So there was this female speaker on an elevator

[AvalonXQ]

No. Like PZ says, "always name names".

You don't think calling out and addressing an audience member's argument with you on an issue pretty much unrelated to your keynote speech is bullying behavior?

I've been in the unpleasant situation, before, of having a speaker address arguments against me as an audience member in this sort of situation. It is the height of unprofessionalism; it is a seriously unethical way of calling out your opponents in a situation where they can't effectively "hit back".

 

[ibbicay]

So let's see: both "sides" have taken it upon themselves to spin a simple request into a fiasco across multiple blogs, boards, and forums, with plenty of folks apparently feeling offended all around. Frankly, that's par for the course on the internet, where folks tend to type before they think things through and over-exaggerate to try to rile others up and/or make their case

To try to bring things back to some semblance of reality, I'd ask that people read the brief story recounted in Sindelókë's "On the difference between Good Dogs and Dogs That Need a Newspaper Smack." (You can google it to read the whole thing, I don't think I have linking privileges yet ) It may help, it may not, but I do think it's an interesting and potentially enlightening read nevertheless.

The punchline of that story?

"He has no idea what he’s talking about, and he will never, ever be forced to learn. ... So, quite simply: don’t be that dog. ... Every single one of us has some kind of privilege over somebody. What matters is whether we’re aware of it, and what we choose to do with it, and that we not use it to dismiss the valid and real concerns of the people who don’t share our particular brand."

Folks seem to be able to make all sorts of political and social commentary out of Rebecca's "request", but that request itself is far from unreasonable, and hardly worthy of the hyperbole and strawmen with which people seem inclined to surround it. All *I* would ask is that people pause for a moment to think about how their actions (or words, as the case may be) might affect others before they act. Not how you would feel if "X" happened to you, but how another person might feel. Empathy is a wonderful thing.

Please consider that perhaps, just perhaps, Rebecca's initial request for guys to "not do that" may simply be in reference to requesting a private and personal interaction in a non-public place while in an enclosed and secluded space at four o' clock in the bloody morning. Context is key.

OK, back to lurking

 

[Antiquehunter]

It's astonishing that many of the skeptics here don't apply their thought to the plight of women in western societies. Here's a clue: if some women say they're frightened of men, then we men should take notice and change our behaviour rather than claim that women are over-reacting.

Do you know why? It's because WOMEN ARE *********** FRIGHTENED and the only possible way to help them not be frightened is to constantly remind ourselves of stories like this.

How do you feel about Rebecca's story? Do you feel no harm was done? Do you sympathise for the guy who was only trying to get his end away (and who isn't?) or do you sympathise for the person who felt trapped and pressured?

Speaking only for me...

I know Rebecca, I LIKE Rebecca, I have respect for a lot of Rebecca's work. I am sorry she had a negative experience with someone at an atheist conference - a situation which certainly appears to be inappropriate and awkward, at best.

However the surrounding discussion about the situation has been blown WAY out of proportion, and Rebecca is directly accountable for the histrionics associated. She is a public figure, so she is certainly well within her rights to use the blogosphere however she seems fit to get the attention she desires.

The rest of us, in my opinion, should recognize this for what it is - an attention-grabbing / traffic-generating plotline, leading up to a major appearance at a high profile skeptical event, and treat it with the appropriate level of World Wrestling Entertainment suspension of disbelief that it deserves.

 

[Darat]

So what does keep women from wanting to attend these conferences?

There could be a myriad of reasons, are you saying the significant reason that they don't is that they will be "hit on"?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You don't think calling out and addressing an audience member's argument with you on an issue pretty much unrelated to your keynote speech is bullying behavior?

No

I've been in the unpleasant situation, before, of having a speaker address arguments against me as an audience member in this sort of situation. It is the height of unprofessionalism; it is a seriously unethical way of calling out your opponents in a situation where they can't effectively "hit back".

Then they shouldn't have "hit" in the first place.

 

[AvalonXQ]

There could be a myriad of reasons, are you saying the significant reason that they don't is that they will be "hit on"?

This is what Watson believes, and in fact appears to be one of the things she believes she has to be a crusador about -- namely that being objectified and constantly propositioned at these conventions make women not want to attend them.

 

[Information Analyst]

If you're a sexist attention-whore, "don't take this the wrong way" definitely means "take this the wrong way and report it to as wide an audience as possible as though it was actually meant the wrong way; then pubically shame and/or boycott anyone who sees it differently."

Yes, there is that, and is often the case with big fish in small ponds....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can't see why not, it happens all the time in all aspects of social interactions, it's really just human behaviour that all you humans seem to partake in from time to time; the need to group identify and tribalism is sadly very strong in humans!

I don't think it is so sad. People go to gatherings and sometimes meeting other people is part of the reason for going. It may be one is interested in the event. But it may be one wants to simply find like minded friends. Or it may be one wants to meet someone for more than friendship.

NORMAL, all common normal things. I can't imagine fear and loathing that someone might hit on them keeps many women away from such events as an atheist or skeptic's conference.

