for the skeptics/atheist movement.
Various blog comments, including the dangers of getting raped, women face in comparable situations.


Now this likely wouldn't have have blown up, if RW simply had answered 'Huh? Hey, I like getting laid too. Just keep it to situations where it doesn't creep me out'. Instead, maybe because feminism is important to her, it went.

RW: Don't parrot this misogynist crap. We shouldn't have to put up with that.

Dawkins (focusing on the elevator incident): Why do you make such a fuss? Muslim women have it worse.

PZ: Wait, did you such say we should ignore a problem, because there are worse?

Dawkins (still focusing on the elevator incident): No, I say it was just words. Words can't hurt anyone.

Medium ********* were it was rather unfriendly pointed out in various blogs, that Dawkins as a wealthy, old, heterosexual white man likely has no reference point for how much anxiety approaches similar to the critized ones can cause in many women.

Wild discussions regarding the awfulness of EG's character for creeping out a woman.
Wild discussions about the awfulness of RW's character for presenting as sex-positive, capitalizing on it, and saying that she doesn't want to be hit on in any situation and at any time.
Wild discussions about her character being even more awful, because she was a dick towards Stef and Dawkins. (Yes, she was. )
Intense focus and elaborate studies on the actual danger of being assaulted in elevators in nice Dublin hotels ( which is in my view only marginally related to the general complaint about male inconsiderateness or the perceived threat. )
People pointing out that not all women would have been creeped out in this situation ( true ).
People pointing out that RW is even more awful because she tries to speak for all women ( did she? ).
People pointing out that being considerate to someone would mean seeing those people as weak and would be sexist. ( interesting idea. Should we be less considerate to empower the survivors?).
People pointing out that EG had not necessarily a way of anticipating RW's anxiety, or the anxiety of many but not all other women in comparable situations ( strictly spoken true, because high functioning autism, as an example, would likely hinder such an assessment. On the other hand, people pointed out in various blogs and comments that they considered the ability to make such an assessment a rather common social skill, so YMMV.)

Conclusion: Interesting Discussion.

 

[RemieV]

Hmm, not how I read it.

RW: [As an example.] This guy there got into the elevator with me, and approached me. Guys don't come on to me me where I can't get away and when I just said I'm done. It creeps me out, and many women who wrote to me feel similar, and it could scare them away from the skeptics/atheist-movement.
Stef and others: Hey, don't tell the guys not to hit on us. How should we get laid otherwise? Getting laid is awesome.
PZ: She has a point, not taking into account her feelings and the situation when coming on to her is disrespectful to her as a person. This could be a problem for the skeptics/atheist movement.
Various blog comments, including the dangers of getting raped, women face in comparable situations.


Now this likely wouldn't have have blown up, if RW simply had answered 'Huh? Hey, I like getting laid too. Just keep it to situations where it doesn't creep me out'. Instead, maybe because feminism is important to her, it went.

RW: Don't parrot this misogynist crap. We shouldn't have to put up with that.

Dawkins (focusing on the elevator incident): Why do you make such a fuss? Muslim women have it worse.

PZ: Wait, did you such say we should ignore a problem, because there are worse?

Dawkins (still focusing on the elevator incident): No, I say it was just words. Words can't hurt anyone.

Medium ********* were it was rather unfriendly pointed out in various blogs, that Dawkins as a wealthy, old, heterosexual white man likely has no reference point for how much anxiety approaches similar to the critized ones can cause in many women.

