Feminism

The Privilege Delusion

Well, PZ Myers, Jen McCreight, Phil Plait, Amanda Marcotte, Greg Laden, Melissa McEwan and others have all already said it, but I figured I should post this for the record: yes, Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man! 

When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had a hazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that other people worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that had transcended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rational atheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.

And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.

So I started speaking more about women. About how they’re not idiots. About how they can think logically but maybe there are other social pressures keeping them away from our message, like how we tell women they should be quiet and polite and not question what is told to them. I spoke about how people need role models, and there were so few women on stage at these events.

And I got messages from women who told me about how they had trouble attending pub gatherings and other events because they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men. They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door. Maybe they could wait for her to make the first move, just in case.

And then, for the past few years as the audience for Skepchick and SGU grew, I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists. More and more people telling me to shut up and go back to talking about Bigfoot and other topics that really matter.

And I said no. I learned more about modern feminism and about how their goals so clearly overlapped those of the humanists and skeptics and secularists, and I wrote and spoke more about the issues within that overlap because so few other skeptics were doing it.

So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists. I believe that day has nearly arrived.

You may recall that I related an incident in which I was propositioned, and I said, “Guys, don’t do that.” Really, that’s what I said. I didn’t call for an end to sex. I didn’t accuse the man in my story of rape. I didn’t say all men are monsters. I said, “Guys, don’t do that.” Cue Richard Dawkins‘ response:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

This is especially interesting since Richard Dawkins sat next to me in Dublin and heard me talk about the threats of rape I get. This is one I keep as a screenshot to use an example for people who don’t understand:

That comment and many like it were sent to me in response to a video I did about the horrors of female genital mutilation, which, by the way, is a cultural practice and not relegated to Muslim women. I’ve spoken about the topic a lot, and the worst of my hate mail from atheists is about that.

So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us. Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.

That wasn’t the end, of course. Dawkins went on to compare my experience with his frustration at riding in an elevator with a person chewing gum (presumably he was once accosted by such a person who rubbed Bubble Yum into his silky white hair). You can read all his comments to date at Shakesville or one of the other sites linked above.

This weekend when I read Dawkins’ comments, I was, briefly, without hope. I had already seen the future of this movement dismissing these concerns, and now I was seeing the present do the same.

What is the point in continuing?

That’s where you come in. You, dear reader, have been incredible. You posted in response to Dawkins on the Pharyngula thread, bravely battling both him and the hoards of clueless privileged people who didn’t get it. You emailed me to tell me to keep talking. You introduced yourself at SkepchickCon and told me how much you loved Skepchick and SGU. You wrote blog posts and made videos and were kick ass, and you made me realize that Dawkins is not the present. He is the past.

So many of you voiced what I had already been thinking: that this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experiences as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don’t think my reading list will suffer.

Despite the fact that I’ve seen hundreds of comments from those of you who plan to do the same, I’m sure Dawkins will continue to be stinking rich until the end of his days. But those of us who are humanists and feminists will find new, better voices to promote and inspire, and Dawkins will be left alone to fight the terrible injustice of standing in elevators with gum-chewers.

PS: A few Skepchicks have written letters to Dawkins and were thinking of posting them here as well as sending them to him. If you’d like your letter included in our post, please send it to skepchick at skepchick.org.

PPS: Some are wondering if it was really Dawkins, and yes, that was definitely confirmed by PZ Myers. Also, some of you are wondering if I’m criticizing all rich, white, old, etc men when I call out those attributes. No! I am merely illustrating the unbelievable height of Dawkins’ privilege.

PPPS: Nope, I didn’t call for a boycott. I’m relaying the fact that I have no interest in giving this person any more of my money or attention. Other people have independently told me they’re doing the same. This is not an organized campaign, and no one is going to be vilified for continuing to give their own time and attention to Dawkins.

Rebecca Watson

Rebecca is a writer, speaker, YouTube personality, and unrepentant science nerd. In addition to founding and continuing to run Skepchick, she hosts Quiz-o-Tron, a monthly science-themed quiz show and podcast that pits comedians against nerds. There is an asteroid named in her honor. Twitter @rebeccawatson Mastodon mstdn.social/@rebeccawatson Instagram @actuallyrebeccawatson TikTok @actuallyrebeccawatson YouTube @rebeccawatson BlueSky @rebeccawatson.bsky.social

Related Articles

1,354 Comments

  1. I am loving that feminism is getting such a big spotlight in the skeptic community. It’s really showing people’s true colors and providing an opportunity for those who aren’t familiar with what feminism really is to become better acquainted with it.

    I really thought Richard Dawkins was better than this. I’m bummed that he is like this, but glad that we found this out. Again… thank you, Rebecca, for being so passionate about this.

    1. Thank you so much for taking the time and energy to talk about this – first in your video, then more here and elsewhere. I came to feminism much the same way, although it was as part of the LGBT community that I got pissed off.

    2. I’m behind you guys all the way, and I just lost all respect I once had for Dawkins. This just keeps getting worse.

    3. If anything this illustrates female privilege.

      A guy cannot go in an elevator with a woman and/or proposition a woman to have coffee without being labeled a creep or feared to be a rapist. Women have the privilege to reserve the right to have an elevator by themselves, and if not isolated, they have the right to a silent elevator.

      How can that be male privilege when it’s men being perceived as being a threat because women, in general, feet uncomfortable? Where is the benefit for men in this exchange? On the other hand, there is a clear benefit for women when they are trying to set guidelines for men to go by so that women don’t view them as creepy or a threat to their safety.

      There is male privilege to be seen here is if you think the ability to rape women is a privilege. The alternative is that men don’t have to fear rape when they are found in Rebecca’s situation. Well, the counter to that would be men fearing false rape accusations since they are alone with a women and there is evidence they entered the elevator together. So, let’s say that people are actually suggesting that the ability to rape women is a privilege. If it were, why do so few take advantage of that? It’s like saying black men have privilege in that they can rob places easier than other groups because they can run faster.

      Food for thought: If a woman asked a man to have some coffee with her, it wouldn’t be creepy and it would be a non-story, unless the man feared he was being set up for a false rape accusation.

      Regardless, Rebecca only said it was creepy… Dawkins points out how much worse Muslim women have it, noticeably off-topic… then the drama unfolded that had EG being seen as a potential rapist… then people tied the rapist angle with what Dawkins said and it then seemed like an inappropriate comment. That’s the problem with the internet, people enter the discussion with later information and preconceived notions of the discussion being had.

      1. c0mputar:
        “It’s like saying black men have privilege in that they can rob places easier than other groups because they can run faster.”

        Racism and misogyny all in one odious little package.

        You come from a “men’s rights movement” blog, don’t you?

        1. Indeed :P Usually I’m into court related issues. Men get shafted in family, divorce, and, well what am I saying, all types of courts, when compared to woman.

          But this issue was too lively to pass up :)

          1. I thought I detected the stench of the MRM in your posts. Good to know my nose for jerks is still infallible.

        2. Computar’s comment about black men was not racist. Do you even try to understand what people say or do you just listen for key buzz words and then throw labels around?

          “A recent study from Duke University has examined this question and determined that height and proportionality differences alter the center of gravity. They found that those of West African heritage tend to have longer legs than those of European heritage. Accordingly, their torsos tend to be shorter, placing their center of gravity about an inch higher, translating in a 1.5% boost in speed. In sprints (where a fraction of a second can put one sprinter in front of another), this advantage seems to allow sprinters of African origin to have more success. It is worth noting, however, that the same differences give Europeans more of an advantage in swimming.”

          If science has found it to be true that black people run faster, then its a fact and not a racist statement, accept it.

          Also, how is c0mputar guilty of woman hate simply for having an opinion that differs from yours? You really just throw labels willy nilly and don’t even try to address the argument, and that’s really unfortunate because that does not help the cause of women at all.

          1. Yawn. More willful incomprehension from the trolls.

            Wake me when one of you says something that’s worth the trouble of reading.

      2. c0mputar, I registered just to tell you that you are completely selfish, obtuse and narcissistic. You seem to think that all women should be flattered by men trying to have sex with them. That any time or place is acceptable to grace them with your attentions. Here are a few hard-for-you facts: not all women want you. Any time and any place is NOT the right time or place for making advances. How can you NOT understand that?

        I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t understand that approaching a woman sexually while you are both trapped in a small enclosed area is Wrong and Very Bad. Its obvious you can’t place yourself in our shoes, so let’s give you a scenario you may be able to understand better.

        You are in jail and you share a very small cell, about the size of a king sized bed, with one man. He thinks you are kinda cute and makes sexual advances. He is also much stronger than you and he has the legal system on his side because no one gives a shit about guys who get raped in prison. How do you feel about his advances now? And yes, get past your homophobia and try to figure it out.

        We women aren’t breathlessly waiting every moment of every day for a man to come along and try out some lame pick-up lines so’s they can have sex with us. When we are out looking for someone to have sex with, or a relationship with, its in the appropriate places. Places where NORMAL people go to meet others. We are most definitely NOT looking to hook up or date some weirdo who comes at us when we can’t get away from them. That includes places like: work, home, parking garages, elevators, shopping malls, gas stations, etc.

        BTW, your hero worship of a man with clay feet approaches the level of the stupidity, gullibility, fanaticism, and willful blindness of any religious person.

        1. Ugh, that is so disingenuous, him thinking the man should be allowed to proposition a woman without fear of being labeled a rapist does not equate to “You seem to think that all women should be flattered by men trying to have sex with them”.

          Furthermore
          “You may recall that I related an incident in which I was propositioned, and I said, “Guys, don’t do that.” Really, that’s what I said. I didn’t call for an end to sex. I didn’t accuse the man in my story of rape. I didn’t say all men are monsters. I said, “Guys, don’t do that.”
          RW even says she wasn’t accusing him of rape or trying to rape her, why are you equating him to some kind felon(and possible rapist)? At best he is an awkward guy who should have taken the hint and not bothered her. Not some kind of sexual deviant.

    4. For a long time now I have found the Dawkins method of skepticism to be a bit borderline arrogant, not because I disagree with him, rather because I think he relishes in the fact he can brag to people “I’m a super-smart wannabe-witty English biologist” in that oh-so-snotty Upper Class English Gentry sort of way that makes you want to puke. Christopher Hitchens, as a Marxist, has at least some consciousness of class/gender identity issues. I think that the problem here is that identifying oneself by what you DON’T believe in is particularly un-helpful, atheism can embrace all sorts of identities, including masochist men and arrogant sexists. As such, I feel much more comfortable aligning with the Humanist Manifestos, which do seem to embrace at least SOME standard of baseline behavioral expectations. Happy to see an important issue being raised and that someone has the guts to do it. What a shame that the men get all the limelight (and book deals) when much smarter personalities are to be found in cyber space.

      1. I agree, except for the “a bit borderline” part. After seeing “The Root of All Evil?”, in which he picked easy targets and was then repeatedly outwitted by them, resorting to blustering and name-calling instead of actually meeting any counterarguments, I could no longer associate with the “atheist movement”. In any civil conversation where religious questions come up, I have to apologize for him and distance myself from him. The man is a bully, a boor and, as we’ve now seen, a fool.

    5. Just read about your experiences on salon.com. I’m pushing 50 and KNOW there is an ongoing need for feminism. When I read what someone like Dawkins has the arrogance to say I also know there are dozens of men who feel the same but only express their hostility and arrogance indirectly. Like you, I won’t ever read a word Dawkins has to say nor will I read any of his books. There are too many other people and works worth thinking about.

    6. “If you’re a public figure you speak all the time and statistically you’ll say something dumb now and again. That’s no reason to disregard all the good things you’ve said and done.” – PanWolven

      1. I agree. This is not the end of Richard Dawkins, his career, or the subject of atheism. I hope Rebecca can hold on for further back and forth discussion with him. He dismissed you bluntly, he has asked that it be explained where and how he went wrong. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE that you DO JUST THAT!!! I have been a feminist for a long time, and have been married to a debater for 25 years, and if I gave up my right to keep speaking out I would not be worthy of being a humanist, or feminist. Brace yourself for further discussion. Point out TO HIM PERSONALLY just where he went wrong and what he doesn’t understand. DO NOT DISMISS HIM OR THE GIVE UP THE ARGUMENT, it weakens the cause all around. This is the opportunity feminists need to make our needs and views known.

  2. “I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists.”

    This. THIS. Rebecca, thank you so much. I went through the same exact experience that you described in this post – starting off vaguely considering myself a feminist and thinking we had solved everything, to painfully aware of how in need of a wake up call this movement needs. People complain that I “bitch about feminism too much” – but I do it precisely because of them. They fuel my rage.

    Can I be a Planeteer? As long as I’m not Heart. Apparently I swear too much for that, or something.

  3. Great post! However I don’t think we can completely count RD out yet. The very definition of Male Privilege is the fact that men don’t tend to get it at first. So I would give him a bit more time, write letters and see if we can show him his error. I still hope to see an apology by him but maybe I am being too optimistic.

    1. I agree. Recognizing privilege isn’t easy or comfortable. It took me a long freaking time to come to grips with the privilege I have for being white, upper-middle class, able bodied, and (at least outwardly appearing) straight. When I offered to sit down with Dawkins at TAM, I wasn’t being flippant – I was serious. I’m happy to talk to people to help them understand how women feel. And chatting in person is often more conducive than screaming at each other over the internet.

      So, I still have a bit of hope before I stop attending his talks and buying his books. I assume right now he’s stewing somewhere, not sure why everyone is so cranky with him. Hopefully he’ll make the attempt to understand, in which case some of my respect will be restored.

      1. What Jen said.

        One thing that alarms me about all of this is that we are hoping to make our tent even wider. If the movement can’t absorb constructive criticism sexism, what about constructive criticism about racism?

        1. Oh FFS. Should have read “If the movement can’t absorb constructive criticism about sexism, what about constructive criticism about racism?”

      2. Dawkins still has too much to offer to boycott him, I think.

        But Dawkins also has an intellectual arrogance that makes him easily irritated by seemingly trivial matters and quick to reach for a witheringly sarcastic response, but that also makes it hard for him to quickly back down. (I know I do.)

        I trust he has the intellectual and emotional capacity to realise his mistake and apologise for it.

        His wife, Lalla Ward, is hardly unprivileged, but if Dawkins is struggling with the right perspective on women’s attitudes, maybe he could benefit from her insight before he puts metaphorical pen to metaphorical paper. Just a thought…

        /@

      3. I am going to give a nuanced view in this storm in a teacup that has polarised and confused so many people. I write this as a woman who doesn’t mind being hit on, and who moves in circles where I perhaps naively think what you used to think. I don’t fear being raped, and I don’t feel surrounded by misogynists. I also come from the UK, where there might be a real cultural difference that engenders these sentiments.

        I think Rebecca’s initial complaint was entirely reasonable. She was calm and brief about it – and was justifiably made uneasy by the man’s approach of her in the elevator. I wouldn’t personally feel so edgy, but that’s my stance. She made no comment about genuinely fearing rape or assault, and I really do think that the guy was probably well-meaning but oblivious to how uncomfortable he was making her feel.

        I didn’t see, I haven’t seen, the initial comments that got this storm really going on the side of the misogynists/ignoramuses. What I did see was the feminist responses, which from my vantage point looked hysterical – some of which genuinely aggressive and stupid – crying rape – and specifically putting this man down as a premeditative, predatory, sexist bastard – rather than someone who on the face of it sounds as though he would have apologised there and then if he’d known he’d made Rebecca uneasy.

        These feminist responses made me angry, seriously angry. I will admit that I’ve been starting to find feminists within the atheist community to be becoming parodies of themselves. I could not help but balk at that event a while back where a woman protested at being called ‘female’ – and at the response to Elisabeth Cornwell’s talk – even while I agreed that it was obtuse to have a panel about women in atheism populated by men. (And hey, even the panel populated by women still didn’t fail in causing controversy!)

        So this is a war, a polarised and polarising war, that has been stewing for quite a long time now. And I notice part of the problem. I am only picking up on the angry feminist responses – the responses I view as not only aggressive, but stupid and irrational. And PZ and others are completely failing to notice that part of the formula, and are asking the likes of myself why we’re so mad at Rebecca for having the gall to say no to a man who came onto her in the wrong place and at the wrong time, and for communicating that it made her uneasy via YouTube.

        Either side is genuinely failing to see part of the picture – of all the provocations that have catalysed this tempest in a thimble – that have driven some to respond in anger on either side.

        And on a bigger scale, many feminists are guility of what they accuse privileged men (and women) of being: oblivious. As you imply – many men and some women don’t normally live with fear or uneasiness around men, and would quickly brush Elevator Guy off and be done with it. Rebecca sort of did this. It’s obvious that though she was made to feel uneasy, she wasn’t sweating profusely, shaking like a leaf and grabbing for her rape alarm during the incident.

        That is on my level of comprehension. Step back for a minute and imagine how some feminist rhetoric (not necessarily from yourself) looks from that vantage point. All the screaming about potential heinous assault, and how this man is obviously a big horrible mean predatory creep. Imagine how you’d have considered that before ‘converting’ to feminism.

        And then encourage more people to do what you are trying to do and tell myself and others to step back and try to see your vantage point and why YOU are angry. You don’t want to be shouted at about how you should feel about a particular scenario. Curiously, neither do those who disagree with any particular feminist view about said scenario.

        I get the feeling that much of this dispute has involved a crowd of loosely organised people screaming and shouting past each other, with a few composed voices butting in edgeways, but being mostly drowned out by the predominating angst.

        I also think that Richard jumped the gun. I have been involved in a few web dramas involving Richard now, and I can assure you, it is entirely his style to butt in in a passion, while under-informed, and say his sincerely meant but ill-considered and misinformed piece – which, with further reflection he’ll partially retract and apologise for. I hope he does the latter here.

        I don’t even think he saw/heard Rebecca’s actual words before he said what he said. I think he was reacting in a passion to the ‘hysterical feminists’ and took it upon himself to presume that the original source herself had been so impassioned about what happened that early morning in Dublin. This is again, unfortunately, not unlike Richard. For all that he waxes noble about careful skepticism, he is at times more ready to jump to conclusions and fail to do even the most basic research before giving his tuppence.

        I have emailed Richard personally, detailing why Rebecca deserves an apology – even if he never meant to direct his ire towards her personally – and even though Richard and I may still not agree with some of the feminists hanging around. Rebecca personally did nothing to provoke his ire, and he did nothing to avoid it looking as though his words were directed at her personally.

        He may not read that email – but hopefully he will catch wind of some of what is being said, and realise that he rightly owes her an apology, for the manner in which he chose to express his indignation over the drama that flared up in the wake of her words.

        These are my thoughts as they stand right now. Thanks for listening.

        1. There may well be some cultural differnces in the discussions. I am British, resident in the USA and hold a very similar view to you. It does seem to have been inflated beyond what the original situation dictates.

          1. I want to start by saying I’ve been a long time lurker at skepchick and that I really enjoy what you are doing here. I want to start by thanking you Rebecca for all your contributions to both the atheist and feminist community and for inviting this debate. I have to state my biases from the outset I’m a British, white, male, young mid 20s, student studying a profession that could lead to good job prospects, I am not rich and I’m average size. I enjoy debate and engaging ideas and discussing them.
            I see nothing wrong in you finding a guy creepy, that you obviously weren’t attracted to, asking you to his room for coffee at 4am in an elevator. The discomfort was probably heightened by the claustrophobia of being in a confined space compounded by not being able to leave immediately creating, I imagine, an extremely awkward moment. When I’m in elevators I usually can’t wait to leave and have been stuck in one before so I can relate to feeling anxious in elevators on the best of days. Your response was what I imagine anyone would have felt unless it had been someone they really wanted to ask them back to their place. I personally wouldn’t even consider talking to a girl unless people were around and I had a way to leave if (or when) I got knocked back. I personally had a situation where a girl literally tried to jump on me and kiss me while I was sitting down waiting for my girlfriend in the bathroom and I found it to be extremely uncomfortable, she had obviously had too much to drink and she wasn’t interested in talking or finding out if I was interested or not.

            As far as atheist conferences go I have never been to one and I don’t have any desire to attend any. I doubt I would enjoy them and they don’t seem like my scene although I have a passion for discussion of ideas. From the way you have described them I can see how anyone would feel out of place in that environment. Maybe the problem is that a lot of people who participate in the debate online and then attend the events are severely lacking in real life social skills?
            It wouldn’t come as a surprise to me that the majority of people who attend atheist conferences would fall into this category. I also wouldn’t be surprised with the number of people posting such disgusting posts online to you. No one should have to deal with that. I have to be honest though, I’ve received messages with comparable hate, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism and in just as explicit detail online. Examples could be provided with hate and obscenities spewed online and in messages at public figures such as Justin Beiber, Cheryl Cole, Lady Gaga, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron as well as many others.
            I have to agree with Lordpasternack I think from your legitimate concerns this event has turned into a circus show with all the freaks that seem to have rolled into town. I think Richard Dawkins response is a reaction to that, but in doing so he becomes a prime example of the problem itself. The common ground between the two of you seems to be that you both find female genital mutilation abhorrent, which it is. I think Dawkins trying to compare the treatment of Muslim women to your feelings in that elevator is ridiculous. I have to admit though he doesn’t actually appear to be responding to you, but to the circus show surrounding this whole affair and I really get the impression that he is completely ignorant of your reasonable comments in the first place. Dawkins comes across as extremely uninformed; he is as unreasonable as the people he attempts to criticize. He owes you an apology.
            An example of a comment just as ridiculous as Richard Dawkins just look at Zylla’s:
            “Let’s put another spin on the scenario to see if some of these guys can get it. You’re on an elevator with a guy. He pulls out a gun as he’s talking to you. He doesn’t point it at you, doesn’t threaten you, he’s just holding the gun. Does it really make you feel any safer around this stranger when someone tells you later that it probably wasn’t loaded?”

            Ignoring the phallic imagery of said guy pulling out his “gun” in an elevator, I don’t think this relates to the situation at all and it is just as hyperbolic, if not more so, as Richard Dawkins’ chewing gum example. I think a much more apt example to help a straight male understand the situation would be to get them to imagine having drinks with friends and then when they are drunk and are alone in an elevator to imagine a gay guy asking them if they wanted to go back to his place at 4am for a coffee. The reaction to being asked that question would vary through a wide spectrum depending on the personalities of the people involved. Some would be outraged, some would find it quite comical. I personally find it flattering when I get hit on by anyone and since my brother came out, talking to him about his experiences he tells me that a lot of his gay friends put themselves out there in that way. It is an individual thing. I think it would be interesting to see how Richard Dawkins would react to that situation.

            Imagining that it was a gay guy hitting on a straight guy how do you think this response would be taken to the situation:

            “Just a word to the wise here, gays, don’t do that”.

            I could understand why a straight or gay guy who wasn’t interested in being approached in that way could feel uncomfortable and anxious. I can also understand why others might brush it off as not being a big deal or some people could even want that kind of thing. It’s just a difference in perspective and opinion. I think neither is right or wrong. In this case Rebecca just stated that she found that sort of approach uncomfortable, and then there was a big overreaction by what appear to be feminist commentators online turning this awkward but harmless event into being comparable to rape or as in the above example having a gun pulled out. Dawkins then reacted in just as outrageous hysterical and ridiculous a way. All of which is unfortunate.

            In reality that kind of approach works with some women and men, whether straight or gay. In this case they both appear to have been leaving a bar so I imagine both were probably drunk. Maybe he was genuinely in awe and really enjoys Rebecca’s work like most of us here and wanted to have the chance to talk to her more. I would love to hang out over a coffee to talk about atheism with Rebecca or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (but not at 4am in the morning).

            (Note to self, if I find myself in an elevator with Rebecca at 4am don’t ask her back to my place for coffee. Maybe if Sexycelticlady, who I agree with about cultural differences, was in an elevator but I’m still thinking the chance of success would be next to nothing.)

            As for female presence in atheistic circles, I think it is sadly missing, maybe one of the main reasons for that is lack of female role models and so I want to thank you Rebecca for being a pioneer in that respect. I think that the point made about atheism needing to have more leading figures who are female and needing to be more female friendly is an extremely important one and especially if that experience is shared by a large number of women. I don’t think the context of this discussion however is the place for it, but that’s just my opinion. The reason is that the elevator story, which is an awkward social situation, could too easily be used as a straw man when there is a real issue that needs to be addressed. I don’t think Dawkins extremely rude and ignorant response to the feminist hysteria or internet trolls posting ridiculous things about rape and murder which can unfortunately be found online in lots of different forums, while deplorable and unacceptable, are the best examples of misogyny in the community. I would be more interested in accounts of girls and women who want to and have tried to attend events and have found a glass ceiling preventing them from attending.

            As for privilege I think it depends on the social circumstances of the environment, whether social, or work. In certain work environments old white rich men are far from a position of any privilege at all, in others they have all the power. Fame, popularity and being respected by your peers is arguably a position of privilege that Richard Dawkins has, by the same token at that conference and online you are somewhat of an internet celebrity in those circles. I hope you have a growing influence and shape the community for the better and thank you for contributing.

        2. Thank you so much for trying and upholding some reason in a discussion that blew way out of proportion. What I however missed in your response is the point that irritates me the most in what Rebecca said in her initial Video and repeated here, namely the use of the verb “to objectify”. The way I understand this verb it describes a situation where a person is trying to use another as a mere object, a tool of sort to whatever end, instead of acknowledging their persona. Women are objectified when they are seen as (male-)offspring production facilities. You could also argue that objectification occurs when their body is used in order to sell a product or in pornography, although those women consent to that for money, whether you object to that or not. Now merely propositioning to someone does nothing of the like and let me explain why: Inviting someone “for coffee”, if it is done in a none threatening way (and this guy did his best to not seem threatening, however clumsily, given the surroundings), makes one statement and asks one question.
          Statement: “I am attracted to you and would like to get intimate with you in order for us to exchange pleasures.”
          Question: “Do you feel the same way?”
          I don’t see how there’s objectification involved in this, I cannot see it in any other way than as the offer of a “hedonistic contract” with the other party being left with all the power to decide whether to accept or decline that offer, thus taking it (I am being specifically gender neutral here on purpose) at full value as a rational human being.
          This, in my book, is the rational way to view a proposition, leaving out possibilities like the one that this man could have been a big fan of Rebecca and admired her for her intellect as well as her physique or might have been genuinely in love with her, again possibly for what she says rather than what she looks like. Would those facts have changed anything? I don’t think so…

          K0ilar

          PS.: About making the first move: If everybody waits for everybody to make the first move, no moves are made and lots of potential joy are never to happen, thus making the world a little colder.

        3. Excellent commentary, since im Irish its probable that im coming from the same cultural ethos as you. I really don’t think that the original story (as it has been told) indicates any sexism or objectification, it seems more to come under the heading of rude and socialy awkward. Also obviously Dawkins should apologise and needs to learn to look before leaping.

        4. If you feel attacked by feminism, it’s a counter-attack.

          When I read a woman saying she was offended or made uncomfortable, I don’t question it, because those aren’t ideas, those are her feelings. To be honest, on the face of it, what happened to Rebecca in the elevator didn’t sound that threatening to me, either, but I wasn’t there, and I didn’t live Rebecca’s life. I have no right to tell her or anyone how they should have felt.

          That whole thing was such a minor part of that video; the fact that people latched onto it and defended that random guy suggests to me that the oversensitive and even “hysterical” ones are the critics.

          1. It seems that a lot of people want to hold Rebecca accountable for what seem to be the ideas behind the feelings. If a white person felt uncomfortable in the close proximity of a brown-person and were moved to say something about it, or do something innocuous like clutch their purse or wallet, I think a lot of people currently at Rebecca’s defense now would not feel sympathy for that hypothetical person’s feelings. They may even call them racist and say their discomfort expresses a pre-judgement passed on all dark-skinned people. You could take an example out of the atheist-community and point to how religious people appeal to their feelings about a number of issues, and we’d be confronted with the same community prerogative to say “no, your feelings don’t get a free pass to validate your assumptions about this person or these people”.

            Now, what Rebecca has on her side are a slew of additional unambiguous examples of men making her feel uncomfortable and directly threatening her, but what some (not all) skeptics in this conversation seem to want is some objectivity about this case. It’s a good question whether objectivity is possible here, but then more seems at stake then just Rebecca relating her discomfort and our supporting her.

          2. @pdxmole

            “If a white person felt uncomfortable in the close proximity of a brown-person and were moved to say something about it, or do something innocuous like clutch their purse or wallet…”

            Hmm, this is a very good point and I had not thought of it that way but that really does make things rather clear doesn’t it?

            In your above example, the white person would definitely be in the wrong for being racist.

            My fathers store was robbed twice when I was a kid, both times the robbers were black. The facts are that 2 black robberies occurred at my fathers store and 0 white robberies. However I don’t label all black people as thieves because of these events. If I did, I would be racist.

            Likewise if Rebecca is uncomfortable enough to want to speak out about it. What is she uncomfortable about? He has no weapon, he is being nice and polite to her, he is not restricting her freedom of movement in any way. What is the concern here then? I could be wrong, maybe there is something I had not thought of, but does this not limit the possibility that Rebecca was uncomfortable in the confined space due to fear or sexual assault?

            If Rebecca was afraid of sexual assault from a man who has threatened her in no way what so ever and has not restricted her in any way, does this not make her the same as the white guy clutching his wallet because a black guy is standing close to him, in the above example? Would this not in and of itself be sexist? Just because some guys rape women doesn’t mean that you should react as if all guys will rape you.

            If there is a flaw in this logic, please post, but it seems fairly reasonable to me.

        5. ^^This.

          I read RW’s initial description of the event and understood her epistle as a well-deserved metaphorical rolled up newspaper to the nose of a classless cad, albeit one who might learn something from the swat.

          Instead, it has become a story about her being sexually harassed in an elevator by an evil monster who might very well have been one thought away from rape; a clearly unfair characterization in the minds of those who view such a claim as hysterical, and a completely justified characterization in the minds of those who may have felt the same discomfort RW related in her blog post.

          This might be a good moment for both sides to take a step back reconsider their premises. That RW was made to feel uncomfortable because of the potential for harm shouldn’t be a difficult thing to understand. That the idiot who followed her into the elevator behaved badly, albeit with no intentional malice, should be equally obvious.

        6. Well said. I couldn’t have said it better. God knows I’ve tried, in this thread, to no avail!

        7. Lordpasternak, thank you so much for this. I’ve tried vainly and without success — much of the problem being my lack of eloquence and poor writing — to say much the same thing.

          In response to the more irrational, myopic, and extreme feminist viewpoints and comments on this issue, I’d like to reiterate what one commentor posted at Pharyngula (also in response to the more extreme feminist viewpoints): Come back Andrea Dworkin; all is forgiven!
          .
          :)

        8. @lordpasternack

          I don’t think you’re clearing the issue up- I think you’re brushing off the ‘wild, crazy feminists’ without considering maybe there’s a legitimate reason why they’re upset.

          Not everyone was claiming the man in the elevator was planning to or seriously considering raping her. I think a lot of the discussion focused instead around looking into why this man made this proposition when he clearly knew her feelings about people not considering the context of situations before doing something- namely, the systems that many people, and often men, operate in without thinking they’re part of them at all. In this very particular situation, you agreed the guy hadn’t considered her feelings and made a bad call. But you don’t acknowledge that there is a bigger issue at work here.
          I think the dissent came in response to comments from people who showed clearly they didn’t understand the context their opinions were operating in. Yes, the guy could have wanted sex, and in the mind of many people complaining that guys have it hard, he was just a nice guy awkwardly trying to get some. Rebecca could have been okay with it, as people sometimes are, but she wasn’t. There are crude come-ons made all the time, and sometimes the person, namely you (as you said) are okay with them and sometimes they aren’t. But the fact that many men assume they can make these comments and it is always okay to do it, and that no one should get up and yell, shows a level of privilege and obliviousness that is problematic.

    2. dpeabody makes a good point. Dawkins comes from an older generation who don’t always see what might be fairly obvious to people who ate more aware of feminist issues. Also, we should probably presume that he is open to reason, and EXPLAIN the issue. Dawkins takes the trouble to repeat his arguments many times to hostile audiences. We should do the same, politely and without making it a personal attack, and see how he responds. Not making excuses for him, but we should be able to clearly explain the problem.

  4. Well said! As of now, you are my favorite atheist. And considering how I tend to dislike hard-core atheists like Dawkins, I admire you beyond description. Even as a man, I’m so sick of men treating women like they are property, or should be property, or anything less than autonomous fellow human beings.

    I’ve been saying for sometime that we need to focus more on reviving feminism than defending atheism. See this:

    http://circleh.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/jen-mccreight-and-organized-religion/

  5. I think the most revealing part about all of this is the number of people that responded in such emotional ways. I follow you on twitter and the like and it’s not uncommon to see post about your daily life. Your comment was so incredibly harmless that I’m shocked to see the outcome. The only reason I can think of is that there are still lots of people who are all incredibly sexist. And most of them don’t seem to realize it.

  6. I’m stunned. If someone had simply told me Dawkins was spouting this clueless gibberish I wouldn’t have believed it.

    Sadly, I am not at all surprised at the number of guys posting on Phil Plait and PZ’s posts who don’t get it. Skeptics, comics, sf, fantasy, gaming – oddly interrelated gatherings – featuring women vastly outnumbered (less so these days, fortunately) in areas where morons do actively hit on, maneuver, badger and attack women all the time. Female guests as well as attendees have found themselves accosted by other guests and attendees for decades.

    For anyone here not understanding the incident:

    It’s not that every guy is always on the prowl. In this instance, he didn’t ask her to go “somewhere” for coffee, or if they could “meet later” for coffee. Even if he genuinely had no ulterior motives and simply thought his hotel room would be a convenient place to have a conversation (unlikely alone in a hotel elevator at 4AM but possible), it put her in an uncomfortable position when she was otherwise alone in an enclosed space.

    Let’s put another spin on the scenario to see if some of these guys can get it. You’re on an elevator with a guy. He pulls out a gun as he’s talking to you. He doesn’t point it at you, doesn’t threaten you, he’s just holding the gun. Does it really make you feel any safer around this stranger when someone tells you later that it probably wasn’t loaded? Within the context of this situation (woman alone on an elevator at 4AM with a stranger who asks her to come back to his room for *any* reason), the woman has no idea what his reaction will be to being rebuffed, however kindly she declines, however well he seems to take it.

    In this instance, it worked out fine, he may (or not) have been horny, but he wasn’t a complete ogre. But it’s not a cheesy scene from a movie from the “free love” ’70s, and until they parted and the elevator doors securely closed between them again, she was understandably nervous.

    In a perfect world, he could have posed this question (or even directly asked for sex), she could have said no, and that would be the end of it. We do not live in a perfect world. Or no one gone through an airport screening recently? Knowing that, and knowing the physical power imbalance between most men and women, how can anyone not understand on some level that women can feel nervous – even when not overtly threatened – in certain situations?

    1. This post should be required reading for this thread. Spot. Fucking. On.

      COTW

  7. Rebecca, this is wonderfully well put. You, and so many of the skeptical women whom I know, are awesome.

    I agree completely. Dawkins is part of the past. The future will be better.

    I look forward to seeing you at TAM9 and giving you a Lollibake, in the most un-creepy manner possible. ;-)

  8. I’m on your side Rebecca. Don’t get discouraged. Some of us (dudes) can see what’s going on.

  9. Rebecca,

    I haven’t said it yet – I’ve just been trying to wrap my mind around these issues and figure out where I stand – but THANK YOU. Thank you for everything you do for feminism and for challenging the entrenched privilege of the atheist/skeptic movement. You’re an excellent role model and an incredibly strong person to continue to stand up and speak out in the face of so much anger. Keep doing what you’re doing – we’re all better for it.

  10. I can’t speak regarding the atheist movement generally; I’m not an atheist in the way most people understand the term, though I use the term non-theist, and I’m not involved in any specifically atheist or non-theist groups. However, I think that anyone who believes that modern western society, or any specific organisation, is free of sexism and misogyny, is sadly deluded.

    I feel very strongly for your experiences in trying to address these issues in this movement. I actually finally turned up to have a look here after reading about this furore on Blaghag, and the amazing thing is the absolute storm or inanity (and insanity), mostly from horribly defensive men, that such issues always seem to raise. Do so many have no interest in learning about this, or are they so emotionally insecure they can’t handle a challenge to their worldview? I don’t know, I suspect we never will know, but it frustrates and infuriates me.

  11. If there was a Team Rebecca t-shirt, I’d be wearing it right now.

  12. I may be in the minority in that I didn’t have a terribly high opinion of Dawkins’ personality even prior to this point (his intellect, yes, but that’s different), but that comment is something that frankly surprised me. I sure hope that his account on Pharyngula wasn’t hacked because that was my first thought upon reading the comment there. Have we checked to be sure it really was him? If so, it makes me even less of a fan.

    Anyway, Rebecca, I was glad to see PZ sticking up for you. Sadly, I stopped attending IRL atheist events quite a while ago, and the hostile atmosphere was part of the reason for that. What you did and said sounded very reasonable to me. While I am not surprised to see the backlash, I to am glad for the positive voices I am finding.

    1. You are not in the minority. About 8 years ago Dawkins and I debated via email regarding an observation by him in Skeptical Inquirer. I learned then that even though one had to indeed respect his intellect, personality wise he was an arrogant ass if you didn’t see things exactly his way. However, that didn’t dissuade me from buying his books or supporting his activism for atheism over the intervening years… until now. He really crossed the line on this issue.

      I too was appalled by his response to Rebecca; especially his comment about how easy it is to exit an elevator by just pressing a button.

      Hang in there Rebecca.

  13. i know nothing about the coffee-asker in question, but hasn’t it been fun to shame him and paint him as a potential rapist? He must really be feeling good about himself right now.

    1. But she didn’t. All she said was “Don’t do that” because it drives women away.

  14. Captain Skepchick
    She’s our hero
    Going to take misogyny down to zero

  15. Excellent. Wish I could go to TAM9 and tell you in person…but I’ll happily do it here. You and Greta and Amanda and Jen (and a few others) have taught me quite a bit, and I’m grateful and thrilled to do what I can to help make sure the future is a clear improvement.

    Thanks for what you do and for being generally awesome.

  16. Keep the measured responses, keep the logical arguments, and make them realize the consequences of their own statements. Sometimes people just say stupid things without realizing the logical consequences. Sometimes they’re idiots. One day they’re going to reflect on this and realize they were wrong, unless they are really just too motivated to be right to question if they’re wrong.

  17. I don’t agree with the way Dawkins belittled what you’ve been through and overreacted to your video. But I don’t think is fair to put it like he belittled rape threat messages you get. Isn’t all of this overreacting to his overreaction? (I’m not being sarcastic.. I’m really asking!)

  18. We are morally obligated to confront ignorant bigotry. Do not be willing to write off Richard Dawkins simply as a relic of the past, instead seek to engage him. We all deserve that much respect, the opportunity to change our minds.

    Writing this off as something to be expected from old, wealthy, white men is to be as narrow minded and ignorant as the comments by Richard Dawkins.

    1. you mention his race, gender, social status like “that’s the way ‘those’ people are” and you want to confront bigotry? You can disagree with the point Dawkins all you like, but you needn’t bring any of that up in the process.

  19. I can’t imagine how discouraging this must have been for you; I felt pessimistic reading the slew of obtuse privilege denying crap myself. I can’t express how grateful I am for your dedication and vigilance. I can only hope that as more and more young adults begin to find the skeptic and atheist communities that we can begin to shed this ridiculous lack of privilege recognition.

    Thank you.

  20. PZ just cut off comments at his site and directed us here, so I would like to post my reply to two people from that thread here. If it isn’t OK, feel free to delete this.

    @TVS #348

    Embedding negative stereotypes into an otherwise unrelated cartoon…

    Both MGolz and I have tried to explain above (see #208 for starters) why negative stereotypes are not embedded in this cartoon and how that is a misreading by people not familiar with Ray Comfort’s antics.

    @lasraellarson #370

    This is fairly anonymous dialogue online & I am not going to make any character judgements about you based off a couple postings. I don’t know you. I can’t see your facial expressions, etc. You are a stranger.

    I don’t know why you even went there at all. Not knowing anything about other commenters is standard affair in blog comments.

    What did you think I meant, to call that a “creepy” comment & why am I riding a “High Horse?”

    Well, I didn’t size you up so why did you accuse me of doing that? Also, I don’t know why you think you need to know more about me to understand what I wrote.

    If I seem hostile, I certainly am not intending it. All I am saying is, until something non consensual actually happens, I do not agree that this guy is a creep.

    I see. That has nothing to do with Ray Comfort (a.k.a. Bananaman) being mistaken for a stereotyped gay man, though, which is the issue I was addressing. Several people on this thread seem to not know who he is.

  21. Rebecca,

    I just want you to know that not all privileged white males are as clueless as Richard Dawkins. I’m only 46 and not overly rich, but still…

    I have two sons and a daughter, and I want all of them to respect other human beings AS human beings. I hope that’s what I’ve taught them, and I will certainly make sure they see what’s happened here and learn from it.

    In some ways, this has been a good thing for skeptics and atheists – like when the tide rolls out, we get to see all that crap that’s washed up on the beach. Now we can shine a little light on ourselves and our own shortcomings.

    Thank you and keep up the good work.

  22. I agree with a lot of this but what does the fact that Richard Dawkins is wealthy, old, white or heterosexual have to do with anything? It may or may not be a flippant remark but I see only the fact that he is man having anything to do with his ‘position’.

    And YouTube comments or email? I realise the internet is for a large part this movement’s domain, and it’s where the majority of debate might take place. But these things should NEVER be taken at face value, nor at ‘troll’ value. The hate and misogyny in comments is most likely artifice for the most part. Just don’t read it. Deal with the real world or you’ll end up at the bottom of a deep and pointless rabbit hole.

    1. “what does the fact that Richard Dawkins is wealthy, old, white or heterosexual have to do with anything?”

      Without starting an argument or presuming to answer for anyone, I think they matter because they are indicators of privilege. There is a certain privilege that goers with being wealthy, with being male, with being white, and with being heterosexual. It’s not asked for, and it’s more often implicit rather than explicit, but it can colour the way people see the world.

      1. These privileges would only colour your perspective in situations relevant to them specifically. Your wealth would be relevant in a discussion about poverty, material wealth, the ‘value’ of money etc. Being old might colour your views regarding certain popular opinions or morals (being old fashioned) – which might be relevant here, or may not. (Anyway being old is hardly a privilege! Surely it’s the opposite – the arrogance of youth and all..). White – again, only relevant if you are living in an environment where people are experiencing differing treatment based on race. And heterosexual, well you get the idea. I assume the basic point is.. the more privileged you are, the less empathy you have? Lots of things can colour the way people see the world. I’m struggling to see the connections here. It’s a bit of a muddle.

        1. Actually, the more areas you are privileged in, the less likely you are able to empathise with anybody else, not just in the areas of that individual privilege. Generally speaking, straight white rich men have had the world handed to them on a platter. Even if it wasn’t, once they reach that status they’re treated as the elite.

          If you’ve got it all—money, fair skin, a penis, and an attraction to women—then you will almost certainly be judged on your abilities, and your personality, rather than a superficial attribute. But a black man will still face racism. A gay man will still face homophobia. And a woman will still face sexism.

          Black or gay or female, you’re more likely to understand privilege than somebody who isn’t any of those things.

        2. Well then wouldn’t your poverty be relevant in a discussion about wealth (or poverty)? Wouldn’t being young colour your views regarding morals? Being black relevant in environment where people are being treated different based on race (eg. Affirmative Action)?

          This whole “White Male Privilege” thing is much more irrational than you make out. Turns out that the door swings both ways.

          It’s based on typical faulty reasoning on the left that they inherited from Marxism, and other sources. It’s the old hominem argument. These religious movements, and make no mistake Marxism is a kind of religion, always have a means to discredit non-believers. Instead of, don’t listen to him he’s speaking for the devil, it’s don’t because he’s bourgeoisie.

          There are two kinds of rich people that matter. Those who’ve earned it like Dawkins, and those who’ve stole it like Ponzi. Even the fact that you’ve stole your way to wealth only should enter an argument under certain circumstances.

          Now it might be the case that you could argue that Dawkin’s doesn’t know what it feels like not to be rich, but that would only be the case had he inherited his wealth. Well he didn’t.

          Every single one of the commenters who believe in White Privilege as defined in Marxist ideology is an irrationalist or a hypocrite, whether they know it or not.

          1. brianmacker,

            “Every single one of the commenters who believe in White Privilege as defined in Marxist ideology is an irrationalist or a hypocrite, whether they know it or not.”

            Speaking of irrationalist, how irrational is it to attribute a concept to Marx and argue that its alleged antecedents as a Marxist concept discredit it—the fallacy of the poisoned well. Not to mention, you even managed to poison the wrong well. The concept doesn’t come from orthodox (or even unorthodox) Marxism at all, but rather comes from the sociological/historical research of W.E.B. Du Bois, who first introduced the concept of the “public and psychological wage” of white privilege in his book Black Reconstruction in America:

            “It must be remembered that the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools. The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent on their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness. Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect upon the economic situation, it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown them. White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule.”

          2. Nullifidian,

            You have extremely poor reading comprehension skills.

            First, Marxist ideology is much broader than what Marx wrote. It includes what his self proclaimed followers write, and believe. Just as Christian ideology is broader that what Christ wrote. Expecially given that Christ wrote nothing.

            Second, “White Privilege as defined in Marxist Ideology” is not “poisoning the well”. I certainly made no claim that WP was invalid because it came from Marx, or Marx’s followers. So you fail in basic logic.

            What I was doing was identifying a source so that it would not be confused with other concepts from other sources. It’s like saying “Charm as defined in physics” so that someone doesn’t get confused and think you are talking about the charm you get from charm school.

            It’s quite clear that at one time. Especially the time of W.E.B. Du Bois there was explicit privileges given to Whites. For example having the privilege of sitting at the front of the bus while blacks had to sit in the back.

            Those are explicit privileges like todays Affirmative Action, or granting competitive bids preferentially to women.

            However I wasn’t talking about merely the words “White Privilege” next to each other in some ancient text, nor the quite clear white privilege inherent in the antibellum South. I was talking about the newly minted Marxian concept that uses the same label.

            The Marxian concept of White Privilege does not mean privilege at all. The modifier “White” here is mean to denote a completely different thing that what the word privilege denotes. It’s sort of like “White Justice”, you know, lynching, which is not justice at all. This is a trick used to smuggle in an unacceptible concept via an acceptible one and also an equivocation.

            In this case “White Privilege” is a racist assumption about whites. It’s only pretending to be about the unfair advantages that whites have merely by having white skin.

            I covered why it is irrational in the link I posted below.

            Nice try though, but you failed.

          3. LMAO!

            Right, you only called people who accepted the concept of “white privilege” as a useful one for describing certain circumstances as “irrational” or “hypocritical”, and did so while associating the term with Marxism. Of course, that wasn’t an attempt at poisoning the well! How could I have been so blind? It’s just like how asking a woman to take coffee in your hotel room at 4 in the morning has no possible subtext at all.

            And, again, white privilege is not a concept that is incorporated into conventional Marxist doctrine of *any* stripe. Not Marxist-Leninism, not Stalinism, not Trotskyism, not the Frankfurt School, not Althusserianism, etc. Believe me, I’m actually someone who has taken the time to know the difference, instead of just throwing out “Marxist” as an all-purpose pejorative.

            “White privilege” is a concept from critical race theory, not Marxism, and the fact that you refuse to grok this difference suggests that your concerns are not with the facts, but with a kind of ideological purity that rests on associating anything you perceive as “leftist” with Marx, regardless of its true origins.

            Incidentally, the ‘rebuttal’ you’re so proud of rests on being completely ignorant of the history and meaning of white privilege.

            This quote is representative of your nonsense: “First there is white privilege, the theory, which is a post modernist (a philosophy derived from Marxist nonsense) politically correct hypothesis about the how the world works.”

            There are two major errors in just this one sentence. First off, a concept that was discussed by W.E.B. Du Bois in 1935 cannot be postmodernist, as it predates the trend we call postmodernist by a quarter of a century. Secondly, postmodernism is NOT Marxist. If you had even consulted the briefest potted introduction to Marxist thought, you’d know that Marxism in all its traditional forms is modernist, not postmodernist. A postmodern Marxism cannot be had without being shot of most of the concepts that make Marxism Marxism, including but not limited to Marx’s conception of history, his acceptance of the Enlightenment project, and so on.

            This is not to say that there aren’t some people out there trying to bridge the gap—there are, just as in anarchism, despite its roots in Enlightenment thought, there is a strain called “postanarchism”—but the reason that there is a gap in the first place is precisely because these two traditions emerged *independent* of one another.

            In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re too smug and self-satisfied to care.

          4. No. The Marxists came up with this nonsense. Google “White Privilege” and Marx. Learn the history of ideas before you spout off with your ignorance.

            I’ve explained clearly and only a dope or someone with bad intentions would not get it at this point.

          5. Repeating right-wing buzzwords and tropes is not any sort of demonstration. A demonstration would consist in, you know, actually providing citations like I did to Du Bois, not just by making speculative associations between ideas you don’t like and then taking these mental spasms for insight.

            So which postmodernist *originated* the idea of white privilege? Lyotard? Derrida? Foucault (who hated the term “postmodernist”)? Deleuze and Guattari, either singly or in association? Kristeva? Latour? Irigaray? Butler? Can you cite your sources, and then *also* prove that the postmodernist who ‘originated’ the idea was also an orthodox Marxist? I doubt it for two reasons: first, you’re too cocksure to bother to learn about the ideas you attempt to trash, and second because you’re simply wrong.

          6. P.S. Just to humor you, I did end up Googling for “white privilege” and Marx (with quotes around the former, so as to search for the phrase and not the individual words), not because I have any reason to believe you about Marx, nor because I think the internet is an unfailingly accurate source of information, but because I knew that what I would get as hits wouldn’t support your allegation.

            And I couldn’t have been more right. The very first hit Google returned was to an anarchist critique of Marxism’s complete inattention to the issues of gender and race, though the article focuses specifically on race.

            “Marxism, in both the authoritarian (“Orthodox”) tradition and in the libertarian tradition, has had a few noticeable Achilles’ Heels, which have had drastic consequences. Gender and race top the list. Here, I mostly intend to focus on race, although at least passing comments on gender will be unavoidable.”

            Chris Wright, “Marxism and White Skin Privilege”

          7. Since DuBois was a Marxist it kinda makes your whole stupid argument mute from the start.

            I know you’ll be too intellectually lazy to follow up on that search so here you go. A quote that sums it up for you:
            “The roots of the white skin privilege analysis lie in the work of WEB DuBois, a black Marxist historian whose most important book was Black Reconstruction in America: 1860-1880 (published in 1935).”

            You know that libertarians also claim that the “roots” of libertarian ideas start way back too. Which is true but does NOT indicate that the founding fathers were libertarians. Thus Du Bois is not neccessarily talking about the current form of White Privilege theory (which has been influenced by post modernism).

            You are like a libertarian claiming that it is not a recent development because free thinkers used the word libertarian during the Enlightenment.

            Likewise Du Bois is actually discussing real shit like Jim Crow laws, and labor unions discrimination. Yes, there is a psychological burden when your government sets out privileges like Affirmative Action for others based on your race. When government funded schools teach that your race is morally inferior to others. It is when and where all that fell away for blacks that the idea was transformed into the hideous monster you like. Du Bois might even laugh at the ideas expressed in “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”.

            Here’s another quote so we can be clear:
            “A number of different theoretical frameworks have contended among communists. One of them is the theory of white skin privilege — which has itself taken several forms.”

            Newer more racist forms of this racist garbage now take the form of “Whiteness Studies”?

            You need to understand the roots of your beliefs. Furthermore you need to question them and think skeptically about them. It’s obvious you do neither.

            .. and YES post modernism was intimately involved in the development of the latest of the “several forms” of White Privilege theory.

            I’m posting this mostly for the others on this forum who might believe your nonsense and not bother to check up on it. I know at this point you will likely never reflect upon your mistaken beliefs.

            I think these ideas morph into new forms because they are invalidated by social changes, or are falsified by events, or people wise up to them.

          8. Brian Macker:

            “Since DuBois was a Marxist it kinda makes your whole stupid argument mute from the start.”

            The word is “moot”.

            And even taking the blog post itself at its word, it does not establish what you claim it establishes, because white privilege is not a concept that falls out of engagement with Marxist thought, even critical engagement, but is entirely incidental to it. That a Marxist may come up with an idea is not sufficient evidence that this idea must be Marxist, but your absurd notion would require us to attribute everything a Marxist writes to their Marxism. Thus Anton Pannekoek’s theories about the evolution of stars and galaxies must be Marxist by operation of the same principle.

            “.. and YES post modernism was intimately involved in the development of the latest of the “several forms” of White Privilege theory.”

            This is an assertion, not evidence. Evidence would actually consist of pointing out *which* postmodernist theorist developed the concept of white privilege and citing his or her work.

            “Yes, there is a psychological burden when your government sets out privileges like Affirmative Action for others based on your race.”

            Brian, this is irrelevant to a discussion of the concept of white privilege.

            “When government funded schools teach that your race is morally inferior to others.”

            This does not happen.

            “It is when and where all that fell away for blacks that the idea was transformed into the hideous monster you like.”

            You have no rational basis for assuming anything about my likes and dislikes.

            “Du Bois might even laugh at the ideas expressed in “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”.”

            Anybody might do anything. You might suddenly start backing up your claims with substantive evidence and begin making sense, but I’m not going to take the Vegas odds on that one.

            “I’m posting this mostly for the others on this forum who might believe your nonsense and not bother to check up on it. I know at this point you will likely never reflect upon your mistaken beliefs.”

            Well, then for the sake of the lurkers, why don’t you cite the postmodernist theorist who is responsible for the concept of white privilege as presently constituted (of course, first you’ll have to demonstrate that you know what it is—something you haven’t been overwhelmingly successful at yet)? Why don’t you cite the Marxist ideas that Du Bois or any other critical race theorist was addressing when they discuss white privilege? And why don’t you explain precisely what my beliefs are and how they are mistaken?

          9. Here is one inheritance hierarchy that is easily constructed from these wiki quotes.

            Marxism
            Frankfurt School
            Critical Theory
            PostModernism
            Whiteness Studies
            Critical Legal Studies
            Critical Race Theory
            White Privilege

            Of course there is no strict hierarchy here as this area is a incestuous crossbreeding of illogical and irrational disciplines, covering law, literary studies, and sociology. One thing is common to all. They are a bunch of Marxists, including Du Bois.

            Frankfurt School
            “The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) refers to a school of neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory,[1] particularly associated with the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main. The school initially consisted of dissident Marxists who believed that some of Marx’s followers had come to parrot a narrow selection of Marx’s ideas, usually in defense of orthodox Communist parties.”

            Critical Theory

            “In the sociological context, critical theory refers to a style of Marxist theory with a tendency to engage with non-Marxist influences (for instance the work of Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud).[1] This tendency is, according to the stricter Marxists, revisionism. Modern critical theory arose from a trajectory extending from the nonpositivist sociology of Max Weber and Georg Simmel, the Marxist theory of Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, toward the milieu associated with Frankfurt Institute of Social Research.”

            “Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Horkheimer wanted to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxian theory, critiquing both the model of science put forward by logical positivism and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism.”

            Postmodern

            “‘Postmodernism’ is used in critical theory to refer to a point of departure for works of literature, drama, architecture, cinema, journalism, and design, as well as in marketing and business and in the interpretation of law, culture, and religion in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[1] Indeed, postmodernism, particularly as an academic movement, can be understood as a reaction to modernism in the Humanities.”

            Critical Legal Studies

            “Critical legal studies is a movement in legal thought that applied methods similar to those of critical theory (the Frankfurt School) to law. The abbreviations “CLS” and “Crit” are sometimes used to refer to the movement and its adherents.”

            Critical Race Theory

            “Appearing in US law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, Critical Race Theory inherited many of its political and intellectual commitments from civil rights scholarship and Critical Legal Studies, even as the movement departed significantly from both.”

            “Many mainstream legal scholars have criticized CRT on a number of grounds, including some scholars’ use of narrative and storytelling, as well as the critique of objectivity adopted by critical race theorists in connection with the critique of merit. Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked to undermine notions of democratic community and has impeded dialogue.[8] Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has “label[ed] critical race theorists and postmodernists the ‘lunatic core’ of ‘radical legal egalitarianism.’”[9] He writes,

            What is most arresting about critical race theory is that…it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal — designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.[10]

            Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, writes that Critical Race Theorists have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various disciplines unattainable.

            The radical multiculturalists’ views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding. Consider the Space Traders story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960s. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell’s insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust — as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned — and rightly so.[11]”

            White Privilege

            “In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience.”

            “Scholars within the legal studies field of critical race theory, such as Cheryl Harris[1] and George Lipsitz,[2] have argued …”

            Whiteness Studies

            “A central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history and its effects on the present, inspired by postmodernism and historicism, in which the very concept of racial superiority is said to have been socially constructed in order to justify discrimination against non-whites.”

          10. This is the hierarchy from wiki:
            Marxism
            -Frankfurt School
            —Critical Theory
            —–PostModernism
            ——–Whiteness Studies
            —–Critical Legal Studies
            ——-Critical Race Theory
            ———-White Privilege

            I posted another comment with spaces indenting to the levels but it stripped the leading spaces. It includes a lot of links and the quotes so it is being held in moderation. Each wiki article on the topic claims that one came from the prior.

          11. So basically your big demonstration of the history of ideas comes from nested keywords in Wikipedia articles?! ROTFLMAO!

            At this point, I don’t know if you’re being serious or just fucking around. Either way, if I were a Comp 101 professor, I’d be giving this an “F”.

            I’m pretty much done here, because it’s obvious that you’re not going to answer my questions with specific, cited answers for the simple reason that you don’t actually know what it is you’re talking about. You know nothing about postmodernism, Marxism, or white privilege other than what you’ve gleaned from skimming stuff on the web and have then reconstructed in the most unflattering light in what you are pleased to call your mind. Your approach is one of intellectual sloppiness and mental indolence.

            When you’ve actually read some Marx above and beyond the Communist Manifesto, which is what everyone claims they’ve read, some works of critical race theory, and some postmodernism, then maybe you’ll be capable of having a discussion on them. But given your demonstrated habit of reading something only to reject it, I’m not about to bet the farm on it.

          12. LOL, I don’t have to defend your straw man of my position. I need only support my claim, or in this case sentence fragment, “White Privilege as defined in Marxist ideology”. Which as I said was descriptive so that no one would think I was saying that Jim Crow law was not a case of White Privilege. Since these groups self identify as Marxists I think it’s fair to call them Marxists. I’ve even shown the inheritance structure for these ideological schools of thought. This stuff is extremely popular on Marxist web sites.

            What is especially hilarious is that you have done none of the things you want me to do. You even quoted a Marxist, Du Bois, to show that White Privilege Theory did not arise from Marxist ideology. Silly you. What? Do you think it proves that Islamists, or Christian Fundamentalists invented it?

          13. Brian Macker:

            “I need only support my claim, or in this case sentence fragment, “White Privilege as defined in Marxist ideology”.”

            Great. Let me know when you intend to do so, because so far you haven’t. You haven’t shown any Marxist ideology in which the concept of “white privilege” is uniquely and specifically defined separate from any other uses of the term “white privilege” outside the Marxist sphere.

            “Since these groups self identify as Marxists I think it’s fair to call them Marxists.”

            Which groups? You aren’t even making basic syntactical sense anymore. I’ve got news for you: if you’re trying to argue that all critical race theorists identify as Marxists, they don’t. If you’re trying to assert that postmodernists generally identify as Marxists—another of your speculative, that is to say false, associations—that’s not the case either. And you certainly haven’t shown that the concept of “white privilege” is either derived from postmodernist theory or from engagement with Marxist thought.

            I’ve even shown the inheritance structure for these ideological schools of thought.

            LMAO! We’re back to the argument by nested hyperlinks in Wikipedia. By this standard, I can associate whiteness studies with Michel de Montaigne and Giambattista Vico (whiteness studies –> historicism –> G.B. Vico and Michel de Montaigne).

            “This stuff is extremely popular on Marxist web sites.”

            LOL! Yes, trust me on this, because you know I’m so well informed about the history of Marxist thought with my access to Wikipedia, and because Marxist websites are such a good substitute for engagement with the writings of traditional Marxist theorists.

            “What is especially hilarious is that you have done none of the things you want me to do.”

            And neither have you. Instead you run to Wikipedia to make your case. That’s what’s hilarious.

            “You even quoted a Marxist, Du Bois, to show that White Privilege Theory did not arise from Marxist ideology. Silly you.”

            No, I quoted W.E.B. Du Bois, who was a Stalinist, not a Marxist, to establish where the concept of white privilege did come from, and that it predated postmodernist theory by a quarter of a century.

            Now, you, in order to show that the concept of white privilege arose from Marxist ideology, must demonstrate that the concept arises as part of an engagement with Marx’s thought. The fallacy that if a Marxist came up with X, it must be a Marxist concept is not an appropriate substitute.

          14. LOL, a guy who implicitly claims Stalin isn’t a Marxist, is obviously an ideologue with his nose so far up Marx’s ass he’s lost all objectivity. Stalin and a whole host of other totalitarian dictators were Marxists include Mao, and Pol Pot. They sure weren’t Christians. Other evil bastards like Lenin and Trotsky were also Marxists.

            Yeah, I have no reason for thinking you “like” this stuff.

            You’re like a Baptist claiming Mormonism isn’t derived from Christianity, because it’s not “orthodox” to quote you. Then whining that I can’t make that claim because I haven’t imbibed deeply of Baptist ideology.

            I’ve read enough to determine it’s bullshit. The end product pooped out by a bunch of Marxists is racist garbage of the worst kind. I’ve read the end product, and it’s circular reasoning at its worst. Of course, you never address this, because you want to push a bunch of straw man arguments on me.

            W. E. B. Du Bois – Marxist
            David Roediger – Marxist
            Noel Ignatiev – Marxist
            Karen Brodkin – Marxist
            Jacques Derrida – Marxist

            A bunch of the postmodernists were Marxists also.

            So yes White Privilege is Marxist derived bullshit, just as Intelligent Design is Christian derived bullshit.

            … and of course you never did defend the concept against my linked criticism.

          15. brianmacker:
            “LOL, a guy who implicitly claims Stalin isn’t a Marxist, is obviously an ideologue with his nose so far up Marx’s ass he’s lost all objectivity.”

            If you think I’m a Marxist, you’ve got your head so far up your own arse that… well, I can’t say you’ve lost objectivity since you didn’t have any to lose.

            However, even without having a brief for Marx, I can see plain differences between Marx’s thought and Stalin’s for several reasons not the least of which is that I’ve bothered to read these two gents and comprehend what they said. Marx never proposed anything that even sounded like “socialism in one country”—indeed, Marx never addressed the practicalities of achieving the proletarian revolution. And in practice, Stalin’s “communism” is more appropriately described as “state capitalism” (as is the present system of China ever since Deng Xiaoping), where party functionaries filled the role of bosses.

            Your astonishing degree of willful ignorance of the differences in political philosophies that fall under the broad umbrella of “communist” is not sufficient reason for concluding there are no differences.

            “Yeah, I have no reason for thinking you “like” this stuff.”

            Unfortunately, it’s plain that you’re being sarcastic, which is a shame because otherwise it’s the first accurate thing you’ve said so far.

            “You’re like a Baptist claiming Mormonism isn’t derived from Christianity, because it’s not “orthodox” to quote you. Then whining that I can’t make that claim because I haven’t imbibed deeply of Baptist ideology.”

            Actually, I’m the person who is telling you that you know nothing about Marxism, critical race theory, or postmodernism. In short, if you want to make an analogy, I’m like Woody Allen standing in the lobby in Annie Hall, listening to you drone on about a series of subjects of which you are painfully ignorant, and wishing that I could pull out a critical race theory-version of Marshall McLuhan to say, “You know nothing of my work.”

            “I’ve read enough to determine it’s bullshit.”

            And how much is that exactly?

            “The end product pooped out by a bunch of Marxists is racist garbage of the worst kind. I’ve read the end product, and it’s circular reasoning at its worst. Of course, you never address this, because you want to push a bunch of straw man arguments on me.”

            I never address what you claim to have read? Yeah, little wonder, because you never cite anything except shit you’ve pulled off the web.

            “Jacques Derrida – Marxist”

            Wrong. This is why you completely lack credibility. A man who only specifically started writing about Marx in the 1990s, and only then to use him as an overarching metaphor for the spirit of critical discourse and resistance to neoliberal economics cannot possibly be considered to be even an unorthodox Marxist. In fact, in the Specters of Marx, he specifically points out cases where such things as employment can no longer be analyzed strictly within a Marxist/classical economic framework.

            “A bunch of the postmodernists were Marxists also.”

            Riiiiiight. And I will just trust you on this, despite the fact that I’ve explained the serious theoretical disputes between postmodernist theory and Marxism, because you’ve proven to be so reliable on the subject previously.

            “So yes White Privilege is Marxist derived bullshit, just as Intelligent Design is Christian derived bullshit.”

            Except that in the case of Intelligent Design, its roots in Christian evangelism is quite clear. You still have not shown how the concept of “white privilege” emerges from engagement with Marxist theory. ANY Marxist theory. Would that be too much like hard work?

            … and of course you never did defend the concept against my linked criticism.

            Because a) it was unnecessary, since I simply could show that you were talking about a subject that you don’t know anything about, and b) since you were talking about a subject you don’t know anything about, it’s impossible to construe your “criticism” as referring to anything anyone has ever said or thought about white privilege.

    2. It’s about his inherent status and privilege and the obligation one with privilege has to recognize said privilege and understand how different life can be (and almost always is) for those not having the same status or privilege. And it’s not that Dawkins is a bad person because he has the social privilege that comes with being who he is or where he was born, it’s about how that privilege is used or ignored to the detriment or benefit of others. And trust me when I saw the mysogony is mnore likely to be real that artifice.

      1. I’ve come to really doubt the usefulness of lumping together the privileged groups to which a person belongs. If you want to deal with patriarchy, you address all men. If you want to deal with racism, you deal with (at least!) all whites.

        I’ve also lost my hope that someone’s experience of one sort of powerlessness will make them understanding of another person’s experiences.

          1. I doubt you can reason your way out of a wet paper bag. Let’s see you defend against my criticism of white privilege “theory”. Just another self justifying religious concept. I argue with Libertarians, Marxists, classical skeptics (which you probably have no clue about), Anarchists, Feminists, Astrologists, Christians, Muslims, on any subject they are irrational about.

  23. before the comments become a battlefield, as they so often do in this kind of circumstance, I just want to say: respect, Rebecca. I know this is a horrible situation, made more horrible by unexpected and vicious attacks from quarters where you thought you would get support. I’m totally on your side (and in fact just signed up for an account to tell you I’m totally on your side). I just hope that the skeptical community can use this as a teachable moment and both heal itself and fix some of its problems.

  24. Bravo! It’s wonderful to see people asserting their humanity in the face of such cynicism, and responding with intelligence and grace rather than in kind. You guys are a credit to your community!

    Poor old Dawkins. I suppose he’s spent so long battling ignorance and blindness he’s become a little defensive of his own preconceptions. He is, after all, a 70 year old British man. That’s not to say he’s right (quite the opposite!) but there are only so many new tricks you can expect and old bulldog to learn.

    Anyway – I’m new to this community and just looking around and taking in the sights, but so far I’m just impressed by what’s going on! Great to see discussion like this going on, really love it.

    1. He is, after all, a 70 year old British man. and what you are some 17 year American pup? An old dog can’t learn new tricks? Us old dogs also have the advantage of at least knowing the old tricks. Did it ever occur to you that us old folks know all about the irrational mistakes you young-uns are making, and know how to avoid them.

      I think you better consider the idea that Dawkins is all too familiar with your kind of irrationality, and rejects it.

  25. This is probably the best time for this conversation to be happening, just a few days before TAM 9. There are going to be lots of people, lots of party, lots of opportunities for guys to make the choice to be decent human beings or predatory assholes. Hopefully thanks to this LONG discussion across the entire Internet maybe a few more will choose the former than would otherwise have done.

