So there was this female speaker on an elevator

[fls]

Ringadingabingo. Right on the money. Works both ways too. If I just got done saying "Don't hit on me at this conference, I'm here as a professional, and I don't like it". and then a woman right after comes up and hits on me, I would think she's trying to get my goat/screw with my head/be rude/or purposely be impolite, and then I would have to wonder if it's because she is anti-men or anti-me.

Yeah, it would make sense if that is what had happened. Instead, the issue of being hit on wasn't part of the talk which bookitty linked above.

Linda

 

[sgtbaker]

Here is Rebecca's talk at the conference (she starts at about 2 minutes in):
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/u/7/W014KhaRtik

Thank you for the link because that was really enlightening. I didn't know the original speech so I just assumed that she had issues with being hit on when she's discussing issues. It never even dawned on me about what outspoken atheist women have to tolerate, as opposed to outspoken atheist men. I don't want to diminish the importance of threats of death or violence but on top of that, she has to deal being told that she needs to be raped into obedience, as well. The context of the speech just makes the elevator incident that much more threatening, IMHO.

Please don't misquote me or twist what I am saying. I don't think the guy was thinking he was going to trick her back to his room and rape her into obedience. I am just saying from her perspective, given the topic she covered, the out of the blue invite, from a stranger, can easily be that much more unsettling

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

To me the vital question which has not been asked yet is "Is it factually rational to be concerned about sexual assault in Watson's position?".

If being politely sexually propositioned in a lift at a hotel during a conference at 4am is a situation in which there is a significantly heightened risk of sexual assault, then it should indeed be seen as highly discourteous to proposition women in lifts at conferences for that reason.

On the other hand if there is no evidence that there were rational grounds for fear, then it looks more like agenda-driven rape-baiting. I have the possibly unfair suspicion that some feminists hold it as a faith-based position that women must live in constant fear of rape and that any attempt to deny them this potential-victim-status is itself a form of victimisation and/or blaming the victim. I have a strong preference for keeping any discussion of real or perceived sexual assault risks firmly grounded in relevant facts.

 

[Varanid]

I am not used to being on this side of a feminist argument, but this is ridiculous.

I am not waiting around to load a video and skip through to the point where she describes exactly what happened, so I will have to take this from her blog:

basically, in an elevator in Dublin at 4AM I was invited back to the hotel room of a man I had never spoken to before and who was present to hear me say that I was exhausted and wanted to go to bed.

Are you kidding me? He asked her to his room for coffee? The nerve! Why don't they lock this predator up right now!!!!!1!!!1 Oh noes!!!!

I usually avoid these discussions (gender equality) as I consider it to be unworthy of discussion. Of course women should be treated equally to men (disclaimers for the obvious...). So I don't even really see anything to talk about.

Then I read Mr. Plait's blog and was horrified.

Men, please note: Do not talk to women, do not get on an elevator with women (just do the noble thing and get off).

I am sympathetic to women's concerns about being attacked, but if you can't handle an elevator ride then maybe you should re-evaluate your decisions that put you there in the first place.

 

[fls]

By "her talk," do you mean the one at the conference prior to the Elevator Incident? I don't know the specific content, other than that she mentioned in her subsequent video post about not liking being treated as a sexual object. ETA: I see it's been linked above.

Yeah, I'm just not clear when it's sexual attraction and when it's sexual object. She uses the word "misogyny" when referring to sexual advances. Yet I think she also makes it clear that she's not against sexual advances generally. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to know when it means "I find you interesting" and when it means "I hate women".

I don't think that's it. At least, not if you mean "skillfully" in some suave, pick-up artist sense.

(Interestingly, many people in these various threads have implied that Watson wouldn't have complained if Elevator Guy had been a George Clooney (or whoever) lookalike -- yet as far as I know, she hasn't said anything about Elevator Guy's appearance or general attractiveness, just his tactics.)

I assume that she doesn't have a problem with men expressing interest in her per se. If Elevator Guy had approached her in a crowded hallway in the afternoon and said something not-terribly-smooth like "gosh, I think you're really swell. Would you like to go on a date with me?" I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

In other words, I think it has to do with being courteous and respectful, by not putting someone in an uncomfortable position, than with being "skillful."

That's basically what I meant by "skillful" - not so much the courteous and respectful, but having the wherewithal to recognize the conditions. It's the difference between "here's my chance to finally talk to her without anyone else moving in" and "he's coming on to me when I'm alone and vulnerable".