Wild discussions regarding the awfulness of EG's character for creeping out a woman.
Wild discussions about the awfulness of RW's character for presenting as sex-positive, capitalizing on it, and saying that she doesn't want to be hit on in any situation and at any time.
Wild discussions about her character being even more awful, because she was a dick towards Stef and Dawkins. (Yes, she was. )
Intense focus and elaborate studies on the actual danger of being assaulted in elevators in nice Dublin hotels ( which is in my view only marginally related to the general complaint about male inconsiderateness or the perceived threat. )
People pointing out that not all women would have been creeped out in this situation ( true ).
People pointing out that RW is even more awful because she tries to speak for all women ( did she? ).
People pointing out that being considerate to someone would mean seeing those people as weak and would be sexist. ( interesting idea. Should we be less considerate to empower the survivors?).
People pointing out that EG had not necessarily a way of anticipating RW's anxiety, or the anxiety of many but not all other women in comparable situations ( strictly spoken true, because high functioning autism, as an example, would likely hinder such an assessment. On the other hand, people pointed out in various blogs and comments that they considered the ability to make such an assessment a rather common social skill, so YMMV.)

Conclusion: Interesting Discussion.

Something tells me you didn't read all the articles. And I mean by PZ, RW, and PP.

 

[fls]

Hmm, not how I read it.

RW: [As an example.] This guy there got into the elevator with me, and approached me. Guys don't come on to me me where I can't get away and when I just said I'm done. It creeps me out, and many women who wrote to me feel similar, and it could scare them away from the skeptics/atheist-movement.
Stef and others: Hey, don't tell the guys not to hit on us. How should we get laid otherwise? Getting laid is awesome.
PZ: She has a point, not taking into account her feelings and the situation when coming on to her is disrespectful to her as a person. This could be a problem for the skeptics/atheist movement.
Various blog comments, including the dangers of getting raped, women face in comparable situations.


Now this likely wouldn't have have blown up, if RW simply had answered 'Huh? Hey, I like getting laid too. Just keep it to situations where it doesn't creep me out'. Instead, maybe because feminism is important to her, it went.

RW: Don't parrot this misogynist crap. We shouldn't have to put up with that.

Dawkins (focusing on the elevator incident): Why do you make such a fuss? Muslim women have it worse.

PZ: Wait, did you such say we should ignore a problem, because there are worse?

Dawkins (still focusing on the elevator incident): No, I say it was just words. Words can't hurt anyone.

Medium ********* were it was rather unfriendly pointed out in various blogs, that Dawkins as a wealthy, old, heterosexual white man likely has no reference point for how much anxiety approaches similar to the critized ones can cause in many women.

Wild discussions regarding the awfulness of EG's character for creeping out a woman.
Wild discussions about the awfulness of RW's character for presenting as sex-positive, capitalizing on it, and saying that she doesn't want to be hit on in any situation and at any time.
Wild discussions about her character being even more awful, because she was a dick towards Stef and Dawkins. (Yes, she was. )
Intense focus and elaborate studies on the actual danger of being assaulted in elevators in nice Dublin hotels ( which is in my view only marginally related to the general complaint about male inconsiderateness or the perceived threat. )
People pointing out that not all women would have been creeped out in this situation ( true ).
People pointing out that RW is even more awful because she tries to speak for all women ( did she? ).
People pointing out that being considerate to someone would mean seeing those people as weak and would be sexist. ( interesting idea. Should we be less considerate to empower the survivors?).
People pointing out that EG had not necessarily a way of anticipating RW's anxiety, or the anxiety of many but not all other women in comparable situations ( strictly spoken true, because high functioning autism, as an example, would likely hinder such an assessment. On the other hand, people pointed out in various blogs and comments that they considered the ability to make such an assessment a rather common social skill, so YMMV.)

Conclusion: Interesting Discussion.

Hmmm...it was certainly helped along by actions such as yours - creating straw men of the arguments presented in these threads and on the blogs. I'm not trying to be contentious, but this goes back to what I said at the start of this thread. If you fail to appropriately represent what people are trying to say, they will respond with arguments about the invalidity of your straw man, not a discussion of the issues. Nor will they understand the need to redeem themselves for positions they do not hold or arguments they didn't make.