    Certainly, for those of us who are generally sensitive to these sorts of issues, this is a reminder of the huge scale of the problem lurking just below the surface of things. It is incredible and downright frightening to see just how many men sincerely believe that their “right” to demand an audience for their sexual proposition trumps pretty much any thoughts or desires their target might have on the subject.

  26. Hi Rebecca, thank you for speaking up. I have been thoroughly shocked by the massive ignorance that floated to the surface. I was completely unaware of this hostile attitude and the responses to your vlog have opened my eyes. I did not know people could be this ignorant and it hurts to say, but apparently one of my all-time heroes is not what I thought he was. In the past I have been irritated by his pompous tone of voice, but I always felt that RD’s intelligence, eloquence and proper common sense made up for his slghtly belittling tone. Shocking to read his words and his backpaddling when called out. Dr. Dawkins lost my respect. You are right: he is the past. Let’s focus on the future.

    1. Rationalists tend to be hostile to irrationality. One should expect that at a skeptics conference.

  27. I stopped going to atheist events because of the discomforts that you describe. There were just so many more fun things to do on a Saturday night than endure “accidental” breast touching and being followed back to my car.

    But Kudos to you for fighting the good fight. It reminds me of my brother joining the Knights of Columbus because he felt that someone sane person on the board should suggest that they go back to fundraising for children’s hospitals instead of fighting against civil rights when it comes to equal marriage rights. Both seem really frustrating and futile to me, but just because I don’t have the stomach for it, doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the efforts.

    I like reading atheist stuff online though (and don’t have to worry about being cornered when I’m doing it), and would love to hear if things change at some point in my lifetime.

  28. Oh jeez, and already there are guys here going “I’m a good one! Don’t paint all of us like that!” You guys just don’t get it.

    Rebecca, I’m with you all the way. Keep at it, and thanks for all of your work.

    1. “Oh jeez, and already there are guys here going “I’m a good one! Don’t paint all of us like that!” You guys just don’t get it.”

      That’s either an infuriating comment or a good joke. I can’t decide.

    2. mero, can you clarify what you are saying here? It sounds like you are dissing these men for getting it.

      I for one relish comments from men who are supportive of the arguments that Rebecca and others are making. Of course, my favorite comments of all are from the men who say “holy crap I had no idea, thanks for letting us understand you better.” It’s comments like these that give me hope.

      1. I’m saying that it bothers me when men are tripping over themselves to explain how awesome of an ally they are, instead of calling out OTHER men (specifically Dawkins) for being DBags.

        And literally saying “I hope you know not all old white men are this bad!” is just a man’s way of relieving his guilt by getting the victim to acknowledge that yes, ok, fine, you are a good one.

        OF COURSE not all men are rapists. Stop looking for ally cookies, men. Get your ally cookies by being a good person, and that’s it.

      2. And yes, I do enjoy seeing comments where men get it. I feel like that has to be the bar to clear, though. Adding in how not all men are like that or how one would never *personally* act like that are annoying.

  29. “The truth shall make you free, but first it shall make you angry.”

    Thanks! Keep fighting the good fight as long as you can. We need more secularists who apply skepticism universally and speak out against all the wrongs in our world. You’re not alone in feminism or anger here.

    *hugs* if ya want ’em!

  30. Rebecca,

    Keep on with your work. You’re doing a great job, and I would be upset if this knocked you down.

    I’ve been one those clueless guys. It took me a long while before I ‘got it.’ You are one of the many influences to help me see it from a woman’s point of view. It’s quite difficult as a tall, relatively strong white man living in America for me to see that I can sometimes intimidate other people. I’m physically stronger and larger than most women. I’m born with more privilege than people of another race. All of this, even though I don’t consciously try to intimidate.

    I sincerely hope Mr. Dawkins is able to sit back and rethink his position. He should know as well as anyone that it’s a virtue to be able to re-examine the arguments, and when he sees that he is wrong, he should admit it. And then he should apologize. He would re-aquire my respect if he did that.

  31. Oh cmon! Please. Comments like yours and outrage by the atheist community has made me hesitant to join the community. I’m sure you have experienced your problems and seen many acts of sexism towards you, but a dumb guy in an elevator, and you just blew the whole thing out of proportion. Dawkins was wrong in saying that the situation warranted no reaction, but you were wrong in reacting in such a strong way

    1. … So saying “Please don’t proposition me for sex at 4 am, after you purposefully waited until I left my friends and knew I was inebriated, it’s creepy. I’m not saying you’re a rapist, it’s just that this sets off alarm bells.” is overreacting?

      1. He propositioned her for sex now? he ‘knew’ she was inebriated? That’s a lotta psychic ability coming from a page of skeptics. Maybe he’s a socially awkward dork who stepped all over himself trying to talk to someone. I’ve known a couple in my day.

    2. She made one 30s comment explaining the situation. She didn’t name the man, or shame the man, she simply pointed out that people shouldn’t behave like that.

      The overreaction came from people who couldn’t stand that a woman asked men not to make them feel uncomfortable and flooded blogs with privileged claptrap.

      1. Actually she was criticized by a woman Stef first, then inappropriately responded at a conference. Pretty low. She’s also getting criticized for coming to some fairly illogical conclusions.

    3. “Reacting in such a strong way”? How was her reaction so strong? What about her reaction was so off-putting? I can’t even believe people are reacting to it the way that they did. It seemed like such a harmless comment to me.

  32. Although I didn’t make the connection until recently either, you’re absolutely right when you say that feminist and skepticism issues overlap. You’ve been doing a great job of raising people’s awareness about it and I hope you find the courage to carry on. You definitely have this white male support’s and renewed enthusiasm about the issue.

  33. I think what bothered me so much about this whole mess was that this wasn’t just a case of Dawkins having a one-time brain fart (which everybody experiences from time to time, either through ignorance or simily a lack of coffee.) It was that, when called on it, he kept digging.

    That’s not exactly the most rational response to the situation he found himself in, and I’m beyond disappointed.

    On the other hand, I’d somehow managed to forget about the awesomeness of the posts on Skepchick, so I guess (for me at least, selfish person that I am) it’s not all bad?

  34. I was very disappointed to see what are quite frankly childish antics on the part of Prof. Dawkins. I’m also quite taken aback given his supportive sentiments when he was on the panel with you.

    Isn’t it revealing when you see how someone’s treatment of you changes so drastically when they don’t have to look you in the eye.

    Such a shame he didn’t have the nerve to voice these sentiments about modern feminism in the sceptic movement when he was sitting beside you but instead waited until he was safe behind his keyboard.

  35. What you have to put up with routinely sounds really aweful!! and you have my support too. Given time to reflect I hope Richard will undertstand and aplogise espevially for using outrageous injustice to main what he saw as a minor point. He’s 70 but he’s quite good at learning so I’ve heard :) So I hope he does and apologises. I’d think more of him if he did.

  36. Dawkins spends a lot of time in his books talking about the value of “consciousness raising.” This would be a perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate his capacity for being raised. I am shocked he would use an argument tantamount to, “hey don’t fix your broken arm because someone else had their arm ripped off.” Such an argument begs the question, “How is talking about evolution important when people are being gunned down in Somalia?”

    Christian (like the religion only ironic)

  37. Thanks, Rebecca.

    Now I wish I’d purchased one of the “Team Rebecca” pins at Skepticon last year. When it was just for drinking, it didn’t matter.

    This matters.

  38. Way to freaking go, Rebecca. I’m with you in the “accidental feminist” camp. I didn’t used to see the need for feminism, not really. I come from a conservative family (not really conservative anymore, but the foundation was there). I was the only “chick” at my workplace. It was kind of flattering, I thought. Then I realized that they didn’t care about anything I said or thought. And that they trivialized discrimination and joked about rape. And that my own husband trivialized any feminist issue not involving bodily harm. It’s all to do with their privilege, and being raised against a backdrop that assumes and holds up that privilege.

    Then I had a son, and I became an active feminist. (And also a humanist, a skeptic, an activist, and a number of other things.) He doesn’t assume anything. It’s really kind of a beautiful thing.

    If people like Dawkins can’t see the light (and I’m still holding out hope that he can), I have hope that, with folks like you, the next generation will have a whole lot fewer hypocrites and a whole lot more compassionate, clear thinking men and women. Keep it up.

  39. One of the things that seems to be conveniently forgotten by people making comments along the Dawkins line is that if something horrible had happened in the elevator, there would be plenty of people saying “While I can’t condone what happened, Rebecca should have known better…” and then some variation of being in a hotel at 4am or in a lift alone with a stranger or going around in public being obviously female etc.
    But one bright spot…next time someone says the atheist movement is mindlessly monolithic and all just Dawkins worshippers, we can prove we’re not.

  40. Another thing.. All this was started after a night at the bar right? I think alcohol is not being flagged up as a causal agent here. There’s all this focus on male mentality when I think we’re missing one vital ingredient. I’m a guy and can be a creep when (well, extremely) drunk. However when sober I’m meek and retiring. For some guys it only takes a couple of drinks and they start getting lecherous. Maybe you should have teetotaller conferences if there’s an air of threatening male intent at them. I’m serious.

    1. Interesting, I don’t creep the fuck out of other people when I drink. Nor do the people I drink with. We get a little louder, maybe sing, but no cornering people in elevators and propositioning them after not saying a word to them all night.

      But go ahead, blame alcohol, it works great for Mel Gibson.

      1. You’re right in that I shouldn’t BLAME alcohol. If someone knows they’ll turn into a creep when they drink, they shouldn’t drink. But completely eliminating it as a factor seems wrong.

    2. “For some guys it only takes a couple of drinks and they start getting lecherous.”

      … and some girls a couple before they get horny.

      Real quote from a girl who kept egging me on to go out drinking with her, despite me telling her I didn’t like to drink. “Doesn’t drinking get you horny?”

  41. Can I ask something seriously? As a guy who never hits on anyone cause I’m afraid of upsetting someone, is the default position of women now “Men are sexual predators until proven otherwise”? It just seems like it went from an inocuous “please guys don’t be creepy” to complete male bashing and calling us predators by default.
    This is not gonna help anything if we just assume everyone is a bad person by default.

    Please don’t mistake me for sticking up for what Dawkins said, or dude asking you back to his room, because both are whack, but the comments of others kinda make me not want to be around either side of this fight. Safer to stay home and play video games.

    1. Dude, start with this: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

      The thing is, there is no way to tell if you’re a sweet dude who would be a perfect partner or a rapist at first meeting. Rape is incredibly widespread. Not to mention, all of the onus on rape prevention is put on women, so yeah, there’s going to be a desire to keep oneself safe. Your ego<my safety.

      Seriously, if you don't like the situation (women don't much either), then work to stop the rape culture in the first place. Respect boundaries. Consider the comfort level of the women in question. In the situation of Elevator Guy, you just got a free lesson in part of that "giving a shot about women's comfort" thing.

      1. Becca, that’s a great article, but the link wouldn’t work for me. I’ve found it here:
        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/

        The post is a funny but straightforward guide to things men may not be aware of that should be considered before striking up a conversation with women who don’t know them. The comments include the usual arguments as well as some permutations of the initial premise. Definitely worth the read.

        1. Hmmm, tried again and both links worked.

          On the theme if sexism and allies is a cooperative post, this one listing only instances where men stepped up and said or did the right thing, even when the ending wasn’t happy.
          http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/lists/stuff-what-boys-can-do/
          (Yes, the title sounds belittling, but it is high praise for good deeds as well as an example for those who aren’t sure how to step in to shift the balance in a potentially rough situation.)

      2. … and there’s now way for him to tell if you are a psycho feminist or hooker who’s going to make false rape charges, or give him AIDS.

    2. TK, speaking as a (now married) shy and socially awkward male, I think all that is being said here is, simply “don’t be creepy”. I don’t think anyone is saying that all men are predators or should be treated as such. Rather, the message I’m seeing, and the message I’d agree with, is that sometimes guys can present a more threatening attitude than they are aware that they do. Following someone into an elevator is a bit weird. Following someone out of the bar when they say they’re going to bed is a bit weird. Part of it’s just a matter of putting yourself in the other person’s position, and that can be more than just imagining what you would do if a woman approached you like that.

    3. I’m really sad that some people take this away from the discussion.

      To my mind, the fact that Rebecca was willing to tell the elevator story was a sign of respect for men generally. The assumption is that most men are good guys who desire sincerely not to make women feel uncomfortable or intimidated. If Rebecca sincerely felt like “all men are rapists,” why would she bother giving men tips on how not to creep out women?

  42. I just wanted to say how inspiring and amazing you are, Rebecca. (I feel honoured to share a first name with someone so kickass.)

    I doubt I’ll go to any atheist meetings in the near future because of the creep situation, which fucking sucks. Though I’d make an exception if you came to Toronto.

  43. I’m sorry there are so many clueless men* out there. I don’t really see how anyone can read the Schrödinger’s Rapist post and not understand.

    * No doubt there are some clueless women out there too. But for obvious reasons their cluelessness doesn’t have anywhere near as much impact on men as vice-versa.

  44. mero – Oh jeez, and already there are guys here going “I’m a good one! Don’t paint all of us like that!” You guys just don’t get it.

    That’s either the most infuriating comment or a good joke.

  45. Critical thought is limited mainly by the questions we ask of ourselves and others. If Richard Dawkins is incapable of questioning the misogyny so abundant in our communities, then we need the light of different perspectives in order to address the problem. Thank you for your work and words, and may the questioning continue.

  46. Intruding from this thread.

    marc.jagoe:

    I appreciate the fact that you understand that racism can exist in all communities, but I afford people the benefit of the doubt without characterizing their actions as racist when there’s ambiguity.

    The problem is that we end up having racist outcomes in modern systems, without necessarily having racist intentions involved. So it’s useful to distinguish intentional and unintentional racism.

    Especially when coupled with examples of how racist outcomes can be reproduced without deliberate intent, I find that many people can handle an understanding that racism is “the patterns of racial privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns” (taken from Allan Johnson).

    This is necessary because it’s possible to have racist outcomes even from actions which are racially sensitive (cf genuinely racially sensitive police officers working in the drug war). So if it racial insensitivity is the metric we use, we can still end up with a racist system.

    My problem was with the characterization of this as universally sexist in the eyes of all women, or asserting that’s what they should believe.

    They should believe what’s accurate. We have objectively-evaluble descriptions of what constitutes sexism: the patterns of sex- and gender-related privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns.

    This fits that description. They should argue based on outcomes.

    but are you now telling me how I should feel and think about a joke?

    You should think that a racist joke is racist, because that’s an objective matter. You can feel however you feel about it; that’s not my business. And you can respond how you find it useful to respond.

    I have the prerogative to be a flaming mad angry black panther

    The Black Panthers were not merely acting from anger; they had a rational analysis of systemic racism, and a plausible response.

  47. Hi there!

    Oooh, thank you for bringing this up again!

    I used to be on exactly the WRONG side of this argument. Let me explain why.

    I’d considered myself a “feminist”, because I’ve always supported the idea that women should have exactly the same rights as men. I’m a pretty femmy guy myself, for a heterosexual dude, and I’m very comfortable with that. So I’ve always been about Yay Women’s Rights! Woo!

    But I’ve always felt like I keep running up against the wrong side of the argument when I get into a discussion about “harassment”. In my opinion, “harassment” has always been clear-cut and well-defined. Harassment is what happens when a guy lays his hands on you and tries to get into your pants by threatening you with demotion or termination at your job. I believed that harassment was what happened on Mad Men. Really sleazy boardroom groping kind of stuff.

    Then as we eased into the 21st century, people started getting more “sensitive” to workplace (and other-place) harassment. Now harassment wasn’t just grabbing a woman’s backside in the copy room, it was telling dirty jokes where other people could hear. It was telling a co-worker that her sweater looks nice. I’d always object to this “new” definition of harassment, because some of my dirtiest, most shamelessly suggestive co-workers have always been women.

    The response was that I don’t know what the Hell I was talking about, because I’m: 1) Male, 2) Laboring under a veil of Privilege, and 3) Probably a latent rapist. This always struck me as offensive. As I said, I’ve always been a proponent of equality between the sexes, and for me to be viewed as a Schrodinger’s Rapist until proven innocent just seemed to be going a little too far.

    Some women that I knew told me to just be quiet and go off in a corner somewhere and read some feminist literature until I wasn’t so damn ignorant. So I resolved NEVER to get into a feminist discussion with anyone, ever ever ever again.

    Ooops.

    Eventually, quite by accident, I discovered that I WAS ignorant. Not because of my MALE privilege, ohhh no.

    I had … um … “nice guy privilege”??

    Whenever I’ve been hanging out with my female friends, we cuss, and make sexual innuendos, and flirt, and touch each other all the time. This is because I’m a “nice guy”. I am quiet, and inoffensive, and gentle, and nerdy. I can get away with things that would ordinarily be considered “sexist” and “harassment”, because I just don’t skew as “creepy”.

    But recently, I’ve actually had the opportunity to hang around some “REAL MEN”. The kind of guys who have locker room about the women they’d like to bang, and how big their mighty Johnsons are. I knew that this kind of male existed, and I’d always thought that it was just harmless male braggadocio. But these guys were different. They were having a -scary- conversation about women. It was about sex and the hot babes, but the whole tenor of the conversation was much more … aggressive? It wasn’t a conversation about: “That woman is physically appealing to me and I would love it if she would agree to a sexual liaison with me in the future”, but more: “If I thought I could get away with it, I’d hit her over the head with a rock and drag her into an alley”. And it’s not like these were all a bunch of drunken frat boys or anything. To look at them, you’d have though that they were any other group of guys, probably with families and kids of their own.

    Okay, so no one SAID that, outright, but I just got the feeling that I’d walked into a much different dynamic than I was used to. I felt downright uncomfortable. I didn’t know that guys like that still existed. When I joke about sex with my nerdy friends, It’s always in good fun. But this was just so much more … “rapey” than I was used to.

    Since then, I’ve been more aware of this kind of male. The creepy neanderthal type. I think there are more of those guys than I ever realized.

    No, I’m not trying to say that I am some kind of paragon of male respectfulness and politeness. But that I don’t know if there’s a “male privilege” so much as just a general cluelessness. If one of THOSE guys had ME alone on an elevator, I would have been scared, too. :( It’s not like I was being creepy and offensive to women all these years and just didn’t know it. It’s that the creepy harassment guys are much more prevalent than I’d previously thought. I thought that those kind of guys were pretty rare. But apparently they’re everywhere. I never would have believed Rebecca’s “you should be raped” e-mail if I hadn’t recently met exactly that type of guy. (and if she hadn’t copy-pasted it, of course)

    So I apologize for any male/nice-guy/cluelessidiot privilege that I might have had, but I GET IT now. Those guys are just CREEPY.

    Even if they’re a respected evolutionary biologist. :(

    [apologies on the long-winded post]

    — Craig

    1. I don’t mean this as a criticism, but some of the most uncomfortable moments I’ve had with guys HAVE been with the shy nerdy types. Starts off harmless enough, and you write them off because they’re not “jocks”, but then it keeps happening, and suddenly I’m feeling vulnerable because the scrawny asian co-worker has just said he’d like to see what I look like in a bathing suit. At least with a moronic jock, you can shoot them down straight away, or avoid them. With the shy nerdy type, you just don’t EXPECT it. So yeah, I really wouldn’t be surprised if some of your female friends are feeling uncomfortable at some of your jokes.

    2. Schrodinger’s Rapist (at least the concept if not the actual posting) sets off certain alarm bells for me. I think I remember my mom telling me her brothers were warned not to inadvertently scare white women, lest they end up in a bad way.

      1. While I can understand how you read the explanation this way, there is a very key difference in what we’re trying to accomplish with this explanation: the dangers of a privileged class using its power in a way that threatens those with a real risk of harm and oppression.

        Basically you have it backwards.

        The point of Schrodinger’s Rapist is that (leaving out complicating factors of race, which I’ll talk about in a minute) men do not consider that a woman knows her risk for abuse, rape and other violent harm is disproportionately high, and someone intent on harming her is not going to identify themselves as such. Women are the less powerful group with a large potential risk of harm.

        While I don’t know your mother or the age of your brothers (and period they grew up in), historically, the risk is not that the white woman in your scenario has great risk of harm but instead the young African American man has real dangers that he faces. Given that the historical consequence for even being perceived as a risk to that privileged woman is beating and death, the warning your mother gave is in large part to keep your brothers safe. As a result of these unfair and socially unfortunate norms, your brothers were conveyed a sense that they had to take greater precautions than other more privileged individuals did. (These precautions also have the side effect of putting the blame for any bad outcomes on the oppressed as well because they weren’t careful enough.) Women are told that they have to take greater precautions as well to avoid rape; even though these “tips” are not helpful statistically in avoiding rape and massively unfair, they do create the sense of fear and anxiety that Schrodinger’s Rapist attempts to address and explain.

        Essentially in this scenario, your brothers are the woman in the elevator, not the man.

    3. I think this sums up the male experience very well. I have men I can make crude jokes with, or act flirty around and not feel threatened, but there are others I wouldn’t even say “sex” around for fear of their creepiness. It’s really a more individual experience. Not all men give me the “potential rapist” vibe, but I have met a few that do. I can’t pin them down to any specific type, it’s not like they all wear the same kind of hat or something (wouldn’t that be nice?), it’s a personality thing and it has to be judged individually. Just last week a guy approached me outside a mall, and something about the way he looked at me (despite that he didn’t say anything aside from “excuse me”) gave me a he’s-going-to-put-me-in-a-woodchipper vibe. I can’t say why, it just did. I normally deal very well with street people, but this guy gave me the heebie-jeebies something fierce. If you’ve never met someone like that, how can you know how it feels?
      Thanks for sharing your experience, Draconius.

    4. Wow, thanks for posting this Draconius. It’s a very interesting insight into “nice guy privilege” as you called it. Most of my male friends are the nice, gentle, nerdy type and even though no one can speak for an entire group it is interesting to me to try to understand this issue from a different angle. Thanks for your post :)

    5. Oh my god yes!! I, as a woman, also used to feel that way about sexual harassment, but that was before I read my own feminist literature and a true realization dawned on me.

      Sometimes it’s just impossible to see your own privilege until someone or something smacks you hard in the face with it.

      I always need to remind myself that even though I’m a fat, queer woman, I still need to check my white middle-class privilege.

      As a side note, to those commentors on here who are failing to check their own privilege, as soon as you add ‘but’ to a statement, you have become an apologist and have invalidated everything you previously said.

  48. keep up the “consciousness-raising” Rebecca.

    In your previous article (On naming names… June 28th, 2011), you wrote […] for the men (and women) who are behaving in sexist and destructive ways, I hope that pointing it out to them has the effect of making them consider their actions and stop being sexist and damaging.[…]

    this debate helped me to get the point. I empathize with the “schrodinger’s rapist” feeling faced by women.

    might we declare Richard Dawkins senile officially? I hope not. let’s apply Hanlon’s razor and forgive him.

  49. Thank you for not giving up on feminism Rebecca. As I father of one young and one (not so) young daughter hearing your thoughts on how women are treated has been an invaluable education for me.

  50. (Moderate away my last comment, if it’s not too much trouble, please. I didn’t know this blog doesn’t use the blockquote tag.)

    Intruding from this thread.

    marc.jagoe:

    “[marc:] I appreciate the fact that you understand that racism can exist in all communities, but I afford people the benefit of the doubt without characterizing their actions as racist when there’s ambiguity.”

    The problem is that we end up having racist outcomes in modern systems, without necessarily having racist intentions involved. So it’s useful to distinguish intentional and unintentional racism.

    Especially when coupled with examples of how racist outcomes can be reproduced without deliberate intent, I find that many people can handle an understanding that racism is “the patterns of racial privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns” (taken from Allan Johnson).

    This is necessary because it’s possible to have racist outcomes even from actions which are racially sensitive (cf genuinely racially sensitive police officers working in the drug war). So if it racial insensitivity is the metric we use, we can still end up with a racist system.

    “[marc:] My problem was with the characterization of this as universally sexist in the eyes of all women, or asserting that’s what they should believe.”

    They should believe what’s accurate. We have objectively-evaluble descriptions of what constitutes sexism: the patterns of sex- and gender-related privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns.

    This fits that description. They should argue based on outcomes.

    “[marc:] but are you now telling me how I should feel and think about a joke?”

    You should think that a racist joke is racist, because that’s an objective matter. You can feel however you feel about it; that’s not my business. And you can respond how you find it useful to respond.

    “[marc:] I have the prerogative to be a flaming mad angry black panther”

    The Black Panthers were not merely acting from anger; they had a rational analysis of systemic racism, and a plausible response.

  51. Rebecca, You have now replaced Richard Dawkins on my facebook list of people who have inspired me. I would still like to think that Dawkins is just clueless, having never been in a position where he felt vulnerable. But I can’t imagine why he would have so much difficulty comprehending that women draw from different life experiences. Nothing about your video was whiny. In fact, I thought it was a rather nice gesture to let awkward guys know how their actions could be construed as creepy or even threatening in certain situations. Dawkins’ reaction was douchey at best and at the very worst made some people wonder if he wasn’t ‘Elevator Guy.’

  52. I find this rather strange. Maybe I misunderstood the story, but here is what I understood so far: In a hotel elevator, some guy was trying to hit on you in a really creepy way. I found no indication that he was actually threatening you, trying to force you to do something that you do not want to do, or doing anything illegal. Honestly, please correct me if I’m wrong. He was just extremely badly mannered in his awkward attempt to get you into his room.

    And now this is compared to pulling out a gun in the elevator – something that would be illegal in most parts in the western world, and so for a good reason. It seems to me that many people here think that everyone who does not agree with this comparison is a rape apologist.

    Again, please correct me if I’m wrong. Please tell me what part of the story I did not get, because I would like to know. To the extent that I understood it, I can simply not understand how what this guy was doing in the elevator suddenly becomes almost equated with rape.

    Now comes the larger scope. Many women feel generally harassed because many guys try to hit on them in even more creepy ways, all of the time. That’s okay, I get it. That sucks, and those guys are idiots. They are not rapists, they are idiots. No question.

    Dawkins made a more than foolish comment. I wonder what went through his head. It was just awful. And what really astonishes me about Dawkins’ comment is that he did not immediately realize his logical fallacy. Independently from what you think about the issue, I cannot understand how an extremely intelligent person like Dawkins did not see the missing logic of his reasoning. Someone with as much public attention as he gets should think twice about everything he writes, even if it’s just a comment in a blog.

    And, yes, maybe Dawkins’ comment revealed a bad side of his character. Maybe he does not realize what women go through when they are objectified. But is there good reason to believe that he is a rape apologist? – Are you kidding? (And with “you”, I don’t just mean Rebecca, I mean the whole community, and everyone here who puts forward arguments along this line.)

    So Dawkins might be an asshole when it comes to women. I’m not sure about that, but I’ll grant the possibility. I have not read anything from him that deals with feminism; I value highly what he wrote and discussed regarding religion and atheism. I really like his thoughts and contributions in this field. But I could not care less about what he thinks about feminism. I would not regard his writings about atheism worse even if I knew that he were a misogynist. Why should I? Those are unrelated topics.

    Now, sure, this is Rebecca’s blog, and she can recommend or not recommend who and what she wants. But I consider her reaction an overreaction. This sounds like war. Those commenters here who draw a direct comparison to rape and threat victims do a great disservice to those who really had to go through these sufferings. I can understand how one can be disappointed by what Dawkins wrote, but why reject his whole works? Even those that don’t have anything to do with feminism? – Really, I don’t get it. Dawkins is a human, and like every human, he does mistakes, he has some foolish attitudes and he is not perfect. As long as he is not hurting anybody, grant this man some imperfection. Tell him that you feel honestly disgusted by what he wrote. He has a chance to reconsider his position when you confront him with good arguments.

    I cannot deny that I have the impression that some people who make a rape apologist out of Dawkins and curse upon him show the overreaction of a young person who just found out that his idolized father figure is not as perfect as she wanted him to be. Dawkins is not a role model, don’t idolize him. He is just an author, and his voice, though rather prominent, is just one voice of many.

      1. You did not do this comparison. I mixed up my thoughts that are directed to you with my thoughts directed towards the community in general. “zylla” made the comparison above:

        “Let’s put another spin on the scenario to see if some of these guys can get it. You’re on an elevator with a guy. He pulls out a gun as he’s talking to you. He doesn’t point it at you, doesn’t threaten you, he’s just holding the gun. Does it really make you feel any safer around this stranger when someone tells you later that it probably wasn’t loaded? Within the context of this situation (woman alone on an elevator at 4AM with a stranger who asks her to come back to his room for *any* reason), the woman has no idea what his reaction will be to being rebuffed, however kindly she declines, however well he seems to take it.”

        I find this comparison wrong on many levels, but many arguments presented by other commenters here are wrong in the same way; they do less drastic but equally wrong comparisons.

        It’s sad how this issue is going the wrong way. It seems that the majority here cannot differentiate between an idiot and a rapist. I don’t see how a constructive result can come out of this when everyone overreacts in this way.

        1. I didn’t mean to confuse anyone there; I made the gun analogy to show guys how an uncertain situation, potentially dangerous to guys, can be unnerving without anything bad actually happening. It’s a strained comparison, I know. (A knife might have been better in the illustration, but for most guys outside of prison, rape is not a cognitive threat.) I did not mean to imply that there was one in Rebecca’s situation. Sorry, I was trying to write fast.

          1. And as said in my (admittedly poor) example, the theoretical person with a weapon doesn’t do anything or even threaten (which was the point as Rebecca was not actually attacked), it was just meant as a frightening situation.

          2. Thanks for responding, zylla. As I wrote, maybe I did not get the full story. Maybe there is a part that I missed. If so, please tell me.

            Whenever two people are alone, isolated like late at night in an elevator, and one of those persons expresses a sexual or romantic interest in the other, like asking him into his or her room, then this is like being alone with someone who has a potentially dangerous weapon? When one man asks another man for a date, then this implies the danger of rape? Is that what you want to imply?

            If that were the case, I wonder what rule of behavior would avoid it. I think of something like: “When you are alone with a stranger, don’t ever try to hit on that person. Because you might involuntarily induce fear of rape in that person.” – But for me, this does not make sense. People should be free to express their interest in other people, and also, people should be free to turn down any invitations like that. Without the fear of rape playing any part in it.

            Also, where is the line to be drawn? When asking someone out on a date in an isolated situation counts as a rape fear inducing action, what about looking at someone in an ambiguous way? How long is one allowed to look at somebody without inducing fear? What if you actually want to know the time? Are you allowed to ask for the time, or can this be confused with trying to hit on the other person?

            For me, public display of a potentially lethal weapon falls in a totally different category than asking someone into one’s room. I fail to see how the comparison can be made _at all_. I actually feel sad knowing that there are people out there who might feel afraid when they are alone with somebody and basically asked for a date. It shouldn’t be that way. Everyone should be able to smile and say, “Sorry, no chance” – without being afraid to be forced. Maybe I’m living in a different world. Maybe I am oblivious to this danger.

            And yes, I think that guy in the elevator was an idiot. I don’t like what he has done. But with all of these over-exaggerations coming around in this thread, I almost – almost! – feel like I’m defending him. I don’t want to do that; I just want to say: He is an idiot, but not a rapist. And the potential sexual or romantic desire of a person should never by default be seen as a lethal weapon. Never.

          3. It’s not that the question implied (or even was inferred) to suggest rape. And the guy made no further move, so no violence of any sort was presented. It’s the situation. 4AM in an enclosed place with a complete stranger who says/does/acts something very uncomfortable. He’s a STRANGER You have absolutely no idea if this is a prelude to something else. But beyond that, it’s simply rude to (euphemistically) say “let’s have sex” to a complete STRANGER. Maybe if you’re at a singles bar, but an elevator at a hotel for a convention at 4AM simply isn’t an appropriate place to proposition someone you don’t know.

          4. Thanks for your thoughts. I will think about this; not sure what to make of it yet.

          5. That makes you a good skeptic. :) Have you watched the videos (of her talk at the conference and her bloggy update)? Funny and informative in their own rights, but also lay the groundwork for the 3 comments posted by Dawkins under PZ Myers’ post.

        2. I think this post on “Schrodinger’s Rapist” might help you understand where zylla was coming from: 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/

          I think a better analogy might be the difference between a homeless person asking you for money in the street with lots of people around vs in a dark alley with no one around. The latter situation is scarier because it includes a stronger possibility of violence. “Schrodinger’s mugger,” if you will.

          1. Thanks for the link. Maybe this will help me understand the argument better.

        3. I think that while much of the conversation is a derailment of the original off-handed comment, there is a valid point to be made that talking to someone for only a few moments and being confined in an elevator with them, gives you few tools for determining who is a rapist and who is an idiot (to use your line of delineation). As someone who has, unfortunately, had to take out a restraining order on a man I was trying to break up with who thought it would be better if he attempted to force himself on me, and as someone who was once confined in a cab with a cab driver who wouldn’t take me to my destination until I kissed him, I can tell you that things can go downhill pretty fast when you do not have the physical ability to muscle yourself out of a bad situation. People who seem nice enough at first blush, sometimes end up overstepping in a big way.

          My cases are neither the worst nor terribly uncommon, which is why I think it’s appropriate for women to feel cautious about a man who doesn’t seem to respect standard social boundaries.

          Any individual who values equality would not want to put a person in a situation where he or she felt their safety was compromised because of something they did or said and I would think that anyone who sees a little of himself in elevator guy would not want to defend him but instead use that as a jumping off point towards avoiding creeping other people out in the future. You can have an honest misunderstanding, see another perspective and then change that behavior because you have empathy and compassion.

    1. Your post contains a number of straw-men, perhaps you should look at that.

      Examples:
      1. Rebecca, Jen McCreight and P.Z. Myers said nothing about equating poorly judged privileged behavior of elevator guy with rape. Others did that, when discussing context of sex based power inequities.
      2. I didn’t see where Rebecca or P.Z. or Jen McCreight said that Dawkins was a rape apologist. (Maybe you can point it out to us.) I saw that they said he was a privilege denying idiot who wanted to silence the uppity feminist.

      Also of note: you claim that Rebecca’s response to Elevator Guy was disproportionate. How? She handled the inappropriate encounter with grace, and very simply used it as an opportunity to educate. That’s laudable. Or has she overreacted to being told to shut up about sexism by someone who should know better?

      As for equality being unrelated to atheism and humanism, what is wrong with people who have this attitude? What is the skeptic movement for, if not to get people to abandon untrue and damaging ideas and ideologies? How is getting people to abandon sexist and discriminatory attitudes any different than getting them to abandon other damaging mythical ideas?

      1. I did not want to imply that Rebecca or any of the other prominent skeptical writers equated this guy’s action with rape. I used the passive form intentionally. (“now this is compared to…”) I can see that this was ambiguous – sorry about that.

        After that, my comment became more directed to the commenters here, and I did not point this out explicitly. Again, sorry for that. I assure you that I never thought that Rebecca, Myers or any of the others you mentioned equated the creepy guy or Dawkins with a rapist.

        I did not say that Rebecca’s reaction to the elevator guy was disproportionate. What I did say was that I find her reaction in the above blog post to be an overreaction. Probably this is because I always saw Dawkins as an atheist writer and scientist, and his opinions on other subjects never really interested me. I never built up a relevant emotional relation to him, and I never came close to seeing him as a role model. Therefore, I have no trouble finding his comment moronic and at the same time hold his books on atheism and evolution in high esteem.

        I agree with you in that Rebecca was right in turning a creepy situation into an educational example. I’m just afraid about the reactions that I see in the comments; judging by that alone, it seems the education went a little overboard.

        You were asking what the skeptic movement might be for. I don’t think that the skeptic movement has an inherent purpose; it’s just an emergent phenomenon. When the skeptics now bring awareness to feminism and equality, that’s absolutely great.

        But now, if as a consequence of this discussion people start to equate hitting on somebody with drawing a gun, if people start to observe the sexual desire of a man as rape potential – do you think this will do any good to the causes of feminism or equality?

        1. The reason that people have used violent examples of physical threat is we’re desperately trying to explain to a snow dog like a Husky what cold feels like. (To explain the reference https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/ )

          It is almost impossible for a woman to explain what the power inequity involved and potential danger we’ve absolutely steeped in and at risk for to someone who will never walk in our shoes. The daily life of trying to cope with damaging and devaluing attitudes while avoiding disproportionate dangers we face (and which we have a huge potential of being blamed for if they happen!) is so pervasive and subtle that it can be invisible to those outside. If you haven’t checked out the recent post here “Tell Me How I Should Feel” from 28 June, or the simple piece John Scalzi wrote last year about privilege, I highly recommend it.

          You are mistaken about what we mean when we explain that some behaviors are predatory and privileged. We don’t want to characterize the sexuality of straight men as predatory (indeed, I’m sure a lot of us would be very sad without healthy sexual expression and partnership), but neither are men entitled to our attention or our time because they see us as attractive. The problem is that fear and societal pressures have created a system where women are seen as gatekeepers for something men want (sex) instead of joyful happy sexual partners who want to give and share of ourselves with someone who is doing the same. We want to break down the damaging idea that we are not sexual beings as men are, but sexualized ones.

          1. I do want to thank you for that response; you gave me a lot to think about. At the same time, I am slightly horrified by the impact of this specific sex-related inequality situation on women’s everyday lives, in a modern western country.

            It seems to me that the women I know are not at all afraid of rape, and even only very seldomly in a potential, hypothetical way. And I have the impression that I know women from a wide range of milieus. Either it’s because we never really talked about this, or… hmm. Do you think it can be a cultural thing? I live in Germany. Is the situation in the US so different?

            Anyway, I will keep this in mind, and, when there is a chance to talk about this in a decent way, try to talk about this with my female friends.

          2. slignot:
            “…disproportionate dangers we face (and which we have a huge potential of being blamed for if they happen!)….”

            Ex-actly.

            It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Being conscious of the danger inherent in the kind of interaction Rebecca describes is “overreacting”, but if a woman happens to be raped, the focus shifts to her and what she ‘did wrong’. The incoherent illogic of it only makes sense if one views it as an attempt to deny the reality of rape culture and to deny the validity of women’s legitimate wariness of rape culture.

            Self-described “nice guys” who take Rebecca to task for ‘overreacting’ are perpetuating this inequality by placing the pressure to yield on the least privileged person in the equation. Rather than using their status as men to call into question the tacit of assumptions of a patriarchal culture, they instead insist that it is Rebecca who must change to suit them.

          3. [this is meant as an answer to maddoc, but there seems to be no “Reply” button there :D]

            Well, wait… don’t imagine us always hiding under our beds shouting “Rapist! Rapist!” :D
            As someone said, we are not constantly afraid… we are constantly vigilant.
            As for the “cultural” thing… i don’t think it’s related to nationality (i live in italy, by the way).
            It appears to me to be more related to… well, you being male :)
            Maybe in Germany there really is a very different social environment, but maybe you are not noticing some behaviours that your female friends have and that you just consider to be normal.
            I don’t know if this is the case, but try to consider this:
            – would your female friends go alone in a subway at 1 AM?
            – would your female friends accept a car lift from a male stranger? Would they more easily accept it from a female stranger?
            – do your female friends appear to be a little nervous or unconfortable if they hear a catcall?

    2. *uhm* I think you missed a couple of points
      1. i think no-one is accusing Dawkins of being a rape apologist. At least if someone did, i missed it. He is being accused of dismissing a normal and reasonable worry of every woman
      2. no-one said that Elevator Guy was a rapist and no-one is comparing what he did to a rape. The object here is what make women feel unconfortable, uneasy and threatened. Ok? We NOW know that the guy was just a socially inept who didn’t have a clue on what he was doing wrong, but we know it NOW, that Rebecca has come out of that elevator. When she was there, she probably wasn’t so sure. I wouldn’t be.
      And… if any of you have found a 100% certain way to recognize a rapist from a social idiot, please, let us know. But it must be 100%… because, you know, if i make a mistake, i end up being raped, beaten and maybe killed. That’s why i (and any woman) cannot presume that every guy i meet is a good guy.
      And to answer someone else (sorry, can’t find the comment anymore), no, we don’t usually consider every man i meet a potential rapist (i don’t, at least). It’s just that… well, the definition i have for a man that i wouldn’t consider a potential rapist is “someone who doesn’t ask me to have sex in a situation where i cannot flee”.

      1. Understood, and mostly agreed.

        I feel very uncomfortable knowing that some people out there see a man who asks for a date in an isolated situation as a potential rapist, by default. It is sad to know that the people who think that way probably have good reasons to do so. But still, it’s good that this does not count for *every* man you meet, but only those who ask you to come into their room in a hotel elevator late at night. Maybe I can live with that. And yes, I know some of the reasons behind that.

        Now that I think of it… All the cases that I personally have heard of began with isolated situations like the one in the elevator. Maybe I start to understand.

        Let me add one more consideration: This is not just about men asking women for a date. Sometimes – rarely – men are being raped by women, and rapes also happen among gay people. I think we can agree that this should never happen, and no one should ever be afraid of it. Every reasonable thing we can do to get closer to this ideal is a good thing.

        1. I think the problem is that you’re thinking about the feeling of threat involved in situations with highly disproportionate power in a very conscious sense. Most women wouldn’t immediately articulate all the times that situations they were uncomfortable or threatened stemmed from an analyzed fear of rape. It’s very, very subtle; we avoid situations and react in particular ways because on a very deep gut level we’ve been culturally trained to be afraid. It sucks.

          Hell, it took me years to figure out that many of my anxieties about being aware of my surroundings and fear of having someone behind me (including my husband/best friend of over a decade) were created by a sexual assault I experienced as a teenager.

          1. Your explanation seems to work for me; it gets me thinking. I just remembered several situations when women told me about creepy situations with men. Although it mostly was anecdotal, sometimes with a humorous note, I now realize that there was always the fear of abuse implied on a subtle level.

            One thing which makes it hard for me to think this way is that we are talking about men in general. The category “men in general” includes me. And in my self perception, there is a strong aversion of associating myself with the category of rapists. When thinking or talking about this topic, I instinctively want to get as much separation as possible between myself and those people. It is almost as if I am obliged to always add: “But that’s not me, I’m not one of them. Guaranteed.”

            Maybe this is because I, too, instinctively know about the subtle fear of women regarding abuse, and I subconciously feel the urge to make absolutely clear that I am not one of those guys. (Which would be pointless; every rapist would say the same before he committed the assault.)

            Another thing is abhorrence. Like everyone, I have supreme contempt for rapists. And I do not want them to have any influence on how we normal people live our lives. Having a rule like “don’t hit on a woman when you’re alone with her” seems to give these people some degree of influence on our freedom of choice. That feels bad.

            Those are just some loose thoughts that just went through my head. I found your comments very inspiring.

          2. I know what you mean. With this ongoing discussion I’ve been doing a lot of thinking back and I realize that I’ve been pretty much conditioned to be vigilant since 2nd grade. I was almost raped by my male babysitter (I ran out of the house after I managed to free myself from his grasp – other kids weren’t so lucky. The guy was prosecuted years later for sexual assault on other girls) and at age 17 I was groped in broad day light while waiting for a train. Needless to say, I’m extremely aware of my surroundings. Of course… it doesn’t help that I have generalized anxiety…

            I don’t think about those incidents much. Well… I wasn’t until now. But its there, you know, running in the background.

        2. Thank you for the consideration you’re giving this topic, Madoc.

          Several men have posted similarly to you – “I feel very uncomfortable knowing that some people out there see a man who asks for a date in an isolated situation as a potential rapist, by default.” Fortunately most of us don’t see another person as a potential rapist or murderer or whatever unless certain behaviors crop up or we’re in a higher risk environment.

          Considerate people can avoid warning-sign behaviors (eg in Rebecca’s case ignoring her repeated stated disinterest in being hit on, showing no interest in getting to know her until she was alone). As for the environment, ask for a date out of earshot of other people but not somewhere with no escape route! Of course if you’ve known the person for a bit, the elevator might be fine.

          I was once lost in a car-park in Harlem late at night and just when I discovered there was no exit to the street, a car’s lights lit up and the vehicle headed towards me! I felt nervous for a few seconds but then the car stopped and a woman stuck her head out of the window to give me directions. She knew not to corner me or get too close.

          1. “Considerate people can avoid warning-sign behaviors”
            QFT
            Yes, and when considerate people do avoid warning-sign behaviors, this does not mean they are ‘buying into the victim mentality’ or ‘agreeing that all men are potential rapists’ but instead that they proactively refuse to normalize the rapist’s TACTICS, leaving him out there all alone without cover in his creepiness, obviously abnormal so that women then quickly see him as alarming.

            Couldn’t link to reply directly to the post, but ‘the women I know haven’t mentioned they worry about this’ literally made tears come to my eyes. I have contact with a lot of men during the normal course of my days. OF COURSE I never mention my anti-rape tactics and planning to them. Why would any woman take the risk of sharing her rape prevention tactics with those in the group from which she needs to protect herself?

        3. Oh, I agree :-)
          In this case we’re talking about “rape threat” because that’s what this specific situation implies. But i wouldn’t feel less threatened if a woman did something that i could consider menacing. I probably wouldn’t be afraid of rape, but… well, i don’t think that being beaten, or knifed or robbed is a pleasant experience :)
          The thing that i appreciated more of Rebecca initial video (i’m not so sure about her consequent “exposing” of McGraw’s post) is that she probably was doing this to explain which are the things that keep this situation unchanged. What i perceived in her video is “Guys, we don’t think you’re all rapists, please consider that this kind of behaviour is slightly threatening and makes us feel as if you don’t care about our desires (aka: going to bed because i’m exausted) and will (aka: not being hit on by someone i haven’t exchanged a word with and who didn’t listen to what i’ve spent the evening saying)”
          To say it even more clearly: my (and i use “my” because i cannot speak for every woman on the planet, and not even for a majority, i’m afraid) position is not “You’re a potential rapist unless you show me you’re not”, but, instead “You’re not a potential rapist unless you do something that scares me”
          I might be easily scared, but i don’t put a “rapist” label on people without, at least, some reason. :)

    3. There are men who follow women and then rape them.

      There are men who follow women, and whilst being creepy, don’t do anything ‘wrong’ as you put it.

      How is a woman supposed to tell the difference before actually being raped/being left alone?

      All Rebecca asked was that the latter type of men not actually do that anymore, please, as it still makes them very uncomfortable.

      1. There is no way of knowing what other people will do. A good level of trust is required for everyday interactions.

        Assume we say it’s a rule that men shall not make a move on female strangers in a situation of isolation. What about the opposite? Is a woman allowed to hit on a man at 4 a.m. in an elevator? What when two women are involved, and at least one of them is homosexual? What about two men?

        What we are doing here is: We restrict communication. And we do this on the basis – of what? Rape statistics?

        I don’t know. Can you understand how this feels wrong to me?

        1. It takes a certainly level of empathy to imagine what’s like to be in somebody else’s shoes, but switching the roles isn’t necessarily the way to do it. As a man you would (almost certainly) never have had to slap away wandering hands while at work or ignore dog whistles while walking down the street. As a straight man you’ve probably never had to deal with people calling you “faggot” in a threatening way. As a white man you wouldn’t have been called a “nigger”.

          Because of this, imagining that somebody shouted “straight guy!” or “whitey” out of a car window or that a woman grabbed your arse while at work doesn’t carry the same meaning as the reverse. You have to learn about the history of sexism (and racism, and homophobia, etc.) and then imagine spending a lifetime in somebody else’s shoes, not just one specific moment.

          That’s what we mean when talk about empathy and privilege. Overcoming a lifetime of privilege takes imagining a lifetime without it.

        2. If a woman approached a man at 4am in an elevator, what is the man’s risk of being raped? Has that man been told since childhood to avoid elevators at 4am? Has this man had his choices and interactions severely limited in the name of “preventing rape” by getting women to stop getting themselves raped?

          It’s not just “statistics” to women, Marc. It’s our lives. It’s a gamble with our safety we take every time we stick our noses out the door. In fact, just by going to places alone and maybe having a drink or two, we open ourselves wide to all kinds of bad things and if those bad things should happen, either no one would believe us or no one would take it seriously (why were you alone? why did you drink? why didn’t you scream the moment he came into the elevator? common sense can prevent rapes, you know. You must have wanted it and just regretted it in the morning).

          Like I said, those statistics? Yeah, they are our lives. Many of us ARE part of the statistics. Many many. I live in a country with an insane rape number, where one in FOUR men has admitted to having raped a woman (South Africa).

          It simply doesn’t work to gender switch on this one. IF we were already an egalitarian society where rape is rare, rapists are usually caught and when caught, usually sentenced independent of what the victim did or didn’t do, sure, then we could talk about that.

          But that’s not where we are right now, and that is the reality that shapes most women’s reactions.

          Also, it’s not constant fear. It’s constant VIGILANCE. There’s a difference, and it’s not unreasonable, emotional, “letting rapists control how we act” or anything like that. It’s self preservation and maybe giving yourself a fighting chance in court, SHOULD something happen and SHOULD it actually get to court.

        3. Yes, i can see. But, you see, if you change those rule in “don’t put people in situations they might consider unconfortable” it becomes a lot easier and doesn’t require to cut off communications. But it requires people to try and understand what might make someone else unconfortable.
          I mean… if we are alone in an elevator, i don’t expect you to avoid talking to me. I expect you not to offer me sex :-)
          Especially if we’ve never met before. And… really… i don’t understand how can anyone consider such behaviour as “normal”. And i don’t understand why it is so difficult to explain -_-

        4. “Assume we say it’s a rule that men shall not make a move on female strangers in a situation of isolation. What about the opposite? Is a woman allowed to hit on a man at 4 a.m. in an elevator?”
          That’s a good question to be raising. If we are trying to establish etiquette rules for hitting on people at conferences (and elsewhere) we should probably open a conversation on this aspect too, and ask men for their thoughts (other than “oh yes please!”)on being hit on by women, and if we need to set any ground rules. Not being male, I don’t feel qualified to speak for the men in this situation.

      1. The video is cool but creepy. It immediately raises the question: What if she wouldn’t have been so courageous, or so strong? – Anyway, I still hope it’s fake.

        1. Yeah, creepy huh. The part that scared me most is where he suddenly leapt out and held her back from exiting. Doesn’t matter if it’s real. It happens.

          I also googled elevator rape. Lots and lots of elevator rape porno. Pathetic. A few surveillance videos of sexual assaulters in action that are being sought. So it is not an unjustified concern for women.

          I must compliment you again on working towards an understanding. Hope a few of the bone-heads out there have as much courage.

          1. The responses to my thread have been extremely helpful, and I am very happy that all of you took the time to write them. You gave me a new perspective.

  53. I am very grateful that everyone is not like Dawkins. Though I do hate that whenever feminist issues come up, it becomes about how women hate men, even when it’s often advice on how not to creep women out. When I wrote about this I was told I was paranoid and had probably never had a good experience with a man, and was then, of course, made an offer I could easily refuse.

    I just… I am always surprised. Like you I was briefly hopeless, but PZ and Phil reminded me that not everyone is Dawkins or Hitch. And I still respect Dawkins and Hitch, despite their apparent sexism, but they can’t quite be heroes anymore. Maybe that’s a good thing, I dunno. But I don’t think I’m ready to write either one of them off. Someone can be wrong, grossly wrong, on one subject and still have a lot of important things to say.

  54. I came into the scptical/atheist movement holding the same kind of ideas, that feminism had largely done it’s work.

    Then situations like this one opened my eyes, and thanks to people like you (and the other SkepChicks), Jen McCreight, Amanda Marcotte, Greta Christina, PZ Myers and many, many more helped me to understand how feminism still still very much needed, especially in a movement like ours where evidence and science are supposed to be so highly regarded, but aren’t when a topic brushes against privilege.

    So thank you, and I hope that we can become a better movement because of all of your (and other’s) hard work.

  55. This Dawkins boycott seems like the latest in a series of overreactions by everyone involved in this elevator incident. Lets remember what you and he disagree on. You disagree on whether this particular incident, where someone approached you in an inappropriate place and at an inappropriate time, was harmful. You and he don’t disagree about respecting women as a general principal, you disagree about application of that respect to a particular incident. And as your title suggests, part of the reason you disagree is that Dawkins doesn’t experience the world like you do. I think that demonizing him for one relatively small disagreement is a bit harsh, but then I’m okay being friends with agnostics too.

    1. ChrisZ, 99.9% of the people on Earth have always agreed on “respecting women as a general principle”. The disagreement has always been over the details of what this means in practice. Asserting agreement to a general principle means very little. What matters is how people act.

      Boycotting is not demonizing.

      Opportunity cost: money spent on Dawkins is money that could have been spent on someone better. A boycott would make less sense in a world of infinite resources. A boycott is rational in this world of opportunity costs.

      1. Well put. My money, and time to enjoy media, is limited. Dawkins has proven that he shouldn’t get either, and instead I can discover different atheist writers to enjoy.

  56. Just wanted to add to all the voices expressing my deep disappointment in Richard Dawkins, and my admiration for Rebecca and other feminists and bloggers working to change the skeptical and atheist movements. I’m really pleased that you’ve started to really introduce notions of privilege into our conversation, and I hope that if we all make a concerted effort to take ownership of our own privilege, be it male, white, straight, cis, currently abled, whatever, we can widen our perspective, our knowledge and our influence. Good on you.

  57. “And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.”
    The ‘that seemed weird’ made me laugh. I could hear Rebecca saying it in a quite, confused voice.

    Anyways, I can’t really comment on any of this, as a fully acknowledged privileged white male, who’s 6’6, 240 pounds, I can just promise that I don’t hit on women, (happily married) ,even when drunk. I try to smile a lot, as I realize my size might make me threatening, and am very sorry for the comments Dawkins made and will promise to try and help further feminism, if I can. I’ve done boneheaded male stuff, but I’ll keep trying not to. Thanks for the post, keep it up, and please keep helping raise everyone’s awareness.

    Now back to making my lovely Chemist some chocolate chip cookies. Just trying help fight one more small stereotype. Plus she really likes cookies.

  58. Skepchick, you are a hero to me. That you’ve been victimized by fellow skeptics is shameful. You deserve respect in all things. Shame on those who believe it’s okay to separate their skeptical outlook and their humanity.

  59. I’m not sure it’s possible to resolve an issue like this in blog comments, so I’m not going to debate the topic, especially because I’m a survivor of the thread on Pharyngula, but I would like to add my voice to the hopefully loud chorus of people who support Rebecca.

    I’m a white male and let me tell you, there is no reason to not list those attributes when taking a boorish privileged jerk to task. I’m not ashamed of my demographic as it applies to me, but man does the general behavior of white guys make me facepalm a lot.

    So, to any who are reading this and thinking, “How DARE she take all white males to task when she talks about Dawkins!?”, that’s your privilege talking.

    You’ve got to turn that one down a little (actually a lot). There’s a switch you can use for that, it’s right next to the empathy dial. Gotta turn that dial way up first, naturally.

  60. I think Richard Dawkins owes you an apolog. Big time. This was the man who, through his work, highlighted the importance of consciousness raising with respect to the overly masculine use of language. It was him that brought that to my attention and made me more careful about how I spoke and wrote. Surely fussing over such a thing as that is trivial in comparison to FGM isn’t it? Surely fussing over whether a child is labelled a “Catholic” or correctly called “a child of catholic parents” is insignificant beside the horrors of the mental and physical abuse suffered by children at the hands of the Catholic Church? I assume that, like me, Richard does not accept such things as too trivial to mention and certainly not so irrelevant so as to be dismissed with the kind of casual backhanded remarks he used to dismiss this generally important issue.

    In the probably unlikely event that he may read this I address the following to him:

    Through your books Richard I learned the value of being able to admit when I was wrong. I learned that it took courage and moral fortitude to do so because admitting fault is the first step towards learning what is correct. You were wrong in this Richard and I sincerely hope you have the integrity to admit it. 

  61. I am a biological male and though my gender is androgynous, people would assume that I man-gendered. Because of that assumption, I get those privileges afforded to men. And I know because of this, I know I have to look at myself and see where I could be wronging women.

    I can relate to some very tiny extent, however: I am physically disabled. From my perspective, chronic disability is something people ignore, intentionally or not, and give platitudes like “It could be worse,” as if that will make things all better, or simply can’t comprehend the level at which people like me struggle. It enrages me when I read about an experience how crappy our medical establishment is, but nobody on any aisle is producing results. People are more concerned about playing for a team than actually getting things done. It enrages me when I hear about some quack hawking products that all sorts of people with disabilities will fall for because of how little hope we have.

    I know this because I was led down that path for a time. That’s how I came to skepticism. People get used to things like this, it becomes ingrained, and then people get uncomfortable when you broach the topic. I am sick and tired of losing so many friends to chronic disability. And I can see that same struggle in women. It’s not enough to have an opinion. You have to be loud and angry and you have to shove things in people’s faces. You do it again and again and again, and there’s still more to go. It’s the most frustrating thing in the world, and when you express that frustration, people look at you strangely.

    When I hear other males saying things like Dawkins, I can’t help but think of the struggles I have with my disability, and I get just as enraged. If I didn’t question my assumptions about how I treat women, I’d feel like I was acting like people do toward the disabled. I couldn’t live with myself if that were routine.

    Keep going, keep attacking, and if people don’t like it, they can go fuck themselves.

  62. Skepticism is so much more than Bigfoot and UFO’s. Everything should be questioned.

  63. I’ve sent him a letter as well, and copied you. (I’m still in shock. It’s like finding there’s no Piltdown man… oh, wait…)

    Sorry, lame joke. That’s how I deal. I’m sorry that a creepy incident (momentary but creepy nonetheless) has turned into the Twilight Zone incident that it has.

  64. I’m frustrated that a rich, white, well educated man cannot see beyond his own privilege but I’m not shocked. I would expect more of Dawkins but it’s not earth shaking that he would feel this way.

    What does upset me are the women who parrot the same sentiments he shares. They, like he, immediately jump to the logical fallacies, pointing out that your having not been raped was somehow proof that the situation is not one that should make a person feel uncomfortable or that because other people have been in worse situations, the situation itself wasn’t worthy of note. And even worse, saying that because they haven’t personally experienced this exact situation, yours must somehow be anomalous.

    I saw your original video and you clearly stated that you just felt it was an uncomfortable situation to be in. How often do you think men are actually told when they are doing something that makes an individual uncomfortable? For most men, probably never and when it does happen, he probably brushes her off as a “prude” or a “bitch.”

    And yet these same exact men and the women who are backing the Dawkins’ defense, if they are raising daughters, probably tell them not to go into confined spaces with strangers, and implore them not to go into a locked room with a stranger. These are no-brainer lessons you want to instill in your child to keep her safe.

    You weren’t saying this man was a rapist, you were saying he put you in a position where the only way to make a rational and safe choice was to be rude to him by declining his exceedingly risky offer. As someone attending an event devoted to rational thinking, this was a truly ironic move on his part. It should be laughable that anyone would argue you’ve made some sort of insane accusation.

    He was a dick to propose that you put yourself in a risky position and an even bigger dick to do it while you were in a confined space, alone with him.

    Again, I’m frustrated that people in a place of privilege don’t see that, can’t even imagine if you were their daughter or sister, or cousin or mother, and the man were some stranger she didn’t know. But I’m downright offended that there are women buying into that thinking too. I doubt any of them would say to a girl they were raising “don’t go into confined and locked spaces with strangers, unless you think they probably are nice.”

    Keep talking about and keep calling people out for this. Changes don’t happen overnight. While I think people do creepy things for non-creepy reasons, they won’t change if they don’t know what they are doing is creepy.

  65. there seems to be a fair amount of (to use another joking phrase from the video) “straw personing” in some of the comments critical of Rebecca. In particular, there seem to be some people who are fine with what Rebecca actually said, but who are really offended by *insert thing she never said here*. I’ve certainly not seen Rebecca say that Dawkins was a rape apologist, and I’d be amazed if anyone else had either.

    1. More than a fair amount, don’t you think? The sort of strawpersoning is pretty rampant, and seems to be part of a larger semi-delusional exercise that a bunch of guys (and a few women) are engaging in.

      There are elaborate fantasy descriptions of “what might have happened” that has nothing to do with the pretty damned clear description in the video. There are assumptions about Elevator Guy’s potential position on the autism spectrum as an excuse. There’s an almost universal tendency of RW’s critics to rewrite every rational and measured comment to read “all men are rapists, every man is evil, women live in constant fear and it is ALL YOUR FAULT SPECIFICALLY, YES YOU IN PARTICULAR!” It isn’t just refusing to empathize with Rebecca or women in general, it is an almost pathological identifying with Elevator Guy to the point that some guys seem to think all of these threads are about them personally… which is the only thing that might explain why so many men are getting so defensive about an issue that isn’t really about them at all.

  66. I first read about this on reddit, and was inclined to side with Dawkins since I didn’t get the whole story. However, are going to Greg’s, PZ’s, and this blog to get a little background information, I think you’re in the right.

    The key for me was to realize you had not accused the guy of attempting to assault you, but rather simply expressed your discomfort. Your feelings are a value judgement of his behavior. He clearly was just socially inept, and you made a judgement call. Nothing wrong with that. From what I can tell based on your video and your notes, elevator man did nothing wrong, other than being a dummy and not seeing how propositioning a woman in the elevator could be interpreted poorly. The proper response to a situation like that is to simply raise awareness, in just the way you did (elevator dude: People get raped in elevators. Being forward with women in that situation makes them uncomfortable. Have some empathy. Don’t do that.).

    Richard Dawkins did indeed overreact. However, I’m also surprised at how many people are wiling to write him off over this. Astounded actually. How many books has he written, talks given, cash given for atheism and skepticism in general, including related topics and causes like feminism? And you are all willing to dump him on the side of the road as a “relic from a bygone era” just like that? It’s no wonder atheists in America can’t get any traction. We’re willing to back-stab and bad-mouth each other at the earliest opportunity. Skepchick, I agree with you. Richard, you’re in the wrong. Inviting someone to coffee when you’re alone in the elevator is not the same as doing it in a public place. But you know what? It’s ok. We all make mistakes. I hope you can learn from this one.

  67. Rebecca, once again, you demonstrate why you are my hero. And I am a privileged old white dude, too :)

  68. This really confuses me, this whole business. First, I’m not at all surprised that Richard Dawkins is a dick. That’s not the point though. The main thing here is why did he take it upon himself to give his 5 cents on this anyway? It’s none of his business. If Rebecca felt uncomfortable then she felt uncomfortable and that’s the end of it.

    Why do guys get so odd and defensive when women make comments like this?

  69. There’s a difference between how you perceive the reality of a situation, and the reality of a situation. A man asking you to join him for coffee, politely, in an elevator may be awkward and may make you uncomfortable as a woman, but that’s more of an etiquette issue. That was in no way, whatsoever, sexual assault or objectification. It would seem that your rule of thumb is that, for safety sake, assume all men are rapists. Crying wolf?

    1. Dawkins is, as you well know, an extremely important and intelligent man who’s positive influence can’t possibly be quantified. He doesn’t share your perspective and thinks your being unreasonable. He has every right to state his opinions in which ever manner he chooses. This makes him an asshole?

      1. Yes, people can absolutely be intelligent, important, and assholes all at the same time! In fact, I would hazard that it’s not even necessarily rare for an important person with some good ideas to be an asshole. This doesn’t mean you necessarily ignore their contributions or ideas.

        In fact, good skepticism really requires questioning the ideas of leaders of our own movement, not just of other movements. It’s not enough to point fingers at the religious, those who believe in the paranormal, and those who buy into things like Wakefield’s anti-vaccination movement and talk about how wrong they are.

    2. She never said he was a rapist. You are attacking a straw man.

    3. I don’t think you know what “crying wolf” means.

      1 out of every 6 men is a rapist. This is the exact proportion of Russian Roulette with a common revolver. How often do you play Russian Roulette? One a day? Year? Never?

      Firearm safety demands that one treat all guns as if loaded all the time, in all circumstances, and never to point one at anything you do not want to destroy EVER. This is not “crying wolf” is is essential to handling firearms safely.

      Of course, you can choose to handle firearms or not. You can choose to play Russian Roulette or not. But women cannot help but take that 1 in 6 chance and live in the world.

      Not only that, but any time a woman is alone with a strange man, it is exactly the same as you squeezing the trigger. “Will this be the time the gun goes off?”, translates to “Is this the time i will be attacked”?

      So it is prudent for women to assume that all men are rapists until proven otherwise. It is not difficult to prove otherwise, usually. So use opportunities like this to plant yourself firmly in the 5 out of 6 camp.

  70. Rebecca, you are spot on, don’t back down. Feminists like you are much needed in the skeptic and atheist movements. I tried hard to raise my sons as feminists, so they would never respond as Dawkins did, nor would they be the lout on the elevator. I just hope I succeeded.

  71. I have to get up early tomorrow so I’ll keep this short.

    While I often enjoy Dawkins’ published work and it will remain hidden in the dark depths of my Kindle, I shall join others – on other forums – in saying that I will henceforth arm myself with chewing gum in the off chance I share a lift with him at any point in the future (muahaha, I also wear baseball caps backwards – my neck burns easily).

    Rebecca, I love your blogging and your talks, though I have only ever been able to view them on YouTube, keep up the good work.

  72. Well put, Rebecca. I’m with you 100%.
    Massively disappointed in Dawkins. How one so ‘bright’ can be so dimwitted at the same time beats me. I’m also a bit shocked by some of the responses from fellow Atheist. WTF’s that all about?
    Anyway, I hereby confirm your superhero-status.

  73. Ms Watson, I wonder what initially your intention was when you mentioned the incident in the video. Do you think that the coverage of the incident will attract more or less women to the atheist / skeptic movement? Do you think it will have a long term effect on the behaviour of men at atheist / skeptic events?

    Looking forward to your answers. Thanks

    1. Anon Skeptic, you wonder what Rebecca’s intention was when she mentioned the incident in her video? Did you watch the video? Did you read the post at the top of this page? Do you think RW expected the Spanish Inquisition or anticipated the shitstorm that has transpired?

      I thought her intention was quite clear. She was giving a word to the wise; a little tip to the socially naive on unwelcome behaviour.

      I suspect the reaction will probably deter a few women from attending atheist/skeptic conferences but I don’t really think you can blame Rebecca for that. Blame all the airheads who are trying to invalidate her concerns. All she did was help to illustrate the enormity of a problem that already existed.

      1. Thanks for your answer. But it causes me to ask a follow up question. If the intention was to give a word to the wise do you think this was effective?

        1. The real question is whether the “wise” can be considered as such.

        2. Yes, I think it was massively effective.

          You must remember: it started with a conversation Rebecca had in a vlog with those who follow her, and just a gentle “dudes, don’t do that. It’s not going to get you what you want in the first place, and it’s pretty damn creepy”. Not even 30 seconds out of an almost 8 minute vlog.

          That’s all it was supposed to be, so I’d say yes, in that context it was very effective – many who are socially awkward took that and actually thought “Wow, I didn’t realize that. Thanks for the heads up!”. That’s where it could have ended.

          Then some people said “WUT? How DARE you tell men when to approach women, you feminazi hypocrite, now humans can never reproduce again!” (paraphrased sardonically, the comments were more like “hey, you wouldn’t have been creeped out if you were a dude and a women did that, you sexist), and Rebecca used that misunderstanding (it’s not the same, see my reply above somewhere upthread for more details why) as a teachable moment.

          Was THAT effective? Yes. I totally think so. If you’re going to be a student leader in the freethought/skeptic movement and criticize someone who’s going to be a keynote speaker in a conference you helped arrange and will be present at on things you don’t understand the first thing about, you cannot cry “FOUL” when called out. I think at the very least, people should realize that little bit of academic honesty.

          As for the internet furor? Was THAT effective?

          I think in some ways, yes. Many people were educated, many flounced and said “You skeptics slash feminazis are SO MEEN”. Ask yourself: is that the kind of allies you want? Someone who will abandon your back the moment things get controversial? IN ATHEISM? Or fighting for your rights to exist as an equal human being? These are hard, ugly battle-weary topics.

          (Whether the internet furor was effective or not, though, it was not what Rebecca had planned when she made her vlog, so to lay whatever effects it has (oh no, someone’s fee fees got hurt? The horror!) solely on Rebecca and basically saying that she’s scaring “new recruits” (what are we, Jesus Camp?) away through this fight is massively unfair and totally untrue.)

          I think this whole thing turned out massively successful from a consciousness raising point of view, and I think Rebecca is a stellar person (though I don’t always agree with everything she says, oh the shock!) for her graceful conduct during what must have been one mother of a nightmare, as are those who are backing her, and am just sorry that, as someone else said earlier, this has turned into such a Twilight Zone thing for her.

