New video! I’m going to be doing more of these again, I promise. Here’s AronRa’s and DPR Jones‘ channels, and if you like that shirt I’m wearing you can but it at Skeptical Robot!
New video! I’m going to be doing more of these again, I promise. Here’s AronRa’s and DPR Jones‘ channels, and if you like that shirt I’m wearing you can but it at Skeptical Robot!
Thanks for the video.
The straw person issue is obviously a strawman.
Can’t wait to see you in a few weeks. We’ll get coffee in some public place!
can’t…sleep…robot eyes…haunting me…
Not sure the guy in the elevator thing was an instance of sexualizing you, just an example of a bad way to approach someone.
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.
Certainly it made you uncomfortable: as I said, it’s a bad way to approach someone (especially a lone person on an elevator). I wasn’t there and so didn’t see body language etc, but I was just noting it’s very difficult to say he meant more than wanting to talk one-on-one to an interesting and important person in the skeptical world. You’re assuming he wanted to hit on you or was propositioning you (and that might in fact be a reasonable assumption), but an assumption is still an assumption. Perhaps he’d do the same awkward approach with PZ? Dunno.
I’m not defending him, just muddying the water as to motives.
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?
Wow. Thanks aynsavoy. Since hearing about Elevator Gate on SGU, and reading hundreds of comments on a half-dozen sites, until now none did anything but reinforce my position solidly in the anti-Rebecca (so to speak) camp on this issue.
Your explanation somehow succeeded where others failed in helping me visualize how powerless and fearful I might have felt in the same situation, and why Rebecca was so totally justified in making the statements she did. I am now firmly in the Pro-Rebecca camp on this issue. (Hurray for open minds!)
The fallout was blown all out of proportion, I’m sure everyone would agree, including Dawkins response, Rebecca’s response to that, and so on (ad nauseum.)
I would also like to comment that, as uncomfortable as Rebecca is in “being sexualized”, it is just a fact that she is something of a sex symbol in the skeptical community. Men will continue to hit on women they find attractive–clumsily or not, successful or not–as long as males and females coexist. Perhaps all we can hope to do, as Rebecca did (and in a pretty off-handed way), is to try to steer men (and women) back on course from time to time.
My last comment is that Dawkins dickish condescension may take the cake, but Ms. Watson sounds rather condescending herself much of the time, I’m afraid. This seems to be a quite common affliction among Skeptics, myself included. I think it may simply come with the territory.
“I’m not defending him, just muddying the water as to motives”
It doesn’t actually matter what his motives were…the impact of his actions are the same…which, as previously mentioned, were creepy and threatening. To focus on his hypothetical motives serves only to discredit and disregard Ms. Watson’s accounts of the interaction. His motives could have also been to purposefully isolate her in an elevator, knowing there would be no bystanders and no way for her to leave. His motives could have been following her off the elevator or trying to find out what room she was in, or blocking her from leaving.
All of those are very real possibilities that women face all the time. There is no way to know what any man’s intentions are, unless they make it clear. It shouldn’t be up to Ms Watson or any other woman to anticipate, plan for, prepare for, or be hyper vigilant for every possible threatening interaction that may be encountered by men. It is up to men to make choices…choices that show their intentions are not harmful or threatening to others.
I also disagree that Ms. Watson made any problematic assumptions. Saying that she was “assuming” implies that Ms. Watson was not drawing on any information that led her to the conclusion of the guy being creepy. I would argue that women have a whole lifetime of experiences (sexism, threatening come on’s, men’s anger, sexual objectification, vulnerability) that serve as critical information to draw upon in these exact situations. I’d be willing to bet there were lots of small, yet meaningful cues and details from this guy or the situation, that all led up to Ms Watson feeling uncomfortable and creeped out…her panel speech and this guys disregard for the content of that speech being just one of those cues. So to say Ms. Watson is assuming the guy was sexualizing her and could have just wanted to talk, is dismissive of her experience.
http://pophangover.com/photos/oblivious-rhino-7.jpg
Coffee before bed means one thing.
You felt in danger, justifiably, because you were in a very vulnerable position. What the guy said is completely irrelevant. Don’t get on elevators with strange men at 4 am, period. Practice situational awareness.
1) It sounded like he *followed* her into the elevator. 2) That’s the equivalent of saying don’t wear short skirts because it might get you raped.
Situational awareness means looking back over your shoulder. I do it all the time since I was robbed in a suburban Home Depot parking lot (and I’m a 220 pounds and all muscle ).
But by all means, twist it into a feminist issue.
You’re 220lb of muscle and you still got robbed? How many were there?!
Joking aside, situational awareness is more important than most people would believe. I’m quite often worried by people’s lack of vigilance. It is something I nag people about, and you do right to draw attention to it.
There’s no need to “twist it” into a feminist issue. It already is.
Dear Ms. Watson:
I posted this in another thread, but thought you deserved to see it here.