Sure, we can all make up a "representation of the course events which supports my perspective and shows up RW, EG, RD, PZ, PP, SM, HR, OT, etc. as the bad guy". But how is that supposed to be convincing to the bad guy who recognizes that you've got their part wrong?

Linda

Bookitty was far more helpful with respect to offering examples of a chilly atmosphere at these events than Rebecca's non-example.

 

[RandFan]

bookitty, I for one appreciate your remarks, refreshing and constructively critical.

Just bookitty? Are you sure that what you think of as being critical is just your confirmation bias?

Getting back to the whole EG and Watson thing - um to state the obvious,

That's a red flag... Uh, no, it's not obvious. That's NOT critical thinking. Please try again. "To state the obvious" is to be presumptive. Like, "to state the obvious, god lives" oh, and unicorns do also. Deal with THAT.

Time and time again I see men making unwanted passes at women because the former just ignore the signals given by the women that they are not interested.

Just so I have this right, anecdotal observations absent controls = truth, really? Are you sure you aren't simply falling prey to confirmation bias?

 

[blauregen]

Something tells me you didn't read all the articles. And I mean by PZ, RW, and PP.

Possibly. I lumped Phil Plait and his allegation that situations such as this could lead to sexual assault under various comments.

Skeptic Ginger told me something similar a few days back, so I went, reread the start of the thread and read even more perspectives from various blogs. It didn't change my view.

But there were admittedly some things I didn't research in depth, like for example why RW was banned from the JREF-forums, because I wasn't interested in her character flaws.

Sure, we can all make up a "representation of the course events which supports my perspective and shows up RW, EG, RD, PZ, PP, SM, HR, OT, etc. as the bad guy".

Sure, there is another one just a few posts above. A recounting that is in my opinion a lot better is here.

But how is that supposed to be convincing to the bad guy who recognizes that you've got their part wrong?

Who the 'bad guy' is didn't interest me that much. If sexual objectification of women were a general problem in the skeptics/atheist community (Paula Kirby made a good case why this might not be the main problem), looking for a single bad guy to blame wouldn't seem productive. If Rebecca Watson were a bad guy, for some reason, I don't see how it would diminish her complaint.

I just find it fascinating how much of the discussion focused on RW's character and recriminations about her improperly speaking for all women or about her being hypocritical, when I can't see how the general message 'There is unpleasant sexualization which could drive away many women.' is diminished by the messenger's alleged flaws.

Or on proofing that this specific incident was minimally harmful and on reframing the specific event as different than it was perceived and reported, when it seemed obvious to me, that this was likely only meant as an example.

Bookitty was far more helpful with respect to offering examples of a chilly atmosphere at these events than Rebecca's non-example.

Aside from the non-example, I agree. I am not sure whether another example would have been better. I suspect any single incident short of violent assault and rape (which didn't happen and was very likely never intended by anyone involved) could have been deconstructed in this way.

 

[RandFan]

I just find it fascinating how much of the discussion focused on RW's ... improperly speaking for all women...

I'm not sure why. Could you expound on that? You seem to think there is something wrong with others accusing her of presumption. As if some woman got up and said, "guys, women are not hit on enough, women tend to be coy and timid and we too often go to bed unsatisfied. We need you to step up to the plate and be more aggressive", would you not think THAT a bit presumptive?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

bookitty, I for one appreciate your remarks, refreshing and constructively critical.

Getting back to the whole EG and Watson thing - um to state the obvious, any guy with basic social skills and adequate social interaction with the opposite sex should know what is considered appropriate behaviour and what isn't. Wait for the women to show an interest for one, let her be the one to make the first move or at least give a signal. Women are always giving signals to men, whether ones of interest or lack of interest, consciously or unconsciously. And vice versa. In a very real sense we can't help ourselves. If a woman is interested in you, she has a way of letting you know, if not - and you get your ego out of the way - you will know too. I think too many guys ignore the signals including the body language given by women that they are not interested, because their (the guys') egos and wishful thinking tell them otherwise.