  74. Rebecca, thanks so much for courageously speaking out and letting everyone know how you feel about this. Hard feelings will blow over and many, including Dawkins will reflect on this sooner or later, and change their behavior accordingly. Already far more are in agreement with PZ on this. Atheists, while libertarian, range across the political spectrum and are not necessarily feminist or even progressive. But the atheist field is fertile and seeds of discontent tend to grow there. I admire Hitchens but don’t forgive his militarist stance on the Iraq war. So hang in there and keep vlogging away!

  75. Could someone please rephrase the issues here without any reliance on postmodern thought.

    I see a logical inconsistency to use the postmodernism of feminism and the evidence, reason based of skepticism. How are those getting mixed here, why and to what purpose?

    1. I’m having trouble understanding your question; what do you mean by “the postmodernism of feminism”?

      1. Feminism has a rich history of postmodern analysis and language deconstruction. This type of analysis clouds issues rather than identifies them. Scientific thought has no use for postmodernist complaints.

        For example. Is science male? Such a question is unanswerable by science, correct? Some other methodology/epistemology is presumed. As skeptics, should we even open the door to postmodernistic feminism? Is their such a thing as Scientific Feminism? I think there is (or could be) but the postmodern roots of feminism have only hurt us here in this case.

        What would scientific feminism look like?

        The original argumentation from this blog post opens the door to Post-Modern Feminism. I’m just wondering if that is door that a skeptic really wants to open?

        Moreover, is that a methodolgy that is all helpful in promoting justice?

        1. Wait, you’re saying that skeptics AREN’T ALLOWED (or should think carefully coz it’s *dangerous*) to use post

          And the proposed solution was made very, very clear: dudes, this is the wrong way to try and get a date. It won’t work (and if it does work, the chances of her saying ‘yes’ just because she’s scared is high, is that what you want?) and it makes women feel bad. Word to the wise? Don’t do that.”

          I mean, that’s a very clear solution. Also, your definition of postmodernist feminism and science? Way off. Seriously.

        2. I’m with AstroCJ; what on earth are you talking about?

          “For example. Is science male? Such a question is unanswerable by science, correct? Some other methodology/epistemology is presumed.”

          Again: what? Science itself is not male, female, or any other gender or sex; and even if applying terms like that made any kind of sense, how would it be relevant to anything discussed here?

          “As skeptics, should we even open the door to postmodernistic feminism? Is their such a thing as Scientific Feminism? I think there is (or could be) but the postmodern roots of feminism have only hurt us here in this case.”

          I don’t exactly see any kind of connection between feminism and PoMo. Especially not with the roots, given that the suffrage movement got started long before Modernism.

          “What would scientific feminism look like?”

          Presumably, getting more women into the STEM (Science, Engineering, Technology, Math) fields while using scientific methods and knowledge to understand and combat privilege. In other words, feminism focused on the scientific community and carried out scientifically.

          “The original argumentation from this blog post opens the door to Post-Modern Feminism. I’m just wondering if that is door that a skeptic really wants to open?”

          Um, how, exactly, is describing what happened a case of PoMo?

        3. “Postmodern.” You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    2. That women earn 70% of a man’s salary, the high incidence of rape and sexual assault against women, that women are routinely objectified and treated objectively different from men isn’t enough evidence for you?

      Now that we have evidence that women are treated as inferior to men, lets work on changing that, possibly by creating some kind of movement, let’s call it ‘feminism’.

      Just as when we have evidence of medical quackery, religious buffoonery, faith healer scams, and video tapes of bigfoot, we created a movement called ‘scepticism’.

      1. When you introduce the term “objectified” do you consider all the post-modern history that comes with it’s use and definition? (e.g., males created science so women should create a new epistemology that doesn’t use reason).

        Just as you listed evidence of harms and discrimination towards a class of people. Would we not be better served, as a skeptical community, to bluntly state the facts and set an ideal? What is the proposed solution?

        Basically, the main blog article failed as a skeptical analysis. It seemed to waiver in and out of post-modernism without any clear objective, or positive goal. I just want a more scientific case, because I find scientific argument more persuasive and accurate. I back her position (i.e., more justice and fairness for all). I just want a more skeptical presentation.

        1. I think that you’re effectively asking that every blogpost start again from feminism 101 and show their workings all the way. That doesn’t sound productive to me – like requiring every combinatorics paper to state the Peano axioms. I’d suggest reading some related articles (the presentation of Schrodinger’s Rapist is quite good) to get some relevant context.

          Further, I have no idea what you’re trying to get across with your talk of postmodernism. I’ve never heard anyone say that women should discover a new way of thinking because science was axiomatised by men. Sounds like woo.

  76. Maybe that’s how Richard picks up women at atheist conferences? It probably hit a nerve for him to go off like that.

    Dawkins is always going to find it hard to see how he’s wrong because there are so many people who think he’s always right and whatever comes out of his mouth is gospel. I’ve seen this before, I was a mormon!

    More rational rationalists please!

    Oh in other Dawkins news, he’s been ordered by a Judge to pay monetary sanctions to the defendants and ordered him to produce documents he’s withholding (http://dawkinssuestimonen.com). You’d think they’d be handy if you’re going in to legal action against someone!?

    Keep rational guys, always look for the evidence!

    Keep up the good work Rebecca. Seems Dawkins’ days are numbered. He’s a dinosaur.

  77. Here are Phil’s own words, replacing the context with race & robbery instead of sex. See how this sounds.

    “Being alone in an elevator with a black person late at night is uncomfortable for any white person, even if the black person is silent. But when the black person mentions money? There’s no way to avoid a predatory vibe here, and that’s unacceptable. A situation like this can lead to a mugging; I just read in the news here in Boulder that a few days ago a relatively innocent situation turned into assault. This isn’t some rare event; it happens a lot and most white people are all-too painfully aware of it.
    I can understand that it’s hard for black people to truly grasp the white person’s point of view here, since black people rarely feel in danger of being robbed by whites. But Jen McCrieght’s post, and many others, make it clear that to a white person, being alone on that elevator with that black person was a potential threat, and a serious one. You may not be able to just press a button and walk away — perhaps the black person has a knife, or a gun, or will simply overpower you. When there’s no way to know, you err on the side of safety. And what makes this worse is that most black people don’t understand this, so white people are constantly put into situations ranging from uncomfortable to downright scary.”

    Ergo, black people had better take special care to be less black, because black people are scary.

    1. your comparison doesn’t hold up. Black people have not traditionally held a position of power over white people, whereas men have traditionally held a position of power over women.

      1. You don’t need a position of power to rob someone. In fact the people with no power who become desperate are usually the ones who turn to crime.

        Given the disproportionate amount of criminals who are black the comparison absolutely holds up.

        1. I wish I could frame this and show it to anyone making the ‘what if he was black’ argument who might not yet realize that he or she is racist.

    2. While it’s nice to justify your privilege denial by twisting of words and intent, there is a key difference in what you’ve done in your substitutions.

      You have taken a class that has a history of privilege and centuries of documented discrimination of oppressing others and replaced it with a class of people who have historically been an oppressed party. You have thus twisted the argument into one historically used to justify African American’s lower status in society. Congratulations.

      Now if you had substituted “men” with “white people,” “women” with “black people” and “sexism” with “racism” you would have successfully transmuted Shroedinger’s Rapist to Shroedinger’s Racist. Do you see the difference?

      1. It’s not as clear as you think.
        A lot of white women are still racist.
        A lot of them are also scared of men of color.

      2. “While it’s nice to justify your privilege denial by twisting of words and intent,”

        He used the OP’s logic and replaced it with another prejudiced fear people have.

        ” and replaced it with a class of people who have historically been an oppressed party.”

        We’re talking about muggings, being in an oppressed party does not prevent them from being muggers. Quite the opposite it could make them desperate and more likely to commit a crime.

        “You have thus twisted the argument into one historically used to justify African American’s lower status in society.”

        Yeah an irrational fear of blacks just like the OP has an irrational fear of women.

        “Now if you had substituted “men” with “white people,” “women” with “black people” and “sexism” with “racism” you would have successfully transmuted Shroedinger’s Rapist to Shroedinger’s Racist. Do you see the difference?”

        So now you’re going to defend black people being afraid of all white people beating them up?

        1. Meant the OP has an irrational fear of men.

          But the point is being afraid of people on the basis of gender or race or whatever is prejudiced and should be looked down on as the stupid belief that it is.

    3. When a person gets robbed, it’s generally agreed that the robber is the one at fault.

      When a woman is raped, she is questioned about her sexual past, what she’s been wearing, if she asked him to put on a condom, why she was alone in a secluded place with him, if she had been drinking and any number of possible other intrusive and irrelevant questions. If she cannot produce proof that the sexual encounter was non-consensual, he will be let off the hook. This happens now, in 2010.

      Women, unfortunately, are held responsible for other people’s horrible behavior and until that changes, they have every right to be suspicious of a situation that could put them at serious risk.

  78. I teach self-defense, and a question like you got in a closed space from a stranger sounds just like “interviewing” which is a method of lowering a victim’s guard and getting close before an assault. It is designed to look like an innocent question or request; that is how it works. I would have been creeped out as well.
    You never said the guy was a rapist, you just said that this was an example of the type of behavior that keeps women out of the atheist movement, so….I don’t get the outrage.

  79. Rebecca,

    This is an excellent blog item. I find a lot of things I’ve heard from men around this community to be stupidly sexist. What bothers me most is that these comments from the boys seem without malicious intent but, rather, are said out of complete ignorance. Dawkins comments, though, take it all to another level of offensive and didn’t sound like the came from a typical bafoon.

    I really didn’t know much about your history until this post. SGU led me to Skepchicks and I enjoy it quite a lot. I admire so much of the things you do, write, say, etc. and I share your pain in hearing middle aged white males who do not self-identify as having any sort of disability defending actions which make you uncomfortable. I am happy, though, to hear you putting up a fight as criticizing someone like Dawkins could potentially be seen as a bad career move.

    I am not entirely certain that throwing out Dawkins’ work is a good idea. Miles Davis was a complete shit but that doesn’t make his music any less beautiful. I know a bunch of people whose work is terrific but they are real shits in their personal lives. I don’t think we ought to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

    We minorities really need you as the spokesperson for diversity in this mostly white, mostly middle aged, mostly male world.

    Happy Hacking,
    Gonz

  80. I get Richard’s point that the issues face by women under religious and cultural oppression do dwarf the elevator incident for the atheist community. Let us give him credit for that. But I also do also wish he would have taken Rebecca’s point more seriously.

  81. As a privileged white male, I say: PLEASE, Rebecca, Jen, and others like you: Keep on pointing at my privilege, in all its many manifestations. I may not notice it the first time but I hope I won’t be dense enough to keep denying it after repeated attempts.

  82. The strawperson massacre going on here too eh?

    Ah yes, calling a creep a creep is the same as racism…I forgot!

    Well Rebecca good luck. You’ve managed to remain rational long after I’d have snapped at the obtuse behavior on display over much of this affair.

  83. Hello Skepchick + community. I hope someone can answer this question for me because I am asking with the sincere intention of having my consciousness “raised.” I am a white male atheist honestly trying to understand this issue.

    What is sexist about a man inviting a women to his room for “a drink”? I could understand being offended if a man was repeatedly making lude remarks toward you, or touching you inappropriately, but I fail to see the great harm in a question. Can someone explain this to me?

    I won’t defend Dawkin’s surprisingly stupid comments. However, I do understand his frustration that feminists seem overly concerned about “unwanted sexual attention.” You being annoyed by one man’s clueless inability to read negative signals seems like a totally separate issue from the major problems associated with sexism around the world.

    All the explanations seem focused on the fact that these advances can make women feel uncomfortable. Granted, but I fail to see the difference between this situation and any other uncomfortable social interaction. What is so terrible and sexist about expressing attraction to someone? Can someone please explain this rationally?

    1. It’s an issue of power inequity. Moreover, because it was late and she had already expressed a desire to simply got to sleep, cornering a stranger in an elevator very late at night where she has no witnesses or escape cannot be seen as an example of good faith interaction.

    2. Think about it this way, you have a bunch of candy in the back of your car and you really don’t want it and there’s a kid who probably would. Your intentions are TOTALLY innocent and you know kids like candy, so you ask him if he wants the candy and to follow you to the car.

      You have asked a child to do something that puts him at incredible risk. He cannot know your intentions he can only respond in (hopefully) a way that will keep him safe.

      If you walk up to a women who does not know you and you ask her to do something that constitutes putting herself in a risky position and you do so in a place where no one can see you and she is confined in a small space, you may not ACTUALLY be putting her at risk but you have asked her to do something that most woman know is risky and that, regardless of outcome, is a shitty thing to do.

    3. dacjames, if none of the other explanations make sense, try this one on for size:

      If you’re interested in a person as a person, as more than a vehicle for your sexual satisfaction, there are a bunch of steps you usually take in order to go from your interest in them to expressing an interest in taking the relationship to a physical level. The first step is actually having some sort of relationship with that person. That means that you actually have to talk to them, have a real conversation, be interested in finding out what they are interested in, listening and watching for cues that you’re moving too fast or not fast enough, etc.

      That’s true even if you’re hooking up with a woman at a bar for no-strings-attached sex. You’ll have some drinks together, have a conversation, joke and flirt and all those other things. You don’t have to know someone’s life story and talk about getting married in order to establish a basic rapport with them that’s deeper than simple sexual objectification. And most important is that you do your damned best to gauge the mood of the other person and make sure you both have the same intentions before you make any sort of sexual proposition. That’s just Guy-Gal 101 stuff.

      Elevator Guy didn’t bother doing ANY of that. He sat quietly and didn’t engage RW in conversation at all, for the duration of a very long night at a bar. He waited until the end of the night where she expressed an interest in going to bed. He ignored the fact that she’s vary publicly declared her lack of interest in people hitting on her at conferences. He got her alone in an elevator and tried to condense the entire “getting to know you” phase into a couple of sentences in the short time from the lobby to her floor. If he wasn’t making a sexual proposition, he was certainly moving to a more advantageous place for it.

      All of that ignoring and disregarding and trying to shortcut the process? That’s the “sexist” part, or at least enough of it that you should be able to start to get it. Expressing interest in someone as a person isn’t sexism… ignoring all the parts that make them a person and skipping to trying to get what you want is sexism.

    4. Thanks for the responses. So it seems like the problem here is choice of venue (an elevator late at night) not the actual request, correct? I agree that this guy was being a bit creepy, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the larger issue of sexism?

      @MissMarnie, I understand the point of your analogy, but what is the risky situation that you’re talking about? Do women view all private encounters with men as risky just because a tiny fraction of us are sexually abusive?

      To put my question another way, what would be sexist about telling a stranger, “Hello. I think you are beautiful. If you are looking for company tonight, stop by my room, number 205.”

    5. dacjames – First, the initial argument was that he was being creepy, not sexist. IMHO, most of the sexism has come from people defending Elevator Guy. Nobody’s arguing “great harm” – they’re arguing “creepy”. In context, it was “Why don’t more women attend these conferences? Guys who do *this*. Don’t be that guy.” I don’t see that as being disproportionate at all. The reaction to her statement? Boy howdy, yes.

      What separates Elevator Guy’s actions from ‘normal’ uncomfortable behavior, at least in my opinion, are his escalating behaviors:
      1. Not having talked to her before this moment, despite ample opportunities
      2. Waiting until she was in an isolated environment to make his approach
      3. Prefacing his remark with “Don’t take this the wrong way, but…” – which is a strong indication to me that he knew his behavior could be perceived as inappropriate, arguing against cluelessness
      4. Being a total stranger and having his first verbal interaction being a code for “Do you want to have sex?”
      5. Ignoring subtle verbal cues like the lecture on not being sexualized, or her saying that she was tired and wanted to go to sleep.

      Skepchick found this creepy and commented on it. Was it sexist? I’m sure that opinions will differ, but it seems to me that Elevator Guy put his desires – to proposition her without fear of public rejection, to have sex with someone who didn’t know him from Adam – above her clearly stated preferences.

      You’re presuming noble intent on the part of elevator guy, and explaining his creepiness with cluelessness. Another interpretation is that he doesn’t think that women’s desires and boundaries are as important as his desires and feelings. That is sexism, and is on a continuity with other behaviors that somehow relate to men’s feelings and desires being more important than women’s, or women not being considered fully people.

      1. Creepy: I agree. I never tried to defend Elevator Guy.

        Sexist: Not at all. Putting your personal desires above the wishes of another is selfish, not sexist. What if this had been one man propositioning another man?

        1. Well, if it had been a different situation, it would have been a different situation. It wasn’t, though. It was a man doing this to a woman.

          You realize that “what if it had been a man doing this to a man” invalidates every possible instance of sexism, right? A boss calling his secretary “sweet cheeks”, long-term and wide-spread pay disparities… if it’s men doing this to men, it can’t be sexist.

          As an aside – you are kind of defending Elevator Guy, by insisting that his actions were grounded in cluelessness and not for example sexual arousal from making women visibly uncomfortable. We don’t know his motivations, and neither did Skepchick. One of the problems with creepy behavior is other people can’t know how much creepy is in there.

        2. But it wasn’t a man propositioning another man. It was a man propositioning a woman in a rape culture society.

  84. Yes, sigh, I’ve been surprised by the amount of “let me explain why elevator guy was really just a shy awkward sad dude who now feels terrible and it’s really all about me if you think about it” I’ve been getting at my place.

    1. It really is astonishing how so many of those commenters choose to try to understand and apologize for the Elevator Guy, rather than simply listening to Rebecca and, you know, accepting what she has to say at face value. By the way, Ophelia, one really positive result of this discussion is that I discovered your blog!

      1. We have yet to hear from “elevator guy”. To assume he was intent on harm is to be disingenuous.

        Rebecca may well be telling the truth, of course, but we haven’t heard both sides of the story.

        Even if he did want to just have sex with her, he actually asked fairly politely. And, anyway, there is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with someone. It is not objectifying them. It is perfectly natural and normal to want to have sex with someone you are attracted to.

        When a woman wants to have sex with a man, is she objectifying him?

        Even if someone wants to have sex with someone else, purely because they are physically attracted and for no other reason and is not interested in a relationship with them, what would be wrong with that?

        1. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with someone asking someone else for sex, and no one said there was. However, doing it at 4am in an enclosed elevator after the person you’re asking talked about how she DOESN’T want propositions like that? That’s crossing some boundaries into “creepy”.

          Still not “wrong” or “OMG HE’S A CRIMINAL ARREST HIM!”, just not an effective strategy- with an added bonus of being the kind of thing that keeps women away from atheist conferences and makes EVERYONE get less sexytiems. This was all Rebecca pointed out.

          1. I don’t understand the 4 am thing. If you have a phobia about meeting people at 4 am? Don’t go out in public at 4 am. Problem solved.

        2. There need not be both sides. Rebecca was creeped out. Why must we know “both sides” in order for her feelings to be valid?

          All of your other questions depend on context. Had he made his move at the bar, probably not. At a singles mixer, definitely not. After a few drinks, some laughs, and flirting, no.

          But as a complete stranger on an elevator at 4 in the morning, creepy as f^ck.

          Women are, sadly, attacked all the time. They are creeped out more often than that. It speaks volumes that instead of taking Rebecca’s advice and going with it many want “both sides” and make excuses for (by even lax standards) is creepy behavior.

          1. Would her emotions have been valid if a black man approached her and she freaked out because of his race? or if a disabled man freaked her out because she thinks disabilities are icky? Why do you think gender profiling is a valid emotional reaction if you can see eg. race profiling is not? No doubt her emotions are what they are but we need not validate them. Indeed they could be and ought to be socially unacceptable.

    2. I, for one, find the “shy and awkward” defense hollow. It isn’t like “shy and awkward” and “creepy” are mutually exclusive. In fact, in my experience they go together most of the time.

  85. I used to come here a long time ago and didn’t stick around because of the sexism.

    And I have to laugh at your “that seemed weird” comment because from the comments at PZ’s (among other places). If guys are going to take such offence at having the treat women as equals just hire some escorts to add to the women looking to hook up and call it good.

    Congrats on making the journey.

  86. Rebecca, you do important work here. I’m glad that people like you and Jen (blaghag) are willing to wear the big targets to raise these issues. Sure, there’s been a shit-storm over this, but there’s always been some fantastic discussion around it as well.

  87. It is true that religions do tend to have more sexist views embedded in them than does the non-religious community, but clearly this is something everyone in society must contend with–including atheists. Being against female genital mutilation is great and all, but that alone doesn’t make one not sexist anymore than not being a KKK member makes a person able to say they’re not racist; we should aspire to far better than that.

    I’m noticing a pattern here with the MRAs, which other people have noticed here, too: they tend to love arguing points that haven’t actually been made–in other words, they’re huge fans of straw (wo)men. All a woman has to say is, “Please be more self-conscious about when you may come across as creepy,” and suddenly I see people respond, “Are you saying it’s NEVER okay for a man to start a conversation with a woman?! You must be crazy!”

    It’s really, really odd. And informative. But mostly odd.

  88. This story has nothing to do with skepticism, its about training women from day one to be afraid of all men because one of them might be a rapist. Do you understand what effect that mentality has on men? Seriously, people wonder why there’s been a growth in timid and shy young men (forever alones) maybe it’s because large parts of society automatically label dudes like this rapists.

    When I read the first part where she explains how the situation made her uncomfortable all I could think is “…what? Someone barely talks to you in a peaceful manner and you jump to thinking this guy is going to rape you?”
    That woman really needs to take a chill pill. I have a hard time talking to girls at the bar because of stuff like this, I can handle rejection just fine but if I slightly hint that I’m attracted to a woman and all of a sudden everyone is leering at me like a sexual fiend then I just want to avoid everything to do with that.

    1. So you think the man’s feelings trump the woman’s safety and all women should implicitly trust all men and all situations because he might be a nice guy?

      You can familiarize yourself with some of the stats on sexual assault here
      http://www.rainn.org/statistics

      Until those numbers are vastly reduced, I think it’s reasonable for women to err on the side of caution.

      1. Those statistics show that sexual assault is still extremely rare when compared to the amount on consensual sex. 213,000 sexual assaults versus about about 18.7 billion instances of consensual sex means sexual assault occurs in only .001% of cases. The 18.7 billion number comes from the following: (population of US)/2 * 121 (average number of times a person 18-29 has sex source:Kinsey Institute).

        Sexual assault is a serious issue that effects a lot of women and often goes unreported, but it’s still an extremely rare occurrence, especially with strangers. Basing our cultural rules (or your habits) around this anomaly seems irrational to me.

        1. While I agree that women shouldn’t have to live their lives in fear, that doesn’t change the sociological realities that we are expected to. If we fail to do so, take enough precautions, make ourselves “safe,” dress the right way, have the right kind/amount of sex, etc. we are blamed for our own assaults. Our rapists are allowed escape any consequences for their actions because we weren’t “careful enough.”

          Nevermind that even if we do all the right things (which according to some police department safety “guidelines” include not riding in an elevator with a man we don’t know!) we still have a high probability of rape and assault from someone we know and trust. The arguments of “prevention” always center on seeming like reasonable rather than extreme precautions to avoid an unpleasant result (i.e. rape). However, what these pieces of advice actually do is severely limit the choices, freedoms and dignity of women by tightening the confines within which we are allowed to operate. They create a framework of fear that we should live our lives in to avoid the unlikely event of a stranger rape.

          So yes, it would be great if women didn’t have to fear men they didn’t know as potential rapists. But that’s not the reality of the lives we live every single day.

        2. Ok, firstly, that’s like saying that you only end up in car crashes .1% of the time you drive so don’t worry about wearing a seat belt. Just because you are more likely to have consensual than non-consensual sex, doesn’t mean that you can be unconcerned with avoiding dangerous sexual situations. Isn’t it possible that women being cautious also helps to reduce those rates of assault?

          But if the continually climbing birthrate and sales rates of contraceptives are any indicator, there are loads of women having plenty of sex, whether in long term relationships or one night stands. If your goal is consensual sex then your first step should be to make the person feel, you know, like she has the chance to consent. I guess I don’t understand why you would be opposed to putting another person at ease if you are interested.

      2. Yes. You women are sexist when you gender profile men as “potential rapists”. You don’t get to justify your prejudices by pretending they have anything to do with safety any more than Arizona gets to pretend it really just wants to control immigration.

        1. Exactly, it’s like saying it’s Ok for someone to be afraid that black people will beat them up.

          This fear is illogical and irrational and we should not be letting it slide.

    2. You left out a lot of the backstory. 4am, elevator, events leading up to the encounter.

      Read all the comments on this blog, and then those at Blag Hag, and then those at the other blogs linked on top of this page, and then read them again.

      You’ll get it eventually. I did.

    3. It’s not a zero-sum game, brenan6. Empowering women and encouraging them to speak their minds by not shaming them into silence does not automatically result in legions of timid men. The journey to self confidence is something that everyone must take–I think you’ll find, if you try, that it is possible to express interest in someone in a non-creepy way.

    4. It isn’t women who’ve set off this (in most cases, very reasonable) attitude about safety. It’s the men who have, for centuries, molested, assaulted, attacked, and raped them. People quibble about statistics – and they’re hard to know for sure, because most sexual assaults and rapes are unreported – but a conservative estimate is that 1 in every ten women has faced sexual assault, attempted rape, or rape.

      Read the article “Schrodinger’s Rapist” (it’s been linked by PZ and many others) if you fail to understand the point of view many women share on this topic. Several guides for avoiding potential attackers specifically list elevators as places you should not enter with a strange man. Worse still, even getting to know someone better is no indicator of whether he’s capable of rape – most rapists are at least acquainted with their victims and use alcohol or vulnerable situations (like being trapped somewhere!) to make them more helpless.

      I doubt that Rebecca would have posted or said anything had this guy made his overture in the late afternoon, in a public place. But instead he asked her while completely alone with her in an elevator at 4 am, and she (reasonably) was a little creeped out/scared/worried during the few minutes it took to find out that she could get back to her room (on a probably very deserted floor, given the time of night) safely. I would have felt the same way.

      Is asking men to please not do this so unreasonable? There are still thousands of appropriate times and places to flirt with women or ask them on dates – or even for casual sex, in the right environment. Is it so limiting to take a few factors into account in order to not frighten or creep out the women you’re interested in? It would not only save women from what can feel like close-call situations, it would save some men from having their advances rejected, I’m positive.

      1. Sexist tripe calling all men rapists. Can feminists make any argument without this filth?

        1. DavidByron, your comments are quickly approaching troll-spam. I suggest you calm down, stop repeating yourself, and stop repeating every stupid claim that has thus been made (eg, “what if he was black!!!!”)

    5. I am a straight man who is confident of the fact that I’m not a rapist, and am glad to receive advice on how to avoid being thought of as one.

      And this : “Seriously, people wonder why there’s been a growth in timid and shy young men (forever alones) maybe it’s because large parts of society automatically label dudes like this rapists.
      When I read the first part where she explains how the situation made her uncomfortable all I could think is ‘…what? Someone barely talks to you in a peaceful manner and you jump to thinking this guy is going to rape you?’”

      You have just put forth a ridiculous piece of conjecture without evidence, ignored the relevant facts of Rebecca’s anecdote (4 AM, enclosed space, previously expressed desire to go to sleep). And she’s the one rejecting skeptical thinking?

    6. Excuse me? What?

      I am one of those “forever alone” types.

      It’s not anything to do with feminism. At all. I was poorly socialized like many of the geeks of my age. I’m just not accustomed to getting along in such a way that I can attract someone.

      Has Feminism directed a few things? Sure. I try to recognize when I fuck up and go to lengths to make amends(unless they don’t want to hear it; then I figure at least I’ve done due diligence on my part). I try to figure out when they’re just not interested in me before even starting the sell.

      What’s keeping me from succeeding though isn’t worrying that I’m a rapist, it’s that I’m awkward and geeky.

      But I don’t blame feminism for that.

      Sure, I think about it when I approach a woman or a guy, but it doesn’t drive every thought in my head on this matter.

      Please don’t speak for me and my kind. Ever again. Thanks.

    7. At the risk of sounding dismissive, Brenan, man up. It’s not Rebecca’s or society’s or anyone else’s fault that you have trouble talking to women.

      Treat women as equals, affording them the respect and courtesy they are due, and they won’t treat you like a creep. It’s as easy as that.

      1. Women’s emotions? Awww soooo important. Men’s emotions? Shut up, you wimp!

    8. Before I got married I talked to women all the time and never had them look at me like I was a creep. If you are getting this response, rethink your behavior.

      In my bar hopping days it was so easy to get laid by accident I still have a hard time fathoming all the “hardship” men are going through in order to meet and/or hook up with women.

  89. As someone who has (to some extent, successfully) been explaining this last incident to others in the comments on a few blogs, I sympathize with many of your feelings.

    Many, many atheist/skeptical men (and some women) seem to have extreme gut-reactions to requests that men stop doing X to women or saying X to women, and those reactions rarely include trying to fully understand the feelings and reasoning involved.

    It seems to me like the essence of being reasonable or skeptical is to first seek to understand a claim/topic and *then* examine it and come to conclusions. If the clueless commenters (like Dawkins, in this case) treated all subject matter the way they treat the concerns of women in the atheist movement, then I doubt they’d be able to make it through most college courses, let alone convincingly adopt labels like “rational” or “skeptical.”

    Maybe enough incidents, enough explanations, or enough time will finally be enough to make more people reconsider their reactions to the concerns of women, but when it comes to these fellow atheists, I’m not holding my breath.

  90. Honestly, Dawkin’s response doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve never liked his attitude and think he is incredibly harsh even to fellow skeptics/atheists.

    I subscribe to Wil Wheaton’s philosophy- “Don’t be a dick”. It’s allowed me to voice my options and talk with religious folks without coming off as militant and confrontational (two problems I think Dawkins suffers from). I’ll take a wild stab into the dark here, but I think I’ve probably made more friends/had more calm, thoughtful discussions than he has.

    There are times to scream (in a logical manner of course): vaccine debate, homeopathy, and women’s rights. So needless to say, my blood is boiled right now.

    I’ll be sharing this story and encouraging others to do so.

  91. Hi there!

    As something of a fine craftsman of bad analogies, I find that the whole “imagine being on an elevator with: [a man holding a gun/scary Black man]” analogies come off as a little weak.

    I think that a much more cogent analogy would be to imagine getting on an elevator and seeing a 6’4″, muscular leatherman complete with assless chaps, handlebar mustache, and whatever they call that harness-looking thing with the steel ring in the middle. (Like Martian Manhunter wears) You’re a heterosexual guy, it’s 4am, and he asks you back to his room for coffee. What are you afraid of, it’s just coffee, right? What, you think that JUST because he’s obviously a gay leatherman you somehow can’t TRUST him? He’s just asking you for coffee, you insecure prude.

    After politely refusing him, you go back and blog about how you were just a little creeped about by this, and next thing you know, you’ve got a respected scientist calling you a whiny Westboro-scale homophobe for being a tiny bit creeped out by the big scary gay man.

    And yes, I’m sure that there will be heterosexual men who will respond that they get cornered in elevators by guys in assless chaps all the TIME, and consider it the highest level of compliment, and don’t get even a little nervous. But this is the best bad analogy I can come up with. :(

    — Craig

    1. Here’s my somewhat more realistic analogy: Imagine that Dr. Dawkins gives a talk at a convention on atheism and spends a great deal of time talking about how many people prefer not be proselytized to by religious people once it is discovered they are atheists. After the talk, he spends some time talking and having drinks with other convention goers about the same topic. One person sits quietly and never speaks to Dr. Dawkins. Dr. Dawkins mentions he is tired and would like to go to his room. The quiet person follows Dr. Dawkins onto the elevator. Once the door closes, the person turns to Dr. Dawkins and says “Don’t take this the wrong way, but have you considered taking Jesus Christ as your personal savior? I think you’re an intelligent, good person who could be a shining light in my church if you just open up your mind to the Lord. Would you like to come up to my room and take a look at some literature?” This person is not necessarily threatening, but Dr. Dawkins doesn’t know if that person could be a religious fanatic bent on harming him. Really, he’s just more annoyed by the rudeness and cluelessness of the individual, but the potential for danger is there, as well. He politely declines the offer.

      After the conference, Dr. Dawkins makes a video where he casually mentions the incident and says that this was really quite rude, and religious people should not do that. He mentions that being proselytized to is irritating to him at all times, but in that particular situation, it was especially annoying and bound not to work. Others hear the story and add that the situation could have been perceived as threatening as well.

      Another atheist/skeptical leader writes a blog post expressing his or her support of Dawkins and advising people not to corner strangers in elevators as a “sales” tactic for their beliefs. Some other leader in the movement, someone who should be on Dr. Dawkins’s side, perhaps Chris Mooney or Phil Plait (sorry to both of them for using them as an example, but they have expressed “be nice” philosophy, so they work here), comments on the post and says that Dr. Dawkins should shut up and stop complaining because people in other countries are murdered and tortured in the name of religion, while Dawkins was merely talked to on an elevator.

      I would think that Dr. Dawkins would be quite annoyed at having his perfectly reasonable complaint both attacked and dismissed as though he were belittling the brutal victimization of other people in the name of religion simply because he dared to casually mention one religious person’s creepy rudeness.

      1. Which of course would naturally lead to a huge debate about whether it’s OK to complain about any rude behavior by religious people or whether atheists should just shut up and be nice and diplomatic, as well as hundreds of comments from religious people saying “but I’M not like that. It’s not fair to say that some religious people do bad things in the name of religion or that it’s creepy to proselytize aggressively, because that makes ME feel personally insulted!”

  92. Despite all the BS now hung around this topic it’s incredibly simple. As a guy who likes women if the very first words you ever speak to a woman are in an elevator at 4am when you’ve just heard the woman say she’s drunk/tired and going to bed are ‘come to my room for coffee’ you’re being a creep. I don’t think anybody would have cared if the guy had introduced himself at the bar, or had even said hello in the elevator, perhaps mentioned he enjoyed the talk – but no, he asks someone back to his room to stay awake with no prior interaction.

    It’s just sad, desperate, clumsy, rude and also likely to cause intimidation.

    Cmon this really isn’t rocket science. Nobody has at any point dismissed the possibility of sex, even casual sex in hotels is fine for many of us, just have a minor bit of empathy and manners.

  93. I was surprised to see Dawkins comment on this. Rebecca’s video response to the elevator incident was appropriate, and PZ’s blog post was more about the back and forth that occurred as an effect of Rebecca’s post.

    But Dawkins felt compelled to leave a comment on PZ’s blog about this. And by sarcastically contrasting Rebecca’s experience to the plight of Muslim women, he is essentially DEFENDING the elevator guy’s behavior, saying it was not at all bad.

    I think the real point to take away from Dawkins’ involvement in this issue is that the only thing he felt compelled to contribute was a statement DEFENDING the behavior of the elevator guy. If he really cares deeply about the plight of Muslim women, why wasn’t he off doing something about it, as opposed to belittling Rebecca?

    At the moment he’s busy dressing up as Marty McFly from Back to the Future III. (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642037-richard-dawkins-celebrates-4th-of-july-in-jackson-hole-wyoming)

  94. I, too, am dismayed by Dawkins’s response, not only because of its dismissive nature but also because of the clear false equivalence he put forward. It’s a sensationalistic debate practice (“how can you complain about THIS when THAT is so much worse?!?”) that I thought he was above. Strange.

    But I am reminded of an incident from my own experience that I will take as a possible parable here. About a year ago, my roommate had to use the state labor relations board to press her former employer for withheld pay, and I helped her out. My roommate had a reasonable job (PR firm), but her boss was cheap and money-grubbing, so the company probably cheated her out of $1500-2000. Now, these labor boards see the worst cases of abuse — stealing wages, work without pay, hazardous conditions, unjust termination, and more terrible things than I can rattle off, I’m sure. To them, my roommate’s case probably seemed like privileged whining. Just LOOK AT HOW BAD some others here have it! They gave it short shrift, but did issue a half-half ruling eventually.

    My point is, perhaps Dawkins has spent so much time worrying about the effect of religion on the downtrodden and impoverished that he gives short shrift to the genuine issues women have all over the world, including in the skeptical community itself. Just LOOK AT HOW BAD some people have it. Of course, that argument is rarely justified and must be considered carefully. In this case, he’s wrong. I hope he will realize it sooner than later.

  95. Hi, first-time commenter here, but I’ve been deep in the discussions in a few other places so I can at least address where the rape talk came from. Initially it was all about the fact that the whole elevator situation was a bit unsettling. But then guys kept asking why and saying they didn’t understand why this situation was at all unusual, and the more they repeated the question the explanations went from “because it’s threatening” to “it’s threatening because we’re taught not to go into elevators with strange men at night” to “because sometimes bad things happen when women are alone with strange men in inescapable places” to giving rape statistics and talking about how women are taught to always be wary and on their guard as a way of rape avoidance because it is so common. And for some reason, there were a lot of people who continually insisted on reading those explanations as a declaration that women go around thinking that all men are rapists. Nobody ever accused the guy in the elevator of being a rapist, or that Rebecca assumed that he was one, besides the people who were disingenuously misrepresenting what other people had said.

    Also, Rebecca, you’re fantastic.

  96. Hi Rebecca,

    I’m honestly — and I emphasize honestly — curious about some more details regarding this incident.

    PZ accused the man who confronted you in the elevator of not being a “decent human being”, said that he harassed you, and accused him of “loutish behavior”. Others, both in the comment sections on Pharyngula and in other blogs, have accused him of much worse.

    I’m curious if you feel that this is appropriate characterization of the man that spoke to you in the elevator.

    I’m curious because my intial reaction, upon hearing your story, was quite the opposite. Here’s why.

    I have mild social anxiety, and I’ve always self-identified as an introvert. It caused me untold difficulties as a child and as a teen; as an adult, I’m much more comfortable in my own skin. It was with this background, then, that my assumption upon hearing your story, was that the man in the elevator probably spent all night trying to muster up the courage to talk to you, and just happened to choose a particularly bad spot to finally find it. It’s difficult to work up that courage anyway, and especially so in a group setting. So, I can imagine him waiting for the right time, never finding it, and then thinking that a good chance to speak to you one-on-one was in that elevator. And perhaps alcohol impaired his judgment.

    I imagined that because I can imagine myself doing the same thing. And having imagined myself doing that, even though I’d recognize it as a mistake almost immediately, I’d be mortified and angry and confused at being labeled a lout, a harasser and an indecent human being for such an honest mistake.

    But, I later realized that it’s possible I’m just imagining that as the scenario. The man in the elevator might not be a socially-inept but benign guy; he could have just as easily been a rude jerk who knowingly took advantage of a woman in a vulnerable situation.

    That’s why I was baffled when, initially, the comments — especially from PZ — were so quick to excoriate the elevator man (although I note that you were *not* one of the people who attacked him, and I think your comments in the initial video were perfect in tone and message). I can see how someone who naturally assumed the opposite — that the man knowingly took advantage of a woman in a vulnerable situation — might have had the opposite initial reaction.

    That is, I think, the crux of the problem. Some people are empathizing with what they perceive to be the man in the elevator — awkward, unsure and (probably unbeknownst to himself) creepy, but wholly benign. And others are empathizing with what they perceive you to have been — threatened and made uncomfortable. But no one can correctly perceive the situation, because none of us were there, and no one has the full details.

    So, was it a poorly thought-out but well-intentioned expression of interest, or was it a creepy, threatening proposition in an elevator?

    I suspect it might have been both. I suspect that the man in the elevator (perhaps too inebriated to be thinking clearly), made what he thought was an innocuous proposition, and perhaps you, quite naturally from your perspective and past, interpreted the proposition as at best rude, or even threatening.

    Of course, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

    Out of everyone that has weighed in on this, only you (and the man from the elevator) have anything worthwhile to say on that question.

    To reiterate, I thought the comments you made in your initial video were perfect in tone and message. But almost everything that has followed (from PZ, from Phil Plait, from Jen McCreight, and certainly from commenters) has been a disaster, and I think it’s in large part because people are lacking in perspective. It’s all to easy to see things from only one perspective, and be totally unable to comprehend the other side.

    I don’t think most people is maliciously or willfully ignoring your concerns, or vice versa — I just think they’re caught up in their own interpretation of the event. (Of course, some people are using this incident to further their own agenda, but I don’t think that’s the majority).

    As an aside, thanks for reading this far, if you’ve made it here.

    In the end, I hope you don’t forever put Dawkins on your life’s ignore list, and I hope he in turn realizes that you have and had a valid point to make. It’s distressing to see so much vitriol and anger within the ranks of atheists, skeptics and freethinkers.

    Thanks much for being a voice for skepticism and atheism, and for pushing past all of the ugliness you have to endure.

    1. Overall, this is the best take on the whole thing that I have seen and matches perfectly my own thinking. Above all, Rebecca was THERE.

    2. Good post!

      And as far as your comment about it possibly being both and innocuous pass and threatening creepy behavior, it very probably was. And that is the point.

      He may not have intended to be creepy, but he was. Hence it being a good thing for Rebecca to mention it after the fact. To say something at the time may have made a bad situation worse, but pointing it out later gives many who would consider doing the same thing an opportunity to learn a lesson and skip the rejection.

      Truly a win-win, but the mansplaining starts and it is her fault and I can’t get laid because of feminism and there are women worse off and why should anyone worry about this and blah blah blah. Quelle drag.

  97. I’ve learned a great deal the past couple of days, about both womens’ plight in the world and how even the men who aren’t mouth-foaming misogynists make it worse.

    If nothing else comes of this debacle, you can at least say it brought attention to the attitudes and behaviors that make life difficult for women to previously utterly clueless men such as myself.

    To quote a character from an action video series my friends are working on: “Stand up; on your knees, nothing changes.”

    1. And I’m glad to hear that people have learned from this giant mess. It’s nice to have people not normally involved in feminist causes involved and thinking about where we still need to go.

      The important thing to remember about being involved and speaking out is that it’s not just malicious sexist assholes that perpetuate the status of inequality that we call the patriarchy/kyriarchy, but simple daily things that all of us, men and women both, allow to slide that keep true equality from gaining traction.

  98. I’m glad such a strong person is speaking out about feminism and this long series of unfortunate events. I was surprised to read what Dawkins wrote, but I’ve never really heard him speak on such topics. It’s a shame he hasn’t broken out of his childhood indoctrination with all of his brain power.

  99. I’d guestimate that this topic is getting around one comment per minute, currently. Although I’m disappointed by Dawkins and McGraw’s stance, I am strongly embiggened to see such passion about such an imporant issue.

    1. Yes, that’s true. If nothing else, at least there’s probably a whole bunch of people who *may* be reconsidering previously held [misogynistic] convictions. One can only hope.

  100. Sorry – guys saying women being cautious are the reason for shyness and timidity in men is laughable bullshit.

    I talk to girls in bars and hook up no problem. The elevator guy routine is more akin to driving up to a girl outside a club, winding down the window and asking her to get in the back seat. It’s a dick move. Don’t do it.

    At no point has anybody told men sex is outlawed or all men are rapists. It’s simply a fact that women are sexually assaulted and objectified more than men. Women have to be cautious and men can be aware of themselves and their actions.

    Again self awareness is not rocket science.

    1. “Sorry – guys saying women being cautious are the reason for shyness and timidity in men is laughable bullshit.
      I talk to girls in bars and hook up no problem.”

      Ok… thats you. Are you so focused on yourself that you cant possibly see how another person would feel (the exact purpose of this article)

      1. Nope. Total fail.

        Seriously, that post is so off base it isn’t even wrong.

        1. If someone is blaming Women for poor timid men being unable to get a date, then yeah, it is.

    2. In fact men are assaulted at a much higher rate than women are. Women just bitch and whine about it more, despite being the safest demographic. This is a typical pattern of privilege. As the more privileged sex women complain more, but their complaints are petty in nature. Similarly white people are more likely to complain than black, rich more likely to complain than poor.

  101. First, I must say I admire your site and respect what you have to say. But on this one issue, we will diverge. By your own account, the man was polite, not aggressive, or insistent. The worst you could say was that he was “creepy” whatever that means to you.

    You only see this from your own perspective. I expected more from you. Consider that this person considered you attractive and hoped to get to know you better. Also, he may have been socially unskilled, or awkward and inexperienced. But, by your own words, he did not come across as crass or threatening.

    Rebecca, you overreacted and came across as a “feminazi” to borrow a term from the Limburgher man.

    Next time, accept as a compliment that someone would like to at least have an opportunity with you and does it in a polite, non-threatening manner.

    To your credit, you politely declined, but then you publicly trashed a stranger who had done you no harm.

    That has not done your image any good with me and others.

    Then you continue to trash Richard Dawkins for speaking his mind. Apparently you can approve of him until he says one thing that you don’t like. Then you are finished with him forever. That really sounds like a theist response instead of one from an open-minded, reasonable atheist.

    Should everyone that doesn’t exactly agree with you on this issue revile you in public and dismiss everything else you have done or will do? That seems to be your approach so you are giving everyone else permission to treat you the same way.

    1. James, you’re being the poster boy for Not Getting It. Go read the 3000+ comments at Pharyngula on this, or at Ophelia’s website. What you just wrote was echoed by dozens of other people, and resoundingly refuted by 10 times that many. And actually watching the video before commenting on it might be a good way to ease in to that task.

    2. God, yes. A skeptic grows in strength by considering alternate view points. Someone who reacts to a former ally having the very slightest disagreement with a banishment / call to boycott is the exact opposite of a skeptic. They are deeply dogmatic.

  102. Rebecca,

    Your writing-off of MGM because FGM is really really bad, made me angry. In fact it was extremely similar to Richard Dawkins’ argument against your offense at being asked for coffee in an elevator in the middle of the night.

    “Something else is worse, so STFU!”

    To boycott Dawkins for being insensitive to you or the concerns of female atheists, seems really hypocritical. He’s still a brilliant man, who writes great books. But you’re both human, and you both get things wrong. I think he should apologize. But I don’t need that before I enjoy him for what he’s good at.

    Similarly, I wouldn’t boycott you because of one offensive opinion or insensitivity. If I did, I wouldn’t write you now. And I would have missed out on many of your great talks.

    And more so, I wouldn’t threaten violence/rape over it, either, no matter how furious I felt. I’m horrified that others would, and I sincerely hope that people who would make those kinds of threats are in the minority. (Though that obviously doesn’t make it right.)

    As an adult male, I’ve lost of interest in atheist meet-ups, because they were overwhelmingly male. And that’s not because I want to hit on anyone.

    During one occasion, there was an atheist meet-up in a coffee shop where a Religious group was present in an adjacent room. The all male atheists claimed that religious women are more subservient. That may be true. But they had expressions of shame when I pointed out that their meet-up (in that case) has no women at all.

    This is obviously a problem within the so-called movement, and I’m glad that a discussion is taking place. I’m also glad that you’re making noise, and provoking more people to talk about these issues.

    Note: (Hitting on people is not something I generally do no matter whatever the occasion. Unless you hit me over the head with interest, I generally assume you’re not interested.)

    1. Please don’t come to my blog and lie, because it’s really not worth your effort. I never – NEVER – “wrote off” MGM. I said I disagreed with it. I feel it should be illegal. Do not misrepresent my position on my own god damn site.

    2. The MGM/FGM issue isn’t really comparable. Rebecca acknowledged that genital mutilation is bad, regardless of the sex of the child. That’s not what Dawkins did. He didn’t acknowledge her at all: he explicitly said that Rebecca had absolutely no reason to complain, that the elevator pickup was a “zero bad” issue. Shut up and go away, basically.

  103. James,

    Essentially what you are saying is that Rebecca must be okay with and accept any man who wants to approach her at any time, if even just to ‘compliment her’. I hope you see the issue with this.

    She did not say the man was a horrible serial rapist pedophile anti-Semitic puppy-kicker, she simply said that his behavior made her uncomfortable and that men should be more mindful of when their behavior is inappropriate.

    It was also never stated that people couldn’t rebuke her points — is that not what you’re doing now? Is that not what Richard Dawkins did? She is by no means censoring those who disagree, and yet you are essentially saying she has no right to speak out against the criticism she’s faced. It simply doesn’t make sense.

  104. I haven’t read all the comments, and I’m sure this has been said but I felt I had to register and repeat it. I’m a huge Dawkins fan, and that note just turned my stomach upside down. It’s disappointing when one of your idols turns out to be a giant ass. At least I’ve got someone to replace him with. Thanks Rebecca, been a big fan of you on SGU and I’ll be sure to add skepchick to my blogroll.

    I haven’t been to any conferences or even know many atheists/skeptics personally. I’m just a person on the sidelines, but I appreciate your work. Thanks!

  105. All of this discussion is because RD threw down a massive strawman – because, Rebecca, nowhere did your narrative about the events come across in the manner he portrayed them. That is the first thing he should recognize. The second thing he needs to understand is that this backlash is real and is not because people are just trying to be PC. This discussion is about sexual harassment, misogyny, and sexism. And a good example of sexism is throwing down massive strawmen to belittle the experience of women (or a woman in this case). Keep fighting the good fight Rebecca!

  106. Daviddavid – you really aren’t getting this empathy thing are you?

  107. I normally hate to make “me too” posts, but I want to at least add my support. I hope you are able and willing to keep up your good work.

  108. On twitter, Rebecca, you retweeted the following exchange:

    AnElectricMonk: yes Dawkins could have handled his comment better. But compare his books and ideas to yours. Dawkins wins. undeserved vitriol

    tkingdoll: Oh I totally never thought of that. Yeah, Dawkins wins. You should get back in your elevator.

    Thing is (please hear me out here), AnElectricMonk is right. Not, I think, in the sense he intended, but in the sense that Dawkins has a voice that reaches well beyond the skeptic and atheist communities and into the world at large. His books didn’t become bestsellers because skeptics bought them, they did so because the rest of the world bought them. He’s the one invited to public debates broadcast to millions. He’s the one invited to appear on O’Reilly.

    Over the past week or so, as I’ve been following all this, I’ve worried that our community can’t afford to be split. This piece is very powerful, and you’ve done a good job of convincing me (and I hope others) that Dawkins and many others of his generation do indeed represent the past, and that perhaps we’ve reached a point where we can’t afford NOT to be split.

    You’ve drawn a pretty clear line in the sand here, with Dawkins and others standing on the “past” side of it. The problem is, unless we’re all going to fade back into obscurity as an ignored minority, we’re going to need people LIKE Dawkins – in terms of their ability to reach the public at large – to stand on the “future” side of that line. The younger part of the community seems to rely almost entirely on the web, and skeptical conferences – neither of which has much reach at all outside the self-selected audience. Who is going to write the bestsellers? Who is going to appear on the old media that, much as we on the web may pretend otherwise, still reaches a far broader audience than blogs and social media? Who is going to capture newspaper headlines that will be seen in checkout stands and vending machines by non-skeptics as they go about their daily business?

    I’m not saying we need Dawkins for these things. I’m saying we need SOMEBODY (preferably a number of somebodies) with the resources, time, eloquence and charisma to fill the role he, and a few others like him, currently fill.

    1. And I’m telling you we have those people. PZ Myers, for example.
      .
      I refuse to support people who do not believe I have a right to speak out for myself and other women, regardless of whether or not ‘the movement’ benefits. The movement can burn if it gladly accepts and apologizes for sexism.

      1. I really appreciate how PZ Myers brings up issues of sexism and writes about them. Also, I agree with you that we can’t sacrifice equal rights for “the movement”; there’s no reason why we can’t criticize religion and also hold our own group(s) accountable for sexism within them.

      2. PZ may become such a person. You may well become such a person. And by no means am I trying to say that you (or anyone) should continue to support Dawkins in the meantime (I’m sorry if it seemed that I was, that was not at all my intent).

        I’m not saying “we have nobody else to fill that role, so we’re stuck with him.” I’m saying, “we’d better, as a community, start having a serious conversation about the people who are going to fill that role, and how we can make it happen.” Because it isn’t just going to happen on its own. Organizing these communities is like herding cats, and it’s going to take organization and a lot of people in the community to make it possible for PZ and/or you and/or whoever is willing and able to fill this role to do the things that other people have the fame and money to do with their own resources.

      3. I have only just recently realised I am a skeptic but if the movement *needs* people like Dawkins then I am out.

        1. Not like him as in similar to him, particularly given recent events. Like him as in able to do what he does – communicate effectively to large numbers of people outside the skeptical and atheist communities.

          It’s obviously important for us to communicate within the communities (and clearly this has all shown that we need to get a hell of a lot better at listening). But if that’s all we do – and if the old perspective that Dawkins represents continues to be the main one presented to the rest of the world – we’re not going to see much change.

      4. “I refuse to support people who do not believe I have a right to speak out for myself and other women, regardless of whether or not ‘the movement’ benefits. The movement can burn if it gladly accepts and apologizes for sexism.” (Rebecca Watson)

        Hear hear, Rebecca. I’d already been feeling unexpectedly frustrated by the sheer ugliness of so many of the comments here and on the other blogs in the last few days, and was planning to put together some kind of statement on my own (recently started) secular humanist blog. Then Richard stepped in, identity confirmed, and I felt absolutely drained of will. Despite some of the valuable and laudable things that were said by PZ, Phil and Hemant, among many others, I found myself almost literally stunned by the blank compassionless pervasiveness of it all, and I am far from naive when it comes to misogyny and male privilege. My wife and I had a long talk about it, which clarified my perspective without lifting my spirits much.

        But here you are again, and others like you or becoming so, already beating back the accusations of distracting and dividing “the movement,” as have so many who have worked so hard to “raise the consciousness” (as Richard is fond of saying in his own feminism/atheism parallels) of so many other movements. A humanism that denies anyone her full humanity is one I want no part of. You’ve reminded and reassured me that we need not settle for that, and that “the movement” — the one actually worth giving a damn about — is in good hands.

        I’m going to let this comment stand as my own statement over at EffectualAgents.wordpress.com. Thanks for giving me a reason to say it.

      5. Woah! Considering your forcible reaction to (allegedly) being mischaracterised above, you sure don’t mind mischaracterising others.

    2. Look, Dawkins isn’t going anywhere. If Rebecca were passing around a petition trying to get Dawkins banned from events or calling for a boycott of his books, I would be opposed to that. But she is merely saying that she is going to stop buying his books, attending his lectures.

      Is that going to prevent O’Reilly from having him on his show to shout at? No. Rebecca Watson is not dividing the movement.

      1. I realize he’s not going anywhere. But if the “old guard” voices remain the go-to sources for the media and the main presences on the bookshelves, without serious new alternatives, it doesn’t seem to me as if much changes.

        Perhaps most people are OK with that, and in a couple weeks everything is business as usual, except that the Dawkins Foundation has a few less monthly checks.

    3. I don’t think the idea that having a single Dawkins figure we must all line up behind is good for the movement. What I’ve started to see recently that’s given me some hope is that a greater plurality of strong voices is emerging. No one of them could be said to speak for the entire atheist community, but that also means that when outsiders point at atheism and say “this guy is what it means to be atheist” I can say, proudly and truthfully, that it is just one way to be an atheist and that there are others.

      I do acknowledge that part of this is due to work by Dawkins and others like him. He’s been extremely important in terms of helping foster an atmosphere where people feel much more open to declare themselves as atheists, for example. He’s not how I came to atheism, though, and he doesn’t define the entire movement for me.

  109. I’m a habitual lurker but I’ll come out just this once to say thank you, Rebecca!

  110. Really wish I was going to TAM now. This one looks like it’s gonna be extra fun with the Great Elevator Wars.
    That said, throw my name on any letter or petition to Dawkins you like. Am still in shock over his comments and don’t think I’ll be recovering from it anytime soon.

  111. “I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists. I believe that day has nearly arrived.”

    Rebecca, I really appreciate that you do not hesitate to point out sexism in a group that you yourself are part of. It’s easy to point out what other groups are doing wrong, but more difficult when you’re criticizing people who are members of your own group. I’ve never been to an atheist convention, but I wish I had your courage to talk about feminism so openly despite the criticism and even hate that you face. (The parts about people wishing horrible things would happen to you are particularly disturbing, especially considering that one of the things that atheists regularly criticize religious people for is wishing that their enemies will be punished horribly by God.) I hope that your efforts are successful in gaining equality.

    I’m fortunate in my life (living in the US, middle-class) but having grown up in a Muslim family (even one like mine that was not extreme) I’ve always thought that feminism was necessary, given the discriminatory attitudes that I heard, especially in Sunday school and from family friends who are more conservatively religious. Whenever someone would try to claim that feminism is no longer needed, I would feel like telling them that not everyone is as fortunate as they are, not everyone grew up in the same kind of family or community they did.

    As Jen wrote above, I’m not quite ready to give up on Dawkins or stop reading his books (since if I didn’t read books by people I disagree with, I wouldn’t read anything at all) but he has lost a significant measure of respect.

  112. Dacjames – you may need a statistics refresher since you just conflated wholly incompatible figures.

  113. I’ve said it in a prior post and I’ll say it again, thank you for posting about this Rebecca. If not for your recount of EG and request that men consider try to respect women, I’d never have seen the shockingly high numbers of posters excusing the sexism and dismissing the concerns of women. It saddened and appalled me at first, then infuriated me. Now I feel more aware and empowered to push for my rights as a woman.

  114. Rebecca, you’re an awesome person. We’ve already got more than enough Richard Dawkinses, but what we really need is a couple dozen more like you!

    What makes this blowup so frustrating to me is that the atheist movement and the feminist movement have so much to gain from working together. We both want to fight oppressive, patriarchal religious traditions that deny basic rights to humankind in general and women especially. The more success that one movement enjoys, the more the other is likely to benefit as well. We have every reason in the world to pool our resources and learn from each other. And yet, there’s a thick and ugly streak of sexism in the atheist community that surfaces every time women ask for the equal rights and equal consideration that are no more than their due. I still believe this can be overcome, but it’s not going to be easy. Nevertheless, I want to be part of the solution, and if there are sides here, I count myself firmly on yours.

    What makes this all the more baffling, and disappointing, is that Richard Dawkins should have been one of the people who gets it. He’s the one who’s written so eloquently about the importance of consciousness-raising, about carefully choosing our language even in something so simple as “child of Christian parents” rather than “Christian child”. And yet, somehow, he’s completely fallen down on the job when it comes to sexism and male privilege. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson writing that “the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred”, while at the same time owning slaves. How can a person who’s done so much good in other respects not see the glaring contradiction in his own words?

  115. My first comment ever on Skepchick to say how sad I am that someone as brilliant as Dawkins is having such a bad mental block on this topic. I don’t think I’m ready yet to renounce buying his books, but this is really something I wouldn’t have expected from him.

  116. I became and atheist over a long period of time during which I did not think I needed to be an atheist because I was already a non-believer. Wasn’t non-belief enough? Why did I need a more disciplined approach to this non-belief? I think you all know why.

    I became a feminist over a long period of time during which I did not think I needed to be a feminist because I already respected women. Wasn’t it enough that I liked and respected women? I think you know why a language to describe the differences between how men are viewed and treated is needed.

    Us old white guys really need to see our own privilege and observe how it plays out as we interact with others. We can’t simply make privilege go away at the snap of a finger, but we can support those who work at eroding it. I try.

  117. It was really awesome meeting everyone during SkepchickCon (and to help out at the party) and count me in as another “heck yeah”, “keep fighting the good fight”, and other assorted positive phrases and such! We need voices like yours to point out the privilege over and over and frickin’ over again.

    1. Niki! Jamie and I were just talking about you, we’d like to friend you on Facebook if you’re on there. Hit the “contact us” at the top of the page to send an email, or if you’re on twitter, feel free to DM me & Jamie (Amandable and UAJamie respectively)

  118. Ok read about this over on Phil Plait’s site then came here and did some reading and registered.
    The Verdict?
    Yeah the dude was creepy (or clueless, which I doubt), and you have every right to feel exactly as you did.
    First of all, this guy JUST met you. If he wanted to have coffee and a chat, you do that in a public place, not ask someone to come up to your hotel room. What woman in her right mind would GO to the hotel room, unless they too were looking for something different? That is an odd thing to ask in an enclosed elevator to a total stranger, and you are perfectly justfied in feeling the way you do.
    As for Dawkins, well everyone is entitled to their opinion…

  119. Rebecca, I came across this story of the elevator man on Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy site. I am actually shocked at some of the comments dismissing your experience/feelings, and totally supporting Dawkins. I have never been a fan of Dawkins. Yes, he is intelligent, but IMHO he comes across as boorish and ignorant. In this case, he was wrong, wrong, wrong! You have nothing to apologize for, keep speaking up.

  120. It’s sad to hear that someone I very recently looked up to has been so callous regarding the issue at hand. I’m on the fence on how to proceed RE: the Dawkins Dilemma, but he certainly has some ‘splainin’ to do.
    also, the vast overwhelming majority of the people who make these “i don’t get it: he just hit on her, he didn’t try to rape her or anything…” comments are missing the greater point: if a woman feels unsafe, it’s not up to the people around her to say whether or not she should or should not feel safe or unsafe, it’s completely and totally 100% up to her. also, the smaller point: Rebecca never said he was a rapist or toucher or anything like that: she said he was a bonehead who missed the point after she had just said she didn’t want to be hit on etc.
    Emphasis on Feminism and Women’s Rights is incredibly important in this community, because who else is going to talk about it? Feminism as an ideal is absolutely necessary for the advancement of humanity, there’s no two ways about it. if you believe nonsensical, dark age ideas about women, you cannot truly call yourself a freethinking person, it’s just not possible. it’s like Dawkins himself has said about evolution: whether you like it or not, it’s a fact. this is exactly the same thing. shouting down Feminists and trivializing their concerns does not make said concerns false.

    p.s.- not that anyone is asking, but i’m a man, and i consider myself an avowed Feminist.

  121. Just another old white heterosexual (definitely not rich) man who is totally in support of your stance. Dawkins has exposed himself for all to see. His defense of class privilege goes way back to his unprincipled attacks on S. J. Gould.

  122. Below is an email that I wrote in support of Rebecca, that I’ve sent to some of the contact addresses at the RDF website. Keep up the good work!

    Hi RDF,

    I have no idea how to contact Richard, I doubt my voice would make it through what must be a very busy inbox, So I’m sending my message here. If it is worthy, please forward it on.

    The following link is a recent news story about a Canadian woman who was raped in a hotel while at a conference in Houston Texas. In this case the victim was not assaulted in an elevator, but was stalked to her room at 11pm where she was forced inside and raped.

    The Houston police did nothing. The Toronto police tried to help her but nothing happened. Only after an officer she personally knew in Toronto looked into the case and persistently raised hell with the Houston police did anything happen to finally bring the criminal to justice. Three years later. The effort required was significant enough that the Toronto police officer received an award for her actions.

    The rapist was the hotel manager, with full access to the entire hotel. He has likely raped others. In such cases the rapist is protected by the fact that it’s her word against his, with no witnesses. He has the woman’s embarrassment and shame to protect him.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1015380–toronto-police-officer-fights-for-justice-after-woman-raped-in-texas?bn=1

    In my opinion, Richard’s comment on the Pharyngula blog, stating that escape from an elevator is as easy as pushing a button to stop the elevator on the next floor is very short sighted and unrealistic. He seems to be making the common mistake of assuming that everyone (including the rapist) is as rational as he considers himself to be. Did Richard not even think that a woman could be incapacitated in an elevator? That a man could just say “Oh, she just had too much to drink, I’m getting her back to our room” to stop the concerns of people in the halls?

    I understand that Richard is a man molded by the times and environment he has lived in, that it is probably not his intention to appear sexist, and that there certainly are cases of people (men and women) apparently being overly concerned about seemingly trivial occurrences. But this is not one of those times.

    Richard’s archaic way of thinking is no longer acceptable. Rebecca Watson deserves a public apology.

    Thank you,
    Ken

  123. I, for one, welcome our new “Captain Planet-type superhero” Rebecca.

    Seriously: long-time reader/lurker just registering to say thank you for increasingly and consistently taking the hard & high road of not letting this stuff pass, and of putting yourself on the line as a needed and valued leader.

    You are made of awesome and a bunch of women you don’t even know have your back.

    I have no doubt you’re making things better for the women who come after you, too.

  124. I’ve listened to Rebecca’s video and read the post above three times through slowly and I’m still not really sure what I am supposed to “get.” The incident in the elevator sounds unfortunate. I certainly can’t and won’t argue with Rebecca’s self-report about how the incident made her feel. Other than creepy guys can make women feel uncomfortable and/or threatened what am I supposed to take away from this? a) Men shouldn’t hit on women? b) Men shouldn’t hit on strange women? c) Men shouldn’t hit on strange women in elevators? My opinion is that unsolicited sexual advances are always crass so I’d vote for a,b, and c, but that’s my opinion. I wouldn’t accuse someone who disagreed with me of “not getting it”. I would just say they disagreed with me.

    It would be very helpful if someone would state it short declarative sentences exactly what we are supposed to get. Maybe I have it already. I certainly disagree with Richard, but I can’t see it as anything other that a difference of opinion. If there is a path to certainty or objective truth on this it eludes me.

    1. If you’re looking for a point to get, I suggest: men should not feel entitled to push a woman sex in a situation where they hold disproportionate power.

      1. Small correction, should read “push a woman to give them sex.”

    2. You may take away from this that women at conferences are interested in the topic of the conference in the first place and most of them are not there to find a mate.
      You also may take away that sitting around mute all evening and then back invite the other person into ones hotel room with the first sentence one ever spoke to the other person is creepy.

      Maybe I’m wrong but I think this wasn’t supposed to be a big deal, just a polite call at everyones self awareness. It became a big deal because of the outrageous reactions of some guys including (I’m really really sorry for this!) Richard Dawinks.

    3. I think they are saying men should never talk to women. Or breath. Or ever get in an elevator that a woman might want to get into afterwards.

  125. Rebecaa, I agree with your main point (and no “but”).

    On a side topic: I find your privilege description odd. I think your privileges as a white, western, semi-famous, probably soon be rich (very much deserved!) woman are much closer to RD’s than they are to the average or median. So while he is super privileged, the difference to you is not that huge (relative to the full spectrum). I think your comment doesn’t reflect that.

  126. Rebecca, I never knew much about you before this; I had vaguely heard of skepchick, but had never checked your blog out before. Then this epic shitstorm showed up on Metafilter, where I do hang out a lot, and holy cow–it was so upsetting and startling to see “allies” bend over backwards to fight for some dude’s right to mack on you in the elevator. As though it were up there with the right to assembly or something.

    Anyway, I see that sexism in the atheist community made you a feminist; it has certainly drawn this feminist’s attention to that community and to the idea that maybe I need to hang out there more and point out the obvious truths. Like you did.

  127. You don’t hit on someone you just met in an enclosed space at 4 am. Its just creepy and weird. Easy for me to understand really.

  128. I listen to you on SGU and watch you on Twitter, and you’re basically my fav lady on a podcast ever even though I’ve never commented to say as much, but this situation sort of makes me need to comment. I’m glad you speak out and I’m glad you’re trying to explain. Don’t stop talking. Some people are listening.

  129. Rebecca,

    I’ve read your blog posts and PZ’s posts and many of the comments. I’ve read Richard Dawkins’ comments and am confused and disappointed by them.

    I have much in common with Richard. I also am old, heterosexual, white and male. Unlike Richard I am not wealthy and also unlike him I do get it. I get your original point. Elevator Male was totally out of order – however benign his intentions might have been that night. Better he had chosen to leave you the elevator and taken the stairs.

    What I don’t get is why you are abandoning Dawkins and his work. Didn’t I read somewhere that you would be open to meet him at TAM and talk it out? Better to help him to get it and have him recruited to help others get it. To quote another famous(notorious), old(at the time), heterosexual, white, male – Winston Churchill – “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”.

    Please reconsider your decision.

  130. Well said Rebecca Watson and thankyou.

    You have my support for what it’s worth.

    To me, I think this is all about one word : consideration.

    Consider how the other person thinks, what they might feel and wish for and behave accordingly. Be considerate not just selfish, treat others – women too – with respect.

    How is this hard? How can this create such an online firestrom of controversy? Yeesh!

    I am disappointed that Richard Dawkins has responded so badly, so stubbornly and has insulted your intelligence and everyone elses by his utterly irrelvant “but the Muslims!” and “elevators have buttons!” non-arguments. I expected better from him.
    Expected better from almost everyone.