Linda

 

[sgtbaker]

To me the vital question which has not been asked yet is "Is it factually rational to be concerned about sexual assault in Watson's position?".

I hate to answer questions with questions but is there any reason to assume that she is immune to sexual assault, because of her position?

 

[Antiquehunter]

@Dunstan - in the other thread, I have commented already that I do feel that these flames are being needlessly fanned - and that Rebecca as a public figure is well within her rights to do so. (Don't get me wrong - I consider Rebecca a friend).

But when she makes a facebook comment to the effect of 'Great way to get a bunch of new Twitter followers, have Richard Dawkins say something stupid on your blog' then in my mind, the game is up.

That men shouldn't be creepy is fair comment. Rebecca herself said she didn't feel physically endangered by the incident, just weirded out. That the skeptical community is at each other's throats over this incident right before a high profile skeptical convention where I'm very sure there will be umpteen bad pickup lines delivered in elevators (I'm practicing a few myself) is frankly... tired.

Sexism as a topic is worth discussing - why don't we all shift the focus off Rebecca & her socially awkward admirer, and onto a meaningful topic?

 

[bookitty]

Thank you for the link because that was really enlightening. I didn't know the original speech so I just assumed that she had issues with being hit on when she's discussing issues. It never even dawned on me about what outspoken atheist women have to tolerate, as opposed to outspoken atheist men. I don't want to diminish the importance of threats of death or violence but on top of that, she has to deal being told that she needs to be raped into obedience, as well. The context of the speech just makes the elevator incident that much more threatening, IMHO.

Please don't misquote me or twist what I am saying. I don't think the guy was thinking he was going to trick her back to his room and rape her into obedience. I am just saying from her perspective, given the topic she covered, the out of the blue invite, from a stranger, can easily be that much more unsettling

She mentioned in one of those posts (or maybe the video? info overload) that the discussion in the bar prior to the incident was about her talk. Makes sense, it's easy to understand wanting to go over the points you missed in a 15 minute talk. So there was a whole vibe of objectification making things creepy.

 

[Dunstan]

@Dunstan - in the other thread, I have commented already that I do feel that these flames are being needlessly fanned - and that Rebecca as a public figure is well within her rights to do so. (Don't get me wrong - I consider Rebecca a friend).

But when she makes a facebook comment to the effect of 'Great way to get a bunch of new Twitter followers, have Richard Dawkins say something stupid on your blog' then in my mind, the game is up.

What does that mean, "the game is up"?

That men shouldn't be creepy is fair comment. Rebecca herself said she didn't feel physically endangered by the incident, just weirded out. That the skeptical community is at each other's throats over this incident right before a high profile skeptical convention where I'm very sure there will be umpteen bad pickup lines delivered in elevators (I'm practicing a few myself) is frankly... tired.

Sexism as a topic is worth discussing - why don't we all shift the focus off Rebecca & her socially awkward admirer, and onto a meaningful topic?

If you're tired of the discussion, then duck out of it. I don't mean that to be dismissive. There are topics I just don't give a damn about, either because I never did to begin with, or because I'm burned out on having the same discussion over and over again. I really don't see what you (or The Friendly Atheist, or the others who are taking this "can't we all just get along" line) think you can accomplish by saying "hey everyone, I'm tired of talking about this, so you all should stop now and talk about what I prefer to talk about"?

This topic will eventually burn itself out on its own. And then months from now, it'll resurface in a slightly different form, because these are issues that aren't going away.

And I think that "sexism" as a topic is hopeless to discuss if you're not willing to discuss specific situations like this. Otherwise, everyone's just talking in generalities: sexism is bad, yep I agree, oh I agree but I think sometimes some feminists go too far, yep, great, end of discussion. (It's like the "don't be a jerk when communicating atheism/skepticism" argument: unless you're prepared to discuss what "being a jerk" entails, it's just tedious and unenlightening)

 

[sgtbaker]

She mentioned in one of those posts (or maybe the video? info overload) that the discussion in the bar prior to the incident was about her talk. Makes sense, it's easy to understand wanting to go over the points you missed in a 15 minute talk. So there was a whole vibe of objectification making things creepy.

I hope I didn't gloss over the frustration of being objectified when she is trying to raise valid points. I still believe it to be rather frustrating to feel you've engaged in an enlightening discussion, hoping to possibly open someone's eyes to an issue you take personally, only to have a response like, "I want to do you." That's belittling and dismissive. I was just under the impression that it was the meat of the issue she was talking about in the speech, but after watching the speech, it appears that it's just the tip of the iceburg.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Creepers, if you do nothing else, at least read PZ's recommendation on getting laid at atheists/skeptic conferences, or anywhere, for that matter.