There are two ways to read your statement “Don’t do that.”:?
1 A kind word of advice to men considering talking to you, limited to that particular situation in the elevator at 4am or ones very much like it.?
or
2. A demand not only of how to treat you specifically and limited to that situation, but also a broader statement of what is right and wrong when talking to women in general.
If one interprets your words in the first way, it’s hard to find any fault with them. Every woman has a right to communicate her wishes and preferences to those around her.
However, I can understand why some might have interpreted your words in the second way. Many people go quite easily from “this makes me uncomfortable” to “this is wrong, not just for me but for everyone.” Religious people do this a lot! E.g., “You must show respect for my religious ideas; if you don’t, it will greatly offend me and my god!”
If your comments were intended as a broader commentary regarding not just that particular situation late at night in an elevator, but also on how men should talk to women in general, then this would probably explain some of the push-back you have gotten.
Each man is different. Each woman is different. Every situation is unique, and general rules are blunt tools applied to delicate tasks. I can understand men who might have been perplexed or even taken aback by your words. I think you might better have expressed yourself by starting from a position of empathy and understanding for those you wished to inform. Here’s and example of how you might have communicated your advice to men more effectively:
—
“The situation in the elevator made me very uncomfortable. I felt trapped, and intimidated by the stranger. Of course I don’t know what his actual intentions were—perhaps he really only wanted to invite me for coffee and conversation—but the situation felt sexually threatening to me. If he was trying to pick me up after hearing my talk earlier in the evening, then he was being disrespectful, and was way out of line. In any event, it seemed to me that he was ignoring my statement that I was tired and wanted to sleep. Perhaps I should have countered by inviting him for a coffee the next morning in the hotel bar. I mean maybe I really had nothing to fear! But the fact is, I was so uncomfortable with the situation that I was just glad to get away from him.”
“Men, please try to show some understanding of what it’s like to be a woman. Even if you’re a true gentleman, remember that there are a lot of assholes out there. We women have to deal with them all the time. You’ll go a long way toward showing that you’re not one of the assholes if you show a little consideration. This means sometimes forgoing making an invitation if it might make the woman uncomfortable. Your intentions are surely important, but they’re not the only thing that’s important. The situation—and the other person of course—are also very important. If the man had invited me for a coffee the next morning in the hotel bar, I would have been much less like to have taken it as a sexual overture. This alone would have made me more comfortable. Just use a bit of common sense, and do your best to read the other person and the situation before acting. Women everywhere thank you in advance!”
—
Men clearly need to be conscious of how the communicate with women. I think women could improve how they communicate with men too. Remember that unlike in a debate, the goal should not be to prove the other person wrong. The goal should be to communicate your thoughts and wishes in a way that the other person will understand.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Lowry
Adapted from my blog post, “Effective communication between men & women”: http://blog.michael-lowry.com/2011/07/effective-communication-between-men.html
A) It seems blindingly obvious to me that a man inviting a woman to his hotel room at 4:00 AM implies that he is thinking of her in terms of sexual attraction.
B) After hearing her talk about how she would like to be seen as a thinking human rather than a sexual being, the man’s attempt to suggest a hotel room tryst is at best a sign of contempt for anything she has to say.
C) Asking her while the two of them are alone in an elevator at 4:00 AM is not just insulting (given her recent talk), but predatory. And if he convinces himself that, because he knows he would never assault anyone, no woman should presume he would, then he is dangerously stupid.
A & B) Glad you got that mind reading thing all figured out.
C) Certainly unintelligent and awkward. Possibly creepy. Maybe even an awkward pickup line. But “predatory”?
Everyone should take whatever precautions seem warranted in any given situation: I wouldn’t have gone to his room either. But without more information, everything you’ve tried to pin on him is based on supposition.
Are you really so disconnected from reality and common sense? A strange man asking you to his hotel room at 4am for ‘coffee’ is a direct come-on. You don’t think it’s ‘fair’ to see sexual interest unless he says ‘wanna fuck?’ Perhaps if he’d mentioned his etchings?
I don’t know an adult human being who would see the situation differently, unless they were cognitively impaired.
Way to use “cognitively impaired” to mean “thoughtless misogynist,” you insensitive asshole. Why not just say, “LOL YOU RETARD?” Why not make the differently abled as a whole your own personal rhetorical punching bag? Not like they’re good for anything else, right? Your lack of empathy is absolutely sickening.
Sexual come-on AND bad way to approach someone.
I love the “Don’t take this the wrong way” preface. Translation: after whatever comes out of my mouth, please sleep with me.
BTW, looking forward to seeing you at SkepchickCON here in MN!
I love the “Don’t take this the wrong way” preface.
.
Yeah, that’s right up there with “I’m not a racist but…” on the list of signals. This guy knew that he was hitting on you or at least that it may come across that way. Rathar than using this prefix it would be better to not say it in the first place.