    There are some whackjobs out there whose rants on this (& a few other things recently) make me feel ashamed to be male sometimes.

    There are also many men who do get it and are willing to try and be decent human beings (gentlemen in the old fashioned terminology) and I try to be one of them.

    Feel free to quote this with or without cites and use as youfeel best suits you Ms Watson. Best regards : StevoR (aka Flying sardines aka Messier Tidy Upper on this & other blogs.)

  131. I want to comment and say that at first I was having trouble understanding the problem as well. When I read Dawkins’ comments, they were a little further than I was willing to go, but I was with him. I have to say, now, that I am starting to get it. It was only by reading hundreds of comments, from various blogs, that it started to really make sense. It just goes to show that a man who has identified as a feminist for years still has much to learn.

    And while I still have questions about the intersection of privilege, sex-positivity, and sluthood (which is a good thing), I understand more now than I did a few days ago. Thanks for the consciousness raising…oh wait…can we still use that phrase?

    ;)

  132. Mostly all this is does is just make me sad :( I saw a video of you and Dawkins at the conference joking about ringtones. You seem like you’d be buddies. INTERNET COMMENTS RUIN EVERYTHING.

  133. The topic of sexism is uncomfortable to discuss. We love, marry and raise children with each other so it’s a very intimate subject.

    Uncomfortable for all of us, especially face to face. Men I imagine fear some sort of attack and prepare to defend themselves. Women like me fear being viewed as a rabid, slathering bitch.

    I thank you Rebecca for bringing this into the open. You’ve brought the issue to the forefront where we are forced to look, if we want to attract more women to skepticism.

    I remember realizing the ways I was making people of colour uncomfortable without knowing it. It was hard to accept. And really embarrassing. So good luck guys with the struggle and difficulty. And thanks for those who put the effort in and get it.

    1. One thing I realized fairly early on is that I didn’t necessarily see everything my own mother was experiencing, since she was non white while I am light skinned enough to be able to pass as white. I had to listen to what she said happened to her to find out.

    2. Thanks. Few women appreciate how uncomfortable they can make men feel, or how being called “potential rapist” all the time is a negative.

  134. Ah, the elusive comment #207. Prime comment real estate, this.

    There seem to be (as happened with at least one commenter above) dudes who don’t understand what went wrong here, regarding the initial elevator incident. They’re not sexist, they’re sincere. They truly don’t get it and stuff like this makes them avoid ever expressing interest in a woman for fear it will be taken the wrong way.

    Remember, we’re dealing in a population of males with very little social wisdom. As kids we were playing D&D and video games, not learning how to talk to girls. Hence the confusion. Which is why Rebecca’s educational video post about what not to do was a good idea.

    There are a couple of other things. One, a lot of men, myself included, know women who’ve been propositioned in a manner similar to what happened with Rebecca & who took the guy up on the offer. This prompts confusion, as in the “If it worked for him, it might work for me” mentality.

    Not a valid response, as it turns out. The difference is that the woman in some way – probably nonverbally – communicated she was open to the advance and the man in question took the hint. She has to have given some sign she’s interested. A lot of guys don’t get this. It’s an education problem.

    Two, if a woman – or a gay man – asked me up for coffee in such a way, I’d be flattered. ‘Cause I’m a dude and that’s how we are. I’ve never met a man who was annoyed by the number of women hitting on him. The difference being that women are approached in this way so often as to find it difficult to breathe at times. My woman friends are soaking in unwanted advances. There’s an educational opportunity here as well.

    I post this because it’s important to acknowledge that this problem is one of education as much as anything else. And lots of guys simply don’t know how to process this kind of thing. It’s not really them. It’s how they were (and how I was) raised.

    Takes a while and a lot of listening (and a good Dad, actually, in my case) to help a guy figure this out.

    Long post short: Rebecca, please keep posting mild-mannered videos the one which prompted this whole mess. It was gentle but firm. It was completely appropriate. It’s the best thing you or any other woman can do to help the nice guys figure out where the lines are actually drawn.

    1. I don’t disagree with you though I think you make a false comparison. Most women are not opposed to be flirted with. If heterosexual men are having casual consensual sex than heterosexual women are too. I am somewhat incredulous that there are many women who agree to go to a hotel room alone with a man they have talked to for all of a minute, in an enclosed elevator. I suspect this is more an absence of detail from the man telling the story than a real reflection of events. To your point, there was probably some interaction ahead of time. Flirting and propositions are not, in and of themselves, creepy.

      A better analogy might be how you approach someone who asks you detailed personal information after knowing you for only a few minutes. If you were at a bar and a woman talked to you and asked “so, what’s your mom’s last name? when’s your birthday? Oh yah? what year?” These might strike a certain warning bell in your head. She may just be bad at small talk but you also know that this information can easily assist someone in identity fraud.

      That’s how I view a stranger asking me to follow him to a secluded place. Warning bells go off. When he does so before we’ve followed the standard niceties of making any sort of attempt to get to know each other it strikes me as even more suspicious.

  135. I’m so absolutely baffled by the reaction to what was a very politely stated and reasonable observation. The comments I’ve read confuse me, and anger me, and make me utterly convinced that no more than a handful of people have bothered to go watch the video for themselves. And I think, if something so mild can provoke so harsh a reaction, how can anyone at all maintain that there is no issue with sexism in this movement? I’ve seen far more controversial and confrontational things said about women in skepticism and atheism by the likes of PZ and others, and yet, somehow, it’s the somewhat casually recounted anecdote by a female voice that raises a shitstorm.

    You are my hero, Rebecca, and this latest controversy just reaffirms why. Never stop what you do.

  136. Thank you so much for posting this, and for persevering despite all the flak you’ve gotten. I consider myself a skeptic intellectually, but socially I’m so turned off by the misogyny and racism in a lot of the community that I tend to stay at arm’s length. I’m really glad the issue is starting to get some attention.

  137. I want to first of all thank Phil Plait for passing this on via twitter. There are some really good guys out there and he is obviously one of them.
    Do these guys want thier mothers, sisters etc. treated this way? Women are still routinely marginalized by doctors as hypochondriacs. There are a lot of examples…
    Tell the men you will not sleep with them until they wear a veil and high heels for a week.
    Do they understand that in China in 1948 women were not allowed outside the house without a male relative, had to be submissive, and had to wear a veil as well as suffer foot binding? Do they understand that is really what is important about the cultural revolution in China in 1949? Look at Chinese women now! Even they still have a way to go, however, the changes in China happened within the last century.
    I love the fact that Middle eastern women are protesting by driving, they are getting on the internet and telling about Subaru selling cars in thier country so we can threaten to boycott them. (For more info see Change.org)
    I am hoping that the changes in the Middle east will be as radical as they were in China for women, I also wish for them to be more peaceful.

  138. Rebecca, I’m sure I have nothing left to say after 214 (give or take) comments. All I want to say is you rock!

    Every Skepchick I have met over the years has set a wonderful example for the rest of us (male or female) Keep up the good work and see you at TAM.

    ~Mal
    ~Ed

  139. … you’re not upset over the man hitting on you.

    You’re upset over someone being upset that you’re upset over a man hitting on you, as if it shouldn’t bother you at all.

    I think most men are upset at this because we’re–wrongfully so–reading this as there’s some sort of expectation that we shouldn’t initiate contact with women for fear of being thought a rapist.

    Men, the lesson is try to seem less like a creep. If you want to be daring at 4AM in the morning, do it after she steps out of the elevator.

  140. First time poster here.

    Sadly, I agree with you. The thing is that you didn’t scream and shout to have the elevator guy hanged for what he did. You just said the guy came off as weird and maaaaaaybe that shouldn’t be how you pick up chicks. I know I certainly wouldn’t go to a guy’s room, especially if I just met the dude in a cramped elevator. I’m mildly claustrophobic in elevators, it’s not the right place for pickup lines.

    I could do a bit of shady comparisons here. I’m sure that if I were to say to these guys “What would YOU say if a chick were to act that way to you in a cornered elevator?”, he’d puff his chest, laugh and say he’d offer to bring her to his room instead or something. But what if we were to say “What if it was an obviously stereotyped gay guy hitting on you?” No doubt they’d say they’d feel a bit awkward.

    And I’d say they need to grow a thicker skin. But yet again…Shady, cliché and mildly insensitive comparison.

    It’s like we have to be forced to accept being constantly hit on. Mind you I can take a lot. I’m not offended by sexy outfits in games, and one of my favorite games is Bayonetta. She’s got the attitude to back up and you can see she’s that way because she WANTS to be. An attitude that a lot of sexed up characters do not have.

    But IRL? Erm, I have a few problems opposite gender wise. I didn’t have a shiny past. I’d be FREAKED OUT in your place, Rebecca. Tact, gentlemen. It’s called tact. We have a brain. We can be there just because we want to share opinions with you. I’m sure you can dismiss the part where we have an “opposite” gender and just share a smart conversation.

  141. Im thinkin about becoming a rapist, so you feminists have something real to complain about.

    1. Author : daviddavid (IP: 71.217.1.159 , 71-217-1-159.tukw.qwest.net)
      E-mail : [email protected]
      URL :
      Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/71.217.1.159

      NetRange 71.208.0.0 – 71.223.255.255
      CIDR 71.208.0.0/12
      Name QWEST-INET-118
      Handle NET-71-208-0-0-1
      Parent NET71 (NET-71-0-0-0-0)
      Net Type Direct Allocation
      Origin AS
      Organization Qwest Communications Company, LLC (QCC-22)
      Registration Date 2005-05-06
      Last Updated 2006-05-11

      1. Figures–a disposable email address. No doubt he and his MRM buddies are patting themselves on the back right now, in their depressingly banal way.

        1. People like him are always cowards at heart. And probably on Loveshy.

        2. Please could someone let me know
          (i) what MRM and MRA stand for, and
          (ii) why these are used as insults on this thread?

          I searched Wikipedia and it came up with “Men’s rights” (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights)

          It this what these two acronyms refer to? If so, I am confused as the Wikipedia article seems to indicate that this is a movement that is not a horrible thing, but something which has helped people, such as Indian men facing unfair dowry laws.

          I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me, or post links. Maybe I have the wrong meanings!

      2. Holy Crap! Did you just totally OUT that guy’s digital identity? Well done!

      3. Thanks for posting DNS information on daviddavid. Will be contacting Qwest shortly to let them know that one of their users can’t handle themselves on the interwebs.

    2. This right there. This encapsulates what women have to put up with. That whole mentality of of “behave bitch or I’ll rape you”. And you know what? No. I’m not going to shut up. And neither is Rebecca, or Jen, or Ophelia, or Phil, or PZ… the list goes on. Your empty threats are no good.

    3. Daviddavid: I am at a total loss trying to figure out what you think you’re going to accomplish. Are you fantasising that someone is afraid of you? Is taunting people the only way you can get attention? Help me out here.

    4. Just wanted to add my support for Rebecca.

      Keep up the good fight.

  142. Rebecca, after reading your post (linked to by the wonderful PZ) I registered comment. I haven’t read the whole thread; I assume, like most threads on this subject, it’s a gigantic clusterfuck.

    I wanted to thank you for speaking out, and I wanted to chalk up one more atheist who tries to be aware of his privilege when talking to women. Keep up the good work.

  143. Rebecca,
    I just wanted to say thank you for standing up for yourself and by trying to make more of us white hetero males think about how our actions and words can affect others. Sometimes being called out and made aware of our cluelessness and/or creepiness is exactly the medicine need to help us be a little bit more of a decent human being.

  144. Rebecca, you are a brave woman and you have my utmost respect.
    Two dear friends of mine have been raped and one word they use to describe their ongoing state of mind is “vulnerable”.
    Given the threats you have been receiving it is natural that you would also begin to feel the same way.
    Dawkins just does not seem to be taking that into account.
    The other message that one of these awesome women gave to me is that she REFUSES TO LET ALL THAT DEFINE HER LIFE.

    To tell the story in full would demonstrate just how remarkable that statement is, but would be a betrayal.

    In short, Rebecca, you display the same outstanding courage under fire and you have my full support.


  145. When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had a hazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that other people worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that had transcended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rational atheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.

    I am a female student in sciences and I work in tech support. When I started reading your blog (discovered through PZ Myers), this paragraph was me. I’m sure you’re being drowned in comments and email from all directions right now, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in with all those letting you know you’ve got a (growing?) fan club. You’re doing what you’re doing with admirable rationality, and I like it.

  146. Rebecca,

    I think you are mostly right and Dawkins is mostly wrong about this issue. I understand that someone in your position has to take a stand of some kind, which is a shame because Dawkins has been so right about so many things for so long. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a 50-year-old male.

    Fortunately, nobody really knows me, so I can continue to appreciate both of your respective work and bear in mind that you are only human and can be wrong about things sometimes.

    Sincerely,
    A comparatively recent fan

  147. Thanks Rebecca for a wonderful blog. I also wasn’t sure I wanted to be a feminist… but reactions like this (from Dawkins) remind me why feminism exists. I don’t understand why we women calmly stating what we like and don’t like are so threatening to some men. Not all women fit into neat little pigeonholes, do they? I’m not an atheist… but I am not a fundamentalist either :) I’m a thinker, a geek, a huge reader, a computer scientist, and our family’s breadwinner.

    Keep on writing! Now to read some of your other entries… I hope to find you as kind to theists as you are to other women :)

  148. “I believe that day has nearly arrived.”

    Most excellent. I’m not happy it’s necessary, but I’m thrilled to have such articulate, perceptive allies as you and the other feminists who have spoken up on this issue.

    Dawkins was a huge disappointment. Unexamined privilege explains part of it, but short-sightedness is to blame too–doesn’t he have a daughter?

  149. I’d just like to thank you (and others who have written on the topic) about needing to be aware of normalised behaviour. While I’m not cognisant that any action I normally do does cause offense/threat/worry, I suppose the whole point is that I may not be aware it does. At least with awareness, if there is an issue, it can be changed. Full support on your position. Thanks and good luck.

  150. Rebecca, I want to thank you. I seen now that I have been naive. I mean, I had the feeling that Richard Dawkins was a bit of a dick, but I really had NO idea he was so brutally vicious. Thank you for having the courage and conviction to do what you are doing.

  151. Hi Rebecca – just wanted to say how impressed I am with your bravery, and that there are buckets of other feminists who feel that way too (check out Shakesville’s thread about it – the nice part is, we ferociously mod-protect our commentariat, so you won’t have to worry about the horrible ones!).

    I’ve posted at my own small blog, Why I’m Not a Movement Atheist, a space for women to describe how this kind of misogyny has kept them from participating in the movement of atheism.

    Thanks for fighting the good fight, and know there are many, many of us behind you.

  152. Good grief! I’m away for a few days and look at all the trouble you’ve caused! There’s even a few threads about it on the JREF forum.

    I can certainly appreciate your being creeped out in the elevator, as I’m well aware that the atheist/skeptics movement seems to have more than its fair share of creepers.

    Anyhow, as much as it pains me to say it, I’m on your side.

    See you at TAM 9.

  153. The biggest disappointment to me about the skeptical movement is the amount of sexism found within it.
    I expected more from people that can supposedly reason rationally and scientifically. Sadly that now seems pretty naive.
    Rebecca you do an awesome job of making visible the issues women face on a day to day basis. Issues that are invisible to lot of men like Dawkins. Issues that make it more difficult to be a part of the aetheist community that women have every right to be part of.
    Keep being visible, you are a hero and you are making a large difference. !!

  154. Rebecca,

    The big question in my mind is, “These are skeptics. Why aren’t they being skeptical?”

    Why is it with homeopathy or Scientology these folks can largely drop in and get on the evidence based side of things, but no one can open up to the idea that they’re sexist? or at least wrong?

    Does does it seem that skepticism start from their nose and never from their hearts and minds?

    (For that matter, why are there libertarian skeptics? I think it matters because I think the overall attitude seems to be, “I’m skeptical about what you believe and never about me.”)

  155. Hey Rebecca, First time poster here.

    When I read Richard’s comment (Dear Muslima) on PZ’s site, I thought that PZ should really be more careful about people posing as Richard….

    You have set about to educate men to simply not act like elevator man. Now Richard chimes in and exposes himself of his uneducated views. He asked on a PZ post for someone to explain the situation to him. So do it directly. If you are the knowledgeable person in this situation, step up to your Goddess stature and do it intelligently and compassionately. Stick to discussing his behavior and flawed thinking. The poor guy’s been living like this for 70 years. Time for him to learn some new tricks.

    Several people are saying to cut off communication, ban, belittle him. Why do something as small minded as this? You are the wiser one, so teach away. Do it diplomatically and you will be greatly respected by many more.

    Yes, we western women do not have it as tough as some women. Yet, A little injustice here and there adds up eating away at our time, our talent, our income, our earning potential, our ability to care for ourselves and others. The extra ten, twenty grand (or more) or job promotion can be put to good use. It’s not small to us because it impacts our lives greatly.

    Men need to talk to women and listen to their stories of how men get promoted and they don’t. This stuff even happens in female dominated professions – women find themselves working for men. I went to an art conference and about 40 of the 600 attendees were men, yet nearly all the panelists were men. It’s as if society needs and expects men to lend a certain legitimacy or authority to something – a cause or profession. Some people just can’t see a woman in a leadership role maybe because they still have her classified as “Mom” or “sex partner.”

    Most men understand when a woman is concerned for her safety. I think any man who doesn’t get this, needs to dress like a woman for a week like Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie to learn how to empathize and understand what women deal with. If that doesn’t suit their style, google “women’s safety tips.” Read as many as you can for two hours or until it sinks in. Here’s a start. http://www.womentraveltips.com/tips5.shtml

  156. It is very common for a guy who’s asking a girl out for the first time to have that conversation alone, to avoid public embarrassment in the event of a rejection. It even happens in the Harry Potter books, and is perfectly innocent in there. The fact that he asked it privately is not in itself a bad thing.

    Also, nice people pretending not to notice each other on elevators is not going to stop rapists from raping people on elevators. There’s nothing inherently bad with starting conversations on elevators.

    There are people who are into consensual casual sex with strangers. They have the right to do that. And they have the right to be straightforward when popping the question as long as they respect the answer and leave you alone after they get rejected.

    I’ve read Shrodinger’s Rapist, etc etc all over the blogosphere about this issue. I think behaving or fearing as if everyone may be some inhuman monster until proven otherwise is extremely corrosive socially. People should trust each other more.

    Men and women alike are more likely to get mugged and robbed than to get raped, yet that doesn’t justify constantly living in fear and acting as if everyone you meet is probably a thug.

    Give strangers the benefit of the doubt but study kung fu, IMO. I appreciate that what the guy did was socially akward and inadvertently made Rebecca feel uncomfortable, so he shouldn’t have done it, but it wasn’t WRONG. Doing wrong requires doing harm or intending to do harm.

    1. Wow.

      Not trusting people is not corrosive socially, it is rapists that are corrosive. If there weren’t rapists, the rational fear would not exist. QED. Then assertions about whether or not Rebecca was ver-reacting etc. would have some basis in reality.

      And great advice on studying Kung Fu. It is a great way to keep in shape. But for defending yourself, it is little better than useless–and in fact, might be worse, as it gives you the illusion that you can protect yourself, when in fact you cannot. I boxed in college and fought in Golden Gloves and I am blind on my right eye from a bar fight, because I got hit in the head from behind with brass knuckles and had my head stomped on.

      If any encounter becomes physical, you will get hit and very probably seriously hurt, even if you “win”. It is better to educate men on how their behavior makes women feel, to empower MEN to confront that behavior in other men, and to value people as people first.

      Rebecca did a great service both to the skeptical movement and to society at large by simply pointing out a faux pas. Thats all that happened . But then some men had to freak out because they saw that behavior in themselves, and felt the need to defend the fact that they aren’t creeps–when, in fact, they probably are.

      1. Oh- and “wrong” has nothing to do with intent. If someone has the best intention but offends or upsets someone in the process, the intent does not obviate the emotions of the offended person. Certainly, humans can be hypersensitive. But that is not the case here.

        Whatever the intent of Elevator Guy, Rebecca could not have known it, but was aware of her circumstances, was aware that she made her intentions were when she left the gathering, and those intentions were ignored.

        And propositioning a stranger on an elevator is never ok. Wait until the door opens, let her get off, hold the door, and give her your room number, let the door close. At best. And even then, talk to her before that. Sheesh.

        1. The intent of the perp is of paramount importance in ethics and criminal law. It makes the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, for example. Also, if you intend to hurt someone and don’t actually succeed in hurting them, that’s still wrong, and may be the crime of attempted ____.

  157. Rebecca,

    I’m glad you do what you do. I didn’t get a chance to say hello to you at CONvergence, but I really enjoyed the SkepchickCON panels I attended. I left the convention feeling energized and excited to be around so many like-minded folks. But then I came home, and made the mistake of reading through the usual blogs. Internets, I am disappoint. :\

    As someone relatively new to the atheist community, I’m in awe at the sheer amount of asshattery I’ve seen in the comments over at Bad Astronomy and Pharyngula. Not only do a lot of these people “not get it,” they seem to be waving their ignorance around like a flag. It really feels like a punch to the gut, because I had expected better from the atheist/skeptical community. I’ve been a lurker for a while now, and this latest development leaves me wondering if I should even try to participate.

    I think I would have felt exactly the same if I were in your shoes. It’s not at all unreasonable for a woman to feel threatened in that kind if situation. Yet it seems like we are wrong for having these feelings. Because we have intact genitals and are allowed to drive cars, we’re crying over spilled milk. We’re the ones being unreasonable for not wanting to be the recipients of unwanted sexual advances.

    As a woman who has been propositioned by creepy men before (dark parking lot, bus stop, just walking down the freaking street…) I completely sympathize with you. A strange man once knocked on my car window at night after I’d parked, told me I was pretty, then proceeded to hit on me while trying to get me to give him bus fare. I still remember how scared I was, and how powerless I felt. Fortunately, the man left after I finally convinced him I didn’t have any money. I was fortunate he didn’t have a weapon. I don’t think I slept that night.

    And I’m not saying that men I’m not acquainted with are not allowed to talk to me. They need to understand that until I get to know them, I’m not going to assume their intentions are pure. Is it too much to ask that a man approach me in a public place and introduce himself before asking if I’m single or if I’d be interested in having sex with him? Why is this not obvious?

    Anyways, that was longer than I intended. I just want to let you know that I appreciate what Skepchick does. Keep fighting the good fight.

  158. Rebecca is knocking down straw people. He didn’t tell you to shut up, he said sarcastically that Muslima should shut up about her trivial problems. Dawkins was pointing out how trivial your coffeegate incident was in comparison to the harsh realities of women worldwide. A perfectly relevant rebuke from within a feminist perspective. It’s essentially an argument between two feminists (you and Dawkins) as to whether or not it’s worth making public complaints about coffeegate when there are much graver problems facing women in the world, and Dawkins was trying to put that in a global perspective.

    Now, since then, Rebecca has dropped the ball even more. So Dawkins’ is a rich heterosexual white man. Ad hominem and irrevelant. In fact Dawkins is trying to point out what the real issues facing women in the world are, so it’s a particularly misleading ad hominem.

    Then you try to conflate Dawkins’ pro-feminist comments (if you parse it properly and understand the nuance) with some random misogynistic comments posted on the interwebs which is not fair at all to Dawkins.

    Threats of rape are heinous and should be illegal and punishable. Asking a lady for coffee in an awkward and clumsy pick-up line which made her regrettably uncomfortable is nothing of the sort and any comparison is absurd.

    1. Greater abuse in one area does not excuse lesser abuse in another. Moreover, is it reasonable for me to keep quiet about sexism as it relates to my mother when women I don’t even know are suffering more abuse? Why or why not? Where does it stop? Do one-legged people have no rights until paraplegics have everything they want/ But why stop there, why not go with people paralyzed from the neck down? And on and on…

      We must fight the fight we find ourselves in. Yes, we should be mindful of the (worse) plight of others in far off lands, but it does not follow that inequities locally are therefore ignorable.

      And the main point here is why there aren’t more women in the Skeptical Movement. Certainly, there are cultural biases involved, but behavior such as Elevator Guy exhibited drive women away. I am sure that many women would love to attend meet-ups, but dealing with the groping and the innuendo etc. must be off-puting to say the least.

      And in this instance, when a woman provides real feedback on how to not repulse women, she is met with a firestorm of criticism and rebuke. It is pathetic.

  159. I’ll throw my hat in with this. Thank you Rebecca.

    I’ve never been a fan of the idea that supporting some causes somehow detracts from others. We need progress on all fronts.

    -Just another male who understands he’s privileged in more ways than he can even identify, and isn’t happy about it.

  160. Less than a year ago, I probably wouldn’t have given a second thought to feminism. Like you said, good, but something other people worry about.

    I stopped reading any comments re: all of this a long time ago, and haven’t commented at all.

    But now I have to say: Rebecca is a hero, as are all of the people who have (apparently, I can’t be bothered wading through myself) been fighting the good fight over on Pharyngula. Much admiration and respect.

  161. I’m embarrassed to admit it, but when I first started reading about this kerfuffle in PZ Myers’ first post, I indulged in a bit of old white male privileged eye-rolling. But then I read a few comments, watched the video and read a few more comments, and I slowly began to get it.

    “Oh, yeah,” I thought, “elevators. I never thought of that. Oh, four in the morning. Yeah, that’s not good. Oh, after talking about just this kind of thing. Oh, hadn’t exchanged a word beforehand? That’s not the way to do it.”

    But I’m amazed and embarrassed that so many men didn’t bother to read the relevant posts and comments and watch the video before jumping into their own mouths with two left feet. And then stuck to their incredibly untenable positions in comment after comment, even while people were patiently explaining it again and again.

    And I was stunned by Dawkins’ contribution. My respect for him has dribbled away. I hope his wife browbeats some sense into him, if he’s careless enough to mention it in front of her.

    If I could, I’d apologise on behalf of all men everywhere for you being on the receiving end of this inanity.

  162. Thanks Rebecca, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    I think part of the difficulty for a guy to see your side of this is because most of us are sane so we figure, I might have tried the same line as the elevator guy and I’m harmless, so what’s the problem?

    The problem is that you have no idea if I’m sane or not and being in an isolated environment at 4 am is not the best way to find out. Take care.

  163. Rebecca,

    You clearly see youself as having been objectified by the offending guy in the lift.

    How is it that a skeptical celebrity such as youself feels fine having numerous photos taken at skeptic events (“let’s get a pic of the skepchick and then see what they’ve got on offer at the kebab shop…”) but feel ‘objectified’ by the guy in the lift who asked you if you wanted sex?

    Surely you should feel that, while his question was not appropriate, he certainly didn’t disrespect you or treat you like an object.

    I understand it sucks to be hit on and the circumstances would surely have been daunting and scary for any woman alone with a man in a lift at sucha late hour, but did he really act like a predator or objectify you?

    1. having your photo taken is a consequence of celebrity. Fucking people is not a consequence of celebrity. I’ve no idea how you think the two are comparable.

  164. I just have to say this: who the hell writes an email like that? I don’t care how much I may disagree with someone on an issue, I can’t imagine ever writing something with even a tenth that much vitriol…and you get a lot of emails like that? I don’t know how you can deal with that…digusting…

    I’d comment on the rest of your post, but I only just started reading about what’s been going on here. When I got to that email though, I just had to say something. I’m very disappointed by Dawkins though. I’ve always loved his books and listening to his lectures, but I don’t understand his response to what happen to you. Your video describing the incident didn’t make it seem like a major thing, and now it’s blown up into all this…

    First time poster here, by the way, but it won’t be the last. Keep up the good fight Rebecca.

  165. Fuck coffee in my hotel room, Rebecca, will you marry me?

    In all seriousness, Richard is way out in left field on this one, but he has to be given a chance to think it through then apologize. He’ll get it, he’s too smart not to, and he’s a paragon of the movement, which lest we forget is about critical thinking and the promotion of science first and foremost.

    I love skepchick, love you Rebecca, but please don’t feed the guy to the wolves. Forgive him for he knows not what he does.

    One of the most basic tenants of humanism/skepticism imho is the of forgiving imperfections while we allow people the opportunity to become aware of them and make the appropriate corrections.

    If we don’t allow people the time to correct their thinking then why bother being advocates?

    I get the aggressive stance and that RD is unlikely to be persuaded by less, but do we really want to risk splintering the movement before giving them man time to think about what he’s said and done?

  166. Once, I was like that “clueless” individual in the elevator. Embarrassing and painful, but useful, to admit. Yes, I was similarly awkward, but in a different way. I would be the type of guy to call too often or send to many email messages. Then a lady just flatly pointed out that it was scary, and to stop contacting her. Initially, I did what most people do … wonder why someone else was at fault for my setback. Then, I had a metacognitive moment and realized there was a powerful, recurring error in my behavior.

    Did this emasculate me in some way? Was this some kind of infringement on my ability to meet and have relationships with women? Quite the contrary. It was educational and made me consider how my actions had consequences that I wasn’t initially privy to. It made me be more open, empathetic and honest in my dealings with women. It made me more aware and liberated me from my own self-absorbed state. It was, to borrow a phrase, a teachable moment.

    And that’s all Rebecca did: provide a teachable moment for guys who are just like I was, so the skeptical movement (or atheist for that matter) won’t be hampered because it tied a hand behind its back by pushing away some of its potentially strongest supporters.

  167. “Dawkins was pointing out how trivial your coffeegate incident was in comparison to the harsh realities of women worldwide.”

    Yes, it’s very much like quibbling over prayer in schools in the US or the Pope visiting the UK when atheists are being executed in the mid east.

    Rebecca, you’re a brave person and you have helped put into perspective something that has been slowly dawning on me over the last years.

    One has to prioritize, and it’s clear to me that I am a feminist who just happens not to believe in any gods.

    1. Genius.

      I admire your ideas and would like a subscription to your newsletter.

  168. Grognar atated “In fact Dawkins is trying to point out what the real issues facing women in the world are”

    But he sees the world through his lens and not the eyes of a woman.

    1. That is true. We all do. However if we are going to come to mutual understanding to dispel our mutual misconceptions and differences then we need to be objective and specific in our discussions. I feel this has been so muddied by so much emotion running high and I am trying to distil the essence: Richard Dawkins rebuked Rebecca Watson for complaining about a trivial personal anecdote when there are so much more important things confronting women. By implication he accused her of being conceited and self-indulgent, which let’s be honest wasn’t very nice or polite. That’s what Rebecca is angry about, in part, but Rebecca, if she wants to consider herself an intellectual, needs to be able to stand up to intellectual scrutiny and rebuke, which is what Dawkins offered, without losing her temper and lashing out clumsily. If you actually understand Dawkins’ comments, you can see that he was NOT being sexist or misogynistic or anti-feminist, as he has been accused of. All I accuse him of is writing at a level where the average reader is not able to understand the subtlety of his meaning.

      1. There’s definitely someone with reading comprehension issues on this thread, and it’s you.

        You admit that Dawkin’s point was an attempt to shame her into realizing that her concerns were petty compared to those of other women. How is it not fair to summarize this as “shut up”?

        It was also sarcastic and terrible logic, because “Shut up because worse things are happening” can theoretically be used to shut down discussion on every subject but one – and that one subject isn’t atheism. Dawkins later came back and said he never said what you said he said. He later said that he was trying to claim that the Elevator Guy incident was a -total- non-problem, not just a lesser problem. If Dawkins was right about what he actually said, then you’ve just admitted that you misread him too. If Dawkins was wrong, you’re agreeing with Rebecca that Dawkins was wrong.

        You are misusing the term ad hominem – Rebecca is not arguing that Dawkins is wrong because he’s male. She’s pointing out that he’s using FGM to bludgeon into silence… an activist against FGM. It’s not like she’s never heard of it before. And the fact that he’s a privileged white male is a possible explanation for his behavior. I suspect she didn’t go into great detail on this post because the issue’s been hashed out many times in several threads, and it’s obvious to anyone with a logical mind and reasonable reading comprehension. Which doesn’t include you, apparently.

        Further – Rebecca never said he was dismissing rape. She said he was dismissing her _concerns_, which involve creepy behavior in elevators and how that’s not a welcoming environment for women. Google “elevator sexual assault”, read some of the articles, and then think about Dawkin’s implication that all of these women were too stupid to realize that elevators have buttons.

        Really, if you contract Rebecca’s original statement about creepy guy with Dawkins’ sarcastic and over the top dismissals, and your incorrect use of “straw man” and “ad hominem”, I would say she comes across as the least emotional of the three of you. Perhaps it’s time you practice what you preach?

        1. Here is the quote from her blog:
          “So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.”
          As you see, she DID accuse him of dismissing her concerns AND the concerns of women who have survived rape and sexual assault.
          That is false. He dismissed only her specific elevator anecdotal concern, not the concerns of rape victims. There is a HUGE difference between those two things, just like there is a HUGE difference between clumsily propositioning a girl and then being refused, and actually doing sexual assault. There is a VERY important line between those things and we have to be careful where we draw it.

      2. “here are so much more important things confronting women”

        You are seeing this situation through your own lens!

        Name the top ten issues facing women. Here’s the thing. Everyone’s list will look different. It will look different because its subjective no matter how objective you think you are. Now tell me what are the top ten issues facing American mothers today? And what are some more important things confronting me? Comparing the social injustices of middle eastern women to all cultures is incorrect. It is also dismissive of the issues women have in other cultures.If you think that they are small beans, think again. Little stuff like having separate drinking fountains or designated bus seating is a sign of a bigger problem. Little stuff like hitting on women in elevators and telling them that their problems are less important and insignificant are signs of a bigger problem. Back when I was younger and poor, I had some guy tell me to just work hard and do a good job and someone will eventually recognize it. (Just sit pretty. No ask for a raise, get a higher paying position. etc. It’s tough thinking about women in another country when your driving a junker and getting free counseling.) (Finally, I asked myself why am I making an income at the bottom 10% when my skills are at the top 10%?) Life is much better now when I said F this! Here’s another task. Name ten things you will do to help change the challenges Muslim women face. Name ten thing you will do to help change challenges western women face. Which is more doable? My guess is the ones that you can control which are closer to home.

  169. By the way, and this doesn’t have anything to do with what Rachel said, but it was brought up in other discussions —

    This whole notion of a spidey-sense for “creepiness” based on the way a person looks, the way they dress, etc, is full of woo and opens a backdoor for classism, ablism, and every other kind of oppression of people who don’t fit in or conform to the majority.

    Often in public places (e.g. college cafeteria) I overhear girls in groups pointing at various strangers and saying “that guy looks creepy” because he wears ugly clothes or the shape of his face or something. Essentially, just because he’s looks different, they perceive him as a threat. It’s xenophobia, plain and simple. Fear leads to an overactive imagination and inaccurate suspicions like the Salem witch hunts. Profiling people based on how they look is evil. Focus on actual harmful words and deeds, not how some innocent superficial features conform to some imagined stereotype of an axe murderer (beard, big muscles, stern face?)

    1. In this case, creepiness was related to the behaviors of 1) isolating 2) going straight from “total stranger” to code for “let’s have sex” 3) Ignoring her previously and explicitly stated boundaries regarding being sexualized at conventions and wanting to go to sleep.

      All she knows about this guy is that he waited until she was isolated to make his move, and he’s willing to ignore her boundaries. Total behavior, no oppressive stereotyping. You did watch the video to see what Rebecca actually said, right? You didn’t decide what she must have done based on the strawfeminist in your head?

      1. Read the first sentence. This has nothing to do with what Rachel said in the video. You’re the one making a strawman by assuming that was referring to the elevator incident.

    2. My axe murderers look like normal, balanced people. It makes the horror stories way creepier.

    3. Wait – you realize that this has nothing to do with what Rebecca said, and you posted it anyway? Why? Why here? What are you hoping to accomplish, besides getting attention and diverting people from the actual discussion?

      1. It’s just something that irks me about the rampant use of the word “creepy”. The general trend of its usage is to become like a racial slur against every social misfit. I’d rather people used more colorful adjectives than one which just denotes “it’s weird, therefore I fear it.” The same goes for “sketchy”. Both denote fear of the unknown.

        Here are some old school and more specific adjectives that could be used to describe elevator guy: impertinent, rude, disrespectful, presumptuous, awkward, and either lewd or naive.

        1. Hilarious!

          How many of those women will be on the perpetrator end of a sexual assault in five years? TThen go to the table with men sitting around discussing women’s looks, and ask yourself the same question…

  170. Hi Rebecca…

    Big fan of yours, but I’ve never felt compelled to write before.

    I’m kind of a big guy (6’6″ 220lb) , and so is one of my friends. We were on an elevator many years ago at a science teachers’ convention. The elevator stopped and the doors opened and this young woman started to enter the elevator when she saw my friend and me. She stopped in her tracks, and I could see the fear and indecision in her eyes. She was obviously afraid of us. My big goofy friend made the same observation and said to her, “It’s OK…We’re science teachers.” We all had a good laugh and she got on the elevator with us. But I felt saddened by the very real fear that raced through her mind. Your comments were well justified.

    As for Dawkins. I think he’s a good man. He’s wrong. He doesn’t get it. This is a true failure in his empathy and his reasoning. I’m sorry him a little.

  171. Thank you, Ms. Watson, for speaking out. Thank you for not shutting up. Thank you for not giving up or giving in.

    1. As if it’s Rebecca Waston, representing feminism, vs Richard Dawkins, representing anti-feminitism.

      ABSURD.

  172. Thank you for standing up and speaking your mind.
    As a “young adult” in college I understand how important it is for young girls to have strong role models. So thank you.

  173. My partner and I are asking guests at our wedding reception to make a donation to a charity in lieu of gifts. We were going to have the Richard Dawkins Foundation as one of several charities the guests could choose from. No longer. Be strong Rebecca. You’ve got us on your side :-)

  174. I wonder if Dawkins hasn’t convinced himself that only religious people assault women. But no excuses.

    I stand behind you on this.

  175. Hey Rebecca,

    I just wanted you to know that I feel like you are one of a very very few positive role models us women have in skepticism. And I have respect enough for you that I sat down and had a good think about all this.

    And I really can’t find a way for you to have acted with more honesty, straight-forwardness, or good faith in the skeptical community.

    I hope that all this will help change a few minds about us women. And I wish you luck. Thanks.

  176. I probably would have never responded to this whole mess if it wasn’t blown out of proportion, but now since I already registered on your site, I suppose I will.

    First, I’d just like to state that I feel that addressing inequalities between genders is an important issue and atrocities committed against women for the sole reason of their sex is of course wrong. However, I cannot help but feel that most of this could have been avoided by you. If the incident that started this mess was portrayed genuinely, I would say its nothing to ultimately freak out about. Granted, at that moment I can understand your discomfort during the situation, but if you simply rejected and he didn’t continue to pursue then what is the harm. Voicing your opinion of “Guys, don’t do that” seems childish to me when he simply, at worst, offered sex. Whether or not you enjoy being offered sex, such an act shouldn’t have even caused a backlash of such magnitude. (Dawkin’s also shouldn’t have responded to it in such a manner, although I feel part of his sentiments are justified). That being that you are doing more harm than good by going around and showing everyone some creep was oblivious enough to think “Come up and see my etchings” would work on you.

    I tend to disregard these sites and communities for the sole reason that a large amount of vocal atheists, I find, are vain and petty people when it comes to “truth” and “skepticism”. There are some genuinely passionate and grounded people in these communities who actually embody a rational approach and these people are often easy identify in a few moments of speaking with them. You have not demonstrated these qualities to me, even in this very blog post. I can’t help to think that your attitude and conceit detract from some of your valid points that were mentioned in this very same blog.

    1. You could have saved time by simply saying “I still don’t get it.”

    2. “Voicing your opinion of “Guys, don’t do that” seems childish to me when he simply, at worst, offered sex. Whether or not you enjoy being offered sex, such an act shouldn’t have even caused a backlash of such magnitude. ”

      First of all, “offering sex” to a total stranger in a hotel lift is a creepy thing to do.

      Second of all, posting a video diary where you say “don’t hit on my in elevators, it freaks me out” is hardly a backlash.

      I think you need to gain a touch more empathy, try and understand the point of view of the other 50% of the population.

  177. Richard Dawkins :( Rebecca Watson :)! I am a better person for listening to the SGU and reading the wonderful posts and comments on Skepchick! Thanks for all your hard work!

  178. This has been anamazing read, including the entire comments section.

    I have no doubt that a few years ago I would’ve dismissed Rebecca Watson’s side as overreacting or not seeing things clearly.

    Then my online activity changed from simply posting a little on my favorite site to engaging in arguments about physics or philosophy or religion and playing online games. I was the kind of person who assumed other gamers, other bilingual people or other (pick an adjective for me) were just like me – if they were gamers too then they liked science right? If they were bilingual then they liked . Boy was I wrong.

    Eventually though that shock helped me better understand the privilege I was born into and what it afforded me and how much I took for granted. Now I can read an exchange like this and better evaluate things without making unwarranted assumptions or dismissing concerns that I might never face.

    As long as people like Rebecca, as well as Matt Dilahunty, Ophelia Benson, Jen McCreight, PZ and other skeptics I respect continue to speak up I’m confident that I’ll continue to be able to think critically.

    It’s distressing to see Dawkins not get it, but I long ago let go of the notion that sharing an intellectual interest with someone (public figure or otherwise) meant you could forgo critical thinking towards their positions.

    TLDR: Actions > Words.

    1. My poor little laptop keyboard is dying, I won’t bother fixing all of that above but:

      If they were bilingual then they liked rationality right?

  179. I’ve been telling people what a total douchebag Richard Dawkins is since I had a very unpleasant run-in with him at Pharyngula a couple of years ago. It’s good to be vindicated.

    But even I didn’t think he was capable of something this obnoxious:

    “Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again”

    And of course his total support for the gender essentialism branch of evolutionary psychology. Ugh!

  180. This is not a comment about the potential threat of a stranger coming on to a woman in an elevator in the middle of the night (not because I disagree that there is one, but because other people have already explained that, better than I could).

    This is about the other problem Rebecca was discussing, which was, “How can we get more women involved in skeptical/atheist communities?” My impression was that the whole reason she brought up the unpleasant encounter she had with a stranger in an elevator was because that’s the kind of thing that is off-putting to women, and it apparently happens a lot. I don’t see anyone suggesting that a creepy come-on that turned out okay in the end is going to scar a woman for life (As if. We deal with crap like that all the time and, unfortunately, have to learn to work around it). But even when creepy unwanted attention doesn’t rise to the level of actual danger, it’s really annoying having to deal with it day in, day out. One of the ways women learn to work around those often scary, usually annoying encounters is to avoid the places where they happen. Especially when overt requests like “Don’t do that” are met with indifference or rage. So if organized events in the atheist community meet that description, don’t expect lots of women to show up.

    That’s pretty much what I got from Rebecca’s video and her choice to mention her ironic experience seems completely reasonable to me. As many people have pointed out, it’s the backlash against her very practical comments that makes this into such a big issue.

  181. This whole mess makes me incredibly sad. I hope RD rises to the occasion and allows his own consciousness to be raised, but until he does (and other atheist guys do the same) I think feminists are right to put their foot (feet?) down.

    My feeble attempt to address the issue is here: Fail at feminism, fail at humanism, fail at life.

  182. The original story that started this whole thing rolling struck a chord with me. Because at one point that guy in the elevator *could* have been me. I was saved from that fate more by lack of a suitable opportunity to screw up than anything else.

    Twenty years on I think I’ve improved my perspective, thanks in no small part to Melissa’s blog and also to Skepchick.

    However the latest postings by many of the women in the atheist and skeptic communities has me very concerned. I had not realized how large a problem this really is for women attending these ‘enlightened’ conferences. I would have expected more from my fellow male skeptics. Apparently I was wrong.

    PZ posted his advice on getting laid at an atheist convention. Here’s mine : forget it. Your chances of scoring are effectively nil anyway so don’t even think about it. Just enjoy a conference for what it is.

    Mike.

    1. Speakers and events at conventions are great, but so is socializing with other skeptics. At the first and only skeptic con I went to, I hit it off with a skeptic woman who lives 2000 miles away from me and after hours of flirting in the bar she asked me (while embracing) “Where can you take me?” which is, well, even more obvious than “would you like to come up and see my etchings?” I seriously considered her offer for a couple of seconds then decided to stay at the bar because I had never had a one night stand before and didn’t think it was a good idea to start. But there’s a counterexample to “your chances of scoring are effectively nil”.

      Also, I would be extremely surprised if Joshie Berger didn’t get laid a lot at skeptic cons. That guy is absolutely hot and hilarious and always getting flirtation from the best looking women in the room.

      1. Sorry, didn’t give an uncertainty there. Most unscientific of me. Say 0.0 +/- 0.00001 Most of us aren’t Joshie Berger, or indeed jwray. ;)

      2. Better advice would have been, “wait for a woman to make the first move”. Considering the men to women ratio at these things, it’s safe to say that the women are getting hit on by men they’re not interested in at a much higher ratio then individual men are doing the hitting on so safest bet would be to assume that it won’t happen and be pleasantly surprised if a woman does proposition you.

  183. Just registered to add a note of thanks to Rebecca for this. I’ve spent quite a few hours of the last few days reading and thinking about this and have gradually come to “get it”. On that basis I’ll add my voice to those asking you to reconsider the bridge burning. You never know what RD will come back with.

    Finally a point that I haven’t seen raised here on the issue of why feminist thinking seems just as difficult to foster in the atheist/skeptical community as elsewhere. Whilst we can try, it seems impossible to fully understand your own privileges. For example, we men will never understand what it’s like to be a woman in an elevator. The best way forward seems to be to listen and accept without trying to logically prove or disprove assertions of privilege. My point is that blindly accepting assertions on faith does not sit particularly well with atheists or skeptics.

  184. Rebecca,
    Dawkins was way off base. He is so busy being the leader of the New Atheism that he has no idea what is going on behind him. I saw your talk at UCLA on the Religious Right vs. Every Woman in the World, where you spoke at length about FGM and the Vatican’s role in preventing contraception and condom use.
    To hell with him. He let us down. And to him and any other person who thinks like him: if you don’t want us in your precious little clubhouse, we’ll make our own.
    I have had plenty of experiences like yours. The worst was when I was walking through a hotel lobby and unbeknownst to me, my male companion had stopped to tie his shoe, so I appeared to be alone. A huge man stopped me and said he was having trouble with the ATM in the parking garage, would I come and help him. Of course, I told him to fuck off and walked (very quickly) away. Anyone that thinks they might have gone with him should read a very good book called, The Gift of Fear, by Gavin deBecker.
    Keep talking. Keep naming names. Don’t ever stop.

  185. Dawkins needs smacked for applying attention to whore. With all the horror in the world, and you are moaning that a man made a pass at you in an elevator.

  186. Rebecca,

    I have been following and ruminating on this episode and I think I have some insight I have not seen elsewhere.

    While I understand how and why you would feel uncomfortable in an elevator alone with that man AND frustrated with his invitation, I think that the issue was your comment about him “sexually objectifying” you. I really do not see that in your orginal post (unless I am missing something) and I think that the outcry is because many think you are leaping to an unwarrented conclusion that you were being ojectified.

    If males and females are to be equal, they should both be able to make advances and to accept a negative response gracefully. If you felt his intentions were sexual (which he did not say) you could have responded along the lines of “I am really very tired…maybe we could speak in morning at the hotel restaurant?”

    Am I making sense here?

    1. rogue74656:
      “I have been following and ruminating on this episode and I think I have some insight I have not seen elsewhere.”

      You don’t.

      Instead of examining your own place of privilege, you’re excusing it by putting pressure on the least privileged person in this equation to change her response. This is not at all new. And the response to this is not new either: you do not get to dictate how other people feel about come-ons.

      Even worse, your idea of an ‘appropriate’ response is calculated to encourage Elevator Guy even though he’s already signaled to RW that he may be a threat to her by waiting until she’s alone and in a confined space before propositioning her in transparently coded language.

      In short, your position is that a woman’s right to feel safe and secure is far less important than a dude’s ability to hit a woman up regardless of time or circumstance. Treating women as if they should be constantly available sex toys, or at least receptive to sexual propositions 24/7, is called… objectification. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

    2. Your comment would make sense if we were actually equals in this society. However, we’re still living in a patriarchy that fosters a rape culture. The fact is that men sexually harass and rape women in our world and women are often blamed for it or told we should at least take “some responsibility”. Until rape ceases to happen, women have to be “skeptical” of all strange men lest we get raped and are blamed for being too trusting. I hope this makes some sense.

  187. From Rebecca’s blog:
    “So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.”

    Dawkins didn’t dismiss women being raped or sexually assaulted.

    He dismissed your specific elevator-gate anecdote. That’s what he dismissed. To say any more than that is a false characterization of his comments. Straw man.

    Furthermore this is an intellectual moral argument and his race, sex or financial situation has nothing to do with it. Ad hominem.

    1. “Furthermore this is an intellectual moral argument and his race, sex or financial situation has nothing to do with it. Ad hominem.”

      Yes, exactly. That is why the women’s suffrage movement was started by wealthy privileged patriarchs who were desperately concerned about extending the right to vote to poor black women, and why feminism today is led and directed by people such as Richard Dawkins: because race, sex, and financial opportunities and circumstances for women have zip to do with feminism. *facepalm*

      1. I said his race, sex and financial position does NOT invalidate his argument. That would be a logical fallacy.
        Not did I say his race, sex and financial position makes him automatically correct. That would also be a logical fallacy.
        Have you heard of logic? It’s handy in these situations.

        1. Wow, that makes sense – or it would have, if that was what anyone was saying. Vide all the white, middle class heterosexual old men in this very thread who said “RD doesn’t get it but I do so thanks.”. Being white or any of those things does not make you WRONG, it makes it more difficult for you to understand. It’s an excuse, not a condemnation. Sheesh.

        2. Um, no. It’s not an intellectual academic argument at all.

          That is the point.

          Have you ever heard of empathy? It’s handy in these situations.

          1. Exactly my point. This debate is running on emotion and lacking in logic in my opinion. And since you brought it up, I do have empathy for Rebecca receiving any sort of threats, or having people touch her at TAM without her permission, and threats of rape are heinous and terrible and unacceptable, let alone any actual assault which is worse again. In fact in makes me angry to hear about that. But the original issue (please let’s focus) was the coffee pick-up line in the elevator.

            As Obama would say – let me be clear. I do not feel sorry for Rebecca that a guy tried a pick-up line and as a result of an awkward social situation she was momuntarily uncomfortable. But I do feel sorry that Rebecca was rebuked by Dawkins and embarassed her like that. Dawkins was a bit tactless and unkind, but I think that’s all you can accuse him of.

            I don’t think you can raise it the the level of accusations of sexism, anti-feminism or misogyny, which is what everybdoy (beginning with Rebecca) is accusing him. I think he was a bit nasty to Rebecca and she got upset and I feel sorry for her on that count and empathise. And I am a fan of Rebecca for a long time (SGU) and only posted about this, so I agree with her on 99% of issues. I think this time she let her emotions get the better of her and at the same time, I think Dawkins chose his words and sentiments untactfully.

  188. I’m sure I can’t add anything of substance after 300+ comments in one day. But I do think 99% of negative commenters on this and most other blogs never even watched your original video and are arguing over what they imagine was your reaction.

    I somehow missed out on all of this. The first thing I did after seeing this post was to watch the original video — an 8-minute video in which you spend 30 seconds recounting this story and maybe 5 seconds just saying, “Guys, don’t do this.”

    Um, duh. Yeah, guys, don’t do this. What are you, in junior high school?

    I can’t imagine a better illustration of your larger point than the firestorm that resulted. Throughout all of it, you’ve been nothing but reasonable. It’s sad and disappointing to see so many in the community display such knee-jerk, defensive reactions.

    For some reason, however, I still remain optimistic that my 7-year-old daughter won’t have to put up with such nonsense when she attains skepchickhood. Actually, it’s not for “some” reason, it’s because of the foundation you’re creating now.

    Thank you.

    1. Dwayne, if it helps at all I am doing my level best to bring up my 11 and 7 year old boys to NOT be so utterly clueless.

  189. I consider RW’s response a rousing success. That such a moderate reply elicited such an extreme response was certainly useful for me. I had no idea that there were so many skeptics who are completely ignorant of the basics of privilege, sexism, and feminism. It is certainly depressing, but of course it is better to know than to live in delusion.

    I have been following the discussion’s at Pharyngula, and have seen several male lurkers come out to say that they are finally beginning to understand what the feminist concerns are in cases like this. I sympathize with this, because I was just like them 15 years ago. It is uncomfortable to understand that, whatever one’s individual problems are, things like being white, being male, being wealthy, being cis-gendered, being heterosexual, grant largely unconscious privileges that allow one to ignore what other groups have to deal with.

    I guess the best way to explain it to atheists is to note that, in the US at least, being a Christian gives one privilege. Remember how confused and aggressive Christians get when they are told that they cannot have mandatory prayers in schools, as they have had from time immemorial? How they see the secularist as a whiner who is angry about something that shouldn’t matter? That prayers aren’t harming anyone and you should just shut up? Same thing.

    All this said, I would like to beg those who don’t get it to read feminism 101. It can be easily googled, is of good quality, and will cover your concerns. I’ve only been at it for 15 years and I can hardly contain my anger when the same questions and complaints come up over and over in each successive thread, since I at least had the decency to try to learn about it when the resources were freely offered.

    “But, you’re saying all men are rapists!”
    “But, women in the Middle East have it really bad!”
    “But, I don’t get it, if men don’t proposition women, then the species will die out!”

    Seriously, you are embarrassing yourselves (believe me, I know). For, I hope, most of you, youth is an excuse. We are raised in sexist cultures, and deprogramming takes time and effort. But by the time you are, say, 25? Sorry, that is just laziness.

  190. Could someone explain to me how “privileged” is a more solid argument than Christians referring to non-believers as “Satanists”?

    Registered just for this, enjoy your slippery slope.

    1. I like that you think your stupid question is gonna just blow people’s minds. Why don’t you do some research like an adult instead of showing up to a discussion thousands of comments in and demanding that people educate you on fucking feminism 101? Actually, maybe you just provided a perfect example of privilege and why it is relevant to the discussion. Thanks!

  191. *claps*
    Pressed for time but just wanted to say I support and applaud what you are saying, and know it’s not easy.

    I feel a lot of atheists are pretty blinkered by their privilege, and the more cry that it’s an ad hominem fallacy to point that out to them, the more alienated I feel from your straight white male Average Reasonable Rational Man. Shame. Like you, I started out so naive to this part of the game.

  192. “More and more men touching me without permission at conferences.”

    Hi Rebecca,

    I know this comment will likely just get buried amongst the hundreds already posted but I’d like to make a quick apology. I think I may be among the men you refer to here. After the SGU dinner at TAM Oz a bunch of people were at a pub down the road hanging out, including George Hrab and yourself. I sat next to you and asked permission to have a photo taken with you. This of course was 100% do with the fact that you’re a hero of mine and nothing to do with the fact you’re an attractive woman. Nevertheless while posing I put my arm around your waist and I sincerely apologize if this made you uncomfortable. I think for me it’s just automatic that when posing with a man I might put my arm over their shoulder and when posing with a woman put my arm around their waist.

    But again, wasn’t thinking that this might be uncomfortable for you. Apologies.

    Kind Regards,

    – Christian Polson-Brown

  193. Rebecca,

    Thanks to Starling’s “Schroedinger’s Rapist” article, I’m no longer oblivious to the offensive and scary potential of something like an elevator query from a stranger. (To others, that article has been the only truly positive and productive thing I’ve read amid all this noise. Go read.)

    I’m still confused and concerned by both you and the Professor. Is this single incident really bad enough that you’re no longer recommending his books? For example, would you no longer recommend The Greatest Show On Earth to a high school student of creationist parents?

    Either Dawkins understood the offensive potential of his comments, or he was tragically ignorant.

    Rebecca, you’ve earned my deep respect for taking in all the information before drawing conclusions. Before slamming Richard Dawkins in this way, it seems almost impossible not to have thought, “wait. This is Richard Dawkins. This is a person who traditionally, the moment he becomes even minutely aware of the slightest inequality toward women, speaks out eloquently and zealously against it. This is someone who has used his prominence in books, on television, and on public podiums to speak out unabashedly against things like genital mutilation, the restriction of education from women, right down to the unbalanced use of ‘his’ or ‘her’ in our language.”

    Did this moment exist for you? Or anything like it? If it did, what else crossed your mind that enabled you to throw this extraordinarily favourable track record to the wind?

    In light of that record, I think the only way Dawkins could have posted something so seemingly tasteless, was that he was equally oblivious to the fear of assault as we’re all learning — in recent days — so many guys are. This is ignorance is not our fault. We need more Starlings, and we need more of you inviting us in to see your perspective.

    You’re saying you’re willing to add Dawkins to your personal blacklist, despite a life of unrelenting service to skepticism, science, AND feminism, not even because he understands and disagrees with you, but because of a mistake that he almost certainly did not understand he was making.

    I hope the Professor reads something like “Schroedinger’s Rapist” and gains insight into the contents of the minds of more people in elevators today. If he does, then from his track record I have not the slightest doubt that he would wish to raise awareness as quickly as possible, along with all feminists and people, just like he has already done with every other fleck of gender-inequality that men and women have been patient enough to communicate clearly. Please reconsider your reaction, at least provisionally.

  194. Registered just to add my internets voice to all the others thanking you for being such a strong and courageous person speaking out for women and feminists in movement atheism (I hope I got the term right). I dropped out of movement atheism long ago due to the rampant misogyny and racism. Thanks so much Rebecca for standing up against all this crap and being so amazingly eloquent about it all. You’re awesome.

  195. When I first got into humanism I stumbled on Richard Dawkins’ website with and his “enter credit card information here” idea of humanism. He has always been a douche in my book, and only more so today.

    I didn’t realize all the harassment you endure. It makes me wonder if I’m not a bit of a douche myself for hanging around these skepchick comment threads. I think I could do my part by shutting up more.

  196. I am so tired of trying to give the clueless a clue, both online and in my personal life, that I don’t have the emotional energy to say anything here other than:

    I support you, Rebecca. It’s awful that you’ve had to take so much crap, especially from people who claim to be rational and humanist. You’ve handled yourself with more composure than I ever could have mustered.

  197. Can we please end this drama. I support you in blogging your experiences and in fighting to get more women involved in the greater community of reason. I think you bring up some great points that many men in the community haven’t thought about. However, I think you have gone off track here. I know Dawkins started it and he was wrong to mock you but we are fighting a larger fight. People of reason are massively outnumbered and massively under funded. The only thing we have going for us is that we are more reasonable and rational than the religious. We need all hands on deck so to speak. I take issue with a few atheist bloggers and youtubers, but I don’t tell people to stop supporting them. I think you lost me there. We just don’t need that type of drama between personalities. With that said, I hope you will keep talking about how to make this movement more friendly to women and you keep calling out issues and people for not being supportive enough. But I think this feud is wrong-headed and I really don’t care about the drama.
    In Reason,
    -Staks

    1. So Dawkins should continue to have the support of people that he has unapologetically and willfully offended? You realize that it’s this kind of thinking that drives women skeptics away from mainstream atheism movements, right? If you want “all hands on deck”, then perhaps you should be more open to their very valid concerns… such as this one. Because a LOT of those hands you want “on deck” are female.

      1. Umm, did you read my comment? Because I don’t think you fully captured what I said. First, I stated that Dawkins was wrong and that he started this. Second, I said that Rebecca has every right to blog about her experiences and that I fully support her efforts. Third, I said that encouraging other people to disengage for supporting Dawkins’s efforts in our greater community of reason is wrong-headed. Let me spell that last one out. By telling people to stop supporting Dawkins, you aren’t hurting Dawkins, you are hurting our entire community. It is one thing if Rebecca chooses not to support Dawkins, but it is another to drag others into that drama. Look, I take issue with a few prominent atheist bloggers and youtubers (not many, but a few). So I don’t go to those blogs and unsubscribed from those youtube channels. I don’t tell other people to do the same. It is my feud, not theirs. It is my drama, not theirs. We don’t need this type of drama. It is counter-productive. We should be rational about this and realize that we are all in a much bigger fight. I don’t appreciate people trying to turn this into an internal war. This is just a bunch of drama and it is uncalled for.

        1. Actually, Dawkins has long been the elephant in the room for many people and has caused great numbers to stay away from us. Dawkins is the figurehead for the Humanism dogma and as such should be removed from being a figurehead for speaking for all atheists. He has never represented me and I have never appreciated his insight. I’m a biologist and a third generation atheist, and I don’t need his style of monolithic leadership, I have my own mind. He does not have AS much insight as he gives HIMSELF credit for.

          His level of financial support has long been a joke and it is undeserved.

      2. I hope you are aware that Dawkins is locked in a struggle against the idealogical forces in the world that oppress women on a scale we can scarcely imagine. Watch some of the videos on YouTube where Dawkins is in the middle east, putting his balls on the line (ironically) in confronting radical Muslems, who literally accuse Dawkins of dressing his western women to look slutty, and Dawkins argues with him defending the independence of women to dress how they please and run their own lives, etc. If you think Dawkins is some sort of enemy then think again, please.

        1. Wait so western women should STFU about sexist shit that happens to them because otherwise it causes infighting in the movement and The Movement will in anycase address gross inequality (THE MUSLIMS!) but hey, let the small stuff that makes women’s lives a living hell sometimes for no reason other than being born female, go?

          And this is okay?

          Wow. I’m stunned that someone would propose this as a “rational”, “skeptic” idea. Stunned.

          I have an idea!

          Why don’t privileged white men STFU and stop causing fights in The Cause. Seriously, just shut up and take it like a man! It’s for the good of the movement, take one for the team! We’ll get to your problems eventually, you know, so stop bitching about how feminists are overreacting and start showing some unity and loyalty to The Cause.

          My good Cthulu, in what universe does that make sense? It’s an unreasonable request to make of anyone. If women need to STFU about injustices so that the Greater Good will prevail – the Greater Good, of course, being what is Greater and Good for white men (coz white men! What’s good for them is good for everyone! Yay! It’s proven by history so many times, why can’t you see it?), coz minorities should STFU and stop causing fighting in The Cause – will there EVER be a time for the minorities and oppressed?

          I’m reminded of Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham prison here. How DARE you suggest that YOU get to set the timetable for someone else’s freedom from oppression? That’s rank arrogance!

          1. A man told Rebecca she was interesting (shock) and invited her to his place for coffee (horror). She respectfully declined. End of issue.

            OH THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!

            I cannot begin to tell you how much I fully agree with everything that Richard Dawkins said.

          2. I don’t know if that is addressed to me or not. But if it is, then I will point out that I didn’t say STFU. I actually said the exact opposite. I said Keep talking! But I also said that Rebecca crossed the line when she advocated that people stop supporting Dawkins in his completely unrelated efforts to fight back against religious faith and support reasonable discourse. Like I said before I take issue with other atheist bloggers and youtubers from time to time, but I don’t turn it into drama. That is the problem here. It is one thing to call someone out and it is another to wage war against those on your side when we are grossly outnumbered and out funded.

        2. This is irrelevant and you know it. Dawkins can just fly home at the end of the day. No he’s not the enemy, but he made a faux pas and its time to learn something new. What good are you if you fight battles far away and when you come home, your own house is in disarray?

          1. It is entirely relevant because this blog, and almost 100% of the comments in it, are trying to characterise Richard Dawkins as a sexist misogynistic oppressor of women’s rights.

            That should be refuted because it is an emotionally-charged accusation with little basis in reality.

    2. Drama? Really? Dawkin’s reply was at the height of ignorance and misogynistic behavior. He very recently sat on a panel with Rebecca then chose to belittled her with an over the top and disgusting response. Also he wrote in such a way as to imply he didn’t even know her. He was highly dismissive and disrespectful.

      I am not going to speculate as to his intentions, his motives, and peoples excuses for his behavior. I am not Richard Dawkin.

      I would liken this to being affiliated with a company that you looked up to and endorsed because of their environmental values only to find out that they are dumping toxic waste into the ocean you live by. I would not for one second continue to endorse that company.

      So why should Rebecca in good conscious continue to endorse him?

      1. Christina, I didn’t say that Rebecca should continue to endorse him. I said that this has turned into a drama based on personalities. I mentioned that there are atheist bloggers and youtubers that I don’t like and don’t endorse but I also don’t make it a public feud. Maybe I should. It seems everyone loves a little infighting and drama. But alas, we have worse threats to deal with. What that means is that I am glad the Rebecca is calling attention to these issues, but I think she stepped over the line by telling people to stop supporting Dawkins’s efforts on real issues. I think Dawkins stepped WAY over the line and he needs to apologize and work to bring everyone back in focus. I think it is better to leave drama up to TNT. They know it. ;-)

  198. I’m writing for the guys who are working on understanding both Rebecca’s experience, her writing about it, and the why it can be hard to ‘get’.

    A number of guys who seem sympathetic have written that while EG might have been a bit creepy or socially-inept he certainly wasn’t a rapist … I think you are missing something important At this point the conversation is hardly about RW and EG … for me it’s about why it’s hard for so many guys to understand this from a woman’s POV.

    I don’t think analogies like “Imagine you were in a elevator with a huge guy who was menacing and attracted to you” work well because of the differences in life experience and socialization — I suggest starting with logic and analysis and moving on with empathy.

    We don’t grow up immersed in an unequal power-dynamic starting very young where the other gender has more physical and social power. The problem with the previous analogy isn’t that you might not feel threatened — it’s that you haven’t grown up making and being told told you should always be ready to make calculations about your safety with respect to men.

    Girls and boys start life and grow into women and men with different social expectations and contracts. The different ways we both affect the social world around us and how we make accommodations to that world affects so much of how we view and experience the world. While things are better now it’s a pretty safe to say that that an unequal gender power-dynamic is woven deeply into who we are both individually and with each other.

    I don’t like term ‘male privilege’ because to me the word ‘privilege’ reminds me of things my parents allowed when I behaved well — the problem here is that I always *knew* just what these privileges were and what I had to do to get them. Even though I don’t like the term male privilege I think the concept is very useful and important — it’s also hard for us to understand — it’s specifically about things that by definition we usually aren’t aware of.

    I’m going to describe a different situation I was involved in which might be helpful.

    I was working on a local school committee election with a group of people and we were discussing how to effectively work for the candidate we supported. I think and speak quickly and often approach many topics as ‘problems to be solved’. At one point in our conversation a woman in the group who I respect told me I was monopolizing the conversation and she wanted me to be quiet and let other people speak.

    There were a number of parts to what she communicated: her tone was sharp and angry; while she didn’t use the term ‘male privilege’ her analysis was similar; she also thought it was a more effective organizing process if other people spoke more and I listened more.

    I imagine her strong feelings come from being in other similar situations where men dominated the conversation and being angry about that.

    I think her analysis about how a more balanced distribution of sharing ideas ends up resulting in more effective organizing is in general correct.

    I also think her criticism of the sexist element of how I was communicating within the group was also correct.

    Of course I wasn’t thinking this dispassionately at the time. I was surprised and upset. I thought I was being attacked, I felt defensive, and I felt sad and misunderstood. I also felt embarrassed. I did listen to what she had to say however and continued in the group listening more. The feelings I had at that time made it hard but not impossible to understand her points at the time.

    I am very good at thinking and solving problems but context matters a great deal. In *that* context the fact that I was oblivious about how I was doing the majority of the speaking and that this was annoying some people was a problem. The part that connects this to male privilege is that in general since I was a boy I have been supported by society to interact this way.

    What I take away from this is that context and empathy are critically important in situations like this. There’s nothing wrong with how I think or solve problems — they are amazingly useful skills — but this doesn’t change the truth of her criticism.

    Back to RW and EG … most of us are going to behave in an sexist or even creepy way at some time or another (large amounts of alcohol make this more likely) and when we do it won’t be the responsibility of the woman we have affected to calmly sit down with us and explain the issue. If she does and we’re able to listen — great — but it’s not her responsibility.

    If she does respond she might be quite angry — it’s hard for me to listen and think clearly when someone is angry at me — but when the clue fairy is hitting me over the head with her clue club it’s good to note that there’s probably something I missed and should think about.

  199. This has been such a depressing day, though I’m feeling a little better seeing this thread is mostly RW supporters (though who knows how much moderation is actually going on). The aspect that’s really getting to me are the excuses made for the young man on the elevator.