Time and time again I see men making unwanted passes at women because the former just ignore the signals given by the women that they are not interested. I think it's a combination of stupidity and egoism, and a lack of respect for women and girls frankly.

I fervently disagree with this.

In college I was friends with a male model. I had a huge crush on him but would never have asked him out or given him signals because I was intimidated by him and thought he was out of my league. Then, he asked me out. Sometimes people don't send out signals. It is incorrect to assume that if someone likes another person, they will make sure to let them know.



Before we were married, my husband liked me romantically, but I did not feel the same. He pursued me when I was not interested in him in that way. But he was so sweet and charming and persistant (without being aggressive or anything). Now we've been married for five wonderful years.

I'm really glad you weren't around to give my husband advice. He correctly summized that if he convinced me to give him a chance, I would like him, though I previously had no interest in him.

Of course, if someone makes clear that they do not want to receive romantic attention from another person, that is different story, and this should obviously be respected.


By the way, I'm not suggesting that EG's approach was a good one. But to make a blanket statement that no one should ever proposition anyone else unless the other person has overtly expressed interest? What if someone's just shy? Do they just never get to be in a relationship ever because they aren't capable enough at sending out signals?

 

[blauregen]

I'm not sure why. Could you expound on that? You seem to think there is something wrong with others accusing her of presumption. As if some woman got up and said, "guys, women are not hit on enough, women tend to be coy and timid and we too often go to bed unsatisfied. We need you to step up to the plate and be more aggressive", would you not think THAT a bit presumptive?

Actually no. From your phrasing I could not say whether this should be ∀ women .. or ∃ women. I would then compare the statement to my general knowledge about the world, and because I know some women having the opposite opinion, choose ∃ women as the more plausible interpretation.

Had she said 'All women are ...' I might have pointed out that she probably generalizes improperly.

 

[RandFan]

Actually no. From your phrasing I could not say whether this should be ∀ women .. or ∃ women. I would then compare the statement to my general knowledge about the world, and because I know some women having the opposite opinion, choose ∃ women as the more plausible interpretation.

Had she said 'All women are ...' I might have pointed out that she probably generalizes improperly.

Thanks for the response. If RW was speaking just for herself then she was rather arrogantly using her invitation. In any event, I found your mental gymnastic rather amusing. Do you think others will buy it?

 

[RandFan]

By the way, I'm not suggesting that EG's approach was a good one. But to make a blanket statement that no one should ever proposition anyone else unless the other person has overtly expressed interest? What if someone's just shy? Do they just never get to be in a relationship ever because they aren't capable enough at sending out signals?

"Guys, don't do that", not "guys, this is just my opinion but I would recommend you reconsider that" or, "guys, don't do that to me" (for blauregen).

 

[blauregen]

Thanks for the response. If RW was speaking just for herself then she was rather arrogantly using her invitation. In any event, I found your mental gymnastic rather amusing. Do you think others will buy it?

I think she was speaking for herself and the many women who apparently wrote her, at least she mentioned them.

It was a honest recount of how I consciously interpreted your given statement. If it is any consolation, I would have been more susceptible to applying the ∀, had a similar statement started with 'Gays are ...'.

Edit: And no, not because I do or do not support the statement regarding gays, but because I am more used to gays being addressed as a uniform class in public speeches.

 

[RandFan]

I think...

Yeah, it's called confirmation bias.

...she was speaking for herself and the many women who apparently wrote her, at least she mentioned them.

And the women who wrote her telling her that she didn't speak for them? Our assumptions are easily confirmed if we pick and choose from among the data.

It was a honest recount of how I consciously interpreted your given statement.

I was kidding. I've no doubt you are honest. Though I would hope you are willing to cast a bit of critical light on your account. I seriously doubt women would be yawning at that point of the conference, but then, I have to consider my own bias.

 

[blauregen]

Yeah, it's called confirmation bias.