.
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
Benjamin FranOscar WilAbraham LinMark TwaiSome such smart dude.Someone on FB actually used the strawperson comment as evidence that women are forcing our society to be too PC… and called you a “rad fem”. Which, BTW, you totally are.
Is a rad fem anything like a gnarly fem?
Your use of irony is hilarious. And, to quote Syd Barrett, “what exactly is a joke?”
This is my first time posting on here, I’ve been reading for a while, quietly happy to absorb all the interesting articles and replies, but the comments on YouTube on your talk are depressing and I needed to say it out loud (or at least via commenting on the internet anyway). I find it very disturbing that people can’t see the sexism in blatantly sexist actions, particularly a group of people who are meant to be able to use rational thought to be able to find the truth. Your points and examples were clear, easy to understand, the simplest people should have been able to grasp it. The man in the elevator was bordering on slapping you on the ass and saying good work toots. Yes he was ‘appreciating and being positive of you’ in the only way he knows how, by hitting on you. Which again completely proves the whole point.
The comments about how you need to be either a feminist or an Atheist, were a bit null and void really. Its obviously a problem in the community and maybe if individual community’s through out the world had their own Skepchick equivalent, the feminist movement would make far greater strides as a whole. Anyway its a problem, someone needs to be addressing it. You Skepchicks are doing such a great job, I am a little bewildered that every single person cannot see that.
Good to see you back Rebecca.
My sister works in the Rural Health Dept of an Australian University. She co-heads the Sexual Health Dept and give talks to Doctors and other Health Professionals on sensitivities surrounding collecting data and reporting of infection uptakes to patients, especially young people.
Guess what????
She has had similar stories/complaints of unwanted advances from Conference attendees in lifts ( elevators ) late at night. She jokes that she is going to add a ” WARNING ” to her name tag.
I will never know the tedium of those experiences, or the discomfort you feel, but as a brother I do feel very pissed off at the men who create it.
For anyone who’s never been sexually assaulted (I’ve had more than one near miss, here): being cornered by some creepball with a glimmer of fuck in their eyes is a horrible feeling. Everyone with a Y-chromosome, just chill. Think about how you’re coming across. If they’re into you, they’ll let you know BEFORE the time comes to embarrass yourself.
PS- You aren’t a radical feminist, Rebecca, you’re THE Radical Feminist!
I had several aquaintences in college who were certain that “Women like men who are mysterious”, but couldn’t grasp the difference between mysterious and downright creepy. Since I was old (30’s), they didn’t want to hear any advice from me.
It certainly is interesting to see how easily something can be perceived as something else. Our intentions do not always come across as clearly as we would like them to.
Wow… I have a log-in here. Why wasn’t this site in my RSS feed?
Anyhoo, re: elevator guy. Ignore the sexism aspect of it (unfortunately, it may be necessary to divorce to issue from feminism for some people to even consider the point). Assume his motives were 110% pure. Assume that he’s a great guy, loves his mom, has a puppy, feeds the homeless, and once gave bone marrow to a complete stranger. It is STILL creepy to follow a women who doesn’t know you from a bar to an elevator at 4AM to invite her to your room. That is NEVER appropriate, and guys can’t be self-centered enough to pretend that people can read your minds and know that you aren’t an evil scumbag.
… especially since you’re kind of already acting like a scumbag. Good people don’t put other people into awkward, uncomfortable, and potentially panic-inducing situations. You don’t have to be a rapist to be an insensitive asshat. You don’t have to be a feminist to know that cornering strangers in elevators at 4AM is pretty effing creepy.
I’ve been getting quite depressed at a general mood among ignorant male ‘skeptics’ in recent months when these issues come up, and this one is a great example. Guys, if you’re upset because you don’t understand women, why not appreciate the fact that Rebecca has taken the time to educate you. No matter what you thought before watching this video, now you know better. It doesn’t matter if something seems ‘OK’, or ‘only offensive to someone who is hyper sensitive’ – if Rebecca is saying something made her uncomfortable, that’s just how it is.
Your impression of how the world ‘should be’ is no more realistic than astrologists making up charts based on how something ‘should be’.
I don’t know if it is even ignorance, as much as very sexist brand of narcissism. I seems to me to be more of a problem of some boys/men not being able to address in this case the specific situation Rebecca describes without turning it into somehow being about them. THEY would never be creepy, THEY are smoove mofos who get the chicks, and therefore Rebecca’s specific concerns over a specific event are meaningless.
You can see it over on the YouTube comments. Guys are up and down claiming “Rebecca hates men, she thinks guys can’t talk to gals without being creepy rapists!” They cannot see Rebecca’s position, because they so strongly identify with the guy in the situation and respond as though she’s talking about them personally. There’s a sexist dismissal of a woman’s legitimate concern, twisted up in an “it’s all about me” attitude. And I’m not sure how you give a speech about that, that will change people’s minds about a fundamental personality defect.