    I’m not autism spectrum in any way, but I was a solitary child and ended up being very poorly socialized until well after high school. Part of this is not learning a lot of basic social cues — I don’t have a biological impediment to learning them, but it’s hard to learn these things a decade or so after most other people my age. In particular I’m at the bottom of the flirting curve; there’s a lot of signals I don’t pick up on and I’m not certain how to gracefully send signals of my own. And so I can at least somewhat empathize with wanting to make a connection with a woman and being frustrated because of the combination of confusing cultural notions of gender roles and some tone deafness to body language.

    I’ve been in elevator guy’s position, I’ve been in plenty of situations where I’ve wished desperately to be cool and suave and charming and just ended up making a young woman uncomfortable. It’s frustrating to want to make a connection with someone and not to have the cognitive tools — maybe not the emotional ones either — to do so. But you know what? That’s MY problem. I own it. My shyness or awkwardness is not an excuse to transgress boundaries, it’s not an excuse to be a creep.

    Here’s my best advice to those of you who, like me, are not terribly good with the ladies:

    When you blame your socialization problems on the target of your attention you are denying yourself the chance of dealing with those problems yourself. They’re not necessarily your fault, but they’re still your problems to deal with. And they can be dealt with. A big part of the problem is that our culture strongly implies that men should be Don Juans. The easiest step to becoming a better socialized human being is to accept that you are not Don Juan. Realize that the amount of sexual intercourse you have does not define who you are as a man or the richness of your life. I’m speaking from experience here; long virginities and dry spells don’t diminish your life unless you buy into the misogynistic crap culture that tells you they do.

    You can be bigger than your problems socializing. You can learn strategies to socialize better. And when you’ve accepted that you’re NOT Don Juan, you can treat women like they’re genuine human beings — women really appreciate that, and some of them might come to genuinely like you. And then it won’t matter so much whether you’re charming or suave.

    One thing that’s really bothering me is the people making excuses because the guy was drunk. Look guys, if you find yourself getting maybe a little too familiar, gropey, grabby, whatever when you’re drinking — STOP DRINKING! Don’t argue that when you’re drunk you’re not morally culpable for your actions. Bullshit. You’re morally culpable because you kept drinking and kept making excuses for behaviors that were inexcusable. If you can’t control yourself when you drink, you need to drink less or not at all. It’s that simple.

    Guys, stop making excuses. Stop whining about how women are mean to you and how lonely you are. Grow up and be real men, not the caricature of a cigarette-smoking cowboy our society holds up as the paragon of manhood. Stop blaming women for the fact you’re sexually frustrated. Own your problems.

  200. 1) I have zero desire to ever meet that Dawkins gasbag.

    2) I also now have zero desire to go to an atheist meetup of any kind. I spent the better part of 30 years of my life explaining these basic rules on how to behave. From the looks of the above comments, and in my experience, men change individually and slowly, after countless people have exhausted themselves explaining. Stop yapping about yourself and LISTEN. But not to me… ASK YOUR MOM. You do have moms, yes? Try like this “Mom, do you think it would be all right if I ____ ___ ___ in mixed company, or when alone with a female with whom I have yet to make acquaintance?” “No? Whyever not, mum?”

    3) No, I do not care that you, as an individual, are “shy” “not like that” have female friends who… blah blah blah. The fact is, there will always be dozens or hundreds more around, among whom are guaranteed to be a few that will totally make it their business to make sure a woman feels anywhere from slightly uncomfortable to endangered.

    It’s just not worth enduring the shit from those few to meet you guys, as scintillating as you might be.

    Just putting that out there. Enjoy your sausage fest.

    I’ll be elsewhere reading a worthier writer, like Doug Hoffsteader.

    You know who I would love to meet? The one person among you all that I’d LOVE to meet?
    (BINGO! Smarties! Got it in one, didn’t you?)

    Hey BEX, I think you’re just extraordinary! Would you like to have coffee sometime? A time of your choosing in a public Starbucks? Perhaps we can bring friends along? We can discuss topic of more interest than this! Email me if so. If not, …

    Kind regards,
    Eyeball

    1. Thank you eyeroll, you have just illustrated the problem with all this drama. It has driven you away from the community and that makes the community worse and it makes the world worse too. The greater community of reason needs people like you and you shouldn’t leave the community because of this drama. If I have a point in all this, that is my point.

      1. Nope, DangerousTalk. You’re still missing the point. The point is this isn’t a drama. This is the usual par. Much like at car dealer conventions and scientist meetups and gamercons and probably republican political conventions and everywhere else that men vastly outnumber women.

        You all, most of you, act like you don’t need me. Therefore, you must not need me.

        I’m effin fifty years old. Way past my prime. Last year, in a mixed company public meetup thrown by a media company prior to the streamy awards, I had my tit grabbed. (Not the 1st incident of my life. Won’t be the last, either.)

        The proper resopnse, rather than all this “helpful” advice to BEX is to LISTEN. Then, start a conversation that begins with… “HEY GUYS, what do we do to make it more pleasant for the other half of the population of Earth to attend? We’re limiting our membership here!”

        If I had seen some action like that? Like one guy say, lets do something. Attendee agreements? An obmbudsman or a person in charge that a female attendee can go to to get a masher summarily thrown out and banned for all future meetings?

        A discussion like that, rather than statements of support, complaint, unhelpful advice, or griping about how drama hurts the movement. PLEASE. And if Dawkins says it after an apology, so much the better.

        But don’t wait for him. You’ll hold your breath long enough to die. Do it yourself, guys. Suggest, talk amongst yourselves. Implement.

      2. No, you clueless twit, the *sexism* has driven eyeroll out of the ‘movement’, not the drama. The drama is simply the manifestation of underlying sexist attitudes that make certain men shit themselves at the first hint of even the mildest of feminist critiques.

  201. Rebecca’s writings on feminist and gender issues are thoughtful. Her perspectives are valuable. She takes the time to explain things to her readers that are obvious to her (and should usually be obvious to her readers as well) and this extra effort is appreciated.

    The recent dismissive and hostile reactions to her elevator anecdote would feel devastating to *anyone* caught up in a similar storm. Rebecca should be angry. She *must* be angry. There just isn’t another way through the level of disappointment one would feel when set upon by their own community like this.

    Hopefully, though, this anger won’t color her writings too much for too long. The wounds from a betrayal like this will scar and take a long time to do so. It would be sad, though, if she permanently lost that patient, rational style of expressing herself and became another angry voice crying out in the crowd.

    Persevere Rebecca, and know that you are appreciated.

  202. @Rebecca, you are an inspiring woman!

    To me, the big deal is that Elevator Guy and Dawkins have behaved analogously: EG listened to a woman giving a talk about sexism in the skeptical/atheist movement, and immediately proceeded to prove her point by sexually objectifying her. Dawkins SAT NEXT TO a woman as she spoke of the rape threats she received, and then proceeded to later write off her level-headed objection to being treated in a sexist way.

    The point that Dawkins has underscored is that the women who are lucky enough to escape religious oppression and violence have a whole new insidious brand of sexism to overcome when they come out on the other side.

    Welcome to the “humanist” movement, ladies! Get it, Dawkins?

    1. I wasn’t there and I don’t know the details but it seems clear to me that EG was not some evil monster, but rather just a clueless guy. I agree with what Rebecca initially said, “Don’t do that.” Many guys wouldn’t have even realized that they were being intimidating and putting a woman in a situation. Rebecca made guys think about that and now guys are aware and hopefully won’t do that. But again, she loses me when she encourages people to disengage from the community and stop supporting RD’s efforts on other fronts which we all agree on. RD was wrong and doesn’t understand why. Someone should try to calmly explain it to him so that we can end this drama. Thanks,
      -Staks

    1. Glow-Orb: I had to scroll waaaaaay back to find it, but yeah, I agree. I’m going to remember that one the next time this kind of kerfuffle rages (and it will, oh it will).

      1. Thanks to both of you. After I posted it, I saw another blog where two commenters posted the same idea but much shorter and to-the-point, but someone else pointed out that the difference is that thousands of male atheists are not attacked by missionaries every day, not blamed for these attacks, and don’t have to worry about having no recourse if such violence did occur, which is true, but I still think the part about the dismissal of the complaints and how he would react holds up.

  203. And then she outed daviddavid!
    Stop being so awesome! I can’t keep up!

  204. Thank you Rebecca. I wrote in a previous comment on Pharyngula that I was still a fan of Dawkins, but I don’t think I am anymore after reading your post here. I am so disappointed, and I am still hoping for an apology. I wonder if there are going to be any follow-ups at TAM. I am pretty sure you will address the issue of sexism in the atheist/skeptic community, and if you plan not too (for whatever reason), please consider doing it. This story unfolding these past few days made me realize how bad the situation really is. I think you just gained a new reader, and a new fan. Keep being courageous, keep fighting the good fight.

  205. First, unless you have been in a situation in which you have been harassed, intimidated, threatened, and/or otherwise forced into a range of passive responses that continually place you in the role of appeaser or victim, you cannot possibly understand what Rebecca or any other woman feels in that situation. Given the limited options available to her, I think Rebecca handled the situation in the elevator very smartly by addressing the problem generally, in public, without naming names or personally shaming the individual in question. So good on you, Rebecca, and as a member of the privileged class, may I offer a vote of thanks and appreciation for your candor.

    Second, that fellow in the elevator, under other circumstances, could have been me. It wasn’t, but that is thanks in no small part to several very frank (and painful) talks that my partner had with me during our courtship as regards boundaries. There was no malice on my part, just cluelessness, but it was not until she told me how these transgressions made her feel devalued and diminished as a person that I began to understand just how much my behavior, and my perception of women, needed to change. I wish I could say it was for some altruistic good, but the bottom line was, I was (still am) madly in love with this person, and I was willing to do whatever I had to to earn her respect and trust. I guess it worked: we’re married.

    Long story short(er): guys can get it, guys can listen, guys can change, if they have a mind to and are willing to grant the other person the same right to their feelings and perceptions.

    Third, what Dawkins fails to realize, in my opinion, is that the devil (metaphorically speaking) lives very much in the details. Until the time comes when any woman in our own culture can call out obnoxious, anti-social, creepy, or predatory behavior and be taken seriously on the subject, without having to risk what has escalated into an unbelievable shitstorm of privileged male whining, I do not see how we can take on the gender inequalities in other cultures. Methinks he is a bit unaware on this point.

  206. Fearless Leader,

    A) I miss you and can’t wait to see you.
    B) my plan is this: when anyone at TAM asks me “omg what did you think about that whole Dawkins thing?” I’m going to reply “That’s been beat to death. How about we talk about the underlying problem instead.” So every gossip intro will become a discussion about feminism. It’s a simple plan, but it’s what I’m goin’ with. :)

  207. @Glow-Orb, I agree, @MarianLibrarian’s example should be one of the letters submitted with the Skepchick letters they are planning to send to Dawkins!!
    I think it is one great explanation he seeks before he can “gladly apologize.”

  208. I wonder if a man being propositioned by a strange man in an elevator would over-react. I dare someone to try it with Dawkins. It would be hilarious to see if he puts his money where his mouth is, or puts his mouth, um you know.

    1. Ah now that is an interesting idea :)
      We could start a campaign: Men to corner RD in elevators and proposition him, every chance they get. I’m sure he’d get irritated well before the first dozen propositions occurred! It’s the over and over again factor in life that drives us nuts!

  209. A big thanks to all the Skepchicks for being great role models for my daughter. Hooray for discussions like this, for Skepchick.org, TeenSkepchick.org and now esceptica.org!

  210. It saddens me that this discussion has developed into a team mentality of “US vs THEM”, and “If you’re not with us, you’re against us!”

    This team mentality will do nothing but polarize the community, and force people deeper into their already entrenched biases. The problem of Sexism is a lack of education, and a lack of articulate explanation of each others experiences. Words like “privileged,” might be acceptable language to use in a feminist discussion, but it polarizes this discussion. Instead of condemning someone for being “privileged,” explain why you view them to be “privileged,” and how their experience is different form yours. After Dawkins made his comments, he realized that he didn’t understand the other sides arguments, and asked someone to explain. PZ attempted, but IMHO, failed, and most other of the other comments went on to berate him for “not getting it” without trying to help him “get it.” Some movie had a quote that read “Anger is the quickest path to a mistake,”and that has been demonstrated time and again in this shit-storm. Cooler heads need to prevail if this situation is going to be resolved positively.

    And finally, please don’t use individual instances to exemplify the tone of the community as a whole. There are idiots, sexist jerks, and insensitive cads in every group, and it dose a disservice to condemn the entire community because of the actions of a few. If you want to make a public example of these jerks, do so individually by publicly posting their emails with their email address. This will give people a better idea of the hidden sexism you experience in the community, while not inadvertently, and unfairly shaming the entire Atheist community.

    1. neilpatrice:
      “The problem of Sexism is a lack of education, and a lack of articulate explanation of each others experiences.”

      No, the problem of sexism is that certain men have difficulty relating to woman as fully realized, independent human beings.

      This whole “You must school me in Feminism 101” is yet another tactic I often see to keep women in a subordinate position vis-a-vis men. It is not any woman’s obligation to sit down and explain to you why and how she has been angered/alienated/creeped out/etc. by you. If a woman does happen to explain the basics of male-female dynamics in a patriarchal rape culture to you, then you are being granted a favor and should respond courteously by shutting up and listening and then doing your best to comprehend and incorporate what is being laid down for you.

      There is no lack of books, magazines, and “zines” that discuss feminism at a basic level, and there’s *certainly* no need for more information to help us understand the white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male worldview. If anyone needs a refresher on that, they can simply turn on the TV and get culture and history presented as the white man tells it.

      “After Dawkins made his comments, he realized that he didn’t understand the other sides arguments, and asked someone to explain.”

      I thought you didn’t want to turn this into an issue of ‘sides’?

      Ironically, your phrasing hits exactly what is blinkered and wrong with the sexist, patriarchal worldview. This is not an issue that requires “arguments” on “both sides”—equality is a basic human right. And as long as women are to be treated as passive objects of sexual desire, free to be propositioned at any time of day and no matter what the circumstances, and then subjected to a shitstorm of male privilege when they speak out, then they are not being treated as equals nor as fully rounded human beings.

      Fundamentally, the issue is: are women your equals in human dignity? If they are, then ACT LIKE IT!

  211. Rebecca, I want to thank you for speaking up and standing strong.

    Privilege comes with blinders that you can’t rid yourself of. I can’t see sexism from where I am because I’m a man, and trying to be as decent of a human being as I can be. It shames me greatly that the communities I live in and love not only mistreat women but can effectively hide it from me.

    Our community needs more women like you, because nothing brings out sexism like giving it a target. This ugly, embarrassing problem shames us all and needs to be drug out into the light and clubbed repeatedly until we can no longer find any vestige of it.

    Please keep doing what you’re doing.

  212. I am so mad at Richard. I’ve been saving up to buy his whole bibliography. I’ve been especially keen on The Selfish Gene, Unweaving the Rainbow, Ancestor’s Tale, and his new children’s book. Now… now I just can in no way justify giving him any of my hard-earned money.

    I know Dawkins has said stupid shit before, but…

    Damnit, man! I had so much respect for you! You were someone I looked up to you! I thought you were a rationalist! I was even willoing to apologize for you even when I probably shouldn’t have! Way to kow-tow to a religious tenant and utterly wipe-out every pound of respect I ever had for you. Good job, Richard Dawkins. Good job.

    And, just for good measure, Dick D… fuck you.

  213. For some time now I’ve been in the feminism cheer leading section, all the while realizing there was something I wasn’t quite getting right.

    So – Rebecca, (and Jen, and Greta, and Ophelia, and P.Z., and numerous commenters) thank you for posts like this. I think I ‘get it’ now.

  214. I can’t stress enough that I write this comment from the mindset that I believe I am missing something very important here, and that I want to understand what the hell I’m not getting.

    First, I want to state that I am a 31 year old, white, male. Granted, I’m not rich, but I do okay. I have never been sexually harassed or assaulted. I have never been threatened to be raped. From my own personal experiences I have absolutely no idea what any of this feels like.

    Second, I want to state that I came upon this topic via Phil Plait on Bad Astronomy. And I have only recently been turned on to Phil Plait through a friend who told me a bit about him. I am not a totally informed voice of opinion on this matter.

    Okay, now that I’ve qualified who I’m not, what I haven’t experienced, and what I don’t fully know. I have to take Richard Dawkins’ side ONLY (seriously, only this one small part that he said [really, please, I only see eye to eye with him on this one small point]) where he said, “No, I obviously don’t get it… yadda yadda yadda… explain to me what it is that I am not getting.”

    I read the article that Plait wrote, describing the story you told about about a clueless man on an elevator that put you in an awkward position. Okay, basically, awkward positions suck. No one wants to be in one. Few people look to create them. But the story sounded to me like a simple matter of a guy, alone with a woman that he found interesting, and took a shot at spending more time with her. It sounded like he was polite, non-threatening, kind of lame, and eager. But it also sounded like he took the hint, accepted the rejection, and stopped all advances. This is the part I’m missing. Right here I don’t understand what is wrong with a man doing that. Yes, it created an awkward situation for the rest of the elevator ride. But, if I’m understanding the story correctly, he didn’t whine, beg, press the issue, stomp his feet, throw a tantrum, or back you into a corner. He just stood there in silence. Was his actions really worthy of being called sexist? Or sexual harassment? Or even wrong? He saw a pretty girl and wanted to see if he had a chance at spending more time with her, and he did it in a perfectly respectful way. Lame, but respectful just the same. I truly believe that there has to be something else to this story that I am missing.

    I understand that part of the story was to try and illustrate to men that this kind of action can create an awkward moment. And I understand that all you did was simply say, “Guys, don’t do that.” But, I mean… I just read the story and thought to myself, “Alright, so if I ever find myself on an elevator with a woman that I think I kind of like, I should probably try not to jump the gun so fast.” But I don’t think that I should avoid talking to a pretty girl, or even asking her to my room, just because there may be a chance that if she turns me down there might be an awkward situation. It sounds, to me, like the idea of this story is to try and get men to actively avoid creating awkward situations. But, the only true solution to that is if all men, all the time, everywhere, forever, avoid hitting on women. And that’s kind of a ridiculous solution. That totally voids out chasing, and courting, and flirting, and pretty much the entire spark that starts any relationship. And you can’t really be suggesting that. So again, there has to be something I’m not getting here.

    But that’s it. That’s where my opinion on the matter ends. I heard the story, I took it in, I’m going to make up my own mind in the future. End of story.

    I cannot believe that any part of this elevator story could have been viewed as so accusing, so scornful, so anti-man that Richard F**king Dawkins felt the need to jump in and blow it way, way out of proportion. I read his comments and thought he was just being a dick. And by being a dick I would have thought that people would have just read what he wrote and thought, “Wow. What a dick.” And continued on their way. I can’t believe that his comments have ignited such a controversy over the interwebs… but it did… which is why I now know about it… which is why I would honestly, and truly, like someone to tell me what is so bad about a guy asking a woman back to his room and than fully backing off when she turned him down.

    1. I’ll bite….

      1) She was in a public place for hours, available for conversation. Sure, she had other people vying for her attention, but that’s the way the ball bounces…be a man, assert yourself.

      2) When she left the gathering, she mentioned that all she wanted to do was go to bed. This is after speaking about how women regularly have their thoughts/feelings invalidated…

      3) Elevators are confined spaces, not easily escapable, and a place where women are often attacked. In a public place, say the bar they just left, the woman has a multitude of options to beg off an unwanted advance, not so in an elevator.

      4) Sure, Rebecca wasn’t attacked. But she could have been. Most attacks begin exactly like that. Many have argued “Nothing happened, what’s the harm?” The harm is she had no way of knowing how the encounter would end. The proposition ramped up the weird factor pretty high. Women go missing everyday, let alone sexual assaults and beatings and rapes. Do women get on elevators and emerge safely? Sure. Most of the time. But some don’t It is like a lottery, and you are forced to play if you are born a woman. It doesn’t have to be that way, but it will keep being that way as long as excuses are made for predatory behavior.

      5) The Elevator Man made the assumption (without thinking, hence the privilege part) that his need for sex/a relationship trumped her need for sleep, solitude, whatever.

      6) Nobody is saying don’t express yourself, or your attraction to someone else. But be mindful of a time and place (elevators are universally bad unless you are in a relationship with the person in question). And it is never a good idea to just walk up to a random person and ask them back to your room.

      7) If you don’t get it, go out and talk to women. It doesn’t matter about what. But do so without an agenda. Just talk. Soon you’ll see that they are human beings and not at all mysterious. The sexuality part takes care of itself. If you dig each other you’ll hook up, biology will see to that.

      1. Oh, and RD popping off that she should shut up because other women are more oppressed is the height of insensitivity and hypocrisy.

    2. “I truly believe that there has to be something else to this story that I am missing.”

      I think you’re missing looking at it from the Rebecca’s point of view.

      EG’s point of view is this: “I know she’s said she doesn’t like being hit on at atheist meetings, and that she’s going to her room to sleep. But if I ask she might say yes. At worst she’ll say no in a nasty way. So if I ask her in private I won’t be embarrassed if she does that.”

      Rebecca’s point of view is “He’s ignored what I clearly expressed earlier. Will he take no for an answer now? We’re alone in this elevator, it’s 4am, there’s unlikely to be anyone about when the elevator stops. If I say no, will he assault/rape/kill me?”

      Rebecca says no. Nothing happens, Rebecca gets to her room safely. No harm done?

      There are safety advisers who seriously suggest to women that if they’re alone in an elevator and a man gets on, they should immediately get off.
      http://www.thenonprofits.com/safety.htm

      There was a very small risk just being alone in an elevator with a man. But it’s such a small risk that most women ignore it. Unless there’s some other indicator that there might be a problem. Such as when the stranger asks you to come to his room with him. Which suddenly multiplies your risk by a few powers of ten. Add in the fact that he’s almost certainly heard you saying that your were tired and going to your room to sleep, and that you don’t like being ‘hit on’ by strangers, and it becomes very worrying indeed.

      It’s great that he took no for an answer. He should not have posed the question at that time and in that place at all.

      Rebecca was available for conversation in a public place for hours before this incident. Why wait until she had left the group and was on her own? Because EG wasn’t considering her feelings at all, only his own.

      Seriously guys, don’t do this.

    3. You said, “It sounded like he was polite, non-threatening, kind of lame, and eager.”

      That’s the crux of what you’re not getting. By asking her in the first place, he wasn’t being polite at all – he was being creepy and rude. The key here is that she had already said “no,” by leaving the bar and explicitly saying that she was tired and going to bed, but he chose to ignore that and ask her anyway, when they were alone. That’s not polite, no matter how it’s phrased.

    4. What people don’t realize is that by suspecting EG to be a rapist they are being sexist. Ironic considering the topic being discussed.

      I can understand why woman would feel creeped out or scared, but that isn’t the guy’s problem. How many forever alone comics we see online where a guy and girl are in an awkward situation together and neither of them make a move and they always regret it? Well, this guy made a move to get to know her, may not have been sexual at all, was rejected, and then backed off.

      Women can feel the way they want about that but if we are going to blame the guy for something then that’s a tragedy. Suddenly the actions of a few psychos will prevent the majority of men from making a move on a woman.

      You know what, if a woman gets on the elevator with me, and/or strikes up a conversation with me in an isolated area, I’m going to get fearful because she may accuse me of rape. I’m allowed to think that, but that is not the woman’s fault.

  215. Hello Rebecca. I felt compelled to chime in and offer my complete and heartfelt support. I’m as priveleged as anyone on the planet (and as atheist) but the reason I stay out of the social / online component of “the movement” is its often appalling lack of self-reflection, all the more contemptible for coming from individuals who take such pride in their own rationality. This weakness has rarely been more apparent than in the shabby treatment you’ve received from Dawkins and so many others, though I’m heartened by your many supporters. As for those who have said, in essence, “Please shut up and stop fracturing the movement,” I ask you in all sincerety: What kind of moral coward would want to be a part of such a movement? I’m not throwing my copy of “The God Delusion” in the garbage, but neither will I kowtow to anyone who belittles the earnest and legitimate concerns of his fellow human beings. Any self-reflecting freethinker with a shred of empathy and respect for free expression should conclude that Rebecca is absolutely in the right here. Anyway, stay righteous, Rebecca, and thanks for sharing your thoughts with us so eloquently.

  216. Hey, I read this blog a lot, hardly ever comment here and followed the “discussion” over at PZ Meyers’ place. I am appalled by Dawkins’ and many of the other commenters’ words, but unfortunately not surprised. (to preserve my sanity, I am not reading the comments on this post)
    The complete unwillingness to examine their own privilege, to stop and think about what’s said to them, to consider if maybe this other person has a point, to concede that women’s experiences are valid and should be taken seriously and that women know their own experiences better than men – it does not become anyone, least of all people who claim to be skeptics. I, too, will no longer recommend anything by Dawkins. And this incident has served to make me even less comfortable at skeptic and atheist events than I already was, seeing how explicitly many men will deny my experiences, my feelings and my autonomy.
    So thank you for speaking up. It was needed.

  217. I listen to SGU off and on and I recently watched your panel discussion that AronRa posted and I agreed with a lot of it. I hate when I go to a Youtube channel and regardless of the topic, if the presenter is a remotely attractive woman, a high percentage of the comments run from how pretty she is to crudely sexually suggestive. After I watched you talk about the horrible comments you get on SGU, I went and checked out your Youtube channel and watched this most recent one. I think you had every reason to be wary of the situation in the elevator, when you said he should have gotten that you wouldn’t be interested after your lecture, though, it seemed to me you were equating threatening letters about raping you with, something seemingly innocuous as politely asking you to have coffee. And it seems like an overreaction. I’m certainly not the only one who made that connection, and I think it’s terrible that it’s this lukewarm example of objectification that’s getting so much play, especially compared to some of the actual degrading letters and such that you get.

    1. Oh FFS! An invitation to “coffee” at “4am” to someone’s “private” room is NOT an invitation to COFFEE!!! What planet have you grown up on?? It is absolute code for copulation. It’s a code that is usually used, tongue in cheek, when you’ve been already been slow dancing or talking it up with someone for the past hour, and things have already gotten heated.

      One who requests copulation as the very first component of a flirt is an ignoramus. One who requests copulation as the first component of “getting to know” a stranger is so absolutely stupid that being at an atheist meeting seems like a fundamental contradiction.

  218. Rebecca, just a word of support. I am a male, and I’m a femminist. I want equality and respect for my daughters, for my wife, for all of my female acquaintances, and I make every effort to let women…all all levels of society I’m in contact with, know how much they are valued and respected.

    I quite frankly was shocked that RD made the comments he made. He has stated he seeks truth in all things. Let’s now see if he seeks justice and equality. I suspect he’ll come around…some “consciousness raising” for him seems to be what is required.

    Keep up the good work, and don’t take crap from anybody!

  219. Richard Dawkins doesn’t agree with your position. What a crappy angle to take to dismiss his opinion, one previously respected, as necessarily being “privaliged, white, male”. When he criticises Islam, how much weight do lend to the charge that he is just a “pivaliged, white, westerner” as dismissals of his opinion. Its a cheap criticism. Disagree with him, hell even call him a douche bag if thats how you feel but please don’t try to render his opinion invalid because he happens to be male. Some women have sided with Dawkins, are they privaliged white men too?

    You were hit on in an elevator.

    Thats it. You felt uncomfortable, fair enough. You felt like it was an inapproriate time/place etc for this guy to hit on you, fair enough.

    It was an example of sexism. wha???

    To make this odd claim worse, you seem to be suggesting that he was sexist because he did not take your sensitivities into account in doing what he did.

    Presumably you would find it absurd if men were to suggest that women need to conduct themselves in a particular way to meet the sensitivities of men. It is good manners perhaps that we all try to accomodate each other as much as possible but hardly an -ism when we don’t.

    If a black man alone in an elevator asks a racist white guy for the time, is he racist for not considering that the white guy might be made uncomfortable by the generalisations he (the white guy) is drawing about the black guys race. White people have been assaulted many times by black men. This is true but it is still racist to make assumptions based on nothing but race. Is there any, any onus what-so-ever on the black guy to consider the negative things the other person might be thinking about him based on his race. Should he adapt his behaviour to the fears and generalisations of someone else?

    If you are wary of any man, based on nothing more than his involuntary membership of a particular gender, is that in itself not sexist?

    By all accounts the guy was non-threatening in his invitation. As has been suggested elsewhere, he likely asked in the elevator as he didn’t want a possible rejection to be public. Was it creepy? You obviously think so but many women commenting on this incident have said they did not see anything particularly wrong with it.
    Even if it were universally agreed that it was creepy, it is a case of some guy being socially inept.

    The sexism claim remains bizarre.

    I see the support you recieved having made the claim of sexim in this instance as a failure of reason in this community and find it very disappointing. A community that prides itself on rationality characterises a total non-event as masogyny and in Phil Plait’s case “a potential sexual assault” <-wtf?
    It is the absurd claims that are drawing the flack.

    I don't mean any ill-will to you personally. I don't doubt you are sincere in viewing that this was an example of sexism. I also can't help but feel that you have lost all perspective on what constiutes sexism vs. non-sexist, inter-sex relations.

    Does the fact that many women disagree with you give you any pause? or do you just assume you are right and they are (insert deficiency of your choice here)

    To be ultra clear. I am not at all criticising your evaluation of how you felt. You felt how you felt. I am not criticising you for claiming it was a creepy thing for this guy to do. If you felt it was creepy, thats how you felt. I am not criticising you for asking men not to do this kind of thing. You would obviously prefer if they didn't. These are all valid opinions. Some people might agree or disagree and there is a case to be made for both sides.

    I am solely criticising the claim that this was an example of sexism. A guy making an ill-advised pass at a woman in an elevator speaks to social skills/judgement. It says nothing about how much he does or does not respect women. I share Richard Dawkins' concern that when events like this are characterised as a case in point of the rampant sexism in the atheist community, you are rendering the term sexism meaningless.

    1. Your points are not unique or interesting. Try reading the thread (or ctrl-F for “what if a black man…” or “duuuhhhhhrrrr”) for more insight into your spectacularly logical objections.

      1. Right well thanks for showing me what a good reasoned argument should look like.

        To think this is the skeptical community at work is truely depressing.

        1. celticchimp:
          “To think this is the skeptical community at work is truely depressing.”

          Yes, it is. So knock it off.

          1. Ah, the irony is delicious :)

            I recieved two comments, both of which could be translated as

            “Shut up”.

            Irony really does make life worth living.

          2. celticchimp:

            Skepticism does not mean attending to every idiot who comes in saying “Look at me! I am here and I am saying something (that was previously addressed in hundreds of posts before mine)!” There is no irony here. You are misusing the concept as badly as Alanis Morissette.

            RW did not initially characterize her meeting with Elevator Guy as sexist. Other people did that. If you want to respond to the numerous other people who consider it sexist and objectifying, please do so. But first you’ll have to read what they say about it, and not just pretend like it was an assertion pulled from thin air.

            “By all accounts the guy was non-threatening in his invitation.”

            Oh, *thank you*. Why, of course, you’re the best person to judge this and we should all bow down to your superior powers of threat assessment, because you have the full weight and authority of… having never been there, and being just another pseudonymous internet persona who believes that he knows better than the ‘hysterical girl’ about what was going on.

            Sure, we’ve never heard *that* before either and have never evaluated it as an argument. There isn’t a significant subset of posts devoted to discussing the concept of “Schrödinger’s Rapist” and why a guy who disregards a woman’s stated desire not to be propositioned and who ignores her stated intention to go to bed and *then* chooses an isolated, physically constraining location to proposition her with the offer of coffee in his hotel room at 4 a.m. just *might* be perceived as a problem by a woman in a country where statistics say that 1 in 6 women will be the victims of a sexual assault in their lifetimes.

            Nope. None of this has happened, and you’re the first person to open our eyes to how fundamentally unwarranted and unkind that mean old RW has been to our hapless, socially inept Elevator Guy.

            Congratulations!

            Or, in other words, yes, shut up and read the thread. All your comments have been addressed. Just do a CTRL-F and look for them, though it might help to know how to spell “privilege” first.

          3. Nullfidian,

            You are great example of what I mean by the suddenly non-rational response this issue is evoking.

            RW did not initially characterize her meeting with Elevator Guy as sexist.

            Yes, she did. Had she not done so I would have been in complete support of what she had to say.

            Oh, *thank you*. Why, of course, you’re the best person to judge this and we should all bow down to your superior powers of threat assessment,

            See this is pure angry nonsense. Which part of by all accounts do you not understand; which to apply this vernacular concept to this particular case is to say that by Rebecca’s own account there is nothing to suggest he was threatening. She never claimed he was she was expressly objecting to what she termed “being sexualised”.

            Mostly your following remarks are a screed about how important I think I am and how privilaged I am. Hilariously, you are doing it in the context of me apparently presuming to much. I can’t wait to see you respond to sexycelticlady (I don’t know her incidently, the celtic part of our usernames is coincidece) telling her that she thinks she is so important and privaliged etc. etc.

            As to my points having been raised previously, if everyone (including you) did not post if someone had previous expressed the point or sentiment, there would be about six comments on this thread.

            Also, I’m dyslexic so I often spell words wrong. Thanks for pointing it out though, the internet was just crying out for another spelling and grammar critic.

            I have no desire to debate anything further with you. You have demonstrated clearly that you think you know who I am, what my motivations are etc. and that comprehension of speech and/or written english is not your strong suit.

          4. @celticchimp To be clear, I did not call the man sexist, and his behavior was (knowingly or not) threatening. That’s why I mildly suggested that men not do that if they want women to feel comfortable at events.

          5. celticchimp:
            “You are great example of what I mean by the suddenly non-rational response this issue is evoking.”

            Thanks. I find it superior to your brand of appalling pseudo-rationality.

            “Yes, she did.”

            Where?

            “Had she not done so I would have been in complete support of what she had to say.”

            Let me be blunt here: your support is not needed. If the only “support” women can expect in the atheist movement is the kind of “support” that results in guys calling all the shots, up to and including dictating how women can characterize and react to unwanted invasions of their personal space and bodily autonomy, then that kind of support is no support at all.

            “See this is pure angry nonsense. Which part of by all accounts do you not understand;”

            I think it’s the part where you get to second-guess Rebecca’s assessment of what is and isn’t a threat.

            “by Rebecca’s own account there is nothing to suggest he was threatening.”

            My point is made entirely.

            You claim it isn’t threatening. I think it was.

            As I said elsewhere:
            “One of the things that strikes me about this case is that not only do I find it plausible to perceive Elevator Guy as a potential threat, given the fact that he:

            “1) Was in the bar listening to Watson but never approached her, until
            “2) She was alone with him in an elevator, and
            “3) Ignoring her statements about being tired and not being interested in conference hookups,
            “4) His first approach was to make a proposition with a clear double-meaning

            “…I’m *still* not sure that Elevator Guy wasn’t a rapist. Yes, Watson got off the elevator without incident, but not all rapists attack the first victim they hit on either. Many who operate by threats and coercion rather than overwhelming violence prey on women that they think won’t cause them as much difficulty, and something about the way RW shut him down could have convinced him that she would have fought him too hard.

            “And if I, as a male, cannot be sure even with hindsight that this scenario wasn’t a rapist attempting to get close to a victim, how are women who live the reality of a rape culture every day of their lives supposed to know the difference in the moment?”

            So how *can* women tell the difference? They can’t check back in later with you to get your armchair assessment of whether they “overreacted” or not. So why don’t you do all women a favor, and use your unerring powers of observation and threat assessment to create a list that will protect women in every set of circumstances?

            Can you do it?

            If you can’t, why criticize women navigating a rape culture as best they can in their day-to-day lives and then speaking up about it online?

          6. Rebecca,

            It certainly seemed in your video that you were given the example of the guy in the elevator as an example of the “blatant misogyny” you mentioned prior. If you weren’t, fair enough. I honestly believe it is the charge of sexism, perhaps mistakely, that has ruffled so many feathers. I exclude, of course, the rampant assholery displayed by some of your critics on this.

            I am glad that you have stated that you will continue to speak about the kinds of behaviours that men engage in, perhaps unknowingly, that put women in uncomfable/compromised position. There is undeniablely a job of work to be done there.

            I hope you read my criticisms as they were intended. It was solely the charge of sexism I was objecting to.
            If I was mistaken in interpreting your comments and you never intend that particular charge, I apologise wholeheatedly.

            Thank you for taking the time to correct me.

  220. Sorry, I just have to add to my previous comment: what IS shocking to me is not the general misogyny displayed by Dawkins and others, but the fact that Dawkins would reply like that to someone he has met. It’s easy to be unspeakably rude, unkind and -ist to a faceless person over the internet, but to reply like that to someone you have seen and talked to, even briefly, is… stunning. And makes me want to be near him even less.

    1. Disagreeing with someone (however wrongly) about the appropriateness of a coffee invitation is not woman-hating or insulting the person he’s disagreeing with. His comments stuck to the case, not ad hominem, unlike the vitriolic responses to his comments. Don’t be so intolerant of someone just because they’re wrong about one thing, because everyone is wrong about something. It’s unfortunate that the issue is so laden with emotion that to disagree is to insult.

  221. The important and unfortunate aspect of this is that as a community, we NEED more involved women. PZ gets this! They’re half the population. They are the most oppressed by religion and kooky beliefs. It is very unfortunate that Dawkins doesn’t understand this, and would prefer to belittle the simple requests of women skeptics that can help the community, and HIM, too!

    Like PZ says: shut up and listen to the women!

  222. To be absolutely honest, and feel free to flame me for this, but I hadn’t really donated a (genuine) passing thought to the whole feminism movement before seeing the lectures by the prominent (and emerging) female atheists.

    Women being equals is just something I’ve always understood to be true. There never was a jury or trial, it was just a known… so I didn’t think about it. I didn’t think it to be a problem that actually existed on some measurable scale.

    That said, I’m glad I am not reading your blog and many others like it. My Google Reader list is growing by the day it seems! It’s enlightening to hear about how things are from your side of the fence, and how truly different it is for females in the movement. It reminds me of when I first heard that my sister, only being sixteen at the time, was being hit on the management at her job. I was both livid and astonished that bullshit like that still continues to happen to this day.

    While I am still conflicted about my overall thoughts for Dawkins, I have no trouble seeing he is wrong in what he had said. I’m just not ready to burn his collection and cast him out as a traitor to the movement quite yet.

  223. I have been absent from commenting for quite a while, relying more on only the podcasts as my skeptical source of information. Being busy in oh so many ways is a very good and fulfilling thing, but I do miss staying in touch via the blogs. So, tonight I come and touch base with Skepchick. And I see this.

    Last year at TAM, I walked out on Dawkins when DJ was interviewing him. I walked out specifically when he stated that religion was THE number one issue confronting skeptics today. That it should be attacked and attacked aggressively. Yeah, I am not a huge fan of organized religion either, but as a physician I have had to walk a fine line of allowing a desperate patient or a desperately sad patient to find comfort is his/her own spirituality while I guide that patient with science based medicine and well as compassionate empathy. The number one issue, in my opinion, for skepticism , is simply to educate as many as possible in how to critically think. Then let the individual come to his/her own conclusions on how to navigate one’s life. But I digress.

    I walked out on Dawkins not so much because I thought he was a hardcore atheist with that sole agenda, an agenda that should have been promoted an an atheist convention ,not a Skeptic’s convention ( though the overlap makes for a pretty compact ven diagram ), but I walked out on him because I thought he was a complete and utter asshole. But I kept that thought to myself.

    But like any good skeptic, I base my actions on the evidence. Now I have evidence he is an asshole.

    I won’t walk out on his talk this month. Because I won’t set foot in the auditorium when he is speaking.

    I am so sorry that you have had to put up with such bullshit. My office consists of me and five intelligent and by happenstance ( as I do not do the hiring ) beautiful women. I have learned so much from them. And they know I have their back if any person, even if it’s a patient, oversteps a boundary that any reasonable person would see as inappropriate.

    No person, not a woman, a man, a minority, an atheist, a theist should have to stand quietly if they are attacked, whether that attack is physical or verbal.

    For what it’s worth, I too, have your and any person’s back. No one should be a victim. EVER!

    1. I lost most of my respect for Professor Dawkins when he defended the giving of the eponymous award to Bill Maher, apparently because Maher’s atheism outweighs his rejection of modern medicine and anti-vax propagandizing. What little respect I had left has now evaporated. He’s just another guy with an upper-class accent.

  224. Forgive me, I’ve made a grave error. I meant to say that I —am— reading your blog and others like it… and not the other way around.

    I really need to stop commenting on things at 2am.

  225. Rebecca – thanks for bringing this issue to the wider attention of the atheist community. This is a “growing edge” situation for us and we will become better for it.

    The questions I would ask are:

    (1) What can we do to keep things like the elevator incident from happening at future conferences?

    (2) What institutional mechanisms can we have in place to respond when community challenges like this happen?

    This isn’t just a sexism issue. Given the prevailing demographics in the current-day atheist movement (mostly white, mostly male, mostly college-educated), it’s just a matter of time before we have a situation involving economic class or race complicated by issues of power and privilege.

  226. PS. I ammend the above. You are not a victim. He, the asshole noted above, tried to make you a victim.

    Long live Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

  227. Rebecca,
    .
    I don’t understand why it is necessary for you to break all ties with Dawkins, denounce him publicly, boycott his books and lectures, and encourage others to do the same.
    .
    Over this? What about all the fantastic things he has done? His discoveries in science, his battles with creationists and religious fundamentalists, and so on? Is all that really negated by him once ignoring your “experiences as an atheist woman”?
    .
    It seems like a very drastic move on your part. Perhaps you could reconsider?

  228. “And I said no. I learned more about modern feminism and about how their goals so clearly overlapped those of the humanists and skeptics and secularists, and I wrote and spoke more about the issues within that overlap because so few other skeptics were doing it.”

    In other words, fighting poor assumptions about how the world is. Can be greatly improved as described at http://pastebin.com/Q86Zhgs9.

    “And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.”

    See pooling equilibria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaling_game#Requirement_4
    “A pooling equilibrium is an equilibrium where senders with different types all choose the same message.”

    Given that
    1) many people in the world assume that associating with an ideology is done to communicate information and justify actions.
    2) many people in the world are unaware of the flaws in their assumptions.

    Therefore, the community of skeptics and atheists are commonly seen as being “logical” given a set of assumptions about what that word means. People who think that religion does not make sense, therefore we should construct our morality based off the needs and desires of other people, are pooling with and mistaken for people who think that religion does not make sense, therefore we should do whatever is legal with morality being impossible to derive or enforce. To convince more women to associate with the movement, you can’t just explain more about the ‘purpose’ or what the movement is about; because the lack of desire to associate is based on the very real consequence of the mistaken perceptions of third parties about anyone sending the “atheist/skeptic” signal.

    So the above text (http://pastebin.com/Q86Zhgs9), again, explains how to make people in society be more aware of alternate forms of signals beyond simple association with a particular movement or organization.

    “Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.”

    Sometimes it’s even more serious and life-threatening than you describe. Do you feel that the woman in this report had a proper appreciation for the efforts of the feminist movement?
    http://wikileaks.org/id/92C2418B-423D-4561-53D7A158D5B5C640/

  229. So Dawkins is wrong about one thing. Everybody’s wrong about something. So he’s wrong about a matter of opinion on the appropriateness of a coffee invitation. He’s not intending to insult, demean, or offend anybody. The amount of vitriol spewed back at him in comments on blogs is wildly disproportionate, and a blanket boycott would be a terrible loss because his books are still the best ones in support of naturalistic worldviews. Darwin believed in all kinds of wrong shit because he was born in 1804, but you don’t boycott him. Cut Dawkins a little slack for being over 70.

    Finally, this video is apropos:

    1. I agree we shouldn’t boycott RD, (I also disagreed with that part of the post) this doesn’t magically make his previous work less good or valuable. But I disagree with @jwray that we should cut him any slack because he is 70. That is ageism, it might explain his comments, but he deserves the ton of bricks coming down on top of him. I think he is smart and strong enough to figure it out.

      PS excellent post.

  230. Rebecca,
    I would agree with some recent commenters that while Dawkins’ comments exposed his ignorance and insensitivities, I don’t think it’s right to write him off in the way that you did.

    He himself has spoken in the past about “consciousness raising” in the context of religious indoctrination, and I think this is an opportunity for you, Rebecca, and this community in general to raise his consciousness with regard to the challenges faced by women in this (unfortunately) male-dominated society.

    Please reconsider, and perhaps use this as a “teachable moment” – I know it has been one for me.

    Best regards.

  231. Rebecca, just another “you rock” comment. I’ve seen this discussion on a few forums, and it’s honestly depressing. So yay for skepchick!

  232. This is hardly the first dickish thing Dawkins has said. Remember his comment that the BA-cross woman had a stupid face, his incompetent comments on the US “Jewish Lobby”, or his remark that religious indoctrination by priests was worse than sexual abuse by priests?

    Dawkins is right about a lot of things (e.g. evolution being real and God not existing to name two) but otherwise he can be bloody clueless at times. I _hope_ this shitstorm will make him think again about his sexism and ignorance. But even if it does I’m afraid it will be because of the disapprobation of people he respects (ie other privileged white guys like PZ) not of, well, “some girlie who writes on the ‘net”.

    1. That “religious indoctrination vs. priest sex abuse” thing was taken out of context. See the original here:

      “In the wake of the current scandal over child abuse by priests , I have had a letter from an American woman in her mid forties who was brought up Roman Catholic. She has two strong recollections from when she was seven. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And around the same time a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent was led to believe by the then official doctrine of her church. Her view now is that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She writes:

      ‘Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yuchy’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares.'”

      http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

      The article is perfectly reasonable, actually. The threat of infinite torture forever in Hell, if sincerely believed, can cause more mental anguish than most physical abuse.

  233. Hi there,

    Sorry I’m not sure whether this is the right place to be writing this, but I couldn’t find an email link and the “Contact Us” bit had a character limit.

    I must admit that I was in very much the same camp as Rebecca with regards to feminism at first, believing that our society and those in sceptical/atheistic circles had outgrown the old-fashioned, misogynistic attitudes of our predecessors. Indeed, I initially agreed with Dawkins’ comments, purely because I saw that there were potentially more important issues to be dealing with (not at all to belittle the situation – I considered it to be simply a matter of scale)

    However, some of the reactions I have seen from certain quarters on Pharyngula etc have caused me to despair. I assumed that, because we live in a relatively enlightened age, the notion of glass ceilings and mate entitlement (I’m not using the word “privilege” purely for semantic reasons) could be expunged once and for all. Sadly it would appear not – I had absolutely no idea that there were still educated people out there who could hold such opinions. It is incredibly frustrating for progressive men and women who value gender equality to feel that their work is being hindered by small-minded pillocks who in no way speak for the rest of us. As such, I can only imagine how much more frustrating and disheartening it must be for you.

    Please keep up the good work – you write and speak exceptionally and I’ve always enjoyed listening to your input, be it on SGU, the Scepchick podcast or individual lectures. This is a battle that feminism will win; it is inevitable given the steps our society continues to make in all fields, despite the Luddite attitudes of the less well-informed of our peers, and I for one will actively fight for and applaud the day when we can lay to rest these silly gender differences once and for all.

    Yours, from a fan,

    Charlie (UK, currently based in Frankfurt, Germany)

  234. I have a lot of respect and admiration for Dawkins. I’ve read and thoroughly enjoyed his books.

    So I can’t helpt but feel disappointed by this response. Especially since it’s pretty clearly related to his own argument about how moderate religion creates a space for fundamentalism to grow. Accepting “moderate” levels of misogyny clearly also creates a place for the greater horrors of repression and genital mutilation to grow and fester.

  235. If you don’t agree with a feminist with a high profile,about an issue of feminism, you are automatically cast into the darkness? I don’t particularly agree with you either, yes the man in the lift was a bit crass… and that’s it. And Richard Dawkins is a bloke so he won’t have experienced being scared by a possibly entirely well-intentioned man. It’s probably more okay for me to say that I don’t share your *level* of outrage because I am female and for another credibility point, borderline working class.. And people who do not agree wholeheartedly with you may “get it” full well, they just don’t agree with you. If you start excluding men or anyone else who doesn’t agree with you about YOUR core issues you will soon be in a lovely echo chamber with plenty of supportive murmuring and very little relevance to the world outside. You are doing EXACTLY what men did 20 years ago, telling me when I should feel oppressed.

    1. That a supposedly rational community is so openly and vehemently agitated by a blunt response to an over-reaction (that is all I can see the original event as since it was entirely an assumption of intent) is truly disheartening.
      I agree with your words of warning, though it won’t exactly matter since I’m not female.

      1. “I agree with your words of warning, though it won’t exactly matter since I’m not female.”

        Yes. Maybe someday, men too can have a powerful voice in the atheist community, but for now that remains but a dream.

        Seriously, dude?

        1. I dunno. I read his post as as ‘not able to comment on *sexism or feminism* because I am a man’. I am not a man, I am a tiny mouthy woman, in case anyone is interested. I went and asked several other middleaged mouthy woman how they would have reacted to Rebecca’s situation: so far 5 think they would have thought the man in the elevator was an arse, and would have forgotten about it immediately, three said it would have depended on whether he was fit or not (including a gobby 70year old) and two think they would have been scared. This is in no way a scientific sampling but they all identify as feminists, and of course they are all English, but it certainly indicated a plurality of response from feminist women.

    2. Please stop the ridiciulous, juvenile hyperbole. It goes absolutely nowhere.

  236. Originally when I heard about this story and Jen McCreight and PZ Meyer’s response I was pretty upset at what I saw as a personal attack on Dawkins. I’m not a huge fan of him but nonetheless I found Jen’s response to be over the top. I also didn’t find his original comments to be that bad. Having just read Rebbecca’s response though, I realize that people were really offended by him, in fact the whole issue has been quite an eye opener for me. I am somewhat depressed though
    about this – I always thought that atheists and skeptics were somehow above such things. Clearly not. Hopefully though people will learn from their mistakes. So thanks for bringing the subject up and not backing down.

  237. Rebecca, one more to say publicly and loudly:

    YOU ROCK. Thanks for not being a “good girl”.

  238. I am truly amazed at what has happened with this, when I saw your video I agreed because it’s not much to ask people not to hit on you, and I moved on, but I never expected all this to happen. I will be joining with others in no longer presenting Dawkins with my money and instead giving it to people who deserve it.

    My situation is a bit different, but because of my situation I’ve had to deal with the same amount of sexism as any girl, and I dunno if it has made me any more uncomfortable, but it is certainly a different kind of uncomfortable considering I’m a female to male transsexual. I was raped, told it was my own fault for… I dunno, not saying no enough times, and was forced to move on. Because of the things I’ve dealt with and the things I’ve seen many women have to deal with it’s amazing to see such dedication to uproot this problem completely.

    When I became an atheist and free thinker I thought they where far above such primitive ways of thinking, but I have been thoroughly proven wrong many times over. In my mind sexism was created by religion and thus atheists would be above diverting to sexism, but clearly this is not the case. It hasn’t been the case with being transsexual either, in fact I think religious people have been more excepting of me then most atheists I have met. I just don’t get it.

    Anyway, you keep fighting the good fight, don’t let these old farts with their old fashioned ways of thinking get you down! This is a new world, and it’s ready to be changed by people like us!

    Sorry for typos and grammar, I read it over a few times but it’s late and I’m tired and can’t sleep.

  239. “So many of you voiced what I had already been thinking: that this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experiences as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don’t think my reading list will suffer.”

    I think this is an overreaction. Richard Dawkins is human being (and it seems a decent human being) and has made what most people will regard as a poorly-measured comment in bad taste, on a blog. It is common for one person to say something that is considered in poor taste, or offensive to another person or persons. This is part of the daily experience of being a human being. I have on many occasions said things that I did not realize the implications of until later. I would hope that the people who were offended would take a reasonable view of my comments, given the way I behave otherwise and think that maybe I made a mistake, or a misjudgement, or simply incorrectly estimated the thoughts and feelings of other people. To decide, on the basis of one (or two, if you count Dawkins’ response) blog comments written in poor taste, that one wants nothing more to do with the person writing them is an overreaction, in my view (unless the comments are deliberately obscene or threatening).

    Richard Dawkins is sarcastic in poor-taste about Rebecca feeling uncomfortable and threatened in a lift with a man who asked her back to his room. Richard possibly could not fully empathise with Rebecca’s feelings because he had probably not experienced this type of situation in the same cultural context (threatened woman in confined space). Rebecca calls Richard out on this on her blog. Up to this point, all good. Then Rebecca says she wants nothing to do with Richard because of this poorly-measured comment. Disagree. Richard is a human being, fully capable of misunderstanding and making mistakes, despite his scientific and sceptical credentials. In this situation the first course of action, in my view, would be to give Richard the benefit of the doubt, explain to him your feelings (as you have done in this blog post) and encourage him to engage with you on this. By saying you want nothing more to do with Richard, you close the door to any further engagement and the possibly of enlightening him (and potentially others) as to your point of view.

  240. I just wanted to add my voice to the group telling you that you’ve done the right thing. In fact, you’ve been amazingly reasonable and more than kind.

    As you say, I started thinking it was flattering (if terrifying on occasion) when a man I don’t know aggressively hit on me. I thought it was a compliment, and that surely my experience of horrible sexist behavior was isolated and couldn’t be a bigger problem. At that point, I thought sexist behavior was only when someone grabbed me, that it only counted if someone bruised me, or tried to assault me, or physically kept me from doing something. I didn’t think at all about all the times a male coworker or peer cut me off, told me I couldn’t know anything, or ordered me to do something for him which interrupted my work tasks and was not in my duties. I really thought that ignoring gender and sexism made me ‘better’ than those other girls, those hysterical girls who seemed to think that they should talk about something that surely only happened to a few women, surely it couldn’t be a big problem.

    And then I realized I was essentially spending a huge amount of energy ignoring everything my experience was telling me, and clinging to the idea that if I were just good enough, the guys would treat me like I was intelligent and nice and that they were only harassing me because I gave off some sort of wrong signal.

    And then it occurred to me that I was blaming myself for WAY too much shit I couldn’t control, and that living anxiously for approval which would NEVER be quite forthcoming was bullshit. I still have the anxiety, for all the reasons listed below.

    I’ve paid for refusing to not critique this experience since– people who are professionals with PhD math degrees, with various natural sciences degrees, and even some of my male students (I teach college; the biggest offenders are typically engineering students) have threatened me (mostly rape or murder), groped me, followed me, made fun of me (mostly by talking about how my vagina makes me irrational), talked incessantly about their erections or genitalia, tried to tell me that I owed them something physical, yelled over me while I was trying to talk, stared at my boobs, etc. Pretty much the same way as religious men treated me growing up.

    The trolls, when I blogged, were also…fun. It is really essential, as you and others have said, for the atheist and skeptical community to turn that ability to critical think on the community.

    Shit has got to change. Sorry for wall of text.

  241. Hi, Rebecca,

    I am an old occasional reader of your blog and first time commenter. I could not leave this without comment. Not that I have that much to add but being a female (former) scientist and having had many of the same (and some other, equally outrageous) experiences I must say one has to wonder about the sanity of some man. Dawkins has become too famous for his own good and is so out of touch as to be completely oblivious. Too bad.

  242. If you want to know what it is like, imagine a homeless person asking you for change while you’re trapped in a lift. Sure, in all likelihood they’re harmless and just being a bit cheeky… but you don’t want to say no, do you?

    Think.

    1. That analogy doesn’t really work, since it has the same problem as all the other ones — that societal power and privilege will be entirely on the side of the NON-homeless person. It’s very hard to work out an analogy for the situation that will make sense to a straight white male (who has not put actual time into understanding how everyone else lives), since in any situation where they might stand to be a victim, they can count on most people, even perfect strangers, to support them.

      As is now painfully obvious, a woman in an uncomfortable situation with a man can’t count on any such support.

  243. Many others have probably already expressed a similar sentiment, but let’s just hope Dawkins has had his consciousness raised as he likes to say.

    Thanks Rebecca :-)

  244. I just want to add to the pile-on — thank you so, so much for this post, and for generally being awesome during all of this. I was ready to abandon the atheist scene altogether because of this brouhaha and the ugliness it exposed (especially in Dawkins). Pretty clear I’m not welcome, what with my nonsubmissive ladybits and all. But seeing people like you sticking it out and trying to make it better, instead of writing it off, gives me courage. Just thanks again.

  245. Well done Rebecca. You’ve finally popped the lid fully off this issue in the atheist/skeptic movement.

    In a way it’s analogous, ironically, to the race issues in the early feminist movement.

    I’m a man who is becoming more and more aghast at the extreme levels of denialism around misogyny in this community. It’s great that you’ve escalated this into the furious debate it needs to be.

    So disappointed in RD. What a dick.

    Wake up you dumb shits. The Earth is not flat. Life-forms did not come into being through special creation. God does not exist. And atheist women are not being “over-sensitive.”

  246. I just want to add my support to the hundreds of comments above! I found Skepchick a few months ago and love it.

    Rebecca – I think you are incredibly brave! I’ve been thinking about starting my own blog for a few months now, but its fear of the abuse and hate that you open yourself up to that has put me off. I have the deepest respect for you (and the other Skepchicks) for daring to stick your heads above the parapet and talking about issues that need talking about!

    As a fellow Brit I feel let down by Dawkins’ comments, which have tarnished him in my eyes. Feminism is such a dirty word in the UK, and I wish we had someone like the Skepchicks over here to raise similar issues and organise conferences here too!

    1. Feminism is such a dirty word in the UK? Not been my own experience. Occasional eye-rolling, maybe, as I bang on about how fellow women don’t get paid enough, and how women don’t get the same job terms as men and opportunities for promotion. It’s been about 20 years since someone last said to me “But you don’t look like a lesbian,” in response to a declaration of feminism.

      1. 20 years!?! You must move in far more enlightened circles than me!

        1. I doubt it :-) I work in the construction industry, not generally known for its position at the cutting edge of gender politics.

          1. I’m seriously impressed! That gives me hope :) I must be trapped in a backwater of chauvinism, where sexist jokes are still considered the height of witty humour.

  247. Before you can accurately talk about the privileges Dr. Dawkins experiences, I think it is very important that you recognize how many death threats/threatening mail Dr. Dawkins receives with respect to how many you get. It is certainly not fair to claim that your threatening emails are, in any way, special as I would guess that you experience <<1% of the hatred he does. After all, the man is internationally hated by (nearly) every church and religious person under the sun. I'm not saying that the hatred you experience is less serious, but by calling Dr. Dawkins a rich, white, male and acting like that makes him privileged or immune to the things you experience is one of the most absurd things I have ever read. The things you have been through and the threats you have received are horrible, but you should certainly try to live in Dr. Dawkins' shoes for a day– I'm sure it isn't all green grass, unicorns, and rainbows.

    1. i don’t know why, but i suppose that dawkins doesn’t receive a lot of rape threats…
      He is privileged because he doesn’t receive threats for his being male and white… while the rape threats received by rebecca (and many others) are done on the basis that she is female…
      The privilege consists in the fact that he is not menaced for what he IS…

  248. Reading though the comments here, I won’t quote any since there are a lot and I haven’t read them all, I think some people have let this matter intrude too much into their lives.

    There were comments about not knowing if a man they have just met is a rapist or not and that this is a problem. It was likened to Schrödinger’s cat, that until proved otherwise they are both. (Unless I have misunderstood what is meant by ‘Schrödinger’s Rapist’).

    This is a pretty unhealthy relationship to have towards men, the vast majority of whom are not going to be rapists. This is not that precautions should not be taken but to have that presumption upon meeting someone could impact seriously on your relationships. There was someone else who wouldn’t attend conferences because of the ‘creep’ factor. Is it really that high?

    Once you let this impact upon your life in such a way then it’s a problem and your letting a worthwhile cause have a negative influence on your life. IMO.

    1. read the linked article? It doesn’t sound like it. Nevermind your whole “if you’re upset, it’s your fault and the best cure is to shut up” argument. Not even touching that one.

      1. That wasn’t my argument. My ‘point’, which was directed at the commentators and not the author, is that it’s unhealthy to be so untrusting of men. The vast of men are not rapists so while it is sensible to be cautious going into each new meeting thinking’this is a potential rapist’ is emotionally unhealthy and not at all the point of the article nor the point of feminism.

  249. As much as a smart and well-known skeptic he may be, I have always thought of Richard Dawkins as a bit if a pompous twat, and I have never really liked the voice he writes with in his books, but wow, who knew my hunch was right. I’m not even a feminist and his response knocks me fucking sick. I’m sorry that you have to go through things like this Rebecca and I think you’re really brave for standing up for yourself – and victims of sexual assault everywhere.

  250. @Rebecca Watson

    You say:

    You may recall that I related an incident in which I was propositioned, and I said, “Guys, don’t do that.” Really, that’s what I said. I didn’t call for an end to sex. I didn’t accuse the man in my story of rape. I didn’t say all men are monsters. I said, “Guys, don’t do that.”

    But you did… and that’s why there’s such a reaction.

    Here’s why:

    When you are addressing the male atheist/skeptic readership with “Guys,”, right after telling the story, that draws a clear link. Maybe you did it unconsciously, but that’s an implicit accusation of the whole atheist/skeptic male community.

    Your story is the premise. Your request, “Guys, don’t do that.“, is the conclusion – a condensed form of the reciprocal / rhetorical statement: “you guys are all rapists and molesters; stop being like that!”.

    I just wanted to point this out for people who enjoy rational debate.

  251. I have only recently started to read both Rebecca and Jen’s blogs, actually at the behest of PZ, that more people take more of an interest in what female atheists have to say. Since this argument has blown up however I admit that I have conflicting feelings and feel somewhat confused, initially as to who is “in the right” but now, what my own feelings are on the matter.

    I’ll try and hash it out:

    I agree that an elevator (lift) is not a good place to attempt to meet members of the opposite sex: no escape route. This works equally for any confrontation, RD wouldn’t like me for example pursuing him into a lift at 4:00am to inflict myself or my views upon him.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the basics of feminism, that no woman should have to suffer being sexual objectified by any other person. That no-one has the right to touch you or invade your personal space, but I stop short of a blanket ban on approaching another person with intent to meet them and get to know them.

    I think Rebecca was wrong in how she gave her initial advice, when she first spoke about the incident. She said “guys, don’t do that”. She should have (in my opinion) directed her comments to the guy in question and not to males everywhere. Please don’t treat men/guys/males/blokes as one homogenous group, we are not, I am an individual and it annoys me greatly when anyone lumps me into a group for the purposes of issuing advice. I have nothing in common with this guy in the lift other than sharing a Y chromosome, I understand Rebecca’s comment, why she issued the advice but still, since she directed it at “guys” she directed it at me personally and that’s unacceptable to me.

    I have come to realise from reading this and Jen’s blog that women get a lot of shit from men seemingly on a daily basis but because I am not one of these men i’ve never really given the issue much thought. I am more conscious of the issue than I was before but still don’t want to be treated by women as a part of the problem.

    Richard’s comments were ridiculously sarcastic even for a fellow Brit and he did seem to have missed the point, it’s not that there are more important issues effecting women around the globe, it’s simply that making women feel uncomfortable when approaching them is not only a violation but is completely counter-productive to the intended goal/s.

    I am a bit disappointed in both Rebecca and Jen’s decision to boycott Richard Dawkins from now on. You don’t have to agree with someone all of the time and on every issue to respect their work and opinions in other areas. If Dawkins has something to say regarding Atheism, evolution or creationism I will still listen, even if I disagree with his opinions regarding this particular matter. I disagree with PZ, Rebecca and Jen quite often and on a variety of opinions but I still respect their views, I’d ask this comminty not to right-off Dawkins because you disagree with him over this issue, he still has a lot of things to teach.

    1. It was not directed at you personally. Lots of advice is given generally to “people” “women” or “men”. The advice is not aimed at people, women, or men who already follow that advice. If I said, after describing a horrible car crash, “people, wear your seatbelts.” I’d be pretty shocked if someone stood up and said “I’m offended that you think I would be so irresponsible as to not wear a seatbelt! How dare you group me with those irresponsible jerks!”

      And that’s you right now. And you look foolish. Stop.

  252. I really appreciate what you’ve been doing Rebecca. As a 50 year old bi woman with an engineering background, I know how hard it is to function in an environment that is sexist. I was at one time the only woman working on a base with a population of about 500.
    Its sad that we seem to take some many steps backwards and so few forwards.
    Anyway I think you did great, and I admire you for your insight, clear thinking and courage.
    Also I love SGU as well.
    Keep up the good work, and all the best.

  253. I’m going to be writing a letter to Dawkins today as a way of trying to get my mind around what has happened here, and if I manage to make it measured and rational enough, I’ll be forwarding it to you at skepchick.org.

    Reading how many apologists are insisting that Dawkins cannot in any way be faulted here is a bit disheartening. The insistence of SOME ‘new atheists’ to only look outward to find mistakes in logic leads to status quo thinking. AND it is too often reflected in the idea that it’s only valid to question authority if it’s religious authority.

    Very few people are willing to say the obvious, It is a mistake to think that one horrendous injustice can be used in some way to dismiss or trivialize the valid observation that you made, Rebecca.

    The actions of the man in the elevator at 4 in the morning made you rightly wary. You politely declined his invitation, and made a video coherently expressing the reasons for your [in my opinion] very understandable reactions.

    The only logical connection that has to the horrible situation which women face in Muslim countries, is that a feeling of entitlement and privilege could be said to exist in both these situations.

    Not to notice the sense of privilege in both situation [while, yes, acknowledging that the first is far graver] to me is a wilful dismissal of your valid points. It’s more comfortable to default to the default position which will include the subliminal text “women just tend to over react in these situations.”

    I’m glad that you, PZ Myers, Jen McCreight, have stated the obvious here.

  254. Make a few back, from the female side. With appropriate gestures. I had to learn to be mouthy, but if it doesn’t come naturally, you could try asking them to explain why it’s funny, yawn elaborately or suggest they tell that one to their mum. Have to say, being in my 40s makes quelling men much easier. I have longish blonde hair, nail extensions and a substantial rack to go with my hard hat and steelie boots. No-one *ever* confuses me with Barbie.

  255. still no word about that whole topic on RichardDawkins.net.
    I wonder if people try to launch this as a discussion topic and are just not being approved

  256. TO those questioning the need to boycott Dawkins: no one is demanding you need participate. if you feel comfortable giving money and support to an excessively privileged man who has used that position to silence, shame, dismiss and mock the very real issues and concerns of women in the movement, no one is attempting to stop you.

    I, however, lack the luxury of pretending it doesn’t matter, and that he hasn’t done everything he can to prove Rebecca’s point 100% correct.

    I choose to never again give my hard-earned money to a man who thinks I’m less than, but still pretends to be an ally.

    And, all of this has made it very, VERY clear that I won’t be attending any conferences. At least, not unless there is someone speaking that I absolutely must see speak.

    1. This issue sounds like it’s angered you a great deal, may I conclude that you used to respect professor Dawkins up until this recent incident but that his dismissal of Rebecca’s concerns has undermined any respect you might have had?

      I don’t think Dawkins was trying to suggest you or any woman is ‘less than’ an ally, an atheist and a friend, I don’t think his comments were meant to silence anyone or mock them outright. His wild sarcasm was intened to point out that there are much more oppresive and disgusting acts committed against women – by men – than ElevatorGate (couldn’t resist it sorry everyone).

      He missed the point yes, his comments didn’t contribute much to the discussion other than to damage his reputation and pour fuel on the fire. I think he’d be upset to see that so many people are taking his comments so personally (I know I do when I say something dumb).

      Also, I would like to talk more about this privilege issue, how is Dawkins more priviledged than any other British citizen with an above average income? His position is not an elected one after all so everyone is free to ignore or commend him as they see fit.

      I’m not trying to start an argument, I genuinely want to know what so many people mean when they talk about priviledge – because at the moment I don’t understand.

      1. “may I conclude that you used to respect professor Dawkins up until this recent incident but that his dismissal of Rebecca’s concerns has undermined any respect you might have had?

        I have been a fan of Dawkins in the past, yes. It was not this incident alone that has diminished my respect for him, but obviously has not helped.