So here you go, the short sweet simple Decent Human Beings' Guide to Getting Laid at Atheist Conferences.

Having been to 11 TAMs, 3 NECSS's, 2 Skepticons, and 1 Skeptics Society conference, knowing Rebecca quite well, and always keeping post #13 in mind, I'm pretty much on her side here (even though I hate her - ).

For those who don't know Rebecca well, or have never met her, it's safe to say she is an old hand at the bar scene, and is far from being an inexperienced, socially awkward shrinking violet. In other words, she's dealt with her share of drunken guys before. So for her to be creeped out by this experience, really says something.

One small nit: I don't like the term "sexualized/sexualization" because it's one of those Feminism 101 terms which has no real life value. So I wish she hadn't used it.

Other than that, follow PZ's advice - "Don't be a creep".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I hate to answer questions with questions but is there any reason to assume that she is immune to sexual assault, because of her position?

I am having trouble parsing this question in any way which doesn't make it the product of confusion on your part.

"Her position" refers to being situated in a lift at a conference at 4am with a fellow conference attendee and so on.

I can't reconstruct any logical thought process that leads to the conclusion that a woman is "immune to sexual assault" by virtue of being in a lift, it being 4am, her being a skeptical blogger or indeed anything else short of a constant armed guard consisting of straight women and/or gay men, nor any logical thought process that leads to the conclusion that I thought a woman was "immune to sexual assault".

 

[sgtbaker]

I am having trouble parsing this question in any way which doesn't make it the product of confusion on your part.

"Her position" refers to being situated in a lift at a conference at 4am with a fellow conference attendee and so on.

I can't reconstruct any logical thought process that leads to the conclusion that a woman is "immune to sexual assault" by virtue of being in a lift, it being 4am, her being a skeptical blogger or indeed anything else short of a constant armed guard consisting of straight women and/or gay men, nor any logical thought process that leads to the conclusion that I thought a woman was "immune to sexual assault".

Then I completely misunderstood you. When you stated position, I thought you meant as in who she is, not where she is.

 

[case#46cw39]

Yeah, it would make sense if that is what had happened. Instead, the issue of being hit on wasn't part of the talk which bookitty linked above.

Linda

Well, that's sort of paraphrasing what a point in her speech was, where being hit on sometimes makes her feel "extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger."

Rebecca Watson
06.20.2011
"There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone’s hotel room to have it. Sure. There’s a chance.
But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long."
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-mythbusters-robot-eyes-feminism-and-jokes/

So in a way, if a lady tells me she is concerned and bothered by these things then I would say she would not be the one to make such sexually charged comments too in such situations. I think this was the issue she is concerned about, as expressed in her above quote.

So I would still say that is the take away lesson for your son in this particular incident. I know if I see her, I won't be making such comments to her under similar circumstances. Clearly not her thing.


ETA Also, this comment is informative for your son, from a commenter on the same page of hers above:

aynsavoy
06.20.2011

"One assumption I am perfectly comfortable making is that, despite Rebecca’s prior assertions to the group that she wanted to go to bed, this individual thought that it would be a good idea to try to change her mind. Even if we decide that he had the best intentions in mind, this decision shows a disregard for Rebecca’s expressed desires.I imagine that he decided to make his offer in the elevator, alone with her, so that if she rejected the invitation, he could keep his embarrassment to himself. However, it’s also a situation where, if she rejected his invitation and he reacted badly to that rejection, she could not get away. If you have to turn someone down–for anything–would you rather do it in a space where you can easily make your exit, or where you’re then trapped with that person for an indeterminate amount of time?"

 

[Delvo]

People keep saying that this dude's behavior was especially bad in light of what she'd said in her public speech at the conference. He might not have heard that. And now that I've seen the video, I also know that she didn't even mention creepy approaches from strangers.

 

[fls]

Well, that's sort of paraphrasing what a point in her speech was, where being hit on sometimes makes her feel "extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger."

Rebecca Watson
06.20.2011
"There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone’s hotel room to have it. Sure. There’s a chance.
But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long."
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-mythbusters-robot-eyes-feminism-and-jokes/

So in a way, if a lady tells me she is concerned and bothered by these things then I would say she would not be the one to make such sexually charged comments too in such situations. I think this was the issue she is concerned about, as expressed in her above quote.