Narcissism indeed. I have been in a situation where I buzz-sexualized a friend in a creepy way, that made her feel threatened and of course ended our friendship. The next couple weeks I spent trying to find arguments, or “spin” arguments to defend my behavior… desperately seek ways to exonerate myself.. and then find absolution. Joe is very right. It was all about me. I was on that tack for quite some time when I stumbled on this “elevator-gate” situation and read through it. I’ve come to realize that, as males, we don’t consider the consequences of what we are doing or what we say or how we act. We don’t think about how our creepy come-ons, can cause all manner of discomforts and even fear. I’m a fairly big and physical guy, I’ve spent time in the military in a combat specialty, I grew up thinking fighting is good. I fought a lot and both kicked and got my butt kicked plenty of times. Physicality (if that’s even a word) is good and approved in our society, and we’re raised on it through sports and what-not. This is how males are supposed to act in a militant Empire culture like we have going here in America. It’s the New Rome… or Rome Hasn’t Quite Ended… Yet. We’re in power and we get what we want. And we’re angry and full of self-righteousness and entitlement and it seems like that goes up the whiter the skin gets. Also. We get (or are supposed to get) what objects we desire and those objects should feel good about that. We’re a “Stepford-ized” version of Dawkins’ very myopic view of Muslim culture… but don’t let the details and subtle differences fool you.
I terrorized my friend w/ my disgusting sense of male entitlement. I’m thinking she felt disgusted, confused and probably somewhat sad at the complete betrayal of her trust in me as a friend. I’m a brutal animal. There isn’t much more to say there.
So to all the males commenting on this, if you read what I’m writing, pull your heads out of the dark holes of entitlement that they’re in. You may have physical power. You’re scary to some people. Sometimes women. When you scare a woman w/ your sexualizing, wasted or not, your being abusive. You’re thinking of only yourself and your needs. You’re making a woman feel like a slave-object, if even for a moment that’s as bad as what Dawkins’ “Muslima” has to go through every goddamn wretched day. You need to start thinking ALL THE time about how others may view you, in ever situation w/ an eye toward their comfort levels. You aren’t owed anything and you have no birth-rights. Size and physical prowess is not something to bring to a relationship. Friendship and trust. That’s all there is our brief march towards personal oblivion. Friendship through giving and kindness.
I can certainly see that his timing was disrespectful and the location for his advance was down right creepy. Those two factors alone would justify anyone in feeling uncomfortable.
Would it still have been a problem if he had hit on you in the bar at 2:00 AM and not suggested going back to his room?
In that situation it would have been merely pathetic as opposed to threatening. And before a bunch of sad sacks start whining that I’m saying it’s always pathetic when a man hits on a woman: no. It’s pathetic when someone hits on a person (who has been talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to at conferences) by saying absolutely nothing to her before inviting her to his hotel room.
Very well put. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Pathetic? It’s all about numbers. If you’re at a conference with a massive amount of members of the opposite sex, someone will make an advance. It doesn’t matter what you were talking about. You can loathe it all day long, but it will continue to happen until there is equilibrium at the conferences you attend.
Despite the location, this person made the most indirect attempt possible to determine if there was interest. He asked if you wanted to get coffee in private. This gave you an easy out without him being embarrassed by rejection, and without you feeling on the spot. The reason he would have asked on the elevator was because he didn’t want to ask something like that in front of a group of people.
The only folly I see in this whole episode is the assumption that a male is a predator (ref Quaap) because he expressed interest in you in private. In addition to the odd redefining of sexism as “men are interested in me when they have been drinking and there are few options.”
Did you miss the part where the guy (apparently) didn’t say a single word to her the whole evening apart from propositioning her? THAT’S the sexism: despite his professed desire to “talk” in his hotel room, not only did he apparently NOT listen (or understand) what she was speaking about earlier at the conference, but then wasn’t even interested in her enough to even have a normal conversation with her at the bar, to see her as more than something he’d like to fuck.
I’m a bisexual male that has been to lots some really cool gay events in the past and I’ve been hit on lots of times by men that didn’t say anything to me before. So it might not be as sexist as you think.
Ok, now it makes more sense. The video above doesn’t give all this information, which is essential to form a proper opinion on the situation.
If there is a video of the talk referred to in this video, I want to see it. I have a whole bunch of questions that I need answered before I can have an opinion.
Too many people seem to be jumping to conclusions on either side.