        “His wild sarcasm was intened to point out that there are much more oppresive and disgusting acts committed against women – by men – than ElevatorGate “

        And by committing this silencing tactic – the shame and blame game of clearly implying that western feminists are whiny, spoiled brats who have no real concerns to complain about (and, weirdly, implying that “American women” and “Muslim women” are to mutually exclusive groups) – he proves that he is absolutely no ally. It clearly suggests that he thinks western feminists don’t care and are not active against these issues. It clearly announces that he – a privileged, wealthy, white man – has the real authority to decide what is worthy of Feminism’s attention.

        Telling Rebecca, et al, that they should shut up and take it because something worse is happening elsewhere is a very common sexist silencing tactic. Very popular among “leftist” dudes.

        It is not the words of an ally. It’s the words of a sexist.

        As for what privilege means, I’d suggest googling “male privilege checklist” and “white privilege checklist”. Also, visiting the Feminism 101 blog and/or Shakesville’s Feminism 101 section. There’s a wealth of information there and they are all far more articulate and well-versed than I to explain the concept.

  257. I don’t have much to add to everything above, except support for your perspective from another middle-aged white guy who hopes he’s a little more advanced than many you’ve encountered. I also hope that my wife and I are raising my daughters to be willing and ready to speak their minds and defend themselves as they get older.

    One question, and it might serve as a future topic:
    If someone as active as you are in the skeptical movement has the overall impression that you do (an impression that seems to be very well justified), what can be done to improve/shift that?

    Basically, how do we fix this?

    You can’t just force everyone to go to sensitivity training, but neither can you ignore this issue. It is a real issue.

    If it turned out that the dude on the elevator was really only interested in coffee and conversation, but was really inept at interpersonal communication, what should he do differently? Then, how do get that information to him without creating more animosity? Is it even possible?

    At some level, I wish we could just smack people around and explain some things to them about how to interact with people and how to try to understand the context of the other human being(s) in the room. Unfortunately, that isn’t seen as culturally acceptable and it would be nice to actually create a mutually supportive community.

    1. you know, these are exactly the questions i’m asking myself… how to change this situation?
      What could make people understand that, regardless of you gender, nationality or colour, you should try to understand other people’s concerns…
      Problem is… my answer is “I don’t know” -_-
      The nearest thing i can think of is taken from the now famous “Shrodiger Rapist” blogpost and it is that everyone should ask himself “If I were dangerous, would this woman/man be safe in this space with me?”.
      But then you stumble on the tiny problem that only those who don’t need this lesson will understand the meaning of the question… *ARGH*

  258. Speaking strictly as an observer as I was not in Rebecca’s shoes and can’t possibly know how she felt, only empathize and probably rather poorly, as I am a male, I would seek to exercise some caution before a full blown boycott of Dawkins ensues.

    Look, he is a brilliant communicator of science and he himself states that he ‘doesn’t get it’. Which is to say, he is ignorant of what is going on. Since when do we crucify folks for ignorance? Take some time and attempt to educate the man. If you can seek an audience with him at TAM, then do so.

    The rational feminist movement would make far greater strides in having Richard Dawkins as an ally, rather than throwing him under the bus to elevate awareness.

    1. What is with the unhinger hyperbole? How is “I chose not to give Dawkins my money” even vaguely on par with crucifiction?
      What is with the unhinger hyperbole? How is “I chose not to give Dawkins my money” even vaguely on par with crucifiction?

      I’m sure its very nice for you to have the privilege to value his presence in the movement above the concerns of women in the movement. I lack that luxury. He will not see another dime from me.

      Words are not fists. Boycotts are not violence.
      I’m sure its very nice for you to have the privilege to value his presence in the movement above the concerns of women in the movement. I lack that luxury. He will not see another dime from me.

      Words are not fists. Boycotts are not violence.

      1. As Jen properly stated in her response, Words do hurt.

        If boycotts do not wound someone financially, then why do it? Boycott’s seek to do harm to someone.

        And you fail to address the central message of my reply which is that ignorance is not a crime. I was ignorant once and calm rational people showed me my error rather than shunning me and attempting to publicly belittle me for being ignorant and guess what, I saw reason and changed my mind on issues of theism, creationism, liberalism, feminism, etc.

        I think you are missing an opportunity to teach one of the most visible communicators of science something valuable and bring him to your side. He stated that he is open to someone showing him why he doesn’t get it and the response is to boycott.

        So it appears from your position that you would rather shun and pillory a highly visible public persona for their ignorance rather than educate them.

  259. I’m putting my TAM ticket up for sale…I was looking forward to it, but after seeing what the huge majority of people in the “Skeptical Community” are like and then reading up on past experiences of women who have gone to events, I think not. I began this foray into skepticism with the naive thought that women were valued for their minds, but it seems culturally no different than a comic-book convention.

    I have no desire to go be ogled and hit on and valued for my body (and I’m a thin blonde with a big chest, so I can’t imagine I’ll have a genuine conversation with anyone.)

    I really feel like crying, but then the bastards will have won. It’s my own fault for thinking skeptics might be more rational than the usual male.

    1. I hear you – already sold mine. Was very much looking forward to it, but, like someone said on one of the Pharyngula threads – I get treated like a brainless sex object on any average day for free, why the hell should I pay a bunch of money to get treated like that some more? ($10 says there’ll be at least one dude who says “Why are there no women here?”)

      Since there seems to be a frightening number of pseudo-skeptic dudes whose opinion of women is no different than your average fundie’s, why get involved?

      Nah. Perhaps we should be thinking about our own conference.

    2. Please don’t boycott it’s the same as letting the bastards win. If you’re a godless skeptic and want to attend the TAM then bloody well do so and name and shame anyone who behaves in an inappropriate manner. Walk around with a pencil behind your ear and a little notebook and take a note of anyone who makes you feel uncomfortable with their behaviour, then call them on it. The problem of ill-behaviour by men willl never be resolved if women simply move to a female only venue, I can’t understand how annoying it must be for you to get repeated, un-wanted attention – I’m not being sarky I really can’t understand what with never having been harrassed by females – but if you point it out to them and ask them to leave you alone then surely this is better than staying inside and letting the swines spoil your enjoyment?

  260. Yeah!! Boycott!! Or don’t if you don’t want to!!

    Some of us are definitely all about non-accommodationism. We don’t need to settle for hitching ourselves to people who we have fundamental differences with. And there is definitely an issue with allowing someone to use your association with them to gain credibility on an issue while not helping your cause on that issue at all.

    Forget the sexism and the power imbalance and all that other stuff for just a minute, because that just seems to muddy the waters for so many people. Just look at it as superficially as possible. Dawkins showed up with what is basically a declaration from on high: “Rebecca Watson, you must keep your focus on the issues that I deem to be most important! All of you, stop talking about things that I find irrelevant to what I want to work on!” Who the fuck elected him King of the AtheSkeptiHumanists? Really? He gets to decide for Watson and the rest of us who agree with her what we can talk about, where we should put our focus, and what things we should find important? Beyond the privilege and all that, he’s just being an entitled dick!

    Now, if you think someone is being an entitled dick, dismissive of your ideas and your right to make your own priorities… what do you do? Do you say “hey, that’s OK, my thoughts and priorities should match whatever you tell me, I’m sorry” and give in to that pressure? Or do you say “hey buddy, you have shown me open disrespect and I’m not going to put up with it” and cut ties until they apologize? The fact that Dawkins is powerful in these circles isn’t a reason to cave in and make nice when he refuses to budge, that’s an expression of the sort of privilege that allows him to make dickish sweeping statements and assume no one will call him out.

    So he’s been called out. And maybe some of the rest of you should feel called out as well. If we’re going to get anywhere worth getting, it is going to be based on the sort of values we care about. That includes ideas over personalities, and integrity over going along to get along. If we’re just going to suck up to power because “that’s who can get things done” even when they don’t share your goals, we might as well pack it all up and get behind the Pope or something.

  261. Well if that’s reason enough for American women to stop complaining about sexism and inappropriate behavior then it’s certainly reason for English professors to stop complaining about religion (that is, no reason at all).

    People in other countries sometimes get shot dead for expressing an opinion. Does that make it OK if I slap the next person who tries the ‘you shouldn’t complain about X because person/country Y has it worse’? I hope so.

    On a more general note, finding this blog post and the responses to it has cheered me up no end. I found the SGU podcast in 2006 and loved it, but reading the forums made it feel like a bit of a ‘straight boy’s club’ in which I did not belong. Watching skepticism slowly evolving(!) over recent years towards something more inclusive has been really heartening.

  262. I’m surprised and disappointed by Richard Dawkins’ comments.

    I don’t understand why he felt the need to comment at all nor how he could fail to see that women still have to put up with a lot of BS from men.

    His comment is like telling someone with food poisoning not to complain because someone else is starving.

    I hope this doesn’t put anyone off getting involved with skeptism/humanism etc.

  263. It seems to me that both sides are overreacting and this is snowballing into a much bigger issue than it needs to be.

    I know that’s a dangerous thing to say, because it can get a person labeled as a sexist who belittles the plight of women, so let me be clear that I had no problem with your original video. Your PSA about men needing to be more aware of the situations they can put women into and not be creepy was apropos, and hopefully a guy in an elevator at 4 a.m. will think twice before he makes a creepy move at a convention next time. But the dialog has since been coupled with the atheist movement, and been labeled as “a problem with atheists” as opposed to “a problem with some men”, and that’s made everyone go crazy-go-nuts. I think rather than prove that there is an inherent sexism in atheism, all you have proven is that the atheist movement contain a lot of people on both sides who are very sensitive to the issue, who will go into attack mode at the drop of a hat. Dawkins made a (badly timed and toned) sarcastic remark about how we shouldn’t blow this out of proportion, and ironically, that has made people blow it out even more. Bad move on his part, I agree, but I can’t help but think that he might have been upset that you called out someone who disagreed with you by name, and that this dialog has devolved into name calling. You, Rebecca, are not above making flame-fanning hyperbole:

    “And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.”

    Was that the full range of responses? Really? Every response was they wanted to fuck you or belittle you? I’m not denying that atheists, like every other section of society, has sexism, but by your characterization of atheists as somehow inherently worse than the general populace is what’s upsetting people. You talk about how important it is that people see it from your perspective, but I’d submit that before you go asking for a boycott on Dawkins and labeling him as a patriarchal privileged male, you try to see the other side to this issue yourself. People need to tone it down and bring civility back to the table.

    1. IOW, shut up, sit down, be pretty, be quiet, just take it, be a good girl.

      Out of curiosity, ghostcat, exactly why would you fear of being labeled a sexist? As we have clearly seen in this episode, there are huge numbers of men in the movement who see that as a feature, not a bug.

      1. As Jen properly stated in her response, Words do hurt.

        If boycotts do not wound someone financially, then why do it? Boycott’s seek to do harm to someone.

        And you fail to address the central message of my reply which is that ignorance is not a crime. I was ignorant once and calm rational people showed me my error rather than shunning me and attempting to publicly belittle me for being ignorant and guess what, I saw reason and changed my mind on issues of theism, creationism, liberalism, feminism, etc.

        I think you are missing an opportunity to teach one of the most visible communicators of science something valuable and bring him to your side. He stated that he is open to someone showing him why he doesn’t get it and the response is to boycott.

        So it appears from your position that you would rather shun and pillory a highly visible public persona for their ignorance rather than educate them.

        1. “If boycotts do not wound someone financially, then why do it? Boycott’s seek to do harm to someone.”

          LOL, no. I have no delusions that my not spending any money on Dawkins in the future will do him ANY harm. He’ll still be wildly popular, still be rich, still have a huge platform to use against the women in the movement.

          I will not be spending any money on Dawkins in the future so that I will not be complicit in what he does. It’s as simple as that.

          I do the same with any corporation, etc., that engages in practices that are problematic. I.e. I don’t shop at Wal-Mart ever. Its not hurting Wal-mart, but I can look myself in the mirror and not see a hypocrite. Such now is how I view Dawkins.

          This is not an act hoping to do harm. Its an act of preventing myself from participating in his crap.

          “And you fail to address the central message of my reply which is that ignorance is not a crime.”

          I didn’t think it needed to be said, but apparently it does: Ignorance is not an excuse. It also isn’t the problem – his refusal to listen is the problem. His refusal to consider that he’s not the be-all end-all decision maker on what feminists are allowed to focus on that’s the problem. This is not about the necessity of agreeing. If he were an ally, he’d at least listen. He didn’t. He’s no ally.

          “I think you are missing an opportunity to teach one of the most visible communicators of science something valuable and bring him to your side. He stated that he is open to someone showing him why he doesn’t get it and the response is to boycott.“

          Which is, of course, a straight up lie. He’s playing the “show me why I’m wrong” card now simply because he can. He’s already been told. He’s already been shown. He sat next to Rebecca and listened to her talk about all of this and STILL dismissed her. He. Is. No. Ally.

          “So it appears from your position that you would rather shun and pillory a highly visible public persona for their ignorance rather than educate them.”

          If making up things about me, based on nothing but your need to believe it, helps you keep up this shaming crusade against women dares to decide what they will and will not spend their own money on, have fun. Everything that helps prove Rebecca’s point is helpful.

          Again, out of curiosity? why is it my job to educate him – after so many other people have already tried and gotten nowhere? Is he not an adult? Does he not have access to the same information that I do? Does he lack the basic reading skills to review them? Does such a man really need mommy’s handholding to stop being an arrogant ass?

          He’s a fully capable, rather brilliant, adult. He can do it himself. And, if he actually did care and actually was interested, he would. Instead, he merely tripled down on the doucebaggery.

          1. Why is it your job to educate him? Are you serious? If this is your cause, then it is first your job to attempt to educate, then if he refuses to listen, deride him all that you like. The last that I heard from him was a request for someone to show him why he doesn’t get it without using the word fuck in every sentence.

            I’m not making up anything about you, I simply don’t know you or your experiences, I can only go be what seems to be knee jerk reactions to someone who is very visible, brilliant and also profoundly ignorant making some egregiously stupid comments.

            You are correct, ignorance is not an excuse. I am not excusing Dawkins, but I don’t think that he is a sexist or mysoginist either, only that he simply doesn’t get it and if someone can take the time to engage him, calmly and rationally, perhaps he will get it.

            For me, I get it, as much as any man can I suppose.

      2. Wow. Just wow. I thought you were a poe until I read your other comments.
        Just to clarify for you: “Consider toning it down because people are overreacting to your words” is not, in other words, “shut up, sit down, be pretty, be quiet, just take it, be a good girl.”

        That is incredibly offensive to me, but you knew that it would be, so tell me, do you see your own sexism as a feature or a bug?

        And if I thought he would see it here, I would have given the same message to please tone it down to Dawkins. In fact, I’d ask him to apologize for his tone. I did call his comments badly timed, badly toned, and sarcastic, but in case you couldn’t figure it out from that, I don’t think he should have said them.

        1. “That is incredibly offensive to me, but you knew that it would be, so tell me, do you see your own sexism as a feature or a bug?”

          Actually, I was asking, not telling, but that matters little now. So, yeah . . . okay . . . Exactly how would I know that would be offensive to you? (Which, of course, we both know isn’t, but ya gotta pull
          diversionary tactics from somewhere). Unlike the privilege-protecting brigade, I haven’t pretend to have mind-reading powers.

          And what sexism have I displayed? I wait with baited breath to hear how diagreeing with the repeatedly stated notion from some around here that femnazis want to distroy sex and men are slaves to their basest instincts is proof of my sexism.

          And, seriously, the I-can’t-think-of-something-relevant-to-say-so-you’re-a-poe thing is tired and a little sad.

  264. When I read Richard Dawkin’s comment I was literally in pain from the disappointment. It was wrong on so many levels. I’m still appalled and in shock over it. After the pain subsided I just wanted to retaliate by burning his books. But then I remembered they are on my Kindle. So I’ve decided that if ever I do make it to a convention I’ll carry gum with me and if I go to one of his talks, I will chew gum the entire time… unless he apologies of course…

    Rebecca you took a huge one for the team and I THANK YOU!!! This has been a long and exhausting discussion to follow but I am sooo so happy to see that so many now understand why your experience made you uncomfortable (for the record, I would’ve been fist curling uncomfortable as well) and you totally did not deserve the wrath you got for a small word of advice made one day in a youtube video! Seven hells!

    Thank you!! And thank you to all of you who made the journey from not knowing to now understanding!

  265. As an older male, I am constantly appalled by the level of misogyny in our society. There has hardly been a woman in my life that hasn’t been raped. After her divorce my mother had just started dating again and was date raped. After that she stayed single the rest of her life.

    My wife was kidnapped and raped when she was eight then raped again in the military.

    The DOJ says that eight percent of woman have reported been raped, the real figure is probably two or three times greater. Fear of rape is not unfounded or irrational.

    On an aside, as an ex-Christian I can tell you that women are the foundation of every church. No church can function without the vast number of hours women contribute to keeping it running. Atheist men ought to keep that in mind when they lament the lack of women then see every woman present as an opportunity to get laid.

    Community is about people, people treating each other with dignity and respect. Until atheist men start challenging other men who act poorly towards women, we will never have a full spectrum of women in our community. Sure, there are some women who can look a man in the eye and tell them to go fuck themselves, my wife being one.

    Are these the only women who we want to attend atheist gatherings? Does an atheist woman who is non-confrontational not deserve a safe place to explore community? Does she have to be driven out by constant sexual harassment?

    A part of community are the spoken and unspoken assumptions that we operate under. It’s about time that all atheist gatherings plainly state that sexual harassment is a grave transgression that can result in expulsion from the event.

    When misogyny is not tolerated, it will not disappear but hopefully it will be toned down to an extent that all will find a welcoming community.

    1. “No church can function without the vast number of hours women contribute to keeping it running. Atheist men ought to keep that in mind when they lament the lack of women then see every woman present as an opportunity to get laid.

      Community is about people, people treating each other with dignity and respect. Until atheist men start challenging other men who act poorly towards women, we will never have a full spectrum of women in our community. Sure, there are some women who can look a man in the eye and tell them to go fuck themselves, my wife being one. ”

      I think this here is quite important. While I think that people of both genders are often interested in sex and I know that yes, some women do come to conferences looking for a hook-up, I think there has to be an understanding that conferences and meat markets are not the same thing. Entertain the possibility that I’m not there because I’m looking for a piece of atheist tail! While I’m capable of looking a fellow in the eye and telling him to fuck off, if I have to do it enough times I’m going to lose interest in attending. I have my piece of tail, thank you, and if I’m going to a conference I’m going for the talks.

      I do agree with you that part of why women flock to religion is the community aspect.

      At this point I’m pretty well of the opinion that we should maybe have a set aside time and area for those who want to hook up at conferences to get together. I have no problem with people who want to do that sort of thing doing so, but I think it would be nice to acknowledge that it’s not the goal of the conference itself.

  266. A agree, ghostcat. There is too much flame fanning. People have foibles, make mistakes, say offensive things. I feel that many problems in the world arise from people blowing things out of proportion. Dawkins was wrong to post that, but on the scale of wrongness, it was not a terrible wrong. I would say it looked more like a poorly judged sarcastic remark, than a deliberate sexist comment. I expect that many of the other “leaders” of the skeptical community have made similar gaffes, though these did not explode in the same way because they weren’t so easily publically accessible. Yes, even Carl Sagan (don’t lynch me!) probably said things which people would consider in poor taste…

  267. Every male that meets Richard Dawkins should shake his hand with their right hand and lightly rub the back of his upper arm with their left hand. And maybe throw in a comment on what nice arms he has. How long do you think it would take for him to feel uncomfortable about shaking people’s hands? Little things like that are what many women put up with on an almost daily basis.

  268. Yet another in the infinity of examples of men belittling women’s experiences. Are men like Dawkins simply so unimaginative that they can’t put themselves in the place of someone else, someone who might be uncomfortable in a situation they themselves wouldn’t be bothered by?

  269. I wish I was good enough with words to get my thoughts out well, but I am not. I will only offer my support and give my thanks that you are willing to say things about sexism that need to be said. This must have been a very frustrating experience, but there are many people who appreciate that you keep fighting the good fight.

  270. I wrote about this on my blog (shameless plug: apostasyone.blogspot.com). If I may be so bold as to speak as an outsider on this issue, this has nothing to do with the fact that men want to have sex. It is the fact that Elevator Guy IGNORED everything Rebecca had said. He was sending the message “I don’t care what you want. Your needs and desires should be superseded by mine.”

    Yes, it’s okay for straight men to have sex. It’s okay for straight men to seek it, even. But there are basic rules of socialization involved in such a thing. The first rule is that you don’t continue pursuing someone who has already rejected you. The second is you don’t ask to be alone with a recent acquaintance, especially after they have rejected your romantic advances. Asking someone to your hotel room is akin to asking them to your bedroom. That’s essentially what a hotel room is. If E.G. had asked Rebecca to meet for coffee in the lobby later that morning, she probably wouldn’t have mentioned the exchange at all.

    The Atheist League of Mansplainers are making it sound like this guy randomly ran into Rebecca in an elevator and casually and perfectly innocently asked her for coffee. That’s not what happened, and anyone who has actually heard the account knows this.

    Dawkins’ argument is unbelievable. Because there are worse problems elsewhere, we shouldn’t focus at all on the immediate local ones? Really? As if Ms. Watson doesn’t care about the Muslim women being abused in the middle east and other places in the world? I’m honestly disappointed someone of such renown would resort to such fallacious reasoning. One could use the same argument to say that Professor Dawkins is wasting his time writing books for an American/European audience because atheism carries the death sentence in Saudi Arabia.

  271. I wonder if I’m not too late to this thread to receive any kind of response, but I’d like a bit of help.

    I only became aware of this clusterfuck through reading a post about it on Daylight Atheism. I read the article and all of the comments because I’m a fan of Rebecca as an SGU panelist (she’s my favorite). I was immediately irritated by a pair of commenters, one who who said that women don’t hate all men, but would perhaps be justified in doing so, and another, who was far more unhinged, leaving comments three at a time, about ten minutes apart from one another, and making claims like “The most dangerous thing a woman does in her life is to enter a romantic *relationship* with a man”. (emphasis mine)

    I preceded to leave some fairly aggressive comments (of the type that would be dismissed as “mansplaining”, apparently), but only because of the provocation of feminist commenters. Watching the original video, I don’t think I would have noticed anything about it other than Rebecca advising for some common sense. Though I did take issue with her later claim that Elevator Guy was “dismissing her identity”. Based on the description in the video, I couldn’t make that leap.

    My question is this: when did this shit blow up? Where can I get an impression of the crazy reaction to Rebecca’s initial video *when no other substantial posting had been done on it*? That is, where was the epicentre? Was Dawkins replying to the 30 second video segment, or to a bigger and more ridiculous discussion?

    As an aside, I didn’t care for the Schrödinger’s Rapist article. Parts of it are great and instructive, but the condescending tone does not make the “convince us you’re not a rapist” thesis more palatable. And advice like “if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone” is hardly defensible, and can be applied to any encounter between any two people just as stupidly.

    I’m also one of those guys who considers himself completely not sexist, though I could of course be wrong. I’m asking my friends (most are female) about these issue and am not hearing a lot that lines up with the Schrödinger’s Rapist essay, but I’ll keep checking.

    1. Brett,

      I think the answer to your question is this shit blows up every time a woman posts just about anything about a man making them uncomfortable. Rebecca’s video got a little more traction just because it’s a topic that’s been getting more attention in the community and more and more people are speaking up about it. But it really hit the fan when Dawkins (someone who is “respected” in the community) belittled Rebecca’s experience by posting the “Muslima” comments on PZ Myers’ blog.

      I’d also suggest you read the Schrödinger’s Rapist post again because I think you’re reading condescension where there is none. I’m not saying it’s easy, but you need to read it as a woman who actually has to live with the threat of violence as a day to day reality and not just when you drink too much in a bar. And please notice that I say the “threat” of violence. Chances are nothing will happen, but 1 in 6 is still a pretty good chance.

  272. I have nothing but respect for what you do on this site, Rebecca. I have 2 daughters (4 and 7) and your work is making the world a safer, fairer, better place for them. Just wanted to thank you for your efforts, they are appreciated by many.

  273. I don’t know. Rebecca made a simple video pointing out she was uncomfortable and it all blows up. Supporters such as OZ and Phil Plait throw oil on the flames and don’t help at all and Richard Dawkins comes along and makes a pretty ridiculous post. It’s a bit like saying male circumcision is fine because female circumcision is so much worse.

    I think it brings to mind a few questions for me
    Is being uncomfortable enough? How much does context matter? What if he hadn’t said anything at all, but Rebecca was still uncomfortable?
    Why is “This is not about sex, fancy a coffee?” code for “fancy a fuck?”
    Ignoring the reasonableness of Rebecca’s reaction, wouldn’t anyone with even a modicum of common sense know better?
    Are men expected to always be on their guard just in case something they say or do makes someone feel uncomfortable?
    Does it even matter? If someone is uncomfortable, aren’t they entitled to that?

    1. Original statement as reported: “Don’t take this the wrong way but” —

      Statement as translated: “Why is “This is not about sex, fancy a coffee?” code for “fancy a fuck?”

      My mother-in-law used to use the phrase a lot and I learned to interpret “Don’t take this the wrong way” instead as “I plan to say something offensive but prefixing it with this magic phrase means it’s upfair of you to get upset about it”.

      “don’t take this the wrong way, but: What you say to someone right before you say something that can only be taken one way: badly.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=don't%20take%20this%20the%20wrong%20way%2C%20but

  274. Late to the party, but I wanted to say thanks to Rebecca for having the courage to speak out and address this issue, no matter how uncomfortable it makes her, and no matter how rabid it makes some of her detractors. You go!

    And @Brett: It’s not indefensible to say that speaking to a woman who clearly wants to be left alone is sending the message that your desire trumps hers. That’s what social cues are. The inability to read them is one thing; willingly ignoring them is another. And the application of them between genders is what makes it particularly sticky. If we lived in a world of true equality between the genders, where there was no threat of violence between people who are usually physically unequal, then failing to read that social cue would not be threatening, just annoying as hell. It’s the fact of rape that makes any interaction with a strange man potentially threatening. Not all women feel this way; not all of us are as wary. The truth is that we shouldn’t have to be wary at all. But the statistics are frightening and illuminating. Until some men stop using superior size to bully or force women into having sex with them, we’re going to be afraid. Whose fault is that?

  275. Dear Rebecca,
    Something I’ve had on my mind ever since I saw the first of your videos is this, and I even signed up to write my first comment to tell you this:

    1. Relax.
    2. Know your friends.
    3. Choose your battles.

    First off, I think it is impolite of Dawkins to respond to your thoughts behind your back, so to speak, and in 3rd person; but I do believe he has a point.

    1. Relax: You are a blogger and Youtuber. You put yourself out there in the open. Anybody who does that gets the full breadth of the world wide web back at them. You receive both tremendous support and staggering idiocy from the masses. On Youtube you are not among friends but among everyone. If you get threats of rape, that is the counterpart to men getting threats of murder (i.e. the pointless culmination of what daft, violent humans can come up with). Don’t bother. It’s what anyone gets when they face the web.

    2. Know your friends: On conferences like the one in Dublin, you are (mostly) among friends. Granted, there will be your average percentage of assholes, idiots and people you may find a bit weird (who in turn will inevitably find you one of the two former); but you will be among people whose goals coincide largely with yours, and who will be happy to join up with you in the struggle against the Great Barminess That Is Out There. There is bound to be a certain conspiratory vibe, the wonderful feeling that you are in it together, fighting the good fight. And from there it is only a short step to attraction, be it mutual or not. (Mutual is always better, of course.)

    A deep conversation and a joyful flirt at a conference are beautiful things and should be enjoyed. If you don’t feel like it, you can cut it short. And if someone invites you for a coffee (and the possibility for a kiss etc.) and you don’t want to, you say no. But it’s certainly not the right reaction for you to put it out there in your latest video and complain about it. The guy liked you, apparently quite a lot. Risking to be rejected, he opened up to you. And instead of taking it as a compliment, you went your well-trodden Road of Unrelaxedness, without even being aware of it.

    3. Choose your battles: This is clearly what lit Dawkins’ fuse. There are women who dare not dream of feminism, and there are matters so pressing for feminists out there that sometimes you just want to weep (and/or kill a few oriental men – cf. http://www.acidsurvivors.org). Complaining about a guy offering you a coffee and whatever it might lead to seems trifling. It is feminism in the same way that liberating lab bunnies into the forest is environmentalism. I am not saying that annoying innuendo and sexual harrassment are not nuisances that need to be remedied better sooner than later, but that the big fight is not against the people of your generation and your convictions. They will have flaws, they will be tactless sometimes, and they will be far from perfect all the time, like anyone else. They are still your allies, and even your friends. The man whose voice you’ve made your ringtone is too.

    1. I love being told to ‘relax.’ Oh, and to know my friends! Yes, I’ll work on my malfunctioning ESP.
      .
      I can tell something about you, immediately, and it is this: you have never been raped. You have never been sexually assaulted. You have never had your ass grabbed by a prominent member of a community where you thought you were safe.
      .
      So congratulations on being able to feel safe and secure in this community, because I can’t and neither can many others. Think of that the next time you want to mansplain why my feelings are invalid.

      1. You wrote:
        .
        “I can tell something about you, immediately, and it is this: you have never been raped. You have never been sexually assaulted. You have never had your ass grabbed by a prominent member of a community where you thought you were safe. So congratulations on being able to feel safe and secure in this community, because I can’t and neither can many others. Think of that the next time you want to mansplain why my feelings are invalid.”
        .
        Are you saying that you have been raped by people in the community, or that you know of people in the community who have??
        .
        What community are you talking about?

      2. I am taken a bit aback there. I did not expect the “Know your friends” bit to be turned around into a strawman.

        The way you react to my comment is the way you reacted to the guy who said “Don’t take this the wrong way…”, and I am actually stunned.

        Seriously, I couldn’t live in those grooves you do, assuming violence and aggression by default. And I couldn’t live in a world where gender is a matter of “Me/Us” and “Them”. How pointless is it to have a word “mansplaining” in your active vocabulary and use it to tell me I was trying to label your feelings “invalid” when I did not?

        As to your analysis: Yes, I have had my share of sexual assault, and no, it ended short of rape, luckily. And no, I don’t expect every man to be like that. Nor do any of my friends, who are all *relaxed*. (Including the three women in my closest circle of friends who have opened up and told me they’ve been raped.)

        And at the risk of completely and utterly offending you plus earning myself the contempt of anybody reading this (I’m sorry, but I really must say it):

        All my friends* are perfectly “free” women and enjoy life on a par with the men around them. They are self-assertive, at peace with their sexuality and their feelings (and with some of their clingier complexes), and are naturally feminist. They enjoy life and don’t let it be spoiled by constant fear and justified anger, (which I personally would find the greatest loss there is).

        Maybe this is because Zurich is Shangri-La and we have a lesbian mayor.

        Anyways, looking at your options to keep the blog going, I take back my “Relax” recommendation and hereby officially replace it by “Keep up the Constant Just Anger”! :-) But the “Choose your battles” one stays. And lose the constant fear, if you can.

        __________
        * apart from one, maybe, who likes to keep herself a few problems handy; and three others, who are guys.

        1. trigaranus,

          Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re a fucking asshat.

          That’s what “Don’t take this the wrong way, but…” means. It means “I am about to say something that any reasonable person would take only ONE way, but if you do so I’m going to use this magic incantation to shift the blame for your reaction back on you.”

          And lucky Elevator Guy not only gets to say this magic incantation to Rebecca and then proposition her in the most transparently coded terms (taking coffee in his hotel room at FOUR IN THE MORNING? Really, who was he kidding?), but he also gets a lot of guys to White Knight for him and explain to Rebecca how she got all flustered and hysterical over nothing, just like a ‘typical girl’.

          Let’s recap the events here:
          1) Rebecca had just stated that evening how distasteful she finds being propositioned at these kinds of events.
          2) She announces that she is tired and going back to her hotel room.
          3) EG, who has not spoken to her at all in the *MANY* hours after the conference, when RW and the rest of the group were at the bar, gets up and follows her to the elevator.
          4) He waits until she is in the elevator, a tightly confined space, to proposition her with the offer of a coffee in his hotel room in the middle of the night, despite her previously declared disinterest in being propositioned and her stated intention of going back to her hotel room to sleep.
          5) RW is rightly concerned that EG is not respecting her boundaries or stated desires, and so is thrown into uncertainty about how he’d take a direct refusal, since he’s already ignored clear indications that she’s not interested in a hook-up.
          6) RW is *fortunate* enough to get back to her hotel room safely, and later she devotes thirty seconds out of an eight minute vlog to say, “This happened. It was creepy. Hey, atheist guys, don’t do this, because it makes us feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.”

          Then a monumental shitstorm happens because RW *dared* to mildly criticize these atheist gatherings from a woman-centered POV. This is not the first time this has happened by a long shot. It is unlikely to be the last. The response, in fact, replicates patterns of marginalization and outright contempt for the views of women among the men of the atheist movement.

          Finally, Big Swinging Dick Dawkins arrives, and states that RW should just shut up about it because it wasn’t so bad compared what other women have to suffer (and in the process treats American women and Muslim women as if they’re two non-overlapping groups). Many Dick Dawkins-fellators fall all over themselves to pick up the charges that Dawkins threw at RW and repeat them here.

          Is it any wonder that RW is sick of the shit she’s getting from a lot of dudes in the atheist movement, including one of the most visible and public representatives of the Gnu Atheists? And it’s not just her. A *LOT* of women have reports of being propositioned or even outright groped at these events, enough to call this a problematic pattern of sexism and objectification.

          Now, maybe this isn’t your ‘experience’. Great. Mazeltov. But you don’t get to use that fact to make fiat declarations about how RW or any other woman who has been through this gets to feel about it.


      3. I can tell something about you, immediately, and it is this: you have never been raped. You have never been sexually assaulted. You have never had your ass grabbed by a prominent member of a community where you thought you were safe.”

        Don’t pretend to be psychic, there’s no way you could possibly know that from what he’s given you.

    2. You win the Mansplainer Award for today. Congratulations on being obtuse, clueless, and staggeringly socially tone-deaf.

    3. I can’t believe it. Someone actually told Rebecca to lie back and think of England. Enjoy it, ‘lil missy!

      Disgusting.

      Rock on, Rebecca. Some of us guys find these menz as loathsome as you do (and we’d very much like them off Team Guy).

    4. Are you actually suggesting that because you like to flirt that Rebecca should flirt even when she doesn’t want to? Not everybody likes to flirt and even those who do don’t want to do it at any time of the day. Especially, not when you have been talking all day about being hit on.

  276. To those who are thinking of selling their TAM tickets I like to ask that you reconsider. There are so many good, decent and fun folk who attend and great connections and friendships happen often happen. I understand that my perspective and experience may be different from other attendees but you can choose who you spend time with and even make connections online before the event so you have folk to meet up with. If you don;t like some of the attitudes of the skeptics who’ve posted here and other places then your point of view and experience are all the more necessary at TAM IMHO.

    1. Believe me, I completely agree with you. This whole thing has been clear proof that the movement needs more women and less misogynistic douchbaggery.

      But, I’m 5’1 and about 140 lbs. No match for 99% of men. If even someone like Rebecca Watson – an invited speaker, a known blogger – isn’t safe from all this shit, I certainly wouldn’t be.

      I’m heartbroken about it. I really wanted to get involved. But, weighing risk against benefit equals not going. I can have contact with non-douchey atheists online. Maybe at skepchickcon ;)

  277. Women who really made the difference in how women were treated had backbone and hutzpah. This display by Skepchick has neither.

    Portraying ourselves as victims only promotes the idea that women need special treatment (isn’t that what Muslim men use as an excuse to oppress women?), and that we are incapable of making our way through the world on our own. The assumption that every man at an atheist conference (or anywhere else for that matter) is ready and willing to pounce is not only extraordinarily sexist, but pretty egotistical as well.

    Ms. Watson does not represent all women in the atheist movement, and the atheist movement is comprised of independent, strong, intelligent, and powerful women. They don’t need to whine in order to get attention, or goad anyone to attain attention and/or status… rather, they can stand up on their own two feet and achieve greatness.

    1. I prefer to be offered an umbrella before someone throws condescending crap around. If you could avail yourself of that courtesy in the future it would be appreciated.

    2. How is the fact that she expressed discomfort at a situation portraying women as victims? She never said avoid men at all costs in all situations. Just to let men know that approaching a woman in certain situations can creep them out.

  278. I followed the trail of this incident and its fallout through several blogs that I don’t normally read. While I haven’t read all of the thousands of comments, there’s one thing I haven’t heard yet… According to Rebecca’s youtube video, the guy *began* by saying “Don’t take this the wrong way…” This seems to be an acknowledgment on his part that he knew that there was a good chance that what he was about to say could be misinterpreted and/or unappreciated. It also planted “the wrong way” firmly into Rebecca’s mind as a filter to gauge what he was about to say. (How are you not going to automatically think about the “wrong way” to interpret what is being said?) It’s not just about coffee at this point. Something “wrong” has been communicated – intentionally or unintentionally.

  279. Your assumption that because a woman disagrees with you has never experienced sexual harassment, unwanted attention or touching, or even rape shows an incredible lack of imagination on YOUR part. What an arrogant assumption that anyone who doesn’t align themselves with you must be lacking in something. I am so relieved that the women of my generation, and the ones who came before me who really understood what feminism was (and still is) about were ethical, intelligent, committed, and wise enough that they could tell the difference between the fly s**t and the pepper.

    1. Wow the sheer amount of arrogance and complete lack of empathy in your post is -astounding-. Be proud of yourself, because of you oh nameless aged Feminist I have made an account to comment.

      1. Obviously not everyone in your generation feels your way because first of all there are a number of Older Feminists in this post itself that agree with her and not you. So if you don’t want to be blanket statemented? don’t do it yourself.

      2. Are you -kidding me- with the old Feminist line? Dworkin would have considered this a mild kerfuffle. Women burnt their bra’s and screamed and wrote about how all heterosexual sex was coercion rape. You’re actually going to imply that -any of them- would have sneered at Rebecca for standing up and saying what she has in -any- capacity?? are you -for real!?-

      3. You actually believe that any of those women would have for a second hesitated to speak their mind about any issue? Strong independent women who make change and successful are -rarely- quiet about issues that bother them. Remember the saying ‘Well behaved women don’t make history’. You are trying to pass off women who fought and died for the right for Rebecca to say this as people who would be appalled that she -used her right-.

      4. Feminism; You’re doing it wrong. I am trying to stay away from broad accusations here, but frankly in my experience (and I am no spring chicken myself) when you tell another person that they shouldn’t talk about the things that bother them in a calm rational manner then deal with the complete shit storm of misogyny and Colleague and Personal Inspiration fail with a reasonable association of ‘I’m just not going to give in, and I’m not going to support people financially who do not treat me and other women with respect’ that’s not being -empowering-. That’s being -silencing- and silencing is a tool of the patriarchy and darlin…seriously?

      You’re doing feminism wrong.

      Now..why don’t you pack up your outrage and heady gasping arrogance step back and ask yourself -why- it is you’re so gosh darn upset..and don’t just stop at the surface. Be Socrates, examine your beliefs.

      Then come back and apologize. Because the early feminists called, and they want you to start thinking before you talk.

  280. I agree that RD’s response was not particularly subtle. But I can see why he was moved to respond to the original video.

    When I watched the videoblog, I was reminded of a four year old child who had had a bad experience in play group. My immediate response was ‘grow up!’.

    Life is full of people feeling uncomfortable. In the real grown up world you cannot avoid this, but you have the opportunity to respond. If you are OK with yourself as a person, then this isn’t usually a problem.

    So, please Rebecca, relax. And yes, I am a middle aged, white, heterosexual male and I know that means I can’t have an opinion. But I have been sexually assaulted, so maybe I can?

    1. Infantalizing a woman for speaking her mind is a stale old sexist chestnut. Lying about being oppressed for being male is a pathetically stupid stale old sexist chestnut. Telling women to shut up and put up – and thereby implying that men can’t help their douchey behavior – is a dishonest, misandrist sexist chestnut. Telling a woman to shut up and relax because you personally don’t see a problem is a douchey privileged silencing tatic.

      Student has utterly failed the test. Make up test will be administered once he’s actually read the source material.

      1. I call infantile behaviour when I see it. And believe me, you are not helping by supporting Rebecca in this debate.

        How do a couple get together? Do men/women only make passes when they know the other person wants them to? Using ESP?

        People get the wrong message. They make mistakes. This can cause embarrassment and discomfort to both parties. It happens every second of every day, in every location on earth.

        Stop trying to protect yourself from life, when there are serious battles to be fought out there.

        1. You call infantile behaviour when you imagine it.
          We can decide for ourselves if we are helping by supporting Rebecca.
          People get together without strangers hitting on women at 4:00 in the morning in an elevator.
          When people make mistakes, sometimes they are lucky enough to be gently told about it.
          If Rebecca wanted to be protected from life, she wouldn’t be on Skepchick, at conventions, writing, speaking, and generally being everywhere we who make comments on blogs aren’t.

          In baseball terms, your post is known as a golden sombrero.

        2. So life long commitments usually start out with a man hitting on a woman at 4am in the elevator after hearing her say she doesn’t like getting hit on?

        3. redvers,

          I know how couples *don’t* get together. Couples don’t get together when the man decides that his ‘right’ to express a sexual interest in a woman trumps the woman’s right not to feel unsafe by being cornered in a small, cramped space at 4 in the morning and then propositioned.

          Even if you don’t give a toss about feminism and think the highest purpose in your life is getting laid, these are things *YOU DO NOT DO* because the only rational, sane answer to a proposition made under these circumstances is “Hell, no!”

          And if you happen to be an atheist who is wondering to yourself “Hey, where are all the women here?”, it behooves you to listen to atheist women who are made to feel uncomfortable while attending your events. This is all RW tried to do—create a teachable moment out of an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation, and for that she’s been subjected to a maelstrom of deliberate incomprehension and vituperation.

          So, if you’re an atheist guy, and you don’t want girls in your tree clubhouse, then keep doing what you’re doing, and soon there won’t be any. That seems to be Richard Dawkins’ take on things, not to mention yours. But RW made her vlog not for misogynist assholes like you, but for people who stated their at least ostensible interest in getting more women involved in the atheist movement.

    2. Yeah..I’ll just remember that ‘grow up’ comment the next time a guy tries to sexually assault me. I’ll be sure to tell him that it’s ok for me to be uncomfortable because -everyone- has uncomfortable moments.

      I’ll pass it on to my other female friends and tell them that the years of being instructed by culture to guard their personal body because there are men out there waiting to fuck them without permission are bullshit..just grow up! everyone’s a little uncomfortable now and then!

      Yeah.

      Do you see the problem now?

  281. In response to ‘smartchick’ – perhaps there is another interpretation… The guy really did not want Ms Watson to take his inquiry the ‘wrong’ way, that he was not interested in having sex with her… and that he WAS in fact interested in continuing the conversation?

    Isn’t it a bit sexist to assume that because he was male HE MUST have had something sexual in mind? This chap has been tried, sentenced, and executed on hearsay and assumptions.

    Women are better than that… we have fought for decades to construct a society where sexist assumptions are ridiculed, and here we find women undoing all that work. It is also especially quizzical given that on this very site, Ms. Watson promoted a list of ‘sexual pick-up lines’ that women could use on men in celebration of Darwin Day. Talk about double-standards!

    1. If he says “don’t take this the wrong way” the only reasonable thing to do is to assume he didn’t want her to misinterpret as a request for sex. However, the fact that he says it in the first place shows that he was at least aware enough of the world to realise how such a request could look, i.e. he wasn’t some oblivious buffoon living in some his own cocooned world. Whether he ought to have also realised that such an approach could be seen as intimidating, or make someone uncomfortable is another matter

    2. I love it when clueless dudes pretend to be women in order to manufacture female opposition to Watson’s point. They just can’t help but make it so abundantly clear they’re male, and have absolutely no idea what Watson is saying. Privilege does that for them. Its always hilarious.

      Just completely ignore her account of events – she’s a chick afterall and they all lie about everything – and accuse everyone of sexism who listened to her.

      LOL clueless.

    3. Femnism: You’re doing it wrong.

      Telling a woman who is uncomfortable to stop being uncomfortable to make a Man more comfortable is not even close to what those women were working for.

      FYI.

  282. I’m so sorry your video post got blown up into this massive spectacle. I can only imagine the stress it’s causing you. But I know you’re a strong chick and can handle it. ;) You’re doing great so far. Remember this runaway nonsense is not your fault. You were simply trying to bring a little awareness for fucks sake …about a dumb thing maybe guys should know they shouldn’t do. And you got misinterpreted. On the intertubes! Can you imagine?

    You’re stronger than I am. Although my way would have been to immediately put out a second video addressing the angry criticism going, “What the HELL are you people talking about??! Fucking relax. Save your energy for the eventual move out of your parents’ basement [or your ivory goddamn tower you foppish twat].” But then, I am childish and ill-tempered. I gotta be me. ;)

    As for Dawkins, I think he’ll eventually get it and apologize. I may be naive but I have faith in people I admire. And I think he’ll realize his mistake (especially since it’s now been carefully explained to him as he requested – without the word ‘fuck’…oh my heavens).

    Ok that’s way more than I had intended to write. I’m done now. Good luck, dear.

  283. Rebecca, I think while your intentions were well-placed, your execution incited much more emotion than reason. The explosive backlash behind this incident seems awfully too familiar to the recent Penny Arcade “dick wolves” scandal. What do both have in common? The implication of rape. Rape is an awful experience for a person to go through…I can not even begin to imagine the horror. But as awful as the thought of rape is to a women, it’s almost equally as awful to a man to be labeled as a rapist…or even given the implication of being a possible rapist. I believe what many men saw in your elevator story was a socially inept man just attempting to make a connection. To imply that he may have been a rapist was to imply that all men who may appear awkward to women are possible rapists. Something like that really cuts into a well-intentioned gentleman such as myself. I am not defending anyone’s actions, but I am trying help you realize the force behind their actions. I have no doubt you felt uncomfortable and that you perceived the elevator guy as a creep. This is a good lesson to teach the community…try not to act like a creep. Is this a display of sexism or male privileges, however? No…this is a display of animal mating rituals. Men and women will act without reason to satiate primal urges. It is important to recognize these urges and deal with them appropriately within the confines of human culture. It is equally important to take note that they’re not a part of some sexist movement. Both men and women will behave poorly under hormonal influence, regardless of how they feel culturally. I believe this is also the point Dawkins was trying to make. I am with you. I respect you greatly as a fellow skeptic and intellectual. I will treat you equally as I would any other peer, regardless of race or sex. But as a male looking to engage in female companionship (mental and/or physical), I have presented many awkward situations for many unlucky women. This is the game we play.

    In closing, your fight is just, but your example was poorly constructed and, quite frankly, insulting to a lot of men.

    1. “But as awful as the thought of rape is to a women, it’s almost equally as awful to a man to be labeled as a rapist…or even given the implication of being a possible rapist.“

      Whatever hallucinogenic drugs your on, next time, please bring enough for the whole class. This doesn’t even slightly touch reality. If this were true, there wouldn’t be Dickwolves t-shirt and Team Rape.

      1. While suggesting that being accused of Rape is almost as bad as being raped is obviously absurd it is none the less quite a serious and damaging accusation. I don’t think the damage the accusation can do should be dismissed or taken lightly. I think that is what he meant by that.

        The vast majority of men do not consider rape as anything other than abhorrent. The implication that this is not the case is insulting.

        1. You’re right, without being absolutely sure that the man intended to rape her, Rebecca shouldn’t have publicly shamed him by posting his name.

          Oh, wait —

          Instead you’re saying that women should never state that they are AFRAID of being raped because that hurts men’s feelings and making sure men’s feelings don’t get hurt is more important than women actually being raped.

    2. Wow.

      uhm…as a woman who has been raped, I’m gonna go with being raped is actually -worse- than being accused of it.

      Thanks for playing.

  284. Dawkins’ comments were pretty sarcastic and derisive, I would certainly agree. However, I’m not sure we should aspire to a world where we think that asking someone out for coffee is considered objectifying, or where men (or women, for that matter) should be afraid of doing so.

    1. Why bother commenting if you’re only going to prove you didn’t bother to read anything she said?

  285. I would like to think that, in an ideal world, Rebecca would have posted her article, the guy in question would have mailed her saying “Ooops, sorry, looking back at my behaviour, it was not the right way to go about it, sorry”, and men around the world would have read it, paused for thought about those issues. Everyone would have learned something, happy days, cut to daisies.

    Unfortunately, it’s not an ideal world, and some have decided to set up ludicrous strawmen that Rebecca was saying the behaviour in question is _the_ most vile behaviour _ever_ commited in the history of mankind, that the behaviour shown was _worse_ than performing FGM inside a burka, and that _all men are rapists_. Cut to thermonuclear explosion.

    I would like to say I’m deeply disappointed in Dawkins, but personally he jumped my particular shark with his “Islam is an unmitigated evil” line, thus labeling friends of mine who are liberal and Islamic evil.

    P.

  286. This is all pretty nutty.. But either way Dicky Dawks acted like a bit of a prick and said some pretty immature stuff for a guy of his (alleged) class.

    Rebecca was speaking from her (and most female’s) point of view in a way that was meant to be constructive to the movement in general and D dawks just pissed on the party. I’m bummed.. I’m hopeful that he can dig himself out of this hole that he firmly dug himself but I am doubtful.

    Rebecca I got your high five right here and it’s going to be Epic. Like Top Gun high five epic.

  287. This may not be seen, rsiding as it does, at the bottom of five hundred plus other comments, but I think I get it. A bit.

    I haven’t read all of the related posts and comments on this issue. I didn’t even watch the whole video Rebecca originally posted on this issue. Which is a part of the problem, I guess.

    Having read this excellent post, and Steve Thoms’ also excellent post, and read some other commentary about this issue, I have begun to realize – just begun, mind you – that I don’t have a fucking clue. As a middle-aged white male, I, like Richard Dawkins, don’t have a fucking clue what goes on inside women’s heads. Actually, I’ve probably said that before, in a bar, to a group of my – white, middle aged, male – friends. As a punch line to some or other little jest. Which, again, is a part of my problem.

    And, here’s the thing: it is my problem. If it had been me, standing in an elevator with Rebecca Watson at four o’clock in the morning, I would have made her feel the same way. Oh, I wouldn’t have asked her to my room, or anything. But, I probably would have geeked out a bit. “Hey, you’re Rebecca Watson. I read your blog. I listen to you on The Skeptics’ Guide. Nice to meet you.”

    Clueless.

    Rebecca would have reacted the same way. She would have had that thought: “am I safe here?” And people can discount that, like Dawkins did. They can say she shouldn’t have had that thought. They can accuse her of being “feminist.” They – we, because we are talking about me, here – can make all the excuses they want. But that doesn’t, and can’t change the fact that she had that thought because of the culture of male priviledge in which we live. A culture that is all but invisible to us men – much like the water is invisible to the fish who swim in it.

    I’m hoping that the mirror Rebecca was hoping to hold up to us men was seen into. I’m hoping that I’m learning something here, that I’m seeing myself in that guy in the elevator at four o’clock in the morning. That I can take Rebecca’s experience to heart and use it to help inform my own method of interacting with the world around me.

    I can’t change the fact that men are cluless. But I can try to be less clueless myself. I hope. The next time the elevator door opens late at night, and the lift is already populated by a lone female occupant, I’m thinking I’ll step back, smile, and say, “I’ll take the next one.”

    Or, maybe I still don’t get it. Educate me.

  288. I assume Mr. Dawkins will be having a book signing event at TAM 9. I’m thinking of bringing my copy of “The Ancestor’s Tale” and returning it to him.

  289. Had been meaning to join for awhile. Love the Skepchick panels at CONvergence. Figured this was as good of time as any to do so.

    The problem is, this was a no-win situation by any measure.

    If she had agreed to go back to his room and he’d raped her, she would have gotten “Well, it’s your fault for going back to his room, what message did that send him?”

    But if she considers that, it’s “Why do you assume all men are rapists?!” Because if one of them DOES turn out to be a rapist, it’s YOUR FAULT for not having ‘seen the signs’. But if he’s not, it’s YOUR FAULT for hurting an ‘innocent’ man.

    On the subject of Privilege and Delusions, though:
    I find skeptic/liberals are sometimes harder to talk to about race and gender issues because they shut down with “We’re enlightened, we don’t DO that stuff. Only those silly religious conservatives do.” And they treat being told “Well, you just did” as more offensive than the actual act because they have their “I’m too enlightened to do that” security blanket on.

    And finally, because they come out of the woodwork EVERY DARN TIME that women’s boundaries and men who don’t respect them are mentioned- the ‘shy, timid, ‘nice guys”.

    The ‘just socially awkward’ defense doesn’t hold, because once again, it’s about making sure MEN have all the power in social-sexual relations.

    It doesn’t matter how the wording came across to the actual woman, it’s about the poor man who got his feewings hurt because a woman said ‘I don’t want to interact with you in that way.’ It’s not up to him to learn how to change his behavior in a way that makes interactions more equal, it’s about a woman changing her behavior to accommodate his ‘social awkwardness.’

    Who cares if that guy made you feel threatened or uncomfortable? You made him feel bad! Which again, says the man’s feelings in the situation are more valid than the woman’s. Additionally, the whole “Oh, come on, I’ve read the account and I can tell you it wasn’t threatening” comes across as “Let me tell you what you, as a woman, can and can’t find threatening.” And it’s not just men doing it. It’s women telling other women what their comfort level *should* be.

    Trust me, women WANT to meet men. But the problem here is with the ‘shy, timid’ guys who want the entire social interaction to go according to their preferences, with no regards to what women want or their comfort level. It’s a very *passive* aggressive way of dominating women, because there’s no effort to meet in the middle or give equal footing to women. It’s ‘woman, capitulate to my behaviors.’

    Want to blame someone for the fact that all women treat you as a rapist? Don’t blame the women, blame the society that tells them that the one time they don’t pre-profile a man as a rapist and he actually is, the rape is their fault. Or perhaps blame your own behavior and try to change it, rather than expecting women to change theirs to fit you.

    1. So shy socially awkward men are being sexist by being shy because it forces the woman to moderate her behaviour? That’s a bit odd isn’t it? Unless your referring to the incident in question which is absurd because that is not representative.

      I am quite shy and I can assure you I don’t do it to ‘dominate women’. Yesh.

      1. I think the portrayal here of this kind of behaviour is one of the fundamental flaws in the perception of gender issues.
        You may not be consciously acting “shy” in order to dominate women or be sexist. But deep down, you are viewing the interaction as a power interaction, and your shyness is your trump card to avoid being hurt. In order to interact on an equal basis, without assumptions of pwer and dominance, you have to throw that away and confront the very real possibility of rejection and pain. It’s not necessarily a gender issue, but it’s exacerbated by the perception of gender. As men, we are expected to be in control. We’re not allowed, by the rules of patriarchy, to be vulnerable or wrong. Some men avoid it by being dominant and sociopathic, some use shyness as a defense. If we throw the whole patriarchy thing away, then we become just as liberated as the women – suddenly we’re not expected to be towering paragons of male virtue any more, we can be human first and male second.
        Women also fall into the trap. Society expects them to be submissive and accomodating, and at the same time somehow safeguard their mythical “virtue” (as if any human being somehow doesn’t enjoy consensual sex). So their reaction to a romantic advance is often to view it in terms of a power equation – the patriarchy tells them they have some quintessential “thing that everybody wants”, and they must guard it and protect it against all comers.
        Regardless of gender – expose your vulnerabilites, wear your heart on your sleeve, and consider the point of view of the person you’re talking to, and you can’t go wrong.

        1. Fair enough. It’s just an part of social interaction though. After all being shy isn’t limited to talking to women. It’s not passive aggression nor is it intentional.

    2. Please stick to the facts.

      There was no rape.
      There was no attempted rape.
      There was no assault.
      There was no sexual harassment.
      There was no sexism.
      There was no oppression.

      He complemented Rebecca by saying she was interesting.
      He offered her coffee at his place.
      She said no thanks.
      They went their separate ways.
      END OF STORY.

      1. Ah yes, another one of the strawmen-creators I referred to earlier.

        I’m sorry, but it’s not normal to hit on married women you’ve never spoken to before alone in a strange city in an elevator at 4am in the frickin’ morning. I mean, not even “hit on” as in “how about lunch sometime”, but “how about you come back to my room right now”? If you can’t see how that might freak said woman out _at all_, your lack of empathy is stunning. And please respond without setting up another strawman (“but hey, it’s not rape/murder/thermonuclear war/the assassination of Franz Ferdinand”)

        P.

        1. Well, I’m drawing a distinction between an uncomfortable and awkward social moment in a free society where men are free to approach women and women are free to reject men, and RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT.

          In areas such as ethics, morality and law, that’s and extremely important distinction and an extremely important line to be drawn between those two things.

          How about trying logic and reason rather than just running on emotions and ’empathy’.

          1. grognard,

            Fine. Let us know when *NO* awkward social interactions end up as sexual assault, and only then might you begin to have a point. Until then, rape culture means that women (primarily, though gay men and trans people are often victims) will be confronted with the need to evaluate whether this awkward social interaction is going to become THAT awkward social interaction—the one that ends in rape.

            These are the facts of life. If you want to change them, then start by challenging rape culture, not by blaming the women (or gay men or trans people) who are forced by rape culture to evaluate the threat of risk in every interaction.

  290. So, Rebecca made a pretty inoffensive vlog regarding a socially awkward moment, a few “feminist” (and I use the term loosely, because we’re possibly talking about women who feel that male privilege should be vested in them, rather than those who are interested in true liberation) remarks were strewn about, and Dawkins reacted with some ill-considered sarcasm. Cue the endless debate with extremists on both sides hurling accusations. A fair number of people on both sides lined up with emotional outbursts, and a fair number of people on both sides lined up with rational arguments.
    This is a good thing. This ongoing discussion, this airing of viewpoints, is important – especially given Rebecca’s original premise.
    To the guys who don’t get it – well, there is such a thing as privilege. Whether this particular incident, or even Dawkins’ response, warrants the dragging out of the privilege guns, it’s hard to say (from my perspective, anyway). He spoke his opinion, and offered to discuss it with anyone willing to discuss it. The sheer level of emotional response directed at him is an indicator that many on the feminist side of the equation aren’t willing to discuss it rationally with him (although, to their credit, many are).
    To the women who feel the need to point out the power imbalances in the situation and the need for all women everywhere to be cautious of men – please, please read The Female Eunuch and the whole woman, in that order, and put away the Dworkin. This portrayal of women as noble, helpless victims has got to stop if any progress is to be made. The idea that women’s virtue is somehow more precious than that of men is also an idea of the patriarchy. “Pop” feminism doesn’t hold much value as a starting point for a dialogue.
    In short, as a man, and as someone who’s interested in gender issues by virtue of lifelong association and marriage with the best woman on the planet (I may be biased), this is a great discussion and a great topic, that has been somewhat marred by the overly-frank exchange of views… and I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing, really.
    Kudos to Rebecca for getting the ball rolling.

  291. Grognard…and all the other mansplainers (no i won’t use condesplainers in this case)

    Taking a girl back to your room for coffee is a euphamism for having sex and has been for as long as i have heard the phrase. ESPECIALLY when you just left a F*cking bar that serves coffee!

    GET A F*CKING CLUE YOU STUPID MORONS AND LEARN SOME F*CKING ENGLISH….and frankly if you are taking it personally when someone mentions male wankery, that says a great deal about how you view yourself.

    Rebecca, you are completely right to bring this up. What these clueless idiots don’t seem to realise is that if these oh so clever men get their way then women will simply leave.

    1. If your going to criticise someone for their use of English then doing whilst in the midst of a swearing rage conducted with the caps lock on isn’t the place to do it.

      I am also confused about the rest of your post. The author, Rebecca, has not said anything insulting to men, it was a perfectly sensible and reasonable post. However there are plenty of ignorant comments directed at men on here which give the impression that they are accusing men as a whole of condoning rape. I don’t think only ‘clueless idiots’ would feel insulted at this.

      1. All but the last paragraph is for Grognard and his ilk, who think that they can ‘further’ trivialitise Rebecca’s problem about some guy pestering her for sex at 4am in the morning while she’s on her own. To say that Elevguy only wanted coffee is laughable and frankly insulting to our intelligence.

        The last paragraph is for Rebecca.

        The reason I am furious (therefore caps) is because i’ve just come back from a weekend where I had to “physically” rescue one of my friends from a very similar situation and to log on and find a load of mansplaining going on about how women feeling safe at events is not as important as “higher matters” and lies about how this was all a perfectly harmless question of coffee made my blood boil. These are my friends that are getting insulted and accosted and i will not have that trivialitised by some old goat and a troll.

    2. Yes thanks, I know it can be a euphemism.

      The point is this. He tried a pick-up line. She said no. End of story.

      And Dawkins ridiculed her anecdote for its triviality.

      I happen to agree that it’s a trivial anecdote but I’m not bothered by it.

      What I am bothered by is the absolutely over-the-top responses directed at Dawkins over a sarcastic rebuke.

      By the way if you want to prove that you don’t need mansplaining then how about behaving like an adult and don’t use abusive language in a civil debate.

    3. So if I mention “female victim mentality” as a counterpoint to your “male wankery”, you won’t be offended? Please. The offense is perfectly understandable, and your reaction to it seems to be coloured by your need for men to “man up”, as if discussing emotions is somehow only valid when women do it.
      A conversation – even an argument – happens when two or more competing viewpoints are discussed. Invalidating a viewpoint based on the fact that the source is male is no different from invalidating it based on the fact that the source is female.
      I don’t think any sane man wants women, or even Rebecca specifically, excluded from the discussion – not even Dawkins. He reacted badly, but he also mentioned he was open to being proved wrong. I would like to see Rebecca take him up on that.
      You ask men to consider Rebecca’s feelings given the situation, but you refuse to consider the feelings of the men you’re speaking to – in fact, you insist that because they’re men, their feelings aren’t valid. Your viewpoint is making you just as much a victim of the patriarchal mindset as anyone else.
      I understand frustration and the need to vent. All non-violent forms of communication are legitimate. However, the discussion doesn’t go anywhere with this.

      1. Dude, and I say that with all conviction that you are a Dude.

        I’m gonna lay a truth on you. It’s gonna be hard..I know..but I’m sorry, it’s part of the being a decent human being process and you’re going to have to get through it.

        Ready? Here it is.

        My safety? and my perceiving a threat? are more important than your feelings. In the hierarchy of needs safety comes before happiness and if you’re making me uncomfortable and nervous than your intent and your feelings are irrelevant. Because there’s no way on this planet’s surface that I’m going to want to even have a nice calm conversation with you about the price of tea in china if I am uncomfortable/scared.

        So no. I don’t consider your feelings if you corner me in an isolated place late at night and make a pass at me. I think in very lizard brain burst thoughts ‘how do I say no and not make this worse, how do I say no and not make this worse, how do I say no and not make this worse..EXITEXITEXITEXITEXIT’

        It’s universally accepted in progressive fields that your rights end where mine begin. So it should be easy for you to understand your feelings end where my safety ends.

        1. I think you’re not properly perceiving my argument. I’m not referring to hurting the feelings of the Elevator Guy – by all means, hurt away. The man was downright inconsiderate – mind you, he’s not participating in the discussion, and regardless of anyone’s frustration with viewpoints, the only purpose expletives and name-calling serve is to circumvent further conversation and drive the wedge further.

  292. As a Dawkins fan, this really disappoints me. I’ve always known he was arrogant and full of himself, but I thought it was in a positive, “I’m smart and that’s good” sort of way. This is really depressing. Thanks for not “shutting up” like a good little girl!

    1. LOL. Still missing the point. He didn’t tell Rebecca to “shut up” he told a fictional Muslima character to “shut up”. He was making a point about how trivial the anecdote was in the face of vastly more important threats to women’s rights. More important by a factor of infinite given that Rebecca’s anecdote had ZERO relevance to women’s right as it was a NON-ISSUE.

      1. Grognard, Rebecca was made to feel uncomfortable. She judges if the anecdote is important, not Dawkins, not you. Plainly, a lot of people empathise with her, so we can tell she’s not being unreasonable.

        If you won’t accept that as an assumption, I suggest to the rest of the commenters here that we avoid feeding the troll.

        1. If Rebecca judges that her anecdote is important, then she deserves the sarcastic rebuke she received from Dawkins.

          I don’t think she presented it as an important anecdote, therefore I think that she did not deserve the abrasive rebuke from Dawkins.

          But that said, she and the commenters in this blog have now gone even more over-the-top than Dawkins and elevated it to nuclear levels, bringing in rhetoric of rape, misogyny, sexism and oppression directed at Dawkins. It is only the last part that I object to. I’m only trying to defend Dawkins from these over-the-top retaliations… that’s all. Those aside, I would generally say that Rebecca did nothing wrong and Dawkins made an untactful and unkind criticism.

        2. By the way, I’m obviously not a troll. I’m obviously making an honest attempt to argue this topic reasonably. I just happen to have a position that is not in the majority here.

          1. Doubtful. Your total retort to my comment was to complain about tone and then change your story. You are the very definition of a troll.

          2. *LOL* I’ve read you from the beginning, you are definite concern troll.

        3. Why are these in response to my comment? Leave your own damn comments, don’t reply to mine. I wasn’t saying he told her to shut up – I was referring to the way women often feel like they’re being told subtly and indirectly to shut up by society or individuals in it when they voice dissatisfaction with something or ask too many questions. I wasn’t quoting Dawkins – don’t jump to conclusions.

          1. LOL. That’s why God gave us the internet. So we can respond to people’s comments if we disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

  293. I read the first couple hundred comments, and then remembered that I am going to die in thirty or forty years. I should probably space out my exposure to blatantly weaselly misogyny, you know, to make it last.

    I did want to say thanks Rebecca for keeping your cool under this firestorm of stupidity. You inspire me.

  294. This is the first time I can honestly call a commenting clusterfuck enlightening. Awesome.

  295. It seems to me that a lot of us men who were raised with 1970’s feminism do get it. Before I knew much about what was going on with this incident, the phrase “in an elevator” immediately raised a red flag. Then there was the time of night/morning and the fact that the guy had heard Rebecca say she was tired.

    It seems that many of those men raised before 1970s feminism, like Richard Dawkins, aren’t getting it. But what’s even more alarming is that many post-1970s men aren’t getting it either. Sadly, but informatively, this shows that the battle against sexism is never-ending. It cannot be learned by one generation and then magically passed down through osmosis.

    Of course, the above is a generalization. My congratulations to all the men of any age who do get it. And my special condemnation to men raised in the 1970s who don’t get it – you cannot even plead ignorance as an excuse, unless you were in a coma during that decade.

    It alarmed me greatly when Reagan came to power in 1980 and feminism became such a dirty word that even young feminists themselves wouldn’t use it, falling for the religious right propaganda that it somehow meant you were anti-male.

    I think sexism is different than racism. Racism is based on an instinctive fear of the unknown. This should be largely curable when society is much more integrated and people of all races and ethnicities are “known” to each other.

    Sexism, on the other hand, seems to be based on an instinctive desire for dominance that most men have, which we have to consciously unlearn for the greater good of women and thus society as a whole. Even if we reach an egalitarian society, we must never forget the past. The forgotten lessons of the 1970s demonstrate this.

    1. Yeah August, maybe it is the 70s upbringing? Or maybe it is just that we’re old enough that we’re not driven by arrogance and insecurity and hormones? And young enough that we don’t automatically demand respect for our views because we’re old? Because I remember being in my 20s and even though me and my friends were relatively decent we weren’t perfect, I knew guys who were sexist and easily potential rapists. And the good guys were usually not good or strong enough to stand up and say something, myself included. Youth is an explanation, but no excuse.

      Which brings up blame vs. responsibility. When you try to tell guys to take a little goddamned responsibility, they seem to think you’re blaming them for everything. As a man, I’m not to blame for sexism and privilege or any of that. I AM responsible for not contributing to the sexism or taking advantage of privilege. I’m not to blame for Elevator Guy, but I am responsible for not being the next Elevator Guy. I’m not to blame for the culture of casual sexism that exists online and IRL, but I’m responsible for not contributing to it and for calling out the people who engage in it.

      You don’t have to accept blame for the bad behavior of others. You absolutely need to accept responsibility for your own behavior, and if you’re up to it the larger responsibility of being a good citizen and trying to maybe carve out a tiny bit of the world where sexist BS isn’t acceptable.