And the women who wrote her telling her that she didn't speak for them?

Are obviously not part of the set of women she speaks for, and perfectly justified in pointing this out.

Yeah, it's called confirmation bias.

Our assumptions are easily confirmed if we pick and choose from among the data.

But judging from the comments on the various blogs that commented on her speech, I still feel justified in my assumption that a sizable amount of women agrees with her initial point. I see no reason to doubt that indeed many women wrote to her and made that point too, after her earlier feminist talks and blogs.

 

[RandFan]

Are obviously not part of the set of women she speaks for, and perfectly justified in pointing this out.

As do I. Further I think people are justified in being upset that she presumed to speak for them.

But judging from the comments on the various blogs that commented on her speech, I still feel justified in my assumption that a sizable amount of women agrees with her initial point. I see no reason to doubt that indeed many women wrote to her and made that point too, after her earlier feminist talks and blogs.

I've no doubt about it whatsoever. I think many women of course agree with her. RW could have, IMHO, eliminated all of the controversy by adding a simple "IMO" and/or "from my perspective" and/or "I'm not presuming to speak for everyone".

When it comes to communication, if the speaker wants not to be misunderstood then it is incumbent upon them to be clear and not assume that everyone will understand. There it is again.

One thing we can be sure of, RW has made little or no effort to clear up any understanding. She has doubled down and claimed that anyone who does not agree simply doesn't get it.

 

[RandFan]

Are obviously not part of the set of women she speaks for...

Sorry but one more point. How do we separate the sets and apply "men don't to that"? That's something I'd be really interested to know.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Yeah. The internet [Defensiveness] does that to people and their opinions.

ftfy

 

[blauregen]

Sorry but one more point. How do we separate the sets and apply "men don't to that"? That's something I'd be really interested to know.

In short encounters of the criticized kind with women I don't know, like elevators in the early morning, dark parting lots or side alleys at night, I make an effort to err, if at all, on the side of caution.

In practice this means changing side before I tail a lone woman in a dark alley too closely, or greeting friendly and immediately breaking contact and pretending to be busy ( reading mails on the iPhone ) in situations like elevators outside of business time.

I feel better with someone being possibly slightly annoyed for coddling them, than someone being possibly scared what terrible things I might do to them.

 

[RandFan]

In short encounters of the criticized kind with women I don't know, like elevators in the early morning, dark parting lots or side alleys at night, I make an effort to err, if at all, on the side of caution.

I'm not sure why people choose to lump elevators in with dark parking lots or side alleys. How dangerous are elevators? Or is this simply a faulty perception?

In practice this means changing side before I tail a lone woman in a dark alley too closely, or greeting friendly and immediately breaking contact and pretending to be busy ( reading mails on the iPhone ) in situations like elevators outside of business time.

But these are your bright and shiny lines. Why are they reasonable and others are not? Why shouldn't we err on the side of caution and urge men not to hit on women at all? We could eliminate social contact all together and communicate through the internet.

Yes, I am serious, I don't understand why there is this bright shiny line where elevators are on the bad side. Some women don't want to be hit on by men at all. Shouldn't we consider their feelings?

I feel better with someone being possibly slightly annoyed for coddling them, than someone being possibly scared what terrible things I might do to them.

Exactly, so eliminate seduction. Any date can turn into a nightmare.

Hey, here's an idea... oh I don't know, it's a little something I pulled off the top of my head, what would it hurt if RW and others simply expressed their feelings and made it known that what they were doing was expressing opinion? Is that really so hard? Do we really need to go back and forth for many pages before we simply admit that there is a very simple solution to this? When you express an opinion just state that it is an opinion. Nothing wrong with giving advice. Just avoid the presumption. But for some reason that just won't do. We need to argue and debate and quibble and bicker. For what? Ego?

RW had a valid point. She made it badly. You don't have to agree but at least admit that other people see this differently than you. That's all.