I came across a re-post of this video on reddit about the unwanted advance and posted that I agreed with the sentiment. I posted this:
“It may be my own sexism but when a guy I barely know asks me to accompany him to an isolated locale, I immediately start sizing up his potential for violence/rape/stuff. I feel slightly guilty for foisting this assumption on the guy but I can’t stop thinking about how vulnerable I would be if I said “Sure, coffee in your room at 4 am. Great idea.” :/
The responding post asked me if this reaction is the same as “clutching (my) purse when a black man walked by.” I hope not…and I know the guy who is offering to hang out alone is often not a creeper with bad intentions. I don’t know if I am hypersensitive to these things or not and if I am is it legitimate or is it because society foists fear and anxiety on women about being raped and then loads them with victim-blame and guilt if they are victimized. I don’t want to be sexist. The drive to feel safe vs. the obligation to be fair is certainly something I wrestle with internally.
“Hypersensitive”? Not remotely. From a man’s perspective, the drive to feel safe trumps the drive to be fair, especially in what are obviously potentially dangerous circumstances. If someone follows me into a dark parking lot in the middle of the night, I’m going to be worried whatever their skin color might be, and possibly whether it is a man or a woman.
From that same man’s perspective, I’m empathetic enough to understand that 4AM in an elevator is not the place for me to corner a woman and ask her to come to my hotel room. Also, I distrust the motives of an man who lacks the empathy required to avoid that creepy situation, and I wouldn’t trust any guy who says otherwise.
You’re not remotely sexist. That’s an entirely rational approach to the world. You should read about this study: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/ .
TLDR: When approached by random people of the opposite sex and propositioned, women said no, men said yes. Study concluded “Men are sluts, women prudes” and everyone rolled their eyes. A much better study came out that, on analysis, concluded that women say no because they see high risk and low reward, and for men it’s just the opposite.
To be blunt, the person who compared “clutching (my) purse when a black man walked by” to being cautious around male strangers did not know what they were talking about. Sexual assault and violence against women is not some myth or exaggeration rooted in sexism against men – it is a reality for women, rooted in a culture of misogyny and rape. Your wariness of strange men is completely valid.
You should check this out: Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced
Most likely this guy was just clueless and totally lacking in empathy, but you can never be sure.
.
Seriously, if he really just wanted to talk over coffee, there are lots of better places and times to suggest, such as next morning (noonish) by the pool or a booth in the coffee shop, or the comfortable couches in the lobby by the potted palms and so forth; places that are public but semi-private, where you can have an uninterrupted conversation but not be trapped. It wouldn’t be up to you to suggest this, he’s the one making the proposal. Even someone as socially inept as me can think of this, if they just put themselves in the other person’s position for a second. This complete lack of empathy is mind-bogglingly stupid.
.
Douglas Adams nailed it as usual: “… the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mind-boggling stupid animal, it assumes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you — daft as a brush, but very, very ravenous)“. I hope you had a towel.
It seems to me that this thread of comments is a pretty good example of a lot of otherwise thoughtful, evidence-seeking skeptics jumping on the assumptions and anecdote-as-evidence bandwagon.
.
I am certainly not saying Rebecca is a liar, or is fabricating stuff to make a point; however, I am pointing out that it is nonetheless just an anecdote.
.
I am under the impression that skeptics are more or less devoted to witholding assumptions and uncritical agreement (or disagreement) with anecdotal, so-called, evidence, whether it come from Rebecca Watson, Michael Shermer, Sarah Palin, or me.
.
I am also under the impression that such ponderings as mine, and a few others in this thread, are not only valid and allowed, but are a critical aspect of skeptical methodology. No?
.
I’m not saying that Rebecca’s wrong, but neither am I saying that she is right. I wasn’t there, I don’t know.
.
I would argue that there is some supportable probability that her assumptions are more right than they are wrong, but the degree of those assumptions I find rather extreme and I feel those assumptions, and many of the comments in this thread, fall into that growing but tenuous argument that anyone, especially any man, who disagrees with a feminist’s (male or female) circumstantial claims of sexism and/or oppression is therefore, ipso facto a sexist; that the simple act of disagreement expresses ignorance, blindness, sexism, and the evil of white male privelege.
.
Buzz Parsec says:
.
“Most likely this guy was just clueless and totally lacking in empathy…”
.
Which assumption I would think should hold an equal degree of possibilty to Rebecca’s assumptions. Not all men are on predator mode all the time.
.
He also adds:
.
“… but you can never be sure.”
.
Which is of course a valid point. But we, as non-participant watchers of the tale can never be sure either way unless we want to assume that all men who ask women to their hotel rooms for coffee, whatever the hour, are always predatorially sexalising all women to whom they ask the question. I can’t buy that. Change either Rebeccas gender, or the guy’s gender, and we have a very different set of assumptions.
.
Now of course it is probable that even being tired, and feeling threatened, Rebecca’s observations of body language, eye contact, etc., provided her with evidence to support her claims and assumptions about the guy’s intent. But we don’t know that do we. We weren’t there.
.
While showing support for Rebecca’s argument, and certainly for her point that the guy’s invite came just after a talk that should clearly have let him know how in the wrong he was, is fine and fair, to conclude that the guys is inarguably a predator, sexist, mendacious pick-up artist is stretching things.