  296. Ah, late to the party as usual. I was a big Dawkins fan years ago when I was much more active in the atheist community than I am today. My focus shifted, however, and as a result I’ve spent the last seven years studying (and teaching, when I’m fortunate enough) issues of gender and sex. Despite the debate over the label, I am indeed a feminist, not least of all because I am a woman.

    The issue of privilege is by no means restricted to men. Some women are privileged as well (especially those of us in the West), and as a result are shielded from experiencing the kinds of oppression other women who are not as fortunate suffer. This privilege makes it difficult to objectively evaluate other women’s situations. For example, feminists in the West have been criticized for acting as “handmaidens of empire” in their support of invading and occupying Muslim states for the purpose of eliminating Muslim women’s oppression. However, Saba Mahmood points out the following:

    “Various reports show that in a country of 140 million people, almost 1,000 women are killed per year in Pakistan (that, along with Jordan, has one of the highest recorded instances of “honor killings”). The Family Violence Prevention Project, on the other hand, reports that approximately 1,500 women are killed every year by their spouses or boyfriends in what are called “crimes of passion” in the United States, which has a population of 280 million (slightly more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends or husbands every day in the U.S.).

    The point of this is not a pissing contest to see which country’s women are more oppressed. The point is that all of us, every last one, is steeped in the traditions of our own culture, which makes it difficult to critically evaluate its practices and underlying assumptions. It’s true for me. It’s true for you, and it’s true for Dawkins. The difference is that, as Ms. Watson mentions, the greater the privilege one has, the more difficult it is to understand the situations of those who are less privileged.

    One final thought, as if my post wasn’t long enough already: Cartesian dualism has pervaded Western thought for several centuries now. Things are changing, but the tendency to privilege “mind” over body and “reason” over emotion is still strong. Traditionally (and long before Descartes, even) women have been associated with the body and emotion, while men have been associated with the mind and intellect. In fact, a brief glance at Aristotle will tell you that women were thought to be incapable of reason and logic by virtue of their being…women.

    So when you look around and wonder where the women are at events dedicated to rationality and the positivist tradition, it might bear thinking about that, historically, we’ve had no place there to begin with. I’d like to see that change.

  297. Thank you for this.

    Honestly, the rampant misogyny and sexism among other things is why I no longer can stand the growing atheist and skeptic movement, especially online. It is overwhelmingly male and so many of them have made me feel unwelcome.

    I’m so sick of hearing responses to questions like “why aren’t there more women, why aren’t there more people of color” and it always puts the reasons on those people without a hint of awareness. It’s really because the movement is full of mostly white, straight, cis men and they’re the reason why the movement lacks diversity.

    1. This little comment on a vlog brought it out of the woodwork, for sure.

      1. Are we even on the same planet?

        I’m almost the only one defending Dawkins here, and I’m trying to do it in a rational, inoffensive and un-inflammatory manner with varying degrees of success.

        The rest of this thread has basically been 98% supporting R.W. to the hilt.

        Yet you are saying that this thread has really brought out misogyny and sexism?

        ABSURD.

        1. I don’t really have a dog in this race, so to speak. I’m just talking about my impression of the aforementioned clusterfuck. I linked to the Meyers blog and started wading through, and then waded through here. I was surprised, because Skepchick usually doesn’t get this much commenting traffic.
          *Innocent Bystander*

  298. I have to say that completely aside from all the feminist stuff, and the sexism stuff, and that whole argument, this incident shows your skeptical community in a very poor light as they have displayed almost zero ability to entertain an idea which they are plainly initially hostile too — a different opinion.

    That’s really the hallmark of skepticism to me. The ability to entertain foreign ideas and give them due consideration. You don’t have that ability and neither does the great majority of people who are commenting here.

    That’s true regardless of the feelings you might have about the “debate” (there was no debate because you can’t consider alternative views).

    This is true even with a big name like Richard Dawkins being on the other side which emotionally would give you a crutch to try and engage your rational side around. As in “Oh well if Dawkins says so then maybe, just MAYBE there’s something to it?”

    Let’s hypothesise that he made the comments at PZ’s board only to see if you could all respond rationally to it. If he did then you utterly failed as a community.

    As skeptics you are rather lame.

    And its the feminism which has crippled you. Ferminism is an ideology that cannot allow criticism. You cannot embrace that and skepticism at once. There’s no such thing as a skeptical feminist and this episodes illustrates that all too well.

    1. Excepting, of course, the dozens of well-reasoned, exhaustive, and analytical critiques of that opposing viewpoint? Because, if I remember correctly, those ARE in fact a hallmark of skepticism. It seems to me that many alternative views were considered and rejected. Just because some MRA types show up and fail to convince anybody doesn’t mean that they were dismissed out-of-hand. It could just be that their arguments weren’t particularly convincing…

      1. I see none, except perhaps somewhat right at the end. I am surprised my comment above was posted. Most of my comments were not. Perhaps whoever was vetting the comments just gave up recently?

        Your own comment also advocates censorship of alternate views.

        I am simply saying this is the opposite of skepticism ; it is dogmatism. Now you are also sexist but I wont argue that because my comment would be deleted.

        1. Considering an alternate viewpoint is censorship? On what planet?

        2. I have to confess, that I never heard of the skeptic community until a link popped up on Google News about Dawkins, and I clicked it. Here I am. I did some research afterwards, and I would say that -most- of the comments here do not seem to fit the standards of that community, but I could be wrong.

          For example, refuting Dawkins by saying that he is a “white,” a “male,” “rich,” or “privileged,” is not a refutation of an argument. To my naive (relative to this community and discussion) eyes, this would be like assuming that someone is a terrorist or a thief because of their skin color, country of origin, etc. I can dig up a a nice text for you about this kind of logical fallacy that was popular in science some years ago.

          In feminist-like conversations, I’ve been called “patriarchal” because I used scientific and logical arguments to refute various claims. But after reading the mission of this website, and the skeptic community in general, I feel that science and logic are appropriate methods that could be drawn upon.

          I suppose, given the mission of the site, it would be nice to see well reasoned arguments and refutations that are backed up by evidence that is more than anecdotal.

    2. Are you sure about that? What part of feminism prohibits criticism? RW certainly critised freely, as did RD. And I don’t think anyone’s suggested that RD shouldn’t have been allowed to say what he said, but rather that it reflects poorly on his empathy and understanding of gender differences that would be willing to say that.

      As a non-lame skeptic, surely you’re happy to apply Occam’s Razor: Is it more likely that RD said that “just to test us,” or that confronting religion is more important in his mind that confronting gender bias? I’m sure you’d agree it’d be quite… lame to assume the former without any supporting evidence at all.

      1. I kind of reject the assumptions you have in your question. It’s not that you’d predict feminism would be extreme in rejecting other views. Predict on what basis? The fact is feminism does do that. For example there is not even one single feminist board on the entire internet that allows critics to post. Out of thousands of boards. That is pretty extreme evidence.

        It seems to me that any feminist board that did allow critics would cease to be a feminist board since subjecting irrational prejudices to scrutiny tends to eliminate them.

        This all happened ten years ago with the other irrational prejudice boards like white supremacist boards. Back in the 90s (when the internet was young!) it was feared that these hate groups would grow strong on the internet by recruiting new members. Several anti-hate groups monitored them.

        But it turned out that the freedom of the internet acted against them. Basically they got flooded with people criticising their hate and had to close down their boards or make them hard to post on.

        The same thing happened with feminist boards. It happened for the same reasons. Feminism can’t survive where people are free to point out that eg. some piece just written reads exactly like a piece on Stormfront (with “black” substituted for “male”). it humiliates the members and discourages new growth so it’s shut down.

        That paranoia towards outsiders makes the movement insular and stops growth – which is exactly what has happened to the feminist movement.

        Explaining how feminism became this way as a movement is a whole big question of its own. THAT it is this way however is a much simpler question.

        1. 1. You are a critic. And you are being allowed to post here. (You’re just being argued with, which is another matter.) So the point that feminist forums don’t allow dissent doesn’t fit this situation.

          2. Feminism is about hating men? Nonsense. Your white supremacy analogy simply doesn’t fit, because the white supremecists were generally pushing for a halt to racial equality and a return to the point where they were legally superior. But feminists (and women generally) have never been dominant in Western society, nor any other society in the world that I can think of. Feminism is better equated with the civil rights movement in the US or the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, where the goal is to make an oppressed group equal, not raise an already equal group to a superior position.

          (And before you go there, there’s plenty of evidence to show that women are currently still generally worse off than men, even where they share legal equality. If you are not familiar with this evidence, then investigate this properly; don’t argue from ignorance.)

          3. I’d like you to stop and think about why you have such a negative view of feminism. Who told you that feminism has a destructive agenda, and why would they have said that? Is it possible that you’ve been led astray, intentionally or otherwise?

          4. More constructively, how exactly would YOU act to improve gender equality? Anyone can criticise, but that doesn’t help quite enough on its own.

          1. As I said above the comments were censored but now the thread has run its course, and ONLY now that few people are reading, critics are able to post. Why? Because hand moderation is a pain in the neck. Laziness, nothing else.

            Feminism has lobbied for and achieved explicitly sex discriminator laws. It is a hate movement. Please explain to me how an equality movement comes to lobby for explicitly sex discriminator laws if you are still pretending feminism is for equality. Tell me how that one works please.

            (do you not know much about feminism btw?)

            Nobody told me this stuff. I researched it over the course of about twenty years. You know what? Some people can think for themselves. Other people appear on a board and repeat the same thing two dozen other people are saying. Which are you? Which am I?

            Are you capable of being skeptical about your own ideology of feminism? Is it possible for you to question it? I doubt it. It’s human nature that if you bury yourself in an isolationist community — basically like a cult — and never interact with any outsiders except to attack them. Well under those circumstances your brains atrophy. You have no ability to be objective.

          2. As for your 4th question an answer ought to be obvious. Think about what you are saying. I am criticizing what I see as a sexist movement that masquerades as for equality and you ask, “what are you doing for equality?” Think real hard and see if you can answer your own question, but I warn you that doing so will require a shift of perspective you may be unable to perform.

          3. “there’s plenty of evidence to show that women are currently still generally worse off than men”

            Name even one example. Just one. I ask feminists to do this all the time and almost none can do so. That ought to tell you something. name an example from a culture we both understand — present day America (I assume you are likely to be American).

            Here’s FIVE easy examples for men worse off: legally men have fewer rights, educationally men are worse off (women go to college 60% more in the US), men’s life expectancy is years less than women’s (perhaps because women’s health has triple the funding), men are sent to jail and prison at over ten time the rate of women, men have few or no reproductive or family rights.

            I am asking you for just one.

        2. You’re commenting on a feminist board with a critism that feminist boards don’t allow criticism?

          1. Yes. It’s ironic. If I were not commenting on a feminist board it would not be ironic but you wouldn’t ever see it. It’s an application of the anthropic principle. You understand what I mean?

        3. So because all the feminist boards you have seen don’t allow criticism then all feminist boards in existence don’t allow criticism? Which leads to all feminists don’t allow criticism?

          1. Yes. How else can you establish the characteristics of any thing other than by observation?

      1. ^^^ @grognard, if s/he’s actually capable of comprehension at this point.

  299. Hi Rebecca. I am a 50-year-old white Canadian guy, and I almost never comment on blogs, but Christopher Hitchens said recently if you have something kind to say about someone, don’t hesitate to do it.

    I offer you my unconditional support. Thanks for your courage, intelligence, and restraint. You are right,
    and Dawkins is a wrong-headed bully. I would explain why I think so, but there it has been so clearly demonstrated in many threads in many places this last week.

    I am even going to take action. What, I’m not sure. I’ll start by reading your blog in the time I’ll save by not reading Dawkins’s website. I’m sure you have lots of ideas.

  300. Oh ha ha ha, this is a joke right? davidbyron, you must be very wise indeed to have such knowledge of what is it like to be female. You must go around telling all your friends of different races that the holocaust wasn’t so bad, or that slavery wasn’t deplorable. While one may hold any opinion he(or SHE) wants, not all opinions are created equal because something called FACT gets in the way. Rebecca was made uncomfortable by the male in the elevator: FACT. She suggested that men be aware of this possibility, I don’t need to explain why.

    You are a misogynistic moron: FACT.

    On that note academia made me a feminist and the atheist/skeptic community has only fanned those flames. Feminism is about equality for all, about everyone having a fair shake. Casual misogyny is like casual racism, it’s part of the problem because it treats being part of the solution with contempt.

    If we all do our part we can make society a better place for everyone.

    1. Your emotion-fuelled and wonderfully logic-free response does much to justify davidbyron’s comment better than anybody else could have. Well done.

      1. Exactly what is the point of playing the You’re Not a Sociopath, Therefore Your Argument Can Be Ignored game?

      2. At least she didn’t say I raped her. I have often had feminists “respond” to my arguments by saying I have raped them.

        I am NOT kidding either.

  301. I was born in 1955, and it was my uncles who were warned. I only have one sister.

    I know a couple of friends have been raped, so I know the danger to women is real.
    However, I suspect my background leaves me suspicious of white women’s motives. My mother seemed to have more trouble with white women than white men,one of whom she married and became my father. I’ve had an Angla friend express unreasoning fear of Chicano appearing males while we were driving through San Antonio. I have listened when black men complain about how women of other races will cross the street to avoid walking past them. We’re no longer likely to get murdered, but the basic problems still seems to be there.

    1. I don’t think it’s appropriate for big white guys to corner small black or Chicano men in places where no one else can hear them or see them either in order to initiate intimate contact. (And yes, just going to a hotel room alone at 4 a.m. is intimate. It’s “somewhere more intimate”.)

    2. You’ve made lots of great points in this thread, Dancer1955. If a woman feels uncomfortable around a man solely because he’s black, not because his behavior is suspicious, then it’s entirely her problem. I have an elderly white Kentucky relative who was afraid of *children* of color playing in a puddle. Completely her problem.

      I’ve seen blow-ups on feminist websites when race comes up and you’re right, belonging to one minority or powerless group doesn’t automatically lead to empathy.

    3. That’s not race; that happens to men of any race. Its sexism. It’s gender profiling.

  302. Somebody pinch me. Please tell me this is some pre-scripted event before TAM9 where Rebecca, Dawkins, PZ, @ Plait all get on stage and say ‘Look, Skeptics! Don’t get sucked into believing the blogosphere hype!’

    Rebecca – I admire you terrifically for what you have achieved personally & professionally – and I consider you a friend from the occasions where we’ve met. But to suggest you’re going to drop Mr. Dawkins from your friend list, let alone decide to cut him off your reading list is patently silly. If we did this with every person with whom we disagree, then we really have no business calling ourselves ‘skeptics’. I appreciate you are passionate about what happened, and the debate about sexism / appropriate societal behaviour is important and a worthy topic to discuss. But boycotts of those who disagree, or who have differing points of view is…

    Stupid.

    1. “If we did this with every person with whom we disagree,”
      It’s more than just disagreement. Read the post again; this is a personal issue.

      1. Rebecca is choosing to take the comments personally. While I have no need to ‘defend’ anyone’s actions, I will just point out that Rebecca, in a skeptical forum in which we were both active several years ago, from time to time made remarks that were perhaps imprudent, flippant, or certainly be able to be taken personally. The comments of Mr. Dawkins were certainly not his finest hour. But is a ‘boycott’ and indeed a public call for a ‘boycott’ a reasonable response?

        An appropriate response here is to engage in a debate and a discussion, not to sever all ties and turn this into a boycott. That is not the thinking ‘movement’ to which I subscribe, nor deep down, do I think it is one that a vibrant and smart-as-a-whip Rebecca Watson really does either.

        1. “Rebecca is choosing to take the comments personally.”
          Which she has a reason for doing for, a reason that she stated in the damn blog post and that you have not yet addressed.

          “While I have no need to ‘defend’ anyone’s actions,”
          Oh no, here we go again…

          “I will just point out that Rebecca, in a skeptical forum in which we were both active several years ago, from time to time made remarks that were perhaps imprudent, flippant, or certainly be able to be taken personally.”
          Which is totally not a tu quoque. At all.

          “The comments of Mr. Dawkins were certainly not his finest hour. But is a ‘boycott’ and indeed a public call for a ‘boycott’ a reasonable response?”
          What public call? I don’t see anything that could be construed as a public call =/

          “An appropriate response here is to engage in a debate and a discussion,”
          Where have you been for the last three days? There already was one, on multiple blogs (not the least of which was PZ Myers’ blog Pharyngula).

          1. I’ll be able to see Rebecca face to face in about a week, so this is all rather meaningless. I’m sure we’ll have an interesting discussion. Anyways Setar – Rebecca’s comment of “But those of us who are humanists and feminists will find new, better voices to promote and inspire, and Dawkins will be left alone to fight the terrible injustice of standing in elevators with gum-chewers.” Is pretty much a public call for a boycott, without saying ‘Boycott Richard Dawkins’ – especially as it follows a tirade of just how far Rebecca intends to distance herself from RD.

            As regards why Rebecca feels justified to take his comments so personally – I actually DON’T see her justification for this in her OP. Richard posted an imprudent remark, followed by two further comments which were equally unsatisfactory & has since not been heard from. Presumably he’s off frying other fish, or is waiting until calmer heads prevail. Maybe he just doesn’t care – who knows.

            The bottom line here – we aren’t advancing the skeptical (or feminist) ‘movements’ by boycotting, or by being divisive. Its hard enough to get a group of like-minded skeptics/atheists in a room to begin with, without having this needless bickering.

    2. It is stupid to put yourself in a vulnerable position with someone who has stated clearly that your safety, your feelings, your expressed preferences, and your prior discomfort are secondary to their immediate impulses and preferences.

      It’s not wise for a woman to go to atheist events these days, unless they are prepared to take the risk.

      When you walk into a dangerous situation, you are expected to withhold judgement until the situation is over or you are raped so that the other person doesn’t feel bad. It is not wise to go into such an environment without assistance to ensure your security.

      1. I am unaware of any skeptical or atheist event where an alleged rape has taken place, Meko. Please enlighten me if these conventions are known hotbeds for this sort of activity.

        What happened to Ms. Watson is unfortunate and was I’m sure uncomforatable for her. In her own video, however, she makes it pretty clear that she never felt physically threatened.

      2. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that when I went to skeptical events, I experienced unwanted “accidental” touching, cornering and was followed to my car after leaving on 2 separate occasions.

        Reread Watson’s post above – she’s experienced it too.

        When I complained, I was told by regulars that this is just the way it is, it’s probably harmless, but just to be safe I should have a friend escort me to my car.

        So yes, based on my experience and other women I’ve talked to, I think it’s not remotely unusual. Every guy doesn’t do it, but when it came to the unwanted touching, it happened to me every time. And it was justified.

  303. Hi Rebecca – I’m male, Indian, feminist, atheist. I just wanted to write in to show my support. RD was an ass. I still have hope that one day he’ll understand why.

  304. Wow. Just wow. What an amazingly bad situation this has all become. Both Richard and Rebecca outed as douchebags. This is a sad day for the community.

    Wait, what, Rebecca too? Yes, her too.

    Richard’s response was pretty bizarre. It had little to do with the actual content of Rebecca’s post; maybe he heard it on some level that the rest of us didn’t – I wouldn’t be surprised if he did, because there was, and continues to be, a LOT of bullshit coming out of Rebecca on this whole matter. Anyway, it’s probably best for him to speak on the matter, I really don’t feel the need to defend someone who gets plenty of money to handle how he’s perceived by other people.

    Rebecca, however, I am going to focus my attention on because she’s getting off this whole thing way too easily. Ms. Watson, please realize the following:

    1.) You have no right to speak on behalf of all women everywhere in the world.
    2.) You especially have no right to speak to all men everywhere in the world on behalf of all women everywhere in the world.

    Do you have any idea how many women on this planet would have LIKED that very, very harmless invite you were subjected to? You know how many would be flattered? No you don’t, and I don’t either. But I have a much better idea than you. Why? Because I’m a guy. And I’ve successfully used subtle and not-so-subtle pickup lines and advances to enjoy harmless romantic consensual fun with females throughout my life. I’ve even done so in even more isolated surroundings than elevators, because that’s often going to raise the likelihood of success (if their lady friends aren’t around to see her kissing you she’s more likely to do it, as she won’t be judged by her social circle for it). Surely, some of them did indeed take offense (or said they did, anyway they rejected the offer), and some – many – of them actually accepted the invite. But if I’m batting even 30% here, why in the hell would I stop doing it? The investment is so incredibly low, and “waiting for her to take the initiative” is never going to get most of us laid. In fact, even suggesting it betrays a disappointing lack of understanding of sexual dynamics and gender roles in modern societies. Even in the most emancipated nations on earth guys are expected to take the first step.

    “I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on.” – right, and many women still don’t. You don’t get to lecture me on how I need to behave around women. In fact, to turn your own argument against Richard back against you – I’m not going to risk not having success with women just because my not having success with women doesn’t bother you.

    Put yourself in the elevator gentleman’s shoes if you can. What if he’d been in that same, or at least analogous situations, in the past and successfully managed to serenade one or more ladies in your own position? You as a skeptic have to agree that his science on the theory of hitting on girls in elevators is pretty solid And that you, the unwilling target in this particular case, only have the right to talk about yourself and your own attitude to that thing.

    And having said that, I’m getting to the point where I’m starting to maybe understand on what level Richard heard your little rant. You talked about this as if it were an objective faux pas on behalf of this gentleman, as if this actually qualified as some sort of women’s issue in general. It’s not. It’s your personal opinion and preference, and whatever rationalization you may have for your opinions do not apply to all women. It’s not even a SMALL problem that applies to all women. No, it’s just your problem. Which is fine, and I will absolutely never hit on you in an elevator, ever. Or screw it, at all. Because I don’t want to be trashed in a video or something, having stepped on land mines that are only there half the time, depending on which woman is involved.

    That said, I’m completely and utterly ignorant about what it’s like to be a woman in general, and I suspect that going around constantly afraid for your safety is a terrible burden. If there is anything I can do to make that go away for women of the world, I’m right up there on the barricade with you. But if you want me specifically to change my conduct around women in social situations, you really need to tell me to change the things that absolutely, positively never work to my advantage. And no, I am not a rapist, and see no advantage in the practice of raping or even slightly hurting other people in any way.

    This has been a sad day for our community. :/

    /OdiousRepeater

    1. “Rebecca, however, I am going to focus my attention on because she’s getting off this whole thing way too easily.”
      Translation: WAAAAH! FEMINISTS ARE MEAN!

      “1.) You have no right to speak on behalf of all women everywhere in the world.”
      Where did she claim to do that? The specificity of your claim contains a certain foul smell…

      “2.) You especially have no right to speak to all men everywhere in the world on behalf of all women everywhere in the world.”
      Where did she claim to do that? This smells even more foul, by the way. It’s almost as if you’re trying to find some sort of fault here even if it means making one up.

      “Do you have any idea how many women on this planet would have LIKED that very, very harmless invite you were subjected to? You know how many would be flattered? No you don’t, and I don’t either.”
      Harmless? SHE WAS PROPOSITIONED AT FOUR IN THE MORNING IN THE ELEVATOR. How the fuck do you get any less harmless?

      “But I have a much better idea than you. Why? Because I’m a guy.”
      SYSTEM ERROR. REBOOTING…

      Okay, run that by me again.

      SYSTEM ERROR. REBOOTING…

      Third time’s the charm.

      SYSTEM ERROR. REBOOTING…

      The fuck? The hell could be making my logic processor crash three times…

      …yeah, thought so. I’m just going to stop here and ask: Why should I continue taking you even remotely seriously when you posit that you have a better idea about what women like than a woman?

      1. “Translation: WAAAAH! FEMINISTS ARE MEAN!”

        Really? Wow. Shit. I need to learn English all over again. I didn’t say anything about feminists in general, I was talking about Rebecca specifically.

        “Where did she claim to do that? The specificity of your claim contains a certain foul smell…”

        “Where did she claim to do that? This smells even more foul, by the way. It’s almost as if you’re trying to find some sort of fault here even if it means making one up.”

        I… think the whole thing is self-evident. Just from the sentence “guys, don’t do that”, with “that” meaning “guys (all) don’t hit on women (all) in situations like that using lines like that” – actually, one could discuss at length what “that” means and if it really applies to ALL guys. Maybe it’s just the guys she’s not attracted to. Would the guy still have been at fault had she found him smoking hot? Or would the whole thing have been cool and/or romantic, maybe?

        “Harmless? SHE WAS PROPOSITIONED AT FOUR IN THE MORNING IN THE ELEVATOR. How the fuck do you get any less harmless?”

        I think you’ll find that many propositions happen at four in the morning in elevators or other quite solitary spaces. I think getting any less harmless is, furthermore, very easy too. Already at the point of the guy touching her, in addition to inviting her over for coffee, it’s less harmless. Touching her somewhere private is less harmless still. I think you lack in imagination, among other things.

        “Why should I continue taking you even remotely seriously when you posit that you have a better idea about what women like than a woman?”

        You’re presupposing that I give a fuck, never a good thing to do. But I’ll humour you – one woman (just like one man) only ever speaks for herself. That’s a test group of one (1). Whereas I have “hit” on loads of women in my life, some successfully, some not successfully. Unless she has also does the same, there shouldn’t even be any argument about who has the more data on what works on women and what doesn’t – because all she can ever bring to the table is her personal opinions, hearsay, and inferences. And if you hung out with the BDSM crowd as well as “normal” people, like I often do, you’ll know what opinions on these matters are as wide-reaching and plentiful as there are people. Some people totally get off on being hit on early in the morning in confined, solitary places. Imagine that shit.

        1. Stranger, 4 am, isolated space where no one can see or hear me and the exit is blocked.

          Nobody’s that hot. It’s always creepy.

          Besides, when it comes to respecting others, I think it is better to err on the side of making people feel too safe.

          1. “Stranger, 4 am, isolated space where no one can see or hear me and the exit is blocked.

            Nobody’s that hot. It’s always creepy.”

            Yes. I think that’s really true. Unless what you’re perceiving is “sexy mysterious stranger, in a space where nobody can judge me for accepting his advances, and there’s no risk of anyone interrupting us”.

            It happens. Do you deny this?

            “Besides, when it comes to respecting others, I think it is better to err on the side of making people feel too safe.”

            I agree. For the record, I personally wouldn’t have hit on her in the elevator like that, because I’d be worried about how she could potentially perceive it. Thing is, though, that there have been other situations that could be construed as analogous where my advances have been most welcome. I’m not making this up. So… does any of this really prove anything about what all women like?

            “The creation of trust and safety was always a priority and a condition of entry.”

            I just brought the BDSM stuff up to make the point that people’s definitions of things like “hot” and “appropriate” differ a whole lot. That’s not to say that BDSM events are rape-central. They are in fact safer than most “normal” parties I think.

            “Atheists aren’t like that. Or at least, atheist norms aren’t.”

            You mean “people at atheist conventions”? Or what? I mean, that’s a really wide stroke again. Damn, at the core of everything I’ve written in this thread has been my dislike of generalisation, why are people so adamant to keep it up? Do we have to keep talking about “the atheists”, “women” and “men” as if they were homogeneous groups? If we’ve learned anything throughout the history of our species, it must be fallacy of that idea, no?

            “And odiousrepeater: Thank you for adding your support to my decision to never attend an atheist conference.”

            I’m… not sure how I have. If anything, you should probably steer clear of any sort of social situation where there may be any sort of ambiguity involved.

          2. “sexy mysterious stranger, in a space where nobody can judge me for accepting his advances, and there’s no risk of anyone interrupting us”.

            This is a sexual fantasy. Rape can also be a sexual fantasy. It is acted out in BDSM scenes and there are women who enjoy it. Perhaps there is even a woman out there who likes the idea of being forcibly taken without her consent.

            That possible woman’s existence, however, does not justify walking up to someone you don’t know and raping her, because she might like it. The important thing is consent.

            This is why putting someone in a potential rape situation because someone might think it is sexy, just because you know someone who is into rape scenes, is wrong.

          3. The reason you confirmed with me that atheist events are not safe places is that.

            1. I have already been touched, followed and cornered without my consent at atheist events
            2. Other women have been as well.
            3. This behavior is justified and reinforced within the atheist community with the same argument you have used (some women are into that)
            4. I do not want to be in a situation where nonconsensual behavior is justified and reinforced. Fortunately there are many places where “safe, sane, and consensual” is a value that is reinforced. There is no good reason for someone to endanger themselves by going somewhere it is not.

          4. “That possible woman’s existence, however, does not justify walking up to someone you don’t know and raping her, because she might like it. The important thing is consent.”

            I agree. But isn’t the absolutely most basic way of getting consent to just ask? I mean, we are talking here of the least the guy could’ve done in that situation – use words.

            “This is why putting someone in a potential rape situation because someone might think it is sexy, just because you know someone who is into rape scenes, is wrong.”

            From my perspective as the proposition:er, I’d think the risk of causing discomfort infinitely lower if I were to say something naughty in an elevator than if I were to assault her in the hopes that she were into that sort of thing.

            There’s a reason why we have laws against rape and not against being a bumbling idiot in an elevator.

          5. “1. I have already been touched, followed and cornered without my consent at atheist events”

            I’m sorry to hear that.

            “2. Other women have been as well.”

            I’m sorry to hear that too.

            “3. This behavior is justified and reinforced within the atheist community with the same argument you have used (some women are into that)”

            I’m sorry to… whaat? Really? The entirety of the “atheist community”? Wow. Someone should do some digging on the subject, because the allegation is a pretty big one. Do you have any quotes? Any proof whatsoever? Because this is some pretty damning stuff right here.

            For the record, I’d never use the argument “some women are into that” to justify behaviour towards all women – except when it comes to totally harmless things like talking, and then in a non-abusive, non-threatening, non-damaging way. Turns out, people can just say “no” to you if they are not interested. Using that same argument to do any of the things you mentioned is very much wrong.

          6. By supported, I mean the responses when I spoke up were little different than the ones Rebecca received online.

            “He probably was just awkward.”
            “He’s a good guy, you just have to know him.”
            “I don’t like to live in fear, have more confidence. Get over it.”
            “You are responsible for your feelings.”
            “If you don’t want to be treated that way, you should bring a friend.”

            There was never a “we are working on that, here’s how” or an effort to prevent it by announcing norms or enforcing them (as you would see in the kink community).

        2. I’ve hung out at BDSM events, where the watchwords are Safe, Sane and Consensual. Permission was everything.

          Unlike atheist events, standing within 18″ of people or touching them without permission was actively discouraged and those who violated that rule were ejected.

          Following women out of sight and hearing of everyone else without their express permission, was actively discouraged and cause for ejection and calls to the police.

          Clear communication was always insisted upon, with agreement before going into a scene. The basic premise of all interactions was to start with the most conservative assumptions of how people wanted to be approached and then ask permission before going further.

          The creation of trust and safety was always a priority and a condition of entry.

          Atheists aren’t like that. Or at least, atheist norms aren’t.

          1. Most of the dungeons I attend actually operate the Risk Aware Consentual Kink (RACK) rather than SSC as the sane part can be misinterpreted accoridng to legal status. I have never heard of the 18″ rule and even so, I don’t see the place where Rebecca mentions invasion of physical spae. It is not againt the rules of any BDSM club I know of to speak to someone (there may be personal dynamics that you should respect but not dungeon rules) and ask. No is always an acceptable answer, pushing beyond that is unacceptable.

            While I agree that at most BDSM events there is a level of respect between men and women, the same cannot be said for some women with women (not all, both women and men are individuals and behaviours vary). I have been felt up/groped, abused and had more unwanted sexual advances from women than I ever have by men. I don’t see this as a male versus female issue.

          2. It’s not a male vs. female issue, as far as I’m concerned. It’s a consent vs. lack of consent and respect for safety implications vs. lack of awareness or lack of respect. I’d be bothered by a woman in the elevator behaving the same way that Elevator Guy did, for the reasons you mentioned. If she was as much bigger than me as the average man is bigger than me I’d find it even more bothersome. It would be uncomfortable an inappropriate either way.

            The problem with the “ask” in the elevator was not the words, it was the location time and situation, which did not give the person an out. Those words would have been fine in a bar where one is seen and heard by other people.

            There are signs at the dungeons I’ve been to that say “no following anyone into this bathroom”. The initial tour says “in these rooms, you are not to go in unless the people who are already here invite you”. And they watch people going back to their cars after and anyone who does the follow thing is dealt with promptly.

            I agree that there is always room for refining safety protocols or social mores. The places I’ve been to don’t have an “18 inch rule” but a “too close” rule. I choose 18 inches because most studies I’ve read have pegged that as the boundary of “intimate” space in a US/Canadian/European context.

            In dungeons I’ve been to “too close” is determined by the person who is least comfortable with the intimacy. In atheist events I have been to, “too close” is determined whether the person who entered the personal space says he/she intended any discomfort. No one ever says they did.

          3. I think it really comes down to individual perspective. I wouldn’t assume a lack of safety unless there were specific reasons and in this example I don’t see the situation as being threatening, whether the person is male or female.

            It seems the debate has rather turned into a male versus female debate with suggestions that men do not understand a women’s perspective. For the most part, I do not understand the feeling threatened everywhere I go mentality, but then again I have moved countries by myself several times and had to go to events alone to meet new friends, so acknowledge that my perspective may be different.

        3. JWard, there’s ingenious thing called READING COMPREHENSION. look into getting some.

          And odiousrepeater: Thank you for adding your support to my decision to never attend an atheist conference.

        4. Listen..I’m glad you’re a stud. Really. I mean it. YAY FOR YOU GETTING THE SEXXOR.

          But you talk about this mysterious scenario of a woman who is in an elevator and is able to take up an intimate encounter with a stranger and have it be exciting.

          and you -ignore- some of the basic realities of this situation.

          That woman, would have put off non verbal cues. She would have looked at the man, smiled, perhaps flushed, perhaps played with her hair, bit her bottom lip, shifted around. She might have talked to him a little..made a gaspy breathy little laugh that imitated sounds in a sexual scenario. She would have been -obviously- receptive.

          The scenario that Rebecca was in? Didn’t have that reality. She said in public ‘I don’t like to be hit on’ it was 4am She had left the bar saying quite clearly ‘I am going to go to sleep’ the man followed her and said ‘don’t take this the wrong way’ knowing full well that he was with a woman who was alone, expressed ideas of not being approached, who was going to bed alone and that there -was a great amount of possibility that this was the wrong way to do something-.

          So…I’m terribly glad that you in your male wisdom are going to tell us wimmin about how how it is that we like to be hit on..but as a chick? a sexual chick? who enjoys -immensely- being hit on and even more interestingly has a bit of a fondness for the stranger fantasy herself?

          I assure you, that from my perspective, Elevator guy would have been a Creepy McCreeperson in my book.

          By the by, your arrogance in this situation is -outstanding- and I want to throw out a question. If you don’t give a fuck about our opinions of your words and your logic then why on earth should we give a fuck about yours?

          1. “Listen..I’m glad you’re a stud. Really. I mean it. YAY FOR YOU GETTING THE SEXXOR.”

            Necessary comment? I think my statements were pertinent to the argument I was making; I wasn’t trying to big myself up. You’re mean and judgemental.

            “and you -ignore- some of the basic realities of this situation.”

            This _specific_ situation, I’ll concede.

            “That woman, would have put off non verbal cues. She would have looked at the man, smiled, perhaps flushed, perhaps played with her hair, bit her bottom lip, shifted around. She might have talked to him a little..made a gaspy breathy little laugh that imitated sounds in a sexual scenario. She would have been -obviously- receptive.”

            That’s some softcore porn stuff right there. Keep talking.

            Sorry, just thought to lighten the mood a bit. I’m not saying this to be disrespectful. Yes, I take your point that there are ways to communicate being receptive. Though… would this happen immediately? Or would the guy have to say something first? I mean, in this incidental scenario you paint – does everything always happen the same way?

            “The scenario that Rebecca was in? Didn’t have that reality. She said in public ‘I don’t like to be hit on’ it was 4am She had left the bar saying quite clearly ‘I am going to go to sleep’ the man followed her and said ‘don’t take this the wrong way’ knowing full well that he was with a woman who was alone, expressed ideas of not being approached, who was going to bed alone and that there -was a great amount of possibility that this was the wrong way to do something-.”

            I agree with you. I think if what Rebecca meant to comment on was “in this specific situation, if you knew full well what my attitude was, and if you had no reason to think that I would be receptive to any advances by you, then please don’t follow me to the elevator and hit on me after the doors close” – then I am infinitely more sympathetic to that statement than, as I think many people interpreted it, just saying “no girls want to be hit on in elevators at 4 in the morning”. I think maybe I overreacted to the actual contents of her statements and took her too literally, which is a bit bad of me considering it was hardly a press release and more of a casual video she recorded. She’s hardly at fault for that. I think I would’ve let it slip if not for the whole later part involving Richard making the blip on my radar that much bigger. I’m sorry.

            “So…I’m terribly glad that you in your male wisdom are going to tell us wimmin about how how it is that we like to be hit on..”

            You’re attacking a straw man, I never spoke on behalf of anyone, all I said was that I didn’t like it when other people did that either. This sarcasm and vitriol makes you come off as a total dick.

            “I assure you, that from my perspective, Elevator guy would have been a Creepy McCreeperson in my book.”

            Yes. Still just a test group of one. Not even within the demographic of “sexual chick who likes getting hit on and has stranger fantasies” are you anything more than an individual. This thread is about privilege, and it’d be kind of foolish to claim any just because you’re a certain type of person. Whether that’s the type of person you professed to be, or what Rebecca called Richard.

            “By the by, your arrogance in this situation is -outstanding- and I want to throw out a question. If you don’t give a fuck about our opinions of your words and your logic then why on earth should we give a fuck about yours?”

            You shouldn’t. But I do give a fuck, in general. I just didn’t care about that one douchebag in particular – because he was a douchebag engaging in douchebaggery. You are not. You’re just mean.

          2. *lol* Really? I’m mean.

            You tell a woman who expressed a specific situation that made her uncomfortable that she has it all wrong and that you have more insight to this because you’re a male and..I’m mean.

            No..I’m just as sarcastic as you were in your responses.

            As for the scenario of consensual sex? I don’t know precisely how it would start. In my own ‘world view’ it would have to begin with at least mutual eye contact and acknowledgment on both parts and expand from there.

            But you’re once again missing the point. You made a decision about someone’s comment in a specific situation and drug her down for her right to say ‘guys don’t approach a woman in an elevator at four am this way’…which speaks a lot for your defensiveness in this scenario.

            Why is it that it’s a problem for her to say that? What would be so wrong with, handing her a business card and saying ‘my room number is’ if you thought there was a chance?

            I’m really baffled in this about your complete ignorance of the power struggle in this situation coupled with my ‘being mean’ after you say things like..

            “And having said that, I’m getting to the point where I’m starting to maybe understand on what level Richard heard your little rant. You talked about this as if it were an objective faux pas on behalf of this gentleman, as if this actually qualified as some sort of women’s issue in general. It’s not. It’s your personal opinion and preference, and whatever rationalization you may have for your opinions do not apply to all women. It’s not even a SMALL problem that applies to all women. No, it’s just your problem. Which is fine, and I will absolutely never hit on you in an elevator, ever. Or screw it, at all. Because I don’t want to be trashed in a video or something, having stepped on land mines that are only there half the time, depending on which woman is involved.”

            Which is btw where I got the ‘I’m glad you’re a stud’ bit because you seemed -awful- intent on sharing your success rate with coming onto women in confined spaces.

            You also seemed -awful- intent on telling her and other women what -women problems are- which is kinda mean and more importantly and more -rude and mean- than the other points..

            Your comment about how you won’t hit on her.

            Because….she’s supposed to care about that? She’s sat here and made public conversation about how -she doesn’t want that- but you won’t hit on her period because she’s such an irrational woman that you just don’t even want to risk it.

            Wow. The complete arrogance in that is -astounding-.

            Not to mention that bit about Richard Dawkins and agreeing with him and the whole other bit about how she’s totally gotten off easy with the whole shit storm of fire raging around her.

            And yet again..-I’m- the mean one.

            Does this mean I’ve sufficiently offended you enough that you won’t hit on me too? or is there another sort of punishment for my temerity of standing up and saying what I think in a sarcastic manner that might fit the crime better. Will you…agree with someone who’s personally insulted me and then come onto my blog to tell me what a bad bad girl I’ve been?

            Also I personally -love- this one.

            “Do you have any idea how many women on this planet would have LIKED that very, very harmless invite you were subjected to? You know how many would be flattered? No you don’t, and I don’t either. But I have a much better idea than you. Why? Because I’m a guy. And I’ve successfully used subtle and not-so-subtle pickup lines and advances to enjoy harmless romantic consensual fun with females throughout my life. I’ve even done so in even more isolated surroundings than elevators, because that’s often going to raise the likelihood of success (if their lady friends aren’t around to see her kissing you she’s more likely to do it, as she won’t be judged by her social circle for it). Surely, some of them did indeed take offense (or said they did, anyway they rejected the offer), and some – many – of them actually accepted the invite.”

            The way you assume motivations, and acceptances and reasoning on the part of your partners is awesome. Do you have a comment card or something? do you actually ask women why they do what they do?

            Lemme tell you what is mean.

            What’s mean is being told that when you say something that makes you uncomfortable that you’re being a hysterical over reactor who deserves to be taken down in public.

            What’s mean is being told as part of a sociological minority group that a member of the majority group who does the oppressing knows what is your issues and what is not.

            What’s mean is being told that your concerns and your issues are -not- issues because ‘I’ve never had personal experience with that’.

            What’s mean? is putting yourself out there, being flippant and crass, telling people you don’t give a fuck about their opinions..and then turning around the ‘You hurt my feelings’ comment when you are being called out for being a jerk.

            You’re not interested in discourse. You wanted to ‘teach’ us something. You wanted to teach Rebecca something.

            Problem is?? You’re not done learning yourself.

          3. “You tell a woman who expressed a specific situation that made her uncomfortable that she has it all wrong and that you have more insight to this because you’re a male and..I’m mean.”

            No, I didn’t. I just said she had no business speaking in general about all women and all men. I’ve clarified this more than once, it’s the entirety of my point.

            “But you’re once again missing the point. You made a decision about someone’s comment in a specific situation and drug her down for her right to say ‘guys don’t approach a woman in an elevator at four am this way’…which speaks a lot for your defensiveness in this scenario.”

            No, you’re just reading into it. Again, all I’m saying is that saying stuff like “that is never appreciated” has to be qualified by proving that situations like that, or analogous ones, are never welcomed by the target of the advance.

            “Why is it that it’s a problem for her to say that? What would be so wrong with, handing her a business card and saying ‘my room number is’ if you thought there was a chance?”

            I’m confused. Are we still in the elevator? And are you sure she wouldn’t be equally creeped out by that one? I mean, how would you know? That one’s no more subtle than “wanna come for coffee”.

            “I’m really baffled in this about your complete ignorance of the power struggle in this situation”

            Again with the generalizing. Is there a power struggle in every situation that’s even remotely like this one?

            “And having said that, I’m getting to the point where I’m starting to maybe understand on what level Richard heard your little rant. You talked about this as if it were an objective faux pas on behalf of this gentleman, as if this actually qualified as some sort of women’s issue in general. It’s not. It’s your personal opinion and preference, and whatever rationalization you may have for your opinions do not apply to all women. It’s not even a SMALL problem that applies to all women. No, it’s just your problem. Which is fine, and I will absolutely never hit on you in an elevator, ever. Or screw it, at all. Because I don’t want to be trashed in a video or something, having stepped on land mines that are only there half the time, depending on which woman is involved.”

            “Which is btw where I got the ‘I’m glad you’re a stud’ bit because you seemed -awful- intent on sharing your success rate with coming onto women in confined spaces.”

            That’s just because it’s much more effective an argument than “I’ve heard that some women like that shit” – which you could just dismiss by saying “stop watching porn for tips on women”. I actually think you _would_ say that.

            “You also seemed -awful- intent on telling her and other women what -women problems are- which is kinda mean and more importantly and more -rude and mean- than the other points..”

            No, I don’t speak in positives. Haven’t you noticed? Stuff can only ever be falsified. And if there’s even ONE woman who gets her jollies from that one specific situation, the statement “all women dislike that” is false.

            “Because….she’s supposed to care about that?”

            Hey. You haven’t met me. I’m a pretty cool guy.

            “She’s sat here and made public conversation about how -she doesn’t want that- but you won’t hit on her period because she’s such an irrational woman that you just don’t even want to risk it.”

            Pretty much, yeah. If the entirety of her argument WAS, in fact (and I concede that it might not be), that she didn’t think anyone should ever hit on anyone else at 4 in the morning in an elevator – then yeah, all bets are off.

            “Wow. The complete arrogance in that is -astounding-.”

            OK!

            “Not to mention that bit about Richard Dawkins and agreeing with him and the whole other bit about how she’s totally gotten off easy with the whole shit storm of fire raging around her.”

            Well, to be fair, what I meant to say was more that she’s taken the wrong kind of heat. I’m pretty sure I was pretty original in the point I’d made. Granted, I haven’t read absolutely every discussion on the matter around the interwebs, so I may be wrong on this one.

            “And yet again..-I’m- the mean one.”

            You are, though. Most every response you’ve written in this thread is vitriolic and destructive in some way. Nothing original that I’ve read so far, that was written to advance the discourse. You’re only in the process of belittling other people’s opinions on this matter. Predominantly the opinions of those who aren’t totally impressed with Rebecca, I might add. Which gives the whole thing a very tribalistic… je-ne-sais-quoi. Maybe that doesn’t make you mean though. I struggle to find a better word.

            “Does this mean I’ve sufficiently offended you enough that you won’t hit on me too?”

            Nah, you’re all right.

            “Will you…agree with someone who’s personally insulted me and then come onto my blog to tell me what a bad bad girl I’ve been?”

            No, I actually don’t think I’d want you to get even one visit’s worth of extra traffic. Your being sarcastic is one thing, but it’s always with the tone of my being a sexist pig. “Bad, bad girl”. Fuck that. Bad person, if anything – and I think I’ve been consistent in this regard throughout my posting here. This straw man bullshit is just evil and it’s a shame it’ll probably never come back to bite you in any way. Such is life.

            “The way you assume motivations, and acceptances and reasoning on the part of your partners is awesome. Do you have a comment card or something? do you actually ask women why they do what they do?”

            You’re the one making assumptions. Yes, one thing I have done many times is talk with women about their wants, and needs, their fears, their desires. I’m aware that this only constitutes argument from analogy – but together with books on this and similar topics of psychology I have read, and numerous other materials, I think I’m all right to have a bit of an amateur theory going. What of yourself? How much time have you devoted to figuring out other human beings?

            “What’s mean is being told that when you say something that makes you uncomfortable that you’re being a hysterical over reactor who deserves to be taken down in public.”

            Shit yeah. If I’d have done that, I’d be ashamed of myself.

            “What’s mean is being told as part of a sociological minority group that a member of the majority group who does the oppressing knows what is your issues and what is not.”

            Argument from authority is never okay. I’m not allowed to speak on behalf of all men, she’s not allowed to speak on behalf of all women. I really wish you would get this part.

            “What’s mean is being told that your concerns and your issues are -not- issues because ‘I’ve never had personal experience with that’.”

            Again – this ain’t me. Quote me.

            “What’s mean? is putting yourself out there, being flippant and crass, telling people you don’t give a fuck about their opinions..and then turning around the ‘You hurt my feelings’ comment when you are being called out for being a jerk.”

            Again, I responded to the “not giving a fuck” comment – yet you refuse to even acknowledge that. Flippant and crass, sure, whatever. Hitchens is flippant and crass at times too. Your definitions of a jerk don’t really bother me. And no, I’m not playing the “innocence abused” game. But I don’t think you need a professor in English to see whom among us two, at least, is the more aggressive and vitriolic person. If I did play the hurt feelings card, I’d have a lot more ammunition than you would.

            “You’re not interested in discourse. You wanted to ‘teach’ us something. You wanted to teach Rebecca something.”

            This is just you saying shit.

            “Problem is?? You’re not done learning yourself.”

            Don’t take up writing professionally. Or cage fighting. As knockout punches go, this was really weak. I could teach even if I wasn’t fully educated. People do this correctly all the time. And again, just you saying shit. I’m pretty sure I won’t ever get your approval about anything, because not approving is the whole point of your posting replies to me. Luckily, other people are reading this too, and if I’ve gotten through to even one of them, that’s still enough for me.

          4. Wow, for a guy who is really intent on telling me about how I or Rebecca aren’t allowed to speak for the gender as a whole, either of them, which you’ve backed up with personal examples of other people having different motivations than the ones explained..

            You are sure really quick to jump on -my- motivations and intentions.

            Isn’t it funny how that works? You don’t know what I’m intending, you don’t even really know my tone. You get a general idea because of the words I put together but without the facial expressions and vocal inflections you are free to interpret it in any way you wish.

            I’m being aggressive, and vitriolic, because I take umbrage with people who’s opinion differs from my own and I express myself with them. But -you- who come to this blog to express your different opinion and continue to do so are not.

            Even when you do that thing where you tell me how mean I’m being, and how I am not good at logic and debate, and how a professor would tear my stuff apart and the other subtle insults and slights that you’ve levied on me..

            Hell lets go ahead and round up your aggressive and vitriolic comments and we’ll sit down for a good old fashion tu quo que conversation!

            “Both Richard and Rebecca outed as douchebags. This is a sad day for the community.”

            Douchebag. Nice one there.

            “In fact, even suggesting it betrays a disappointing lack of understanding of sexual dynamics and gender roles in modern societies.”

            That’s a quiet backhanded one there. I like how it is that you kind of call her ignorant and unaware about something you really don’t know how much she knows about. I mean being that she is a sort of voice of the feminist movement and might have done some serious research in this or something. I dunno just seems if I do it as a hobby she might do it too. Benefit of the doubt thing there.

            “I’m getting to the point where I’m starting to maybe understand on what level Richard heard your little rant.”

            Something she’s already said that was hurtful to and you sorta take apart her argument and go ‘you know? that guy that you just said really wasn’t very nice to you and I agreed in the beginning was a douchebag I agree with now because your position just isn’t good enough’.

            That’s not at all mean. Really.

            ” No, it’s just your problem. Which is fine, and I will absolutely never hit on you in an elevator, ever. Or screw it, at all. Because I don’t want to be trashed in a video or something, having stepped on land mines that are only there half the time, depending on which woman is involved.”

            This one? totally still my favorite ‘I am going to punish you by not hitting on you.’ Yeah you know you could be Mr McAwesomepants in bed and I could totally want to know you in every way…but saying that? is a total douche move.

            An aside- this is where you completely come off as a jerk

            “That said, I’m completely and utterly ignorant about what it’s like to be a woman in general, and I suspect that going around constantly afraid for your safety is a terrible burden. If there is anything I can do to make that go away for women of the world, I’m right up there on the barricade with you. But if you want me specifically to change my conduct around women in social situations, you really need to tell me to change the things that absolutely, positively never work to my advantage. And no, I am not a rapist, and see no advantage in the practice of raping or even slightly hurting other people in any way.”

            It’s a nice sentiment..really ‘I want to help you not feel scared I’ll work on it with you!, I obviously don’t know what it’s like to be in that situation!”

            But then you back it up with ‘but don’t tell me to change anything that I do that might get me laid because if it’s gotten me laid before it might again and I’m not gonna stop that’. As if those are the only methods to getting laid? and more importantly and more curious for me…why would those methods, if they work on some but make others uncomfortable still be cool for someone who wants to man the barricade? wouldn’t you be more interested in a method that does both work and not make any uncomfortable? I mean for an ally that just seems to be a basic thing ‘I’d like to have the sex with the women, but I don’t want them to be uncomfortable. Let me find a way to accomplish both of those things!’. I just don’t get the resistance to that. Can’t compute it.

            Ok! Back to the aggression and vitriol!

            ” And if you hung out with the BDSM crowd as well as “normal” people, like I often do, you’ll know what opinions on these matters are as wide-reaching and plentiful as there are people. Some people totally get off on being hit on early in the morning in confined, solitary places. Imagine that shit.”

            Subtle one there, and I left off the earlier braggido about how much you had hit on women but I really like how you question in someone elses sexual experiences with no data and imply that they just aren’t experienced enough to have a valid opinion.

            BTW As someone who is in the BDSM communities? There’s a lot more conversation that happens and a lot more knowledge base for people being propositioned than a random encounter. Sure I might have a ‘stranger’ fantasy, but if I’m in a bdsm group and someone is gonna meet that fantasy I want to know that they know someone else in the group, that they can be verified. Someone else up there explained the 18 inch rule that varies from dungeon to dungeon. It’s kinda funny how you talk about not speaking for a whole group and then get caught doing it.


            That’s just because it’s much more effective an argument than “I’ve heard that some women like that shit” – which you could just dismiss by saying “stop watching porn for tips on women”. I actually think you _would_ say that.”

            yeah cos that’s not aggressive or vitriolic at all. You don’t know what I would say, you can -assume- based on the conversations I have had so far which I will totally agree is been a little bit on the snarky and eye rolly side on this thread. But..much like your ‘I don’t give a fuck’ comment..there’s a lot of douchebags here and I’m not giving much a fuck about being snarky to them like you weren’t to him.

            Goose Gander etc, etc.

            Back to the point though, giving pointed conversational jabs without any real idea of the person behind them is presumptuous and rude. *shrug* sorry.

            “Nothing original that I’ve read so far, that was written to advance the discourse. You’re only in the process of belittling other people’s opinions on this matter”

            Wow. Nothing original..like your post was? cos no one else has shame-shamed her on this at all? I mean I’m sorry that my continuing to discuss the same ideas that are being brought up again and again and again and again from multiple sources from people who aren’t reading prior conversations, who are being purposefully obtuse rude and derogatory doesn’t meet your -excellent- standard of discourse control but frankly…I’ll start talking about new topics when the same old ones aren’t being drug out again and again and a silencing tactic as old as the innernets.

            These -are- old and tired conversations. These -are- old and tired points. You’re absolutely right. It’s exhausting to be sitting here again, on internet fight number 123804 talking to someone else about how ‘we don’t all speak for women kind’ when we bring up an issue or how ‘this isn’t a woman’s issue’ when we say as women- multiples of us, because there are at -least- a group of us on this thread alone not to mention the numerous blogs and other threads around the web saying ‘this is an issue for us’. It’s fucking -exhausting-.

            You talk about how she doesn’t get to speak for the whole of genders either way. She’s not. She’s never said -all of the men- or ‘all of the women’ but you haven’t even accepted the fact that she’s speaking for a -great number- of women. Some of whom have made a lot of posts on here supporting her.

            I haven’t added anything new? I haven’t pushed forth discourse? Lets talk about that for a second. What do you want to discourse on? about how assuming that someone saying ‘guys’ in a broad sense speaks to talk about -every single person in the world-? Because that’s just…*sighs* that’s just reaching dude. If this issue isn’t one for you? obviously she’s not -talking to you-. Lets talk about how she says ‘girls don’t like’ when obviously she’s not speaking for -every single woman in the world-. Because first of all broad stroke conversational terms about a situation laid out obviously can’t include all women. It just can’t..but what it -can- and -does- include is the number of women who are here -supporting that statement-. A number of them.

            Stop chasing that redherring. You want to call me to task about cage fighting, and debate logic? then stop building straw men rubbing red herring all over them and running after them with tu quo que.

            Fact one: She was speaking in a broad generalization to a gender of the human population “Guys” she wasn’t directing it with authority to -all- men, She was speaking to those who it was relevant to. She wasn’t even speaking to the guys who might have success in that situation, because -those- men fall into two categories in my opinion. It’s either 1. Absolutely so in tune with a woman’s expressions and indications that they can tell that they are going to get a positive response from her reactions and unfortunately? 2. Rapists. Cos those guys are successful too. They just don’t give a shit about how they got there reactions or not.

            So those outside of those two groups are the ones who might benefit from the knowledge that girls as in girl in plural not all not just one, plural girls don’t appreciate this form of come on.

            And she is obviously right. Girls in plural not all not just one by the response from this very thread, don’t appreciate that form of come on.

            No one can talk about the whole of -anyone-. That is true for -every subject- and yet people can talk with authority on groups. Dawkins does, Hitchens does, hell Douglas Adams and Neil Gaiman do too. You pulling up that argument is just disingenuous. You yourself tried to speak in that tone by saying ‘it’s a sad day for community’ obviously it’s not a sad day for -everyone in the community- people here have expressed happiness that she’s stood up.

            So stop trying to stand on that mountain. Really. It’s just as insulting as you are taking me to be.


            No, I actually don’t think I’d want you to get even one visit’s worth of extra traffic. Your being sarcastic is one thing, but it’s always with the tone of my being a sexist pig. “Bad, bad girl”. Fuck that. Bad person, if anything – and I think I’ve been consistent in this regard throughout my posting here. This straw man bullshit is just evil and it’s a shame it’ll probably never come back to bite you in any way. Such is life.”

            First of all, I wouldn’t give you my blog. *shrug* I don’t feel comfortable with the idea. Secondly? if you want to talk about building a straw man and not having it come back and bite you in the ass? Don’t talk for the community. Don’t talk for the BDSM community. Don’t build up your straw man of standing for the individual while speaking for the general. how about this…I’ll decide you’re not a sexist, when you decide not to be a hypocrite.

            “Argument from authority is never okay. I’m not allowed to speak on behalf of all men, she’s not allowed to speak on behalf of all women. I really wish you would get this part.”

            You -did- do that..you told her it wasn’t even a small women’s issue. You told her that. what made -you- that authority?

            “I’m not playing the “innocence abused” game. But I don’t think you need a professor in English to see whom among us two, at least, is the more aggressive and vitriolic person. If I did play the hurt feelings card, I’d have a lot more ammunition than you would.”

            And I’ve shown examples of where you’ve done that as well and in fact right there, is a sly and subtle insult as well. You’re the worst at it than me! Tu quo que.

            “Don’t take up writing professionally. Or cage fighting. As knockout punches go, this was really weak. I could teach even if I wasn’t fully educated. People do this correctly all the time. And again, just you saying shit. I’m pretty sure I won’t ever get your approval about anything, because not approving is the whole point of your posting replies to me. Luckily, other people are reading this too, and if I’ve gotten through to even one of them, that’s still enough for me.”

            This whole thing is an insult. Tell me again how I’m the one who’s aggressive and vitriolic. How you’re so much better than me, how you have more of a point and bring more discourse.

            Frankly though, I’ve spent enough time on this today. Talking to you any further isn’t going to do much *shrugs* I could change my tone, we could have a long in depth conversation and it could be lovely and we both could walk away with a new understanding about life and each other. But I have serious doubts about it.

            You talk about me approving of you like it matters. So here’s the truth about it. I suspect should you and I have met in any other fashion we would have had a very interesting conversation and maybe an interesting friendship. Beyond your arguments which are frustrating to me and my snarkiness which is problematic to you of course.

            The question is, not that if I would approve of you..it is that would we have come to this argument again and again independent of this situation? Because regardless or not of your -intentions-, you did come across in this as an arrogant sexist man who put his desire for sex above the desire of a woman to not be uncomfortable *shrug*

            I wonder.

            Oh and for the record? I’m not going to be a cage match fighter, or a professional writer. So you don’t have to worry about my ‘parting shots’

          5. “Wow, for a guy who is really intent on telling me about how I or Rebecca aren’t allowed to speak for the gender as a whole, either of them, which you’ve backed up with personal examples of other people having different motivations than the ones explained..”

            How many times must I explain this one? Just one counter-example is enough to disprove absolute statements. Right off the bat you start off by being nit-picky that I hardly see any point in continuing to write to you. But, alas… someone is wrong on the internet. Can’t let that stand.

            “You are sure really quick to jump on -my- motivations and intentions.”

            Yeah, well, you don’t have to care what I think. And I’ll still think it. Just like you’ve just decided that I’m sexist just because I happen to be criticizing one or more women in this thread. I personally think that makes you sexist, but I’m pretty sure you couldn’t see how or why.

            “I’m being aggressive, and vitriolic, because I take umbrage with people who’s opinion differs from my own and I express myself with them.”

            That… doesn’t sound healthy.

            “Even when you do that thing where you tell me how mean I’m being, and how I am not good at logic and debate, and how a professor would tear my stuff apart and the other subtle insults and slights that you’ve levied on me..”

            I’m gonna pull out the “you started it” card.

            “Douchebag. Nice one there.”

            Oh come on, douchebag’s not that bad. It keeps people clean!

            “That’s a quiet backhanded one there. I like how it is that you kind of call her ignorant and unaware about something you really don’t know how much she knows about. I mean being that she is a sort of voice of the feminist movement and might have done some serious research in this or something. I dunno just seems if I do it as a hobby she might do it too. Benefit of the doubt thing there.”

            She might – but like with issues of religion and philosophy, it’s often surprising to see who in fact knows more about a certain subject – the believer or the non-believer. Also, if whatever studying she’s done has led her to the point where she’s talking to all men on behalf of all women.

            “Something she’s already said that was hurtful to and you sorta take apart her argument and go ‘you know? that guy that you just said really wasn’t very nice to you and I agreed in the beginning was a douchebag I agree with now because your position just isn’t good enough’.”

            No, he’s still a douchebag. That’s reading way too much into what I said, something you consistently do.

            “This one? totally still my favorite ‘I am going to punish you by not hitting on you.’ Yeah you know you could be Mr McAwesomepants in bed and I could totally want to know you in every way…but saying that? is a total douche move.”

            Okay. So. This is all you. Nothing in the way I wrote that can be inferred to mean that I would consider not hitting on her “punishment” to her. Jeez, you know when the last time was that I was propositioned in the elevator..? Right. So, I think she’ll be fine with or without me.

            “That said, I’m completely and utterly ignorant about what it’s like to be a woman in general, and I suspect that going around constantly afraid for your safety is a terrible burden. If there is anything I can do to make that go away for women of the world, I’m right up there on the barricade with you. But if you want me specifically to change my conduct around women in social situations, you really need to tell me to change the things that absolutely, positively never work to my advantage. And no, I am not a rapist, and see no advantage in the practice of raping or even slightly hurting other people in any way.”

            “But then you back it up with ‘but don’t tell me to change anything that I do that might get me laid because if it’s gotten me laid before it might again and I’m not gonna stop that’. As if those are the only methods to getting laid? and more importantly and more curious for me…why would those methods, if they work on some but make others uncomfortable still be cool for someone who wants to man the barricade? wouldn’t you be more interested in a method that does both work and not make any uncomfortable? I mean for an ally that just seems to be a basic thing ‘I’d like to have the sex with the women, but I don’t want them to be uncomfortable. Let me find a way to accomplish both of those things!’. I just don’t get the resistance to that. Can’t compute it.”

            Yeah, if there’s an inclusive way of getting the attention of the ladies that never makes any of them uncomfortable, I’d be super-happy to find it. Even better, tell me what it is and I’ll use it constantly. It’s a bit… strange, though. I mean, in so many other avenues of discourse – with religious people for instance – we expect them to suck up a lot and not assume the right to not be offended.

            “Subtle one there, and I left off the earlier braggido about how much you had hit on women but I really like how you question in someone elses sexual experiences with no data and imply that they just aren’t experienced enough to have a valid opinion.”

            Oh you’re reaching. The point I was making is that there are loads of different preferences. Since certain people seemed to not take that point, I’d assume that they had a very narrow-minded view about sex.

            “It’s kinda funny how you talk about not speaking for a whole group and then get caught doing it.”

            No. I tire of your inability to read. It’s getting insulting and God kills a kitten every time.

            “yeah cos that’s not aggressive or vitriolic at all.”

            But I _think_ you would!

            “Wow. Nothing original..like your post was? cos no one else has shame-shamed her on this at all? I mean I’m sorry that my continuing to discuss the same ideas that are being brought up again and again and again and again from multiple sources from people who aren’t reading prior conversations, who are being purposefully obtuse rude and derogatory doesn’t meet your -excellent- standard of discourse control but frankly…I’ll start talking about new topics when the same old ones aren’t being drug out again and again and a silencing tactic as old as the innernets.”

            Wow, the point about one person not talking to an entire gender group of people on behalf on another entire gender group of people has been made many times already, and to Rebecca? Then why’d she keep doing it? It’s an unwinnable debate.

            “These -are- old and tired conversations. These -are- old and tired points. You’re absolutely right. It’s exhausting to be sitting here again, on internet fight number 123804 talking to someone else about how ‘we don’t all speak for women kind’ when we bring up an issue or how ‘this isn’t a woman’s issue’ when we say as women- multiples of us, because there are at -least- a group of us on this thread alone not to mention the numerous blogs and other threads around the web saying ‘this is an issue for us’.”

            I’m going to get a bunch of middle-class white people together and declare that potholes is an issue for our entire social group. We will say it, and then it will be so.

            “You talk about how she doesn’t get to speak for the whole of genders either way. She’s not. She’s never said -all of the men- or ‘all of the women’”

            Yeah she did. She did just that. Sure, it’s down to semantics, but she did say “guys (all), don’t do that(proposition women early in the morning in elevators)”.

            “about how assuming that someone saying ‘guys’ in a broad sense speaks to talk about -every single person in the world-? Because that’s just…*sighs* that’s just reaching dude.”

            So… some guys get to proposition all women in elevators at 4 AM? What, if they are Brad Pitt or something? I actually think that Brad Pitt would’ve gotten away with it (to whatever extent you wish to imagine). We’d never hear about him in the video.

            “If this issue isn’t one for you? obviously she’s not -talking to you-. Lets talk about how she says ‘girls don’t like’ when obviously she’s not speaking for -every single woman in the world-. Because first of all broad stroke conversational terms about a situation laid out obviously can’t include all women. It just can’t..but what it -can- and -does- include is the number of women who are here -supporting that statement-. A number of them.”

            Shit. That’s a lot of qualification that you give away for free there. I also like how you ascribe ESP to Rebecca, to know in advance that women will speak up in support of her “cause” here.

            “Fact one: She was speaking in a broad generalization to a gender of the human population “Guys” she wasn’t directing it with authority to -all- men, She was speaking to those who it was relevant to.”

            What, like unattractive guys? LOL, this makes no sense!

            “So those outside of those two groups are the ones who might benefit from the knowledge that girls as in girl in plural not all not just one, plural girls don’t appreciate this form of come on.”

            So “Some guys, remember that some girls don’t like to be propositioned in the elevator at 4AM”. (Some, however, do, and since the propositioning is often the only way to find out… then you’re out of luck, because we have a right to not be offended or made uncomfortable, ever.)

            “You yourself tried to speak in that tone by saying ‘it’s a sad day for community’ obviously it’s not a sad day for -everyone in the community- people here have expressed happiness that she’s stood up.”

            Right. Saying something like “it’s a sad day for…” is along the lines of saying “that’s the worst X ever”. It’s just some shit one says. If you want to compare that to the semantic mess you’re trying to dig Rebecca out of, be my guest. You can be content in having made the point if you’re so fucking retarded that you don’t acknowledge the distinction. This is insultingly stupid, I’m sorry.

            “Don’t talk for the community. Don’t talk for the BDSM community.”

            I did neither.

            “I’ll decide you’re not a sexist, when you decide not to be a hypocrite.”

            But I did neither. I’ve proven you wrong again and again. Where’s my apology?

            “You -did- do that..you told her it wasn’t even a small women’s issue. You told her that. what made -you- that authority?”

            But it isn’t! Burden of proof is on her. This is basic science, shit. She needs to prove that all women have to be protected from being made uncomfortable by male’s propositions at all times. If it really is high on the feminist agenda to not have to say “no” to men and never be put in a situation where they may be uncomfortable… then it’s a sad day for… wait. No let’s not use that phrase again.

            Anyway, yeah, maybe you´re right. Maybe it is a women’s issue that applies to all women (and no men – only then is it a women’s issue, by definition). Think so?

            “And I’ve shown examples of where you’ve done that as well and in fact right there, is a sly and subtle insult as well. You’re the worst at it than me! Tu quo que.”

            Yes. I am the worst at it. -___-

            “This whole thing is an insult. Tell me again how I’m the one who’s aggressive and vitriolic. How you’re so much better than me, how you have more of a point and bring more discourse.”

            No, I think the exchange speaks for itself, if someone’s read this far they don’t need me to summarize.

