So there was this female speaker on an elevator

[Aurelian]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php

"You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4 AM, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and - don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner..." Rebecca Watson, founder of Skepchick, spoke in Dublin at the World Atheist Convention a month ago.

Afterwards, in a video post, she discussed an incident that occurred there. She received some dismissive responses. The above link to PZ Myers is supportive (and has links to the above) with Richard Dawkins being dismissive within the comments. PZ Myers weighs in again. Dawkins still doesn't get it...not a total surprise with his rep, but still.

As someone who has read Rebecca on these boards over the years - seeing some of the comments, when she's being straightforward and is not, to my knowledge, being hysterical (in the pejorative sense), has me shaking my head. Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, and thought it would be of interest.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Ah, Rebecca...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Rebecca overreacts.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Rebecca overreacts.

I said that.

 

[slingblade]

And you're both wrong.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

She does, or has, overreacted in the past.

May be wrong about her reaction about this, I wasn't there...

 

[ThunderChunky]

If she really wanted to help the guy she shouldn't have publicly shamed and instead told him to watch this video.


http://youtu.be/afGu-wDsfBE

 

[Cleon]

Rebecca overreacts.

Perhaps, but it wasn't Rebecca's reaction that spawned the *************. It was the reaction to Rebecca's reaction.

 

[bookitty]

If she really wanted to help the guy she shouldn't have publicly shamed and instead told him to watch this video.


http://youtu.be/afGu-wDsfBE

Please explain how this man, who was not named in the story, has been publicly shamed.

 

[WildCat]

So Rebecca is still an attention whore?

I suppose the bottom of the ocean is still wet also.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a duplicate thread, or at least the other one isn't very different.

What do feminists want?

 

[chran]

Haha, I read about this on Phil Plaits blog.

He's all a-twitter about the "potential sexual assualt" that occured.

There was no assault, potential or otherwise! End of story.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll have to read up on it, but I will say, for those who have never been to a skeptics/athiests conference, they tend to draw some real creepers.

Myself excluded, of course.

 

[Delscottio]

Haha, I read about this on Phil Plaits blog.

He's all a-twitter about the "potential sexual assualt" that occured.

There was no assault, potential or otherwise! End of story.

The amount of 'man guilt' is something else. Admittedly the guy chose a poor place for his question, but the accusations of potential sexual assault are totally uncalled for, in fact it borders in sexism which is a touch ironic.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm not sure what reason people really have to criticize her.

Here's the video she posted.
http://furiouspurpose.me/2011/06/21/rebecca-watson-has-a-new-video/

She basically just says (paraphrase)- Hey, it's creepy when I just get done talking about how I don't like being sexualized in that way. Don't do that.

What's your legitimate beef with that?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'll have to read up on it, but I will say, for those who have never been to a skeptics/athiests conference, they tend to draw some real creepers.

Myself excluded, of course.

You mean you do't go to any?

I'm all cofused now.

 

[slingblade]

I'm not sure what reason people really have to criticize her.

Here's the video she posted.
http://furiouspurpose.me/2011/06/21/rebecca-watson-has-a-new-video/

She basically just says (paraphrase)- Hey, it's creepy when I just get done talking about how I don't like being sexualized in that way. Don't do that.

What's your legitimate beef with that?

She has breasts and a vagina. Therefore, she is not allowed to have or express an opinion.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I have found Skepchick to be an excellent skeptical site -- as long as I ignore the blatant sexism found there (basically ignoring anything written that involves gender or gender issues).

This video and the accompanying comments did not change my opinion.

 

[Stellafane]

Just watched the video -- what the hell did she do that was even remotely criticizable? I don't get it at all.

 

[AvalonXQ]

She basically just says (paraphrase)- Hey, it's creepy when I just get done talking about how I don't like being sexualized in that way. Don't do that.

What's your legitimate beef with that?

The legitimate beef is equating what the guy did with "being sexualized".

She even admits that what he did was not overtly sexual, but because she could construe an invitation to continue a discussion in private as an attempted come-on, he should not have done it.

The irony is that, at many conventions and other such activities, I have invited and accepted invitations from other attendees to continue discussions in private -- as long as the invitations were same-gender. My refusal to make such an invitation cross-gender is sexualizing; making such an invitation is a sign that I was ignoring the sexual component because of a strong desire to talk substantively.

In other words, for at least some people, such an invitation may be a way of saying "I want to invite you into the same sort of intellectual rapport I have with my same-sex colleagues." The barriers that stop that from happening are, in fact, a form of sexism rather than the opposite.