I'm wondering if women seeking men are less conspicuous than men seeking women but perhaps just as common at such events.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Certainly to me, from a UK perspective, "don't take this the wrong way," is almost certainly laying cards on the table to indicate that what follows isn't a cheesy pick-up attempt.

Hmmm.. to me from the same side of the atlantic 'Don't take this the wrong way' is up there with 'I'm not a racist/sexist/homophobe/prude but...' as a weasel phrase which actually means the opposite of what it says.

It also means the guy was aware of what it looked like he was doing.

 

[rustypouch]

It's astonishing that many of the skeptics here don't apply their thought to the plight of women in western societies. Here's a clue: if some women say they're frightened of men, then we men should take notice and change our behaviour rather than claim that women are over-reacting.

Do you know why? It's because WOMEN ARE *********** FRIGHTENED and the only possible way to help them not be frightened is to constantly remind ourselves of stories like this.

How do you feel about Rebecca's story? Do you feel no harm was done? Do you sympathise for the guy who was only trying to get his end away (and who isn't?) or do you sympathise for the person who felt trapped and pressured?

I do sympathize, but besides avoiding all interaction with women, how can we be certain to never to anything to frighten them?

 

[AdMan]

The rest of us, in my opinion, should recognize this for what it is - an attention-grabbing / traffic-generating plotline, leading up to a major appearance at a high profile skeptical event, and treat it with the appropriate level of World Wrestling Entertainment suspension of disbelief that it deserves.

^^^ This.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No.

You're wrong. It was the height of unprofessional behavior and unethical argumentation.

Watson is a bully, and she knows it. Fortunately for her, she is a bully with powerful defenders, and will likely get away with it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ask anyone who's been sexually assaulted in an elevator.

How many such people do you know and what are the odds considering how many people riding in elevators make up the denominator?

 

[Darat]

It's astonishing that many of the skeptics here don't apply their thought to the plight of women in western societies. Here's a clue: if some women say they're frightened of men, then we men should take notice and change our behaviour rather than claim that women are over-reacting.

I disgaree as there are two sides to this, one irrational and one rational. If there is evidence that behaviour X is associated with a significant increase of risk of harm to a woman then yes I agree we should look to see if we can stop that behaviour however if there is no increase in the risk than it is the irrational reaction of women that needs to be changed. (ETA: And I although I used "women" my comment applies to all groups - we should try to deal with the irrational side of something.)

Let me use a non-gender based example, if a caucasian person had said they had been made uncomfortable because a black person got into the lift with them and started a conversation I doubt anyone would say the solution to that is for black people and caucasian's to not share a lift or that if they do they should not speak.

By all means let us address actual problems but lets make sure we are addressing the right problem; emotional reactions tend not to be right reasons.

Do you know why? It's because WOMEN ARE *********** FRIGHTENED and the only possible way to help them not be frightened is to constantly remind ourselves of stories like this.

How do you feel about Rebecca's story? Do you feel no harm was done? Do you sympathise for the guy who was only trying to get his end away (and who isn't?) or do you sympathise for the person who felt trapped and pressured?

Because I only have one side I really can't make such a judgement I simply don't have the evidence to do so. But in more general terms it all depends on whether the reaction of fear is rational or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In all fairness, all that we were given is that the guy was doing just what has been advised - get to know someone before making sexual advances. The rest has been filled in by our prurient desires for a sausagefest.

Linda

And was what we were given enough evidence to support the conclusion this perceived "objectifying women" keeps women from attending atheist and skeptic's conferences? I don't think there was evidence to support the objectifying women charge let alone the conclusion it keeps women from attending these events.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Speaking only for me...

I know Rebecca, I LIKE Rebecca, I have respect for a lot of Rebecca's work. I am sorry she had a negative experience with someone at an atheist conference - a situation which certainly appears to be inappropriate and awkward, at best.

However the surrounding discussion about the situation has been blown WAY out of proportion, and Rebecca is directly accountable for the histrionics associated. She is a public figure, so she is certainly well within her rights to use the blogosphere however she seems fit to get the attention she desires.

The rest of us, in my opinion, should recognize this for what it is - an attention-grabbing / traffic-generating plotline, leading up to a major appearance at a high profile skeptical event, and treat it with the appropriate level of World Wrestling Entertainment suspension of disbelief that it deserves.

Can I play the part of the clueless referee who is always looking the wrong way when the villian cheats?

I pretty much agree with what you said.

 

[gnome]

I do sympathize, but besides avoiding all interaction with women, how can we be certain to never to anything to frighten them?

Certainty is not possible, but there have been many suggestions across this entire thread of how to make it unlikely. And I don't mean the overblown strawman suggestions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is what Watson believes, and in fact appears to be one of the things she believes she has to be a crusador about -- namely that being objectified and constantly propositioned at these conventions make women not want to attend them.

Or being hit on by the wrong people, i.e. "creepers".

 

[Humphreys]

Let's support the cause of feminism! Women are every bit as capable as men, and every bit their equal. Of course, we should be careful how we act around them, especially in enclosed spaces, because they're a bit delicate and scare very easily.

 

[Ocelot]

No desire to give her the traffic. Here's a quote instead:

I wonder what her new ringtone is.