So I would still say that is the take away lesson for your son in this particular incident. I know if I see her, I won't be making such comments to her under similar circumstances. Clearly not her thing.

Right. Like I said, if her talk had been about people hitting on her, and this had been what the guy had been exposed to immediately prior to hitting on her, it would be relatively easy for him to get the message. Since this isn't what happened, giving him this advice ("attend to what she has been talking about and apply it to your own behavior"), isn't necessarily going to keep him out of trouble.

And I'm still not clear when indicating interest means "I am attracted to you" and when it means "I hate women".

ETA Also, this comment is informative for your son, from a commenter on the same page of hers above:

aynsavoy
06.20.2011

"One assumption I am perfectly comfortable making is that, despite Rebecca’s prior assertions to the group that she wanted to go to bed, this individual thought that it would be a good idea to try to change her mind. Even if we decide that he had the best intentions in mind, this decision shows a disregard for Rebecca’s expressed desires.I imagine that he decided to make his offer in the elevator, alone with her, so that if she rejected the invitation, he could keep his embarrassment to himself. However, it’s also a situation where, if she rejected his invitation and he reacted badly to that rejection, she could not get away. If you have to turn someone down–for anything–would you rather do it in a space where you can easily make your exit, or where you’re then trapped with that person for an indeterminate amount of time?"

Interesting that persuading people to change their minds should be discouraged as misogynistic, on a skeptics' forum.

Linda

 

[case#46cw39]

aynsavoy
06.20.2011

"One assumption I am perfectly comfortable making is that, despite Rebecca’s prior assertions to the group that she wanted to go to bed, this individual thought that it would be a good idea to try to change her mind. Even if we decide that he had the best intentions in mind, this decision shows a disregard for Rebecca’s expressed desires.

Interesting that persuading people to change their minds should be discouraged as misogynistic, on a skeptics' forum.

Linda

I wouldn't call it that since it works both ways. For example if I told you I'm not interested in you and yet you persisted in making sexual advances on me I would consider you to be rude or maybe ignorant.

And it would be the same if you told me you aren't interested sexually in me but I persisted in making sexual advances on you anyway. I think that would be rude. But I'm willing to give it a try as an experiment. Hey baby wanna get a room, your sessy??

 

[Starthinker]

I'm sorry she feels sexualized. When is the next naked skepchick calendar coming out?

 

[epepke]

Right. Like I said, if her talk had been about people hitting on her, and this had been what the guy had been exposed to immediately prior to hitting on her, it would be relatively easy for him to get the message. Since this isn't what happened, giving him this advice ("attend to what she has been talking about and apply it to your own behavior"), isn't necessarily going to keep him out of trouble.

And I'm still not clear when indicating interest means "I am attracted to you" and when it means "I hate women".

This is a good point.

Actually, I see no problem with Rebecca Watson's original talk, or even with using this as a general example. (I've stayed out of the naming names stuff.) I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, even though some people have stated that she has a tendency to overreact.

Other things about this whole fiasco bother me, including the following:

1) As you pointed out, she didn't address this issue at all in her talk, unless the video has been edited, which I don't think it has.

2) Nobody has a clear story about the bar interaction.

3) P.Z. Myers being predictably Macho, saying what amounts to "Me big penis! Me big feminist! Me bonk men on head! Bonk, bonk! All hail me phallus!"

As far as I can tell, admittedly with a low standard of evidence, the most plausible story is this. Some guy, probably socially inept, hangs out in the bar wanting to talk with Rebecca Watson. Because he's socially inept, he is not able properly to navigate the ring of people surrounding her. When she leaves, he runs to try to make contact. He does this in a socially inept but polite manner. When she says "no," he takes "no" to mean "no."

Rebecca Watson uses this as an example of what not to do. She's fairly reasonable but displays a degree of social ineptitude herself. Then the story blossoms, and the rest is history.

 

[Kopji]

I don't know Rebecca personally (or even by way of the calendar). People with a sense of humor tend to be disarming and approachable. She obviously has a 'serious message' side too. There is a time for one and a time for the other. I don't really understand much of the criticism.

Never without my permission - Leeloo in the 5th Element


Having raised a daughter I cannot easily jettison my parental role though. And so,a short parental rant.

You stupid girl, we're all pigs! What part don't you get? The Rules! 1: Take a friend to the bar or club with you. 2: Have a good time. 3: Leave with the friend you came with. 4: If you meet someone really golly cool who values your brain and wants only to talk intelligently about atheism and stuff in his room - get his number and call the next day.

Seriously though. These are good discussions to have.