.
I think
Wow, that’s pretty impressively not getting it.
There’s no absolute accusation of misdeeds on part of Elevator Guy. What there is, is a recognition that he gave the appearance of potentially being capable of misdeeds. That put Rebecca is a negative mindset, which means he did harm to her whether he intended to or not.
It wasn’t a major harm. She didn’t feel the need to call the police or anything. But it WAS a harm done to her, and it is a harm that she has spoken over and over about having been done to her and other women attending similar events.
And as I said earlier, it isn’t enough to not actively assault people in order to qualify as a good person. You must also avoid putting people in situations which will very obviously put them in the uncomfortable position of suspecting that something bad might happen to them. There’s a whole hell of a lot of grey area as to what those positions might be, but “strange man corners woman away from home, who doesn’t know him, in an elevator at 4AM, inviting her to his room to talk” is obviously one of those positions.
It isn’t about what he would have done; he might have been completely noble in his intent. It is about what he could have done, and how he put Rebecca in a situation where a sexual assault was a reasonable possibility. Not a probability, not a certainty, but enough of a possibility that he should have known how creepy he would seem when he did it. If you’re honest, you will admit how it looks and admit to the possibility even if you hold onto rejecting the probability and certainty.
Your assumptions and presumptions are burdened by a lack of evidence, and an understanding of nuance and the vagaries of human behaviour.
They are also predicated upon some degree of precognition, mind reading, and paranoia.
*whoosh* That’s the sound of the fail swooping right over your head. Nobody’s calling the dude a rapist. This is about how he made Rebecca feel (e.g. vulnerable & alone). It’s a thing. Some dude following me into an elevator at night, and saying similar things would make me feel vulnerable as well.
“That’s the sound of the fail swooping right over your head.”
.
I don’t think so. I think you may have missed my primary points, which are mainly a. being critical of folks making rather extreme assumptions based on what might be called cliche or stereotyping and b. about uncritically accepting anecdote as evidence.
.
“Nobody’s calling the dude a rapist.”
.
I guess overamped on that; nonetheless, there seems to me to be an all too easy assumption of bad / hostile / potentially predatorial motive without much evidence to support it.
.
This is about how he made Rebecca feel (e.g. vulnerable & alone).
.
I got that, and I think that is implicitly expressed in my post to some degree — though perhaps I should have made it explicit.
.
“It’s a thing.”
.
Huh? What is “thing”. I don’t understand “thing”.
.
“Some dude following me into an elevator at night, and saying similar things would make me feel vulnerable as well.”
.
And, again, I don’t think I disagree with that; however, your statement leaves out too much for me, as observer of the anecdote, to make any kind of judgement or assumption whatever — which, again, is my primary point in my post. I mean, “Some dude following me into an elevator at night” is pretty darned thin. Was he a threatening looking Hell’s Angel; or a simpering milquetoasty bookworm; was he tall, short, swarthy, mean looking, foreign, clean, dirty, smelly, and so on and so forth? Or are ALL men assumed to be predators and we men should simply understand and accept that ALL men getting on to elevators at night when the other passenger is a woman are doing something wrong, and should wait for the next ride?
.
I think the degree to which people are so easily and seemingly comfortable with assuming the worst with little or no question reflects what was written of in Skeptic magazine a couple of years ago as, I think, cultural panic, i.,e., over-reaction based upon the exaggerated politics of fear, stereotyping, and an overabundance of inaccurate assumptions.
(This is a reply to John Greg…)
.
Yikes!
.
Where did Rebecca say anything about Elevator Guy’s stereotypical appearance? Cause we all know that clean-shaven white guys never turn out to be Ted Bundy.
.
It was his behavior that was creepy, not his appearance, as far as we know.
.
You seem to be treating this as some sort of abstract situation amenable to experiment. You also make much of my saying he was probably harmless, and that it “should hold an equal degree of possibilty to Rebecca’s assumptions.” Like there is a 50/50 chance he was a dangerous predator? Or just a sexist pig on the make? I was thinking more like 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 for the former and 1 in 3 (considering the context) for the latter. Hello? This sounds like a good anti-vax argument. Hey, if I don’t get a flu shot, there’s only a 1 in 10 chance I’ll get the flu, and I probably won’t die from it. Do you think she should be doing controlled experiments in being demeaned, degraded and possibly raped?
.
I really think you need to step back and re-examine your biases.
This is to John Greg: yes, FAIL. This isn’t a science experiment where there is a requirement to get the methodology right, it’s about an emotional response to a situation. You shouldn’t be trying to convert Rebecca’s emotional response to the situation to a scientific experiment, you should be TRYING to understand or empathise with it.
Um, so basically what Buzz said.
What assumptions are being made exactly? Rebecca has explained WHY she was uncomfortable and other women have experienced similar situations.
Even if we were to examine the fellow from the elevator, we may never truly discern his intentions.
I think what we need to take from this is that the fellows behaviour made Rebecca feel uncomfortable. Whether there was a justified reason for such feeling is irrelevant.
Whether her or our assumptions regarding the fellow are correct or not does not really have any impact on how Rebecca felt at the time – which is the important issue and the lesson we need to take from this.
There is a slight problem with this. If her reason for feeling weren’t justified. A big if, but one none the less than aren’t we putting a somewhat unfair burden on men to be hyper vigilant in order to not put her and presumably other women in a similar situation in that position?
It’s pretty easy to understand the risk of a situation like that:
1. It’s a reasonable assumption that any one who wants to “talk” to you in private in their hotel room after a night of drinking in their hotel room is hoping to score.
2. Drunk people (a fair assumption considering the 4:00 am bar departure) have lowered inhibitions that increase the risk of violent or aggressive behavior.
3. Those two factors alone could easily lead to a flight or fight response.
4. While trapped in an elevator the flight response isn’t an option.
5. Considering the average size and strength difference between men and women, odds are pretty good that the fight response wasn’t a legitimacy option either.
Fear doesn’t require skeptical analysis in a situation like that with a high possible, albeit improbable, risk. Combine the survival instinct with an inability to act on it, and that would leave someone feeling quite uncomfortable, even from a physiological stand point.
I’m 6’1″ and 210 lbs so it’s quite rare for me to fear for my safety, but on the rare occasions where I find myself alone with a woman in an elevator I do try to be empathetic of what she may be feeling.
Ditto to my previous.
I’m sorry that happened, Rebecca. And I’m equally sorry that so many people just don’t get why behavior like that isn’t ok.
Ok, I’m just going to stop there before the angry comes out.
Ok, maybe a little angry: So, how many of you who are accusing Rebecca of being irrational for how she reacted to the guy in the elevator would have blamed her if she had “given him a chance” and he’d raped her in his room? Don’t bother answering, I’m pretty sure I can guess.
This experience made Rebecca uncomfortable. This is a fact.
Rebecca has previously explained in detail that such experiences make her uncomfortable. She is not the only person to have done so. This is a fact.
The man in question may or may not have heard these explanations. This is unknown.
If he had heard these explanations, and still behaved in such a way as to make her uncomfortable, then he either failed to understand, or dismissed the explanation.
If he had not heard these explanations, we have a cultural problem where men are not educated in behaviours which make women uncomfortable.
Please indicate any faults in my reasoning.
To those who are arguing that this wasn’t a sexual advance: Do you think this guy would have said exactly the same thing, making an identical offer to, say, PZ Meyers (lovely though he is).
Well, I am going to go out on a risky limb and repeat myself, to some degree, and say: I think the degree to which people are so easily and seemingly comfortable with assuming the worst with little or no question reflects what was written of in Skeptic magazine a couple of years ago as, I think, cultural panic, i.e., over-reaction based upon the exaggerated politics of fear, stereotyping, and an overabundance of inaccurate assumptions.
.
And furthermore, I’ll repeat that I think it would be a valid experiment, so to speak, to reverse the genders, and play with the changes in response and assumption that that would endow.
.
Frankly, I am baffled by the kneejerk reactionary responses.
.
Beard of Pants, I am not trying to convert Rebecca’s emotional response to the situation to a scientific experiment, I am simply trying to highlight the plain and obvious fact that too many assumptions are being made without any evidence. Many commentors who were not in the elevator, and who have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to what really went down are making angry, hostile, misanthropic judgement calls without sufficient evidence to base those calls on. And that is the basis of my argument.
.
In a sense, foolish-rain, to some degree, makes my point for me, or at least part of it. Some posters are making a blanket assumption that because the person who asked Rebecca to join them for coffee was a male, the simple fact that it was a man, means it was a sexual advance, whereas if it had been a woman it would almost certainly not have been a sexual advance.
.
Huh?
.
What kind of paranoid fear factor do you base that on? Are all men predators? Are all men doing nothing but making sexual advances on women? Are all men nothing more than penises on consumptive conquest hyperdrive? Gah! Give me a break. What kind of fear do you people live with? Where comes this plethora of assumptive stereotypes? When did Skepchick.org become Pharyngula?
Jeebles folks, chill a bit.
As women in this society (not a theoretical one, but THIS ACTUAL SOCIETY RIGHT HERE) we are raised to be on guard against sexual assault ALL the time. As women we walk with our car keys through our fingers so we can use them as weapons, try to avoid being alone with strange men, go places in pairs, check the backseats of our cars before we get in, only park in well lit places, try to pee while balancing a drink and our purse in the bathroom so no one can say we “asked to be drugged” by leaving our drink unattended, etc… etc… ad nauseum…
If we do not do any of these things and more, and even if we do and get assaulted anyway, then the victim-blaming starts (of which you have already had a small sampling with the guy who wanted to know why Rebecca was alone in the elevator with the guy in the first place). Every thing a woman does, says, wears and EVER DID BEFORE EVER IN HER LIFE will come under examination.
This is not hypothetical, this is what happens every stinking time a woman is sexually assaulted. If you’re so very logical and rational look at the evidence that surrounds you every day. Follow the media coverage of rape cases, read trial transcripts, even though defense lawyers aren’t supposed to use a victim’s sexual history against her in trials, they find ways to sneak it in and even if the judge instructs the jury to ignore it, you can’t unhear that.
ALL of that baggage and evidence is what Rebecca was operating with the night some guy who hadn’t spoken to her the entire time they and other people were hanging out, cornered her alone in an elevator and asked her back to his room.
Does this mean he WOULD have assaulted her? No.
But it also doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have either. Sadly, rapists do not all wear handy nametags stating, “Hi, I’m Ted! I’ll be your rapist this evening!” They look just like everyone else. So, in the interest of not being assaulted and in NOT having to go through the ordeal of reporting a rape, Rebecca very rationally and logically opted to get away from that guy as soon as she could, and to TELL YOU that this behavior is not OK. So that those of you who are constantly demanding women tell you what to do to approach them can know that this is not how you do it.
I’d recommend looking up the Schroedinger’s Rapist article on KateHarding.net (http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/).
No, nobody is saying that all men are predators. It is you who is making the blanket statement. You are accusing others of making assumptions bu, it is you who is assuming that this encounter is is the result of “culture panic”. I would rather assume that a guy asking me to his room at 4 in the morning after a night of drinking is interested in more than just talking and not get myself into a bad situation. I am sorry that you cannot get how a woman would feel uncomfortable in those situations. You are proof that skeptics are not always empathetic.
“Are all men predators? Are all men doing nothing but making sexual advances on women? Are all men nothing more than penises on consumptive conquest hyperdrive?”
Nope. But some of them are. And we don’t know which ones are which. It is so much better to risk hurting a dude who is acting in a creepy way’s feelings than getting assaulted or raped.
That article about Schroedinger’s Rapist is really good, btw.
About the guy in the elevator …. definitely creepy.
I apologize on behalf of all men. Sorry.
Some of us are really stupid.
Hi Rebecca, this is my first time posting, but this is such an interesting topic, I couldn’t resist.
I think what many people are missing about this issue is that the intentions of the gentleman who approached you does not change the sexism inherent in what he did. He did what he did because sexism exists in our society, which allows males the privilege of not having to think about the sexual nature of their behaviour, whilst women have to be constantly aware of it because of the huge negative affects it can possibly have on our lives.
Let’s take gender out of this for a moment. I enjoy doing something called poi, if you haven’t heard of it, it involves swinging weighted strings (the most basic can be made with a tennis ball in the end of a tube sock) around your body in patterns, its quite beautiful and completely harmless. Here is an example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWyXZMPyyM
My favourite practice set, however, looks quite dangerous, as it is made out of chains, leather and tennis balls. They could easily be mistaken for a weapon. I have no intention of harming anyone with poi, in fact my intention is just the opposite, I want people to enjoy my art, but I recognize that it would be inappropriate to walk around swinging them about down the street as I tend to do with my other more colourful, cuddly looking poi, because I would needlessly be making other people feel uncomfortable and even scared, something I do not want to do, especially if not using that practice set makes no real difference to me.
I experience this same concern in my personal life, in the same context as the guy in the elevator. As a gay woman I have to constantly make judgements about how appropriate any sexual advances might be in certain situations. Both because I am aware of how uncomfortable unwanted sexual advances are from men because I too am a woman, but also because of the homophobic nature of our society as well, and that some women would be even more offended by advances than they would a man’s regardless of the situation. As I do not want to value my chance of maybe “gettin’ some” over another human beings feels/well being, I try to be considerate at all times.
So I know inherently that it would be inappropriate to approach a woman at 4 in the morning in an elevator after she has said she wants to go to bed, even if all I did want to do was have a chat, because society has conditioned me to constantly be aware of my sexuality (both as a female and as a lesbian).
Because of our sexist society, men are free from this conditioning. They are allowed to separate their personality and their daily lives from their sexuality. They have a choice, a privilege. Women do not.
So either this gentleman who Rebecca encountered is simply a product of our sexist society by being unaware of how uncomfortable his remarks might make her (which seems unbelievable since she’d spent a good deal of time talking about that very thing), or he was aware of how inappropriate his behaviour was and decided that the chance that she might say yes and he would get his way was more important than Rebecca’s feelings, in which case he has personal and sexist issues he needs to work on. Either way, the event she described IS inherently sexist.
And let’s face it, if that guy really did just want to have a conversation, he could have offered to swap email addresses or something.