            “Frankly though, I’ve spent enough time on this today.”

            Yeah, shit, I went to sleep, myself. Woke up to see this and rolled up my sleeves again… probably for the last time though, I have stuff to do.

            “Talking to you any further isn’t going to do much *shrugs* I could change my tone, we could have a long in depth conversation and it could be lovely and we both could walk away with a new understanding about life and each other. But I have serious doubts about it.”

            D… don’t give up on us so quickly!

            “The question is, not that if I would approve of you..it is that would we have come to this argument again and again independent of this situation? Because regardless or not of your -intentions-, you did come across in this as an arrogant sexist man who put his desire for sex above the desire of a woman to not be uncomfortable *shrug*”

            What if I had been gay and made the same argument? “Sexism” is such amazing bullshit. And yes, if the only discomfort I cause is the discomfort associated with having to tell me “no”, then really, whatever. I’m required to put up with far more just to function normally.

          6. Yeah, darlin?

            I’m sure anyone who’s read this far on this thread is real sure about what you are and what your point is.

            But watching you do the whole ‘red herring dash’ coupled with ‘Hide my straw man’ argument followed by ‘you started it tu quo que’ bullshit is too much for two days in a row.

            Enjoy your ego and your potential elevator sex.

        5. @odiousrepeater:

          “Hey. You haven’t met me. I’m a pretty cool guy.”

          No. You really aren’t.

          Sorry, champ. Maybe someday.

      1. Sorry, threaded comments vanquish PLittle. The above was a reply to OdiousRepeater’s first comment.

      2. Buddy, you’re welcome to _actually_ bring it rather than just be all “WTF” about things. I’m putting myself out here with falsifiable claims that I accept can be counter-argued. I will concede defeat and change my mind of a dime if given reason to. There’s nothing constructive in saying stuff like what you just said. Neither of us will learn anything from it.

        1. “I’m a guy. And I’ve successfully used subtle and not-so-subtle pickup lines and advances to enjoy harmless romantic consensual fun with females throughout my life.”

          Falsifiable claim? Perhaps. Irrelevent? Completely. Demonstration of your total lack of understanding of the issue at hand? No question. Thanks for dropping by and tooting your own horn. We’re all so totally impressed with your infinite manliness. No, really!

          1. “Falsifiable claim? Perhaps. Irrelevent? Completely. Demonstration of your total lack of understanding of the issue at hand? No question. Thanks for dropping by and tooting your own horn. We’re all so totally impressed with your infinite manliness. No, really!”

            Again, you’re starting from the same incorrect point as Magnolia here. It’s not irrelevant, and if anything you have a total lack of understanding of the point I’m making. Oh, and you can’t spell and have a moronic face, I’m not too bothered about whether you claim to understand any issue better than me. I really don’t think you ever have accomplished, or ever will accomplish, anything of any relevance to anyone. Just a hunch, but I’m sticking with it.

        2. Odiousrepeater, why don’t you start off by conceding that, as a male, you do NOT know what a given woman would like or how they would like to be propositioned? And that, as a male, you have to worry less about being sexually harassed or assaulted, and as such do not have to worry as much when someone you don’t know at all propositions you in an enclosed 6’x6′ box with absolutely no feasible escape route, obstructions, weapons, et cetera (…unless they’re one of those evil gays with their gay agenda)?

          Or that, if a woman wanted to be propositioned by someone, THEY WOULD GIVE A HINT ABOUT IT BEFOREHAND, and maybe they would not openly state that they are GOING TO BED ALONE if they wanted such a proposition?

          Of course, that does require you to admit that your walls of words are just that and nothing more, which I doubt you’ll do. You’re free to prove me wrong of course, but people with your attitude tend to, well…not.

          1. “Odiousrepeater, why don’t you start off by conceding that, as a male, you do NOT know what a given woman would like or how they would like to be propositioned?”

            Absolutely. So I have to use whatever strategy I’ve found works most often. If you want to suggest to a guy, and guys in general, that a certain approach doesn’t work – make it a habit to turn then down and they’ll find some other way. If propositioning people in elevators at 4 in the morning never worked, people wouldn’t do it. This is pretty simple stuff, I can’t believe I have to repeat it all the time.

            “And that, as a male, you have to worry less about being sexually harassed or assaulted, and as such do not have to worry as much when someone you don’t know at all propositions you in an enclosed 6?x6? box with absolutely no feasible escape route, obstructions, weapons, et cetera (…unless they’re one of those evil gays with their gay agenda)?”

            Yes, I… shit. I just red your parentheses there. Wow. I’m not talking to you anymore. I’m not even finishing up demolishing this moronic post of yours.

    2. You’re right, almost certainly there are plenty of women who would not have been creeped out in similar circumstances, and there are almost certainly a subset of those who would have responded positively to the invitation if they were attracted.

      That said, I don’t think there’s any getting around the fact that a tremendous number of women would be creeped out, and their reasons for being creeped out seem to be good reasons. Your position on this is unambiguously that your ability to get laid matters more than them feeling comfortable and safe. Is that really the position you want to be taking?

      So rather than speaking to all men, Rebecca should’ve been careful to specify that she was only speaking to men who value women’s ability to feel safe more than they value their own ability to get laid?

      1. “That said, I don’t think there’s any getting around the fact that a tremendous number of women would be creeped out, and their reasons for being creeped out seem to be good reasons. Your position on this is unambiguously that your ability to get laid matters more than them feeling comfortable and safe. Is that really the position you want to be taking?”

        I think that in that elevator situation, any “threat” would come simply from the proximity of the male (or larger woman) in an enclosed space, yeah? Does being propositioned increase the discomfort? Why? Isn’t a rapist much more likely to just grab her?

        “So rather than speaking to all men, Rebecca should’ve been careful to specify that she was only speaking to men who value women’s ability to feel safe more than they value their own ability to get laid?”

        Maybe she should’ve said “guys, don’t get in elevators with women, some of them have good reason to feel uncomfortable by it”. You can still make your same argument here, make it about “guys who value women’s ability to feel safe over their own ability to quickly get to their bathroom”.

        1. He *followed her* back to the elevator at 4am and then propositioned her after they were inside it. I think it’s pretty reasonable to interpret that as creepy.

          That said, independent of the following-her-back context I think you could probably have an argument about whether or not propositioning in an elevator reasonably raises the spectre of assault. I’m not the person to be on the other side of that argument, though, because I have no experience with it. I’m still in the process of weighing precisely where I stand on that particular bit. I would be interested to hear one of the feminists weigh in, though. Would the propositioning have been just as creepy without the following back part? Would it have been more creepy than if he’d just been in the elevator? If so, why? Does that actually raise the expectation that the situation is more likely to lead to sexual assault than if he hadn’t? If so, why?

          1. @custador: Here’s a thought: When people have been arguing for the last week that men will necessarily lack perspective on this situation by virtue of being male, and a man asks an honest question in an attempt to gain a better perspective, how about, y’know, not snarkily linking them to elevator porn as if that actually addresses the question?

            Seriously.

            I asked a specific question: is the level of risk or the level of perception of risk raised by a man propositioning as opposed to just the presence of that man if you remove some of the other creepy factors involved. If so, why? The fact that elevator porn exists is orthogonal to the question. The fact that real rape happens in elevators was not in dispute. The question was intended to help flesh out which of the specific details most contributed to the perception of risk and why. Unless you think that the perspectives of women in elevator porn are the most applicable to this situation, it would be appreciated if you could refrain from linking to it.

            Yeesh.

            For the record, I am still genuinely interested in an answer to the question, so if anyone wants to try to answer it without linking to porn, I’d be much obliged.

          2. @ YB42: The reason I linked you to a Google search of “elevator rape” was because you said “I think you could probably have an argument about whether or not propositioning in an elevator reasonably raises the spectre of assault”.

            I was attempting to illustrate that, in a society where a Google search for “elevator RAPE” produces a page of results for elevator rape PORN, it’s entirely reasonable for a woman to have concerns about getting sexually assaulted in an elevator, at 4AM, by a strange guy who’s just bluntly propositioned her for sex.

            Perhaps I should have explained my intent better.

          3. Oh, and by the way, as a survivor of rape, sexual, emotional and violent abuse, I think my perspective is just fine on this, thanks. It never ceases to amaze me that people think these things don’t happen to men.

          4. yb42, my answer is:
            – It would have been less creepy if he’d hit on her while waiting for the elevator. That’s not far from a crowd, and if she feels uncomfortable, she can say “No” and then “Oh, I forgot my phone” and go back to where there are more people.
            – It would have been less creepy if he’d talked to her at some point before inviting her up to coffee at 4 AM. This is creepy because most people form some sort of conversational bond before bringing sex into the picture, and because a surprising boundary-jumping question is a mugging technique called “interviewing”. The name of that, by the way, is something that I learned from all these comment threads.
            – It would have been less creepy if she hadn’t already clearly and repeatedly disclaimed any interest in being sexualized at the conference, and also proclaimed her intent to sleep. One characteristic rapists have in common is that they don’t respect other people’s boundaries. If you have a random person that self-selects as not respecting boundaries, it increases the possibility that they are a rapist.

            Think of it in terms of Bayesian statistics. Guy in elevator raises the conditional probability of rapist in elevator, simply because if you’re alone in the elevator, there’s no rapist. But it’s not very high. Guy in the elevator that crosses boundaries, has apparently followed you to an isolated spot, and expresses unwanted sexual interest? Each of those increased the conditional probability that Elevator Guy was a rapist, because the odds of a rapist taking these actions was greater than the odds of a non-rapist taking them.

            I don’t think anyone’s stating that these actions raised the conditional probability to a high level – but they definitely pushed it above the level of background noise, and made Rebecca feel uncomfortable. All she said was: this behavior makes women uncomfortable, and you should avoid it if this matters to you.

            custador, I think ‘elevator sexual assault’ is better raw material for Google – it seems to pick up news stories and not porn. The fact that sexual assault on elevators is a problem invalidates Dawkins’ third post about why this was no big deal.

          5. “I was attempting to illustrate that, in a society where a Google search for “elevator RAPE” produces a page of results for elevator rape PORN, it’s entirely reasonable for a woman to have concerns about getting sexually assaulted in an elevator, at 4AM, by a strange guy who’s just bluntly propositioned her for sex.”

            Right, and if I had been saying that that was unreasonable, you’d have a point, but I wasn’t, so you don’t. I specified in both of my comments that I was talking about a situation where she was not followed back to an elevator at 4am. I have explained this already, and I have explained why I was asking it, and I have explained in other comments that I think her response to the actual situation was completely reasonable. And I never said your perspective didn’t count or that these things don’t happen to men.

            Reading comprehension. Look into it. Until you start responding to things I’ve actually said, I’m done with this conversation.

          6. @fungifromyuggoth:
            I never heard that about interviewing. Eek. I want to reiterate here that I fully support Rebecca’s reaction under the circumstances. The reason I was asking about the specifics of the risk assessment was largely due to OdiousRepeater’s comments. He seemed to be interpreting everyone as saying that men should never proposition women in elevators ever. That got me to thinking about whether or not, if you subtract the 4am, the stalker behavior, etc, propositioning someone in an elevator would remain something potentially threatening.
            My creepiness sensor, while it unambiguously goes off given the full context of the situation that *did* happen, was more ambiguous about the situation if you whittle it down to a proposition in an elevator. Certainly, I could see how being propositioned at events all the time could be really fucking annoying, but I wasn’t sure if people would interpret it as beyond annoying–as creepy/potentially threatening–without the rest of the context that, to me, made the original situation unambiguously so. Which is why I decided I would ask.
            If people didn’t think that being propositioned in an elevator, independent of the rest of the context of this situation, then OdiousRepeater’s criticism of the that attitude is baseless. If people did think that that in and of itself was enough to feel that there was some threat, then I was curious to hear why so I could better understand.

          7. yb42 – I think the applicable statement is not “never proposition a woman in an elevator”, but “never proposition a woman in an isolated environment without a means of escape”. Some men behave very badly when they’ve been rejected, sometimes violently. Those men are not reliably distinguishable in advance from the type that say “Oh, ok”. This chance of violent response is a source of discomfort.

            The answer to OdiousRepeater’s question is that yes, the threat is different based on the proposition. Viewed from the outside, Elevator Guy’s intentions may be fixed, but we don’t have that perspective. Propositioning someone in an elevator at 4AM, after they’ve expressed disinterest, means that they’ve already sexualized you in their minds and that they don’t care about clearly expressed boundaries. Both of these are characteristics that would be present in a rapist, and not present in every random man on an elevator, so it raises the conditional probability of “rapist”.

            The proposition itself may be the initial move in an attack. This is the “interviewing” thing – getting into someone’s personal space or verbally tromping over boundaries is a good way to find out how vulnerable and insecure a potential target is.

            The whole point is “avoid predatory behavior”. If you’re pulled over for a traffic stop, it’s polite to keep your hands in clear view when a police officer approaches, and not go rooting around under your seat. This is acting in a way that makes it clear you aren’t a threat, which is a form of etiquette. There’s a theory that handshakes evolved as a way of demonstrating no one was carrying a weapon.

        2. If we can’t agree that following a single woman you don’t know until she gets to an enclosed space at 4am to proposition her isn’t completely reasonable to interpret as creepy, this conversation isn’t going to go anywhere. If you want to argue about a situation that only involves the “in an elevator” part, then let’s fine, but that’s not what this situation was.

  305. Hi Rebecca,

    I just wanted to say that I support everything you’ve written here. I was astounded by the Dawkins post, and found it near impossible to believe it was him before it was confirmed by PZ. I’m still flabbergasted and hoping that he’ll realize his mistake. I just can’t believe it.

    But you’re absolutely right; his response was horrible, and you and anyone else who has to deal with this shit deserves better.

  306. Hello Rebecca,

    You’ve made such a good point overall that it seems counterproductive to write this:
    “Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!”

    Was your point not sufficiently made without that kind of derogatory and intentionally inflammatory statement?

    In my opinion, it doesn’t seem that making a statement about a lack of social awareness is improved by attacking his wealth, age and skin color, unless demagoguery is part of the feminism. I certainly hope not.

    Do you believe that Professor Dawkins had a different mindset before his recently acquired wealth, age, sexual preference and skin color?

    If we are truly attempting to change minds, this kind of narrow-minded thinking won’t do it.

    Just a thought,
    Richard McCargar – early-fifties, hetero white male.

    1. Google Male privilege checklist, white privilege checklist and go from there. It will fill in the misunderstood gaps.

      1. The male privilege checklist was copied from a parody piece called “the many advantages of being homeless” which said things like,

        “Homeless people never have to worry about their house getting burned down.”

        or
        “Homeless people never have to worry that they got their job because their uncle owns the company.”

        But you feminists actually make the same arguments SERIOUSLY!!! Breath takingly blinded ideologically.

        No skeptic could ever take feminism seriously as a movement.

        1. Liar. (For those watching at home who don’t like clicking links — it’s based on Peggy MacIntosh’s 1990 White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.)

    2. Richard,
      Yes, it was important that Rebecca specifically point out that Richard Dawkins is a white, heterosexual, wealthy, older man. Because we are the problem, Richard. You, and I, and Richard Dawkins. As I mentioned above in a comment you probably haven’t seen because of the length of this thread, you and I cannot see the problem because we are the problem. The water we breathe is invisible to us. Instead of protesting your innocence, step back and try to actually understand what has happened here. Rebecca was made to feel uncomfortable in that elevator. She mentioned it in an attempt to educate. And all hell has broken loose, because 90% of society, and yes even the women, are so caught up in our white male privilege (a word I misspelled earlier) that we can’t understand why she felt uncomfortable. Instead of telling Rebecca she was wrong to feel that way, we should be trying to understand why she felt that way. That’s what I’m trying to do, anyway.

  307. Dear Rebecca,

    here’s my two cents. Someone approached you in an elevator and asked you if you were interested in having sex with him. He didn’t ask directly, but anyway: You were offended by that because it made you feel objectified – and obviously a little bit scared, since the two of you were alone in the elevator. You didn’t make a big thing out of it – you simply mentioned it in the video. Then PZ Myers mentioned it in his blog, making a bigger thing out of it than you intended (I’m assuming). Then Dawkins commented on PZ’s blog in his quirky exaggerated way, making a yet bigger thing out of it.

    Now here’s the thing: Many times Atheists criticise the way religious people “play the offense card” – and I agree with this criticism. In the same way, I feel inclined to say that sometimes women choose to be offended. And please don’t misunderstand me: There are without a doubt situations where the opposite is true (a woman gets abused and chooses to suffer quietly), or a woman gets abused and others belittle the incident. But the way you’re telling this story, I can’t help but feel that you are criticising this man for merely wanting to have sex with you and asking you more or less directly. That happens all the time in bars, clubs and even hotels. You said yourself that it was no big deal, and all you said in the video was “guys, don’t do that, it’s a bad idea” which I agree with 100%.

    I’m sure that it was a creepy situation and I would say that if that man realized that you were getting scared, he was out of line and should have apologised right away. But blaming him for the objectification part? I’m reminded of a story Doug McGuff told about Arthur Jones – he reportedly approached women on a regular basis and asked them “do you want to fuck?”. That’s of course chauvinistic and something that feminists would strongly criticise. But where’s the harm? The woman can disagree, she could even slap him or kick him in the balls. If this was a scene in a movie, I doubt that women would leave the theater in droves, complaining about the objectification – most would simply not like the guy.

    To religious people we Atheists often say that they should grow a thicker skin and live with our criticism of their beliefs. When it comes to sexual approaches, I would say that men and women alike should grow a thicker skin and live with the fact that we are evolved mammals with sex hormones and urges that sometimes plainly ignore the intellect of persons of the opposite (or same, depending on your orientation) gender. Criticising people for that kind of objectification is IMO alike to accusing them of thought crime the way Hitchens uses the word. Now, again to make myself clear, as soon as these thoughts manifest in actions, I’m all for criticism and intervention. Whether the approach counts as an action – well, if you continue along this line of thought, I think you would have a hard time deciding at which point an approach becomes objectionable. You mentioned elsewhere that people “touch you without permission” – assuming that you don’t mean hand shakes, I agree 110% that this is clearly wrong and objectionable. But as long as they don’t crowd you and accept a “no” without freaking out or becoming stalkers – I think that we shouldn’t demonize approaches in general.

    I hope you don’t take this the wrong way and see where I’m going with this. I hope you can clear it up with Richard – I doubt that he would have commented on your video like he did on PZ’s post. The way I see it, there’s a bad case of telephone game going on – or something like an amplification cascade. Maybe you’re not a hard nosed feminist, and neither is he a hard-nosed chauvinist.

    Mike

      1. “for the record: yes, Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him”

        It may not have been about objectification initially, but it is now.

          1. I should have phrased it better – my apologies, English is not my first language.

          2. Hi. I’m confused. She appeared to blame Dawkins for his attitude to the (supposed) objectification, that is to say the objectification she felt, but failed to convey when describing the situation.

            Insensitive? Quite possibly.

            Deliberately sexist? Impossible to tell. Nothing in her version of events suggests it.

            Objectification? I doubt it, from what I read.

    1. The essential difference between being approached in a bar and being approached in an elevator at 4 a.m. is that you are surrounded by people and can safely walk away.

      The choice to ignore that difference, and that a bigger person is a potential threat to a smaller person is generally the result of oblivious, unintentional behavior. This doesn’t make it any less wrong. Sometimes a person on the train will bump into me with a backpack, an oblivious unintentional offense. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t apologize and strive to be more intentional in the future. There are signs on the wall and everything to tell people not to do it. People don’t defend it.

    2. I don’t think offended is the right word. And you are forgetting that Rebecca spent the day saying how she didn’t want to be hit on.

  308. Right. What you said (sorry to be a noob, but you can find this user name (=me) almost everywhere). I knew I was privileged to have my enlightened guy friends and sexually aggressive nature. I mean, after all, I’ve only been sexually assaulted two or three times; Only about 1/3 of the women in my life are sexual assault victims or victims of domestic abuse.

    But as soon as I started saying, “this guy, it bothers me when he does that; guys, don’t do this,” they come out of the woodwork–the most liberated guys I know regurgitating the casserole of sexist attitudes, and I’m all “Patriarchy? You’re soaking in it.”

    I haven’t read all this, because I don’t have enough time right now, but I’ll be back, and by the way, I’m a Pagan.

    And Thanks.

  309. mikeenregalia

    07.06.2011

    Log in to Reply

    “for the record: yes, Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him”

    It may not have been about objectification initially, but it is now.

    Just curious…. when exactly DID Dawkins write that you should shut up and be objectified? It amazes me that a group of people who claim to be skeptics make so many ‘leaps of faith’ as to the mind of others based on nothing.

    1. “Just curious…. when exactly DID Dawkins write that you should shut up and be objectified?”
      Oh, I don’t know, maybe THAT ENTIRE LETTER where he said that Rebecca shouldn’t be talking about how she was made to feel uncomfortable by an obviously improper advance because someone somewhere else has it worse?

      Are you even reading the post, or are you getting some alternate post through divine revelation?

    2. I think that our minds are not built to completely avoid operating on assumptions (or most of the time: exaggerations and extrapolations). I wish I had a mind that was free of that. On second thought: Maybe I don’t want to be a computer. ;-)

  310. Imagine the scene:

    Mrs. Dawkins: “Richard, I don’t like it when you do that. Please don’t.”

    Mr. Dawkins: “Muslima ….” (CRASH! BANG! ACK!) (the sounds made by whatever handy object Mrs. Dawkins would have thrown at his head before he finished his sentence)

  311. I like how the very first paragraph had an ad hominem in it: “Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!”

    See, that’s the kind of intellectual caliber I expect from the modern skeptic movement. Someone’s been taking a page from the JT Eberhard School of Objective™ Rational™ Scientific™ Atheism™.

    She could have helped dispel the stereotype that women are catty and irrational through superior conduct but chose to whinge instead. And set a poor example for the (putative) skeptic community to boot.

    And before any of you jump on me for not understanding, recognize that I am schizotypal: pretty much every day seems like Elevatorgate for me. You can leave an elevator, but you can’t leave your brain. Doesn’t matter whether anyone is there with you or not. I didn’t decide to piss and moan about it though; I decided to work through it in a deliberative, rational manner which is what this movement, at least allegedly, is all about.

    The spine deficit here is appalling.

    1. “I like how the very first paragraph had an ad hominem in it: “Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!””
      I like how you assume that everything an argument. It makes it so easy for you to passive-aggressively poison the well.

      1. Well, maybe it is an (implicit) argument, maybe it isn’t. The interpretation was certainly felicitous anyway. Why mention his whiteness, wealthiness, and maleness otherwise?

        In any case, my other points stand. If it turns out that I’m in fact prodromal now, then I will end up in a demo with 90% unemployment in the next few months, or years. As it stands now I deal with real or imagined Elevatorgates regularly. The fact per se that I am white and male doesn’t just roll out a red carpet in front of me in life and claims about Privilege™ need to be examined rather thoroughly.

        1. You don’t have wealthy/upper-class privilege.

          There’s all kinds of privilege. Just because you have one, doesn’t mean you have them all. Different privileges operate in different circumstances.

          Sorry to hear about your job concerns. I wish you the best of luck and sincerely hope things turn around (for all us non-upper-class people) soon.

        2. “Well, maybe it is an (implicit) argument,”
          That would be you fishing for an egregious fault that’s not there. It’s not an argument, it’s a statement. The argument has been made countless times already, to Dawkins and to others before him who have made similar comments about the issues women face in so-called ‘developed’ countries. The statement — your so-called ‘ad hominem’ — is simply meant to emphasize that point.

          Had Rebecca said that Dawkins was wrong simply because he was white, wealthy and male, you would have a point. That’s not the case, though, so you have nothing to go on other than whatever rationalizations you can cook up with regards to intent =/

          “The fact per se that I am white and male doesn’t just roll out a red carpet in front of me in life”
          No one is claiming that, please put your strawman away and read up on intersectionality if you -really- want to know how privilege works =/

  312. Dawkins said this? I am disappointed in him, though it will not stop me from pirating his e-books in the future. I enjoyed his books immensely, but I don’t think I will be paying for them anymore.

    1. Other businesses suffer worse thefts. He’s got no business complaining. /s

  313. After reading this orgy of self-righteous pity, I cannot help but respond.

    Dawkins’ point is that you were not assaulted, or threatened, or the victim of any crime, and that there are many women who actually do suffer horribly in these ways. Don’t lump yourself in with them just because you felt offended by a man.

    The fact that Dawkins is a privileged white male has no bearing on the facts of the argument. You don’t need to resort to an adhominem here.

    If you believe in gender equality, consider this: should a man be equally offended if a woman asks him to her room for coffee? Would you consider that to be sexually objectifying? And if you do, what would you consider to be a respectful way to approach someone you have interest in (or, god forbid, would actually like to have a conversation over coffee)?

    Also, I’m sorry you get nasty hate mail. I hope Dawkins and the elevator man and reasonable members of the male sex can be exhonerated of that.

    1. So, your argument and Dawkins’, such as it is, can be summed up as “anything that happens to you is invalidated if something worse happens to someone else elsewhere.” Ok, great. Makes perfect sense and justifies a woman’s feelings and desires being ignored.

      You seemingly missed or left out something she made clear: she had already stated she was tired and wished to go to bed and this man knew that. Why did you leave that out?

      As for pointing out that, when discussing privilege, Dawkins is in a singularly privileged group? It is disingenuous and you know it, to claim this is unrelated or merely ad hominem. But perhaps it’s just the tone you take offense at?

      1. I’m not saying that real suffering in the world makes it ok to wrong someone. I’m saying she wasn’t wronged at all. She was offended. There is a difference.

        Regarding the adhominem–attacking the arguer instead of the argument is by definition an adhominem. It doesn’t matter if the statement was made by Dawkins or by a woman. Have a look at this video response from a female atheist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfA5AZutpCs will you discount her opinion because it is “privileged/white”?

    2. “Dawkins’ point is that you were not assaulted, or threatened, or the victim of any crime …”

      I’m pretty sure his point was that “zero bad” was done because much worse things happen to other women.

      “should a man be equally offended if a woman asks him to her room for coffee?”

      That would be up to the man in question and the circumstances. If I had explained to the woman that I am a faithfully married man, such an offer would be pretty rude.

      “Would you consider that to be sexually objectifying?”

      I would, but that part wouldn’t bother me. That’s the difference, you see, in the perspective of a man versus a woman. It’s okay, though. It took me a decade or two to figure this out. Keep on trying and you’ll get it, too.

      And has been explained, the respectful way to ask someone up to your room for sex is in a place where that person feels safe and permitted to exit. The way to ask someone to talk about something is not to invite that person back to your hotel room for coffee, as this implies sexual activity.

      1. “that part wouldn’t bother me. That’s the difference, you see, in the perspective of a man versus a woman”

        So you know both the perspective of men and of women, and they are all the same…

        It only took you a decade to figure this…

        I’ll keep trying and I’ll get it too.

        1. I’ve been doing some listening, so I have a vague idea – based on what women have told me – that most women have a different perspective on the idea of strangers making come-ons. But you’re right, I shouldn’t have generalized and assumed all women and all men feel the same.

          For men, it’s rare and we’re expected to take this as flattering, and most of us do.

          For women, it’s altogether too common, annoying, creepy and – given the rather depressing frequency of rape and sexual assault – can be frightening in certain contexts (no escape route, stranger, woman who has received numerous threats of rape over the years).

    3. You actually made me laugh out loud.

      Congratulations.

      BTW does the arrogance and contempt that you exude drip out of your skin like sweat? or is it something more like a pheromone?

  314. First of all, that threat of rape that you posted … I don’t know how to explain it. I’ve *heard* of that sort of thing, but I’ve never really seen it. Maybe it’s the fact that you screen-capped it in all of its CAPS-LOCKED, illiterate glory. I don’t know. It hits really hard and casts the whole discussion in a completely different light.
    Someone posted here (I can’t even find the post anymore) about a high school class where the students were asked how they would prepare for walking across a parking lot at night. The boys were surprised to learn all the things the girls would do (keys in fingers, phones ready, hot cup of coffee etc.). That’s so enlightening that it should be done in every health class to everyone.
    Third is the issue of low turnout of women at skeptical/atheist events. I remember a gay guy explaining how he was really proud to be gay because all the gay people in public were so brave, well spoken and had their acts together. It wasn’t until much later, when being gay was a little less frowned upon, that he discovered that not all gay people were like that.
    I think what you’re seeing in the atheist movement is much the same. The very bravest, well-spoken people have comeforward. And given the amount of sexual harassment that goes on (Oops, did I brush against you? Tee-hee.), it’s likely only the very, very bravest women come forward – the ones who can stand up to that kind of treatment.
    Given how those women, the very, very brave, are reporting their treatment, do we expect the less confrontational women to say, “Yay! Sign me up!”?
    Um, no.
    Not everyone can handle that level of conflict. Not everyone would *want* to handle that level of conflict merely for the joy of hanging out with other atheists and skeptics.
    The atheist and skeptic movements need to take a hard look at what’s going on here.
    Do you want more members in your group?
    Look! There’s a bunch over here!
    They’re called “Women Who Don’t Like Being Harassed.” See if you can figure out how to get them to join.
    (Hint: read the name of the group again).

    1. I don’t go to atheist events, because I have, and have felt uncomfortable. It’s not that I’m not confident, it’s that I believe that being treated with respect and having my feelings honored are more important to me than whatever I might get out of these events.

      Besides, when I went to skeptic pub events I ended up having 10 guys in a row want to talk about my eyes, how I got there, and how I like to work out.

      The event where I went and talked about skepticism, church and state issues, atheism, politics and such was a BDSM meetup. They have standards of behavior designed to make people comfortable there (safe, sane, and consensual) and place a high priority on that over the opportunity to approach anyone anywhere at any time.

      1. That’s somewhere between hilarious and sad, but maybe that’s because I’m not familiar with the BDSM community.

        “My eyes are the carving lasers of skepticism and my quads hold up the wall between church and state.” That would make an awesome comic book character.

        But seriously, does the strategy of empty flattery work often enough that they don’t notice it driving everyone else away? You have an opportunity to actually connect with somebody without fear of being shunned for your atheism, and instead you waste it by pissing her off? Wasn’t that Rebecca’s original message?

        1. As far as working goes, empty flattery is a failure with me and appeared to be one with everyone I saw.

          But that didn’t seem to change the strategies, any more than women saying that they don’t like to be approached in elevators has has made much of a positive difference.

    2. Why do you feminists embrace irrationality?

      Is it because it is the best way to spread hatred of men? By making women afraid of men irrationally you can spread your hatred and ideology whereas if anyone pointed out to women that they are very safe (safer than men certainly) and that having someone else around at night — if anything — made them even safer, since the average guy would come to aid a woman if there ever were any danger, well…

      then you’d be out of business selling hate wouldn’t you?

      So I can see why you promote irrationality. What I can’t see is why you want to call yourself a “skeptic”?

      1. One cannot know whether an unknown male is a good guy or not. Therefore being alone with one where no one can see or hear you is a situation where you cannot know whether you are in danger or not until something bad has happened or the situation has ended.

        If no one can see or hear you, no one is coming to your rescue if you give the benefit of the doubt and are wrong.

        1. Ah yes all men are rapists again.

          That “logic” really shows how I misjudged you all. But hypothetically — just for giggles — is there any argument you can make that does NOT rely on a sick hateful attack on a minority birth group?

          1. No, you can’t know if a man is a rapist until he has raped you. Until then you can either wait idly to see what happens, or prepare for the possibility.

          2. What’s the logical path to took you from:

            a) She doesn’t know if a new guy she meets is a rapist.
            -to-
            z) She thinks all men are rapists.

            You’re missing at least 24 steps in your proof. This is not an exercise to leave to the reader.

        2. One cannot know if a Jew is good or not. One cannot know if black is good or not.

          Do you agree that your sentiments applied to any other minority group would be prejudiced?

          1. One cannot know if anyone is good or not. When anyone engages in a legal transaction or business transaction, you should count your change. If someone feels that I am counting my change or reading the detailed language of a contract and I am therefore anti-Semitic because people once called Jews cheats, they are deliberately misreading my business diligence.

            A black or white person can mug me. Any time I am in public, I am aware of that possibility. When anyone violates norms in a way that suggests the possibility of theft (they are walking from train-car to train-car on the train when there’s been a rash of iPod thefts) I’m going to look closely and generally put my phone away till they pass. It’s not about race.

            Any man has the equipment to rape. Women don’t. Therefore my concern about rape is limited to men.

          2. So you’re comparing the blood libel to the actual prevalence of rape and sexual assault?

            I see what you did there.

            The difference is that Jewish people actually don’t steal christian babies for their blood. Women, especially those who have been threatened with rape, do actually have to worry about weirdos in elevators.

      2. Did you just promote me to feminist?
        I bet you meant that as an insult.

        I don’t see how it’s irrational for a woman who receives threats of rape to wonder if the stranger slipping in to an elevator with her is one of those whackos.

        I don’t see how feminism promotes hatred of men. I think that I used to think so, but it was a long time ago and I grew out of it or something. It probably happened when I started listening to what feminists were saying instead of what Rush Limbaugh told me they were saying.

        Last, I question your statistics. If a certain small percentage of men are rapists and the vast majority are not, then a randomly chosen man is probably not a rapist. A man who slips in to your elevator and propositions you at 4am is not, however, a randomly chosen man. There may be some selection bias there.

      1. Yes! Thank you. It was aliciamaud74’s post about teaching 17 year olds about feminism. I read both of these articles in the same night and got the comments mixed up.

        Thanks.

        That just seems like it would be a huge eye opener for teens or pre-teens at a very impressionable age.

  315. Well, it’s upsetting that a rationalist would act so defensively irrational, but I guess I – like a lot of people, I’m sure – sort of ironically had Dawkins on a pedestal. In a way, this does me a favor and topples him down.

    I also find it amusing (in a sad sort of way) that his supporters seem to be arguing so often about the tone of feminism being the fault, that we need to be quiet about it or frame it politely. Didn’t Dawkins himself have something to say about critics who accused him of being too “strident” and having the improper (and unjustified) “tone of respect?”

    He — and his supporters — are not rebutting or debating, they are reacting, and this is extremely disappointing.

    For a recent example, I direct you to emporsteigend’s comment above: you must be nice, because if you aren’t nice, I get to ignore any statement you make out of hand. This is, of course, directly out of Derailing for Dummies. http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#hostile

    Yes, “wealthy old heterosexual white man” is clearly just ad hominem and has no bearing in a discussion of.. oh, my, wait a minute. She was discussing privilege? Well, fits right in rather neatly, doesn’t it? Curious how you failed to see the relevance here.

  316. I’ve been reeling from this whole thing for about the past 18 hours. First of all, I think Richard Dawkins responded in an overly flippant and vitriolic way. What he wrote really wasn’t necessary, and certainly wasn’t constructive. I’d guess he’d fallen victim to reading about something particularly heinous for women internationally, and found the contrast to be absurd.

    The thing is, he didn’t downplay the horrors of rape and sexual assault and didn’t trivialize the experience that women in the first world feel when they are raped. He merely commented that Rebecca Watson wasn’t raped, sexually assaulted, touched, or harmed in any sense. She did feel uncomfortable. Where is the line of discomfort, though? This man didn’t ask for sex, he simply asked for coffee. At what point is he no longer allowed to express interest in the thoughts and ideas and person of Rebecca Watson, whom he finds to be a very intelligent and thoughtful woman? How are men (or women) to know what will make one another uncomfortable? What questions should be off limits?

    Unfortunately, the actions and words of many of the Skeptic community are making me feel alienated. I am an atheist woman, and I deserve to have a voice. I deserve my opinion, with reasoned facts, and I have the right to express it. The response from Rebecca Watson and those who support her are doing exactly what they seek to stop. I feel silenced. I feel like my opinion isn’t worth anything. I feel uncomfortable in the one community where disagreement, dialogue, and discussion should be encouraged.

    Further, this entire conversation seems to ignore the idea that women are capable of coming to their own defense. Rebecca did exactly that. She didn’t want to come to the elevator gentleman’s room, and so she didn’t. She firmly told him no, and he took that answer.

    This line of thinking isn’t so very far from the Muslim women who truly want to wear their burqas. They feel protected from men in them. They feel safer when they are covered, and look no different from a bolt of fabric with eyes. Is that the next thing we’ll need so as not to feel objectified by men?

    As human beings, we have the right to be bodily safe, the right to express our needs and wants, and the right to be equals in a free society. It is not wrong for a man to ask me a question, to ask me to have a drink, or even to ask me to have sex with him. It is wrong for him to pressure me, to attempt to coerce me, and of course to harm me or force me to do any of these things. Feminism isn’t about women being treated differently or better than men. It’s about us being equals in every sense.

    1. he…did…not…ask….for….friggin….coffee you total ngh…maroon.

      Learn some *headesk* English.

      gahhhhhh and you wonder why I get angry.

      1. So you’re suggesting that the English language contains some kind of code phrases that mean something other than the sum of the words in the phrases taken in a literal fashion?

        Whacko conspiracy theory if you ask me.

        Now if you don’t mind, a friend just invited me out (to a farm, I think) for a roll in the hay.

      2. Apart from in the sense that he asked her for a coffee. Fantasies about sex code aside, he clearly did ask for her a coffee

        1. DTKGreg… funny… and made all the funnier after seeing the next idiot comment.

        2. It is commonly known that asking for coffee in someone’s room late at night is a euphemism for asking for sex. Heck, it was even covered on Seinfeld years ago, this isn’t anything new or strange.

          To suggest that he really just wanted a cup of coffee is either disingenuous or out of ignorance (which can be corrected, fortunately).

    2. What part of “she had been talking all day about not wanting to be hit on” do you not understand?

  317. I question the ultimate wisdom of leaving a comment like this after over 600 have been made and this issue has been beaten to the ground repeatedly on many blogs, but I simply cant help myself. This comment will not be popular here – I agree with Richard Dawkins.

    The hysteria this has generated in the skeptical movement is beyond belief. We have one clueless dude who makes a clumsy and stupid attempt to get laid and strikes out, and its irrationally taken as evidence for sexual objectification, mysoginism and sexism. Its called a potential sexual assault with zero justification. And any individual who dares to point out these facts and disagree with the hysteria is denigrated and demonized. This is not the character of a movement that values evidence and reason – this is groupthink at its worst and Im appalled to see it front and center among people who consider themselves rationalists.

    A couple of points to be made here. This notion that any unwanted sexual advance is always inappropriate is ludicrous. In the real world there are people (men and women) who want sex and others who don’t. Attraction is not always mutual, and there are always awkward moments where people are uncomfortable. This includes men, not just women. To say that we should tiptoe around other peoples feelings and try our best not to make anyone uncomfortable is curious coming from open atheists who make theists uncomfortable all the time. I’ve actually seen commenters argue that the dude shouldn’t have been in the elevator in the first place, or that when us guys are walking down the street with a woman coming in the opposite direction we should go to the other side of the street. This is nonsense – and short of institutionalized Sharia-law like rules to segregate men and women it will never work. There will always be people made potentially uncomfortable by a sexual advance. Period. Even something as small as a man getting a phone number from a woman he just met is potentially uncomfortable for said woman, but it is essential to start dating. Of course elevator dude did something very clumsy, and plenty of men say and do stupid things, but as long as no is taken for an answer there is nothing wrong.

    Furthermore, not every woman is like you, Ms. Watson. Believe it or not, there ARE women out there that actually enjoy having sex with men they just met. There are women out there that like to be sexually objectified. There are even women out there that will hook up with men at atheist conferences. They have a say in this just as much as you do. And the men that have sex with these women are the ones that are aggressive, leave their comfort zones and get themselves out there. Of course context matters and the elevator maneuver isn’t going to be successful most of the time – but that doesn’t mean similar moves will never be successful.

    But Im just a privileged male that cant possibly understand your line of thinking after all. I cant possibly understand the threat of sexual violence, you say. I live in one of the worst neighborhoods in one of the most crime infested cities in America. Im very familiar with the threat of violence. Just last week there were two shootings within a mile of my place, and last year someone got stabbed in front of their porch in my city. Men can easily be familiar with the threat of violence, and just calling out my position as a “privileged male” without listening to my argument is an underhanded way to simply dismiss it. It is some of the people in YOUR camp who aren’t listening.

    You cant single out a few idiots who write threatening comments and argue that its an epidemic of rape culture. People in positions of influence like you with blogs that are widely read will always receive death threats and comments. This “Shrodingers rapist” argument that every man is a potential rapist is a dangerous line of thinking, since you can apply it to Muslims as potential terrorists or a black person in my neighborhood as a potential shooter. Most men are not rapists.

    Finally, Im disturbed by all the comments here and your statements about boycotting Richard Dawkins, who is working tirelessly to end the oppression of the “Muslimas “out there and the religion that enables it, and who has vastly contributed to the atheist movement. He is RIGHT that their struggle is much, much, much worse than a petty incident involving a guy in an elevator who did nothing to you. To boycott Richard Dawkins does them a disservice and insults those who are actually trying to end the oppression of Muslim women, and those in the past who worked to give women things like the right to vote, etc.

    This is, in the end, a non-issue, and this ridiculous reactionary response was NOT justified. Hopefully with time it will justly fade into obscurity where it belongs.

    1. “Everywhere else I go, if someone is backing up and backing up from a stranger that is talking to them in a social setting, a third person will enter the conversation to give the backing up person a way out.”

      Let me know how tht works at 4am when your alone in an elevator.

      It is not a non issue if women are literally turning around and saying that they don’t WANT to come to your conferences because they are sick of being harrassed.

      1. That’s my point. Everywhere else it’s considered rude to follow someone into an elevator at 4 a.m. and initiate first social contact.

        That’s why I don’t go to atheist events anymore. No matter what the intentions are, my safety is a lower priority than preserving shy males from embarrassment. Not until after the encounter is over and I’m either raped or not raped am I to stop giving the male the benefit of the doubt. I don’t like it. There are better places to go.

      2. Scrap the first two paragraphs, total (and utter) misquote. My point still stands however that if people are not wanting to go to your conferences because they feel harrassed then you have a serious problem.

    2. [Its called a potential sexual assault with zero justification]

      Ah, I bet you’ve come over from Phil Plait’s comments, where people are being particularly stupid about that.

      Here’s the justification: he had followed her from an area where she had been talking with a group of people, had not talked to her before, ignored her previously clearly stated preferences not to be sexualized, went straight from never-talking to coffee-wink-wink-nudge-nudge, and prefaced his statement with “Don’t take this the wrong way, but…”

      Next, let’s remember how time works, OK? At the moment that Rebecca was in the elevator, she didn’t know whether Elevator Guy was going to sexually assault her, punch her in the face for turning him down, or politely accept it. All she has to work with is her behavior, which is mimicing the behavior of a predator in several respects. It could also be that he was just taking the piss, but consider the falsification process for “Elevator Guy is not a rapist”.

      Yes, every potential for human interaction carries the potential for rape, murder, and barratry. That seems to be the reason that people are rejecting this logic – a total argument from consequences. However – that percentage is usually low, and keeping an eye out for your personal safety doesn’t mean living in fear. What Elevator Guy did was carry out specific behaviors that increased the Baysian conditional probability that he was a rapist. What Rebecca did was to say: if you aren’t a rapist, don’t act like this, because it’s creepy and makes women uncomfortable – because it’s predatory behavior.

      Muslims can be terrorists, and black men can be criminals. Realizing that this potential exists is not racist. Deciding that just because someone *is* a muslim, or *is* black, that this increases the chance of their criminalitude, is something difference. In your part of town, if you see a group of young men wearing gang colors, does that impact your assessment of the situation?

      [This notion that any unwanted sexual advance is always inappropriate is ludicrous.]

      Can you find any post, anywhere, on any of the threads where someone actually makes this argument? What’s being said is that *this* sexual advance was clearly inappropriate, and that the general category of “sexual advances on a woman who is isolated without an easy escape route” is creepy. For a rational evidence-based person, you sure seem to be beating up on a straw feminist.

      1. Is it my imagination, or are some members of my gender being deliberately obtuse about this? I wonder how many of them can’t admit that Elevator Guy was in the wrong because it would make them question things they’ve done in their own lives. As for me, do you know the first thing I did after I finished reading forums flogging the issue to death? I posted an apology to every woman I know on my facebook profile. I’m completely serious. I just did not get male privilege until I read people trying to justify Richard Dawkins’ stupidity.

    3. “But Im just a privileged male that cant possibly understand your line of thinking after all. I cant possibly understand the threat of sexual violence, you say. I live in one of the worst neighborhoods in one of the most crime infested cities in America. Im very familiar with the threat of violence. Just last week there were two shootings within a mile of my place, and last year someone got stabbed in front of their porch in my city. Men can easily be familiar with the threat of violence, and just calling out my position as a “privileged male” without listening to my argument is an underhanded way to simply dismiss it. It is some of the people in YOUR camp who aren’t listening. ”

      Translate for mansplaining:

      I totally know what it is like to be placed in a culture of rape and fear because I live in a scary city, and even though I probably take logical precautions to make my life safer, the thought that a woman has to do this all the time is preposterous and you people are being mean by implying that since I don’t live in that state of heightened awareness I have no idea what it is I’m talking about. After all!! violence has totally happened to other people in my -city-.

      1 in -six women- are raped.

      How many women in your life have been assaulted? Ask them. Ask them how many times a man has touched them without their permission. How many times a man has pressured, or tried to coerce them into sex. Ask them if they have ever said yes without wanting to. Ask them.

      Then ask them what they do, every single day of their lives to minimize the risk that they have of being attacked. Ask them.

      Ask them about keys in their hands, and well lit places, and how to drink and where to drink, and with whom and if they put their drinks down without thinking about it. Ask them if they feel safe when a group of men pass them on the street when they walk alone.

      Then I want you to sit down and compare -your- life experience with that.

      Then we’ll talk.

  318. I really don’t think anyone should be asking anyone to their room in an elevator at 4 a.m. if they’ve never met before.

    I also think that standing within 18 inches of someone you are not intimate with without permission is a violation of a social norm in the United States and Western Europe.

    I don’t think you should stand close enough to someone to view their pin number when they are at an ATM. I think a formal distance of 4 feet or more is appropriate.

    I think that following someone you’ve never met out of a social space into a place where they are alone and out of sight or hearing or others to initiate a personal discussion is inappropriate.

    Upon reflection, this isn’t a male/female thing, though it is a big/small thing, as bigger people are better able to use their bodies as weapons against smaller people. Sexual dimorphism does tend to make this arise as male/female thing, though.

    The really odd thing is that these mores, (body contact and social distance, initiating social contact, crowding and following) are considered normal in every other social group that I engage in. Everywhere else I go, if someone is backing up and backing up from a stranger that is talking to them in a social setting, a third person will enter the conversation to give the backing up person a way out. Everywhere else the feelings of the person who is the recipient of attention matters.

    The violation of a norm is considered inappropriate and socially censored, even if it isn’t illegal, even if it was meant well. The atheist community, and Mensa, are the only places where I’ve experienced this. In Mensa, I know it was a topic of concern, even though only a small minority complained. Then I found out about the stickers. I think that’s cool.

  319. And I feel that, as in a Muslim country, it really isn’t a good idea to go to atheist events without a male escort unless you are prepared to have someone violate your personal space intruded upon, be touched accidentally, be followed into places where you cannot be heard or seen by others or addressed for most of the night as sexually available, rather approached to discuss the topics on the agenda.

    It’s not that that’s fair, it’s just that that’s what I’ve experience and what I tell people to expect when they get there.

  320. Gah, “hysteria – Sharia law – deal with it – unfair to men – getting strangers’ phone numbers essential to dating – might be successful – can’t blame him for trying” there’s really no point in quoting the same old shit.

    Try this for once. You know what a business card is? Give HER a card with YOUR phone number. If you want a chance at sex so badly, YOU take the risk and breach YOUR privacy. Interested women can damn well tell you so on their own initiative.

    If that sounds horribly unfair to you, clueless guy, then you have some thinking to do.

    1. Any man who knows anything about meeting, dating, and attracting women knows its much better to get her number than to give out yours. This leaves the ball in your court and you can set up a date on your own terms. You are the one that is clueless.

        1. Good! Women like you are screened out in the beginning, and I can concentrate on the ones that arent raging hysterics. Its a win win.

          1. Thanks for showing your sexism, saves everyone the time of taking you seriously. You’re still clueless.

            If this spineless, cowardly sexism is what you boyz have to offer, thank Ctuthlu I landed me a real, live, MAN.

          2. *LMAO* I love how we’re raging hysterics because you’re a creep.

            TOTES ALL OUR FAULT LADIES.

            we missed out on -this- stud train!

          3. Because, of course, any woman who doesn’t want to breach their privacy for someone they don’t know is just hysterical. As is any woman who won’t fall for your parlor-trick method of ‘dating’.

            I mean, seriously — ball in your court? Your own terms? Is this supposed to be some sort of sick game or something? Are you interacting, or are you battling?

      1. And that’s why it’s unfair and sexist. A decent person dealing with an equal SHARES the responsibility, the risk, and control of the situation. Hogging control is rude at best and predatory at worst. Why should anyone trust that?

  321. Has it been brought up yet that it was incredibly sexist in the first place for Rebecca to assume any ill intentions on the part of this guy?

    1. Has it been brought up yet that it was incredibly sexist in the first place for this guy to assume any sexual interest on the part of Rebecca?

    2. It’s an observation that it was an unsafe place, where no one else could hear or see her, and she was being approached by a complete stranger, after publicly stating (where he could hear her) that she did not desire an approach.

      She knew his actions, not his intentions, and those actions were inappropriate, and either reflected unintentionally clueless sexism (lack of awareness that this situation makes women particularly vulnerable) or deliberate sexism (putting aside generally known safety concerns and social norms because his personal needs for attention/romance/sex were more important than her feelings).

      1. If she has a phobia about elevators then she should use the stairs.

        1. Stairs are as dangerous as elevators. Sidestreets are dangerous at night too.

          The problem is people who violate established social norms in elevators. The fact that they are already behaving improperly justifies concern.

    3. Yes, and it was laughed at. Because her talk was about how he was innappropriate…not dangerous.

      HOWEVER!!!!The guy followed her at 4am in the morning until he got her into a place that was cramped and private and then propositioned her for sex in a massively awkward way. So unless you think stalking girls late at night is acceptable you can probably see why some people pointed out later that the “sexist” position of “he’s probably dangerous” would actually be a perfectly valid response.

  322. One time I was in a restroom at a city park. I came out and turned a corner. A woman who had just gotten out of her car dashed back into her car and locked the door. I looked and saw that no one was around at that moment. I felt sad that she was afraid of me, but that’s the way it is. I kept on walking and in the distance I saw her emerge again.
    I have no business judging her fears and my male ego is none of her concern. Men need to put aside their egos and listen. There are many women telling you it is quite a problem.

    1. “Men need to put aside their egos and listen. There are many women telling you it is quite a problem.”

      And the same men have made it perfectly clear that they don’t care. They mansplain, they dismiss, they ridicule, they mock, they whine, they pout, they lie. They don’t listen.

      There are countless women saying yes this is a big problem – so big they will not participate in conferences – and the boyz still dismiss, ridicule, mock, deride, ignore, lie, and deliberately misinterpret.

      Because they don’t actually care if women feel safe. They don’t actually want women to participate – they want ornaments that dispense sex on demand.

      1. Are you a parody of a man-hating feminist?

        Your hypocrisy is funny its so bad. You go on about not listening to people at the same time as using the word “mansplaining” — a word meaning the intent to dismiss anything a man says, for no reason that it is spoken by a man.

        Creepy, nasty, sexist and hypocritical. But so thick with a lack of self-awareness it actually made me chuckle.

        1. Actually “mansplaining” means telling women what they do or don’t deserve to think because they’re women. Funny how that works.

        2. mmm..Mansplaining is a term that’s applied to a misogynistic conversation on the man’s side.

          if it’s been applied to you and you don’t like it?

          Change it.

          It’s kinda like when someone says ‘you’re being a dick and I don’t like it’ and you have the option to go ‘fuck you’ or ‘mmhm..why would they say that’

          Obviously though, your fee-fee’s are hurt.

    2. If you were convinced she was gender profiling you then you should have confronted her bigotry. People will not learn if their prejudices are not confronted.

  323. ummmmm….. “I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists.” I don’t get it. I really don’t. In what world is it okay to do those things? I mean, really. I tend to forget about this kind of stuff b/c I’m a guy, and I don’t have to put up with what you guys put up with. But then I find myself running a hundred meters behind an attractive girl and get amazed at all the honks and yells from cars she has to put up with while out minding her own business, doing her own thing. Come on, guys… can we show a little class already???

  324. Good for you Rebecca!
    This is such disappointing behavior… ‘issues affecting women don’t concern us, so please don’t bother us with them’… well too bad! You guys don’t get to control the whole dialogue anymore.

    They don’t have to be horriffied by the elevator guy’s behavior and they don’t have to agree with your reaction. But there is no reason to try to silence or shame you for your valid (and completely rational and measured) response.

  325. All this, and not a peep from Dawkins’ website… I hope this is because RD is busy reading and re-reading all those blogs and trying hard to figure out what he’s missed.

    I’ll be waiting for a 180° turnaround and apology from the man before I buy his next book. As you said Rebecca, there are other good authors out there. When does PZ’s book come out?

  326. My wife suggested the solution is for no man to ever have anything to do with a feminist woman.

    1. Since study after study shows that both relationship and sex are a hell of a lot better in egalitarian relationships, I must ask, why does your imaginary wife hate men so much that she wants them to be in miserable sexless relationships?

      1. Feminists despise men so no relationship with a man would be equal. Look I understand for PR purposes you deny this pro forma, but we both know the truth. Just look at all the man-hating stuff on this comment thread.

        All men are potential rapists?

        Its disgusting filth. Nobody who believes that will ever have any real relationship of equality with a man.

        1. All unknown men may or may not be rapists. Rapists do not wear signs around their necks that say they are rapists. There isn’t a rapist “look”. Generally you don’t know you are with a rapist until he attempts to rape you. Therefor any unknown man has the potential to be a rapist, just as he has the the potential to have his birthday on October 15. Only when the facts are established do you know for sure.

          This does not mean that all men are rapists and they don’t know it.

          1. This is the sort of filth I am talking about.

            Going around saying men are all rapists is sick and sexist. And of course 100% normal for feminists.

          2. You are being deliberately obtuse.

            What I am saying is that there is no way to tell whether a man is or is not a rapist by looking at him.

          3. An unknown man could be a rapist…

            Perfectly valid statement… until you twisted it till it broke.

            Considering that this was said in the context of a man following a girl into an enclosed space at 4am in order to get her to have sex with him, excuse me if i laugh at your pathetic attempts to turn this into an issue about your hurt feelings.

        2. *LOL* Misogynistic says what?

          I’m a feminist who has been married for 13 years, friends with the ex and is now has a boyfriend.

          And men friends.

          Lots of them

          more of the patriarchy bullshit.

          Feminist love men..we just expect them to treat us as well as we treat them.

          So sorry it’s hard thing for you to acknowledge.

          BTW I believe that every strange man who approaches me has the potential to hurt me. *shrug* And if you tell me that’s disgusting and sexist then I expect you to go talk to every rape apologist about how no woman ‘asked for rape in any circumstance’ because..yeah..that’s how we’re all taught.

          1. You probably don’t know this (if you have not researched other hate movements) but what you just said is pretty much exactly what a white supremacist would say. It’s the “some of my best friends are black” syndrome.

          2. or, as my favorite bumper sticker so proudly states, “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

          3. Feminism is the conservative notion that men are not human, taken to the highest degree.

          4. davidbyron:
            “Feminism is the conservative notion that men are not human, taken to the highest degree.”

            I’ve never picked up that attitude from any of the feminists I know. Perhaps that’s the advantage of knowing real live feminists in person, and not having to rely on the caricatures that take up residence in one’s head.

        3. Funny how the *feminists* are standing up for men who understand, while guys like you try to stuff the words “all men are rapists” into their mouths.

          There’s a lot of man-on-woman rape out there. It’s disgusting. If you don’t like it, call out the minority of men who are doing the raping instead of telling everybody to shut up and pretend it doesn’t happen.

          1. You feminists can’t even talk about men without saying “rape”. It’s disgusting, it’s creepy and it’s sexist.

            I’d like to try and give you a clue by turning it around and saying something about women that was equally repellent — but I can’t even think of anything nasty enough.

            And you’re completely unaware of how sick you are aren’t you?

            How about this: go and ask your dad how often he rapes your mother. Or if he feels he is a potential rapist who might rape you — potentially I mean.

          2. You’re quite right, we should never let women talk about how men rape women again. It’s only 1 out of 6 women that get raped anyway, usually by someone they know…so it’s really not a problem that needs to touch your sensitive ears… and they certainly should never worry about being followed by strange men…let’s face it… he’s statistically harmless!!!!

          3. I think what may be misunderstood here is the fact that a “rapist” only rarely is a guy in a dark alley, unknown to the victim, who violently attacks. In most cases it’s a date who either misreads signals or willfully ignores signals (and violently attacks). The trouble (to those of you who keep saying that “feminists are always chanting rape, rape, rape”) is that a woman has to be cognizant of the fact that this happens and has to do a risk assessment of every guy she meets, goes out with, or meets in an elevator. I’m not a woman, and I’m glad this is something I don’t worry about as much, but to say that women being realistic means they hate men is belittling both feminism and the problem of date rape.

  327. I am not terribly surprised by Dawkins’s response. His writing style has always struck me as churlish and vainglorious, and that he would reply in similar manner here, then, is unsurprising.

    Dawkins often conflates “reason” with a particular socially privileged position. But then Dawkins have never been much of a scholar of the social. His notion of “meme” is utterly vacuous and his “The God Delusion” is lousy anthropology of religion (to be fair to Dawkins, though, he makes no attempt to actually engage the anthropology of religion) and poor scholarship when it comes to religious beliefs and values. Note, for example, the laziness of his discussion of “cargo cults” (and the privileged positionality of that laziness).

    What is one to make of Dawkins’s claim that it’s all just “words,” as if he has not read a single thing in the philosophy of language, sociolinguistics, or linguistic anthropology in the last fifty years? Again, there is a laziness to his work when it comes to human beings. He is too comforted by his own privilege to actually do serious research.
    And, of course, he won’t get it. That would be difficult and Dawkins does not do difficult.

    Dawkins has become a pundit, and pundits talk and write about everything, knowing nothing to very little about much of what they are called upon to provide punditry about. Scholars do the hard work, the detailed work, and they avoid the sweeping claims that populate books like “The God Delusion.” By the way, if I want to read about contemporary Christianity in the US, I think I’ll read ethnography (that is real research). James Bielo’s work springs to mind.

    On the other hand, I applaud Rebecca Watson and think here analysis concerning privilege particularly well-said. Finally, for those who thought Dawkins a hero, find a better hero.

  328. Hi Rebecca,

    I left an earlier post, but it (quite understandably, given the volume of comments I’m sure you’re dealing with!) didn’t get a response from you.

    But I wanted to ask again, because I think the answers are germane to the discussion. I am honestly — and I do emphasize honestly — curious to know your thoughts.

    PZ Myers accused the man who confronted you in the elevator of not being a “decent human being”, said that he harassed you (and accused him of “petty harassment”), and accused him of “loutish behavior”.

    Is that, in your opinion, a fair characterization of the man from the elevator?

    You (and the man from the elevator, obviously — but he’s not talking) are the only one with anything worthwhile to say on that subject, and as I discussed above, I think it would help a great deal in helping everyone understand where the other side is coming from, no matter where you fall in this kerfuffle.

    Thanks again for all you do.

    1. “PZ Myers accused the man who confronted you in the elevator of not being a “decent human being”, said that he harassed you (and accused him of “petty harassment”), and accused him of “loutish behavior”.

      “Is that, in your opinion, a fair characterization of the man from the elevator?”

      I would concur that the man’s behavior was not decent, it was loutish, and I did feel harassed.

  329. By the way much of this “discussion” shows what total prudes feminists are. The man is assumed to be asking for sex even though he explicitly said he was not. I guess to a feminist all men are liars.

    That’s not my point. Point is that it looks like the feminists think that asking for sex is somehow more icky or sexist or rude or whatever than asking to continue to talk over a coffee.

    Why is that unless feminists are just anti-sex? It’s a Victorian attitude. Do feminists imagine babies arrive when the stork brings them? What exactly is supposed to be wrong with asking for sex that is more wrong somehow than asking for talk?

    It seems to be that feminists feel they can portray men as more evil and nasty if they talk about sex as nasty all the time. By saying he was asking for sex they can say he was “creepy” and “sexist”.

    That’s a much more obviously ridiculous statement if the guy was doing what he said he was doing — just wanting to talk. So feminists build on existing sexism against men in society to portray men as sexual fiends preying on weak women.

    No doubt: this is NOT something anyone would do if they wanted equality for men, equality for women or if they just wanted to be skeptical and rational about gender.

    1. You haven’t actually seen the original account of this have you. Otherwise you would know that there was no “continue talking over coffee”. This was a guy that followed her deliberately until he got her alone in a cramped space and then solicited her for sex. After never having spoken to her before.

      …and im sorry, but if you don’t know that “come to my room for coffee” is a famously popular euphemism for sex then you are an idiot.

      Actually you are already an idiot for launching into an attack on feminism over a subject you haven’t bothered to learn anything about. All you have done is shown that you are a self centered whiny asshole.

      You are embarrassing yourself. You don’t care about the issues, or peoples’ rights, you just wanted to complain about “feminists” and grabbed and twisted this entire conversation to do that. Just stop. you have done no favours to your position or the crass masculinity you think you are helping.

        1. I’m confused… i proved your point by calling you out on your made up facts and that you clearly hadn’t bothered to read up on what you were talking about?

          It seems reality is not your friend. I suggest you consult with your wife whether you really should be allowed on the internet to play.

    2. Most people don’t want sex with someone who treats them like shit. Most people also don’t want to get sex by forcing it on an unwilling partner. They want happy fun sex times with someone they like and trust and CONSENTED with. This is not complicated. Google “what consent looks like”. I suggest the Teen resources.

  330. I just copy/pasted all this into MS Word. We’re nearly at 100,000 words! Keep going guys. We can publish this as a book soon.

  331. I’m actually confused. What is Mrs.Watson feminism? If it is total equality and treatment to man she can expect that, but i as a man have to keep in mind that she might perceive me as a potential rapist and adjust my behavior accordingly, i don’t see how this is possible, since every human being has a different perception of what’s threatening.

    If talking to a girl on an elevator is already potential rape alert, i don’t think i could ever talk to a girl, since look very mean.

    I thought feminism was best achieved if u apply the Rawlsian veil of ignorance towards gender issues, but i do that the elevator incident, was just one person hitting on another person, who then declined and that was the end.

    I truly don’t understand and i have read all the comments. I understand that there are real victims of violence, but i can’t bring myself to make this a factor when evaluating what happened in the elevator.

    1. Talking to a girl or woman in a public place is not frightening the way it would be alone where no one can see you and no one is likely to be around to hear you if you scream. Exits and alternatives are limited. While some might not be bothered (and heck, some women do have rape fantasies too), the courteous, appropriate, non-creepy is to err on the side of caution and not say anything until the other person has an “out”.

      If you are at a social event where the purpose is to meet new people and you are surrounded by other people, it is entirely appropriate for you to introduce yourself. The other person may be inclined to continue the conversation, she may not. In the event she says she is not and you then leave her alone for the rest of the evening, you will have behaved entirely appropriately.

      If, at this event where other people are around and can see both of you, your conversation is welcome and seems to have maintained the interest of the other person (at the very least, she should not be backing away, looking for exits, etc.), it is appropriate for you to ask the other person if she would like to go somewhere to be alone. If you are turned down and accept this, you have done nothing wrong. If she accepts your offer, you have done nothing wrong.

      This is actually true whether you are male or female. If you’re not touching someone unless they give you permission, you are in the clear. If you communicating with strangers in a public space and waiting for them to agree to be with you alone before you walk with them to the elevator you are in the clear.

      If you are a guy and a woman starts walking up to you, touching you unexpectedly, following you after you’ve expressed a lack of interest, propositioning you out of the blue when there is no one around, watch out. Something is very off. A norm is violated. She’s being creepy and it’s possible something bad could happen.

      1. Annata this is not difficult. At 4am in the morning, a strange man she had never met deliberately followed Rebecca, waited till she was trapped in the lift and then tried to get her to have sex with him.

        Anyone with an ounce of sense is going to panic at this situation and there are plenty of videos of what happened to unluckier women than her.

        If you want to avoid this in future I would suggest that you:

        1) Don’t stalk women in the early hours of the morning
        2) Get to know a woman and see if she is actually interested in any way before you ask her for sex.
        3) Don’t trap her in a cramped space, alone.

        If you find it difficult to follow these suggestions then i’m afraid you have bigger problems than not getting laid.

  332. You know, I think I’m just going to leave some science and math here, not that I believe the men on the thread who are OMG so picked on by being asked to be aware of context will read it, but for the people who are actually interested in the basis for things like the need for vigilance, and the fact that a lot of the ‘oh, poor guy, he’s so clueless’ is pretty damn clueless:

    http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/

    A series of four studies, done in the 1990s, all of which emphasize that men and women use direct and indirect strategies for refusal, but that the majority of the men in the study ‘suddenly’, when the subject of sexual contact came up, could no longer understand strategies which they understood in any other situation.

    http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

    AND

    http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/

    Identifies the following in several studies: the prevalence of rape in college and military populations, the strategies (including isolating the victim, ‘interviewing’ the victim, testing the victim’s defense of their personal boundaries and the fact that the rapists shared a deep anger at women for a perceived reduction of their rights or masculinity, including via refusing sex.) Also mentions that as long as the word ‘rape’ isn’t used, the prevalence of persons using techniques including coercion, getting the person drunk, is 6% of the population surveyed, and 4% of the total population surveyed (not of the 6%) admitted to an average of 5.8 each.

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/92/2/425/

    This one is behind a pay wall, but the summary states the following: “Study 1 included male and female college students (N = 175) and showed that women with relatively masculine personalities (e.g., assertive, dominant, and independent) experienced the most sexual harassment. Study 2 (N = 134) showed that this effect was not because women with relatively masculine personalities were more likely than others to negatively evaluate potentially harassing scenarios. Study 3 included male and female employees at 5 organizations (N = 238) and showed that women in male-dominated organizations were harassed more than women in female-dominated organizations, and that women in male-dominated organizations who had relatively masculine personalities were sexually harassed the most.” Women in the three studies who were outspoken were disproportionately subjected to sexual harassment, because they spoke up. (These were college students.)

    Here’s the text of the study: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55650053/The-sexual-harassment-of-uppity-women

    You know what really made the situation worse for the women being studied? Being outspoken about being harassed or poorly treated, even in workplace or academic situations about topics which were not harassment. Any sort of assertive behavior from women was enough.

    I’m going to keep looking, but there’s no dearth of science which supports women’s need to be wary of strange men, and the large scale of the problem of violating consent and personal autonomy.

    1. So your studies show that man are a bunch of rapist and it is reasonable for women to assume the worst, should they dare to approach them alone!

      I’m not denying that Rebecca felt scared, I’m just denying that her perception tracked reality, since obviously nothing happened. Just because in similar situations something did happen, to other women by different man, which is hardly something you can blame this guy for.

      I understand the horrible reality of rape, but i also understand when nothing actually happened and the fear of something happening is not enough.

        1. I will read them, but i don’t need those studies to judge an event were nothing happened. As far as i understand he did not push it after she declined.

          I might be able to understand your dismay with some of Dawkins hyperbolic language, but the arguments afterwards, went total out of control from claiming that Dawkins doesn’t understand the nature of rape to a total merger of the elevator incident and Rebecca’s perception of it.

          I still believe in order to perceive this event in absolute neutrality you have apply the Veil of Ignorance. Feminism demands the same, to be equal as individual free from gender roles.

          Dawkins is obviously on the site of women’s rights, which are Universal Human rights and women who are victims. This whole event has become incredibly blown out of proportion.

          We all want to be treated as the individuals and not lumped in together with someone else’s actions, who happens to share the X or Y Chromosome, don’t you agree?

          Also:
          “and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us. Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.”

          this is a total straw men, she shifts it to actual rapes, which he said nothing about, he dismissed this specific situation as a non event. If this is not a non event, than subjectivity rules everything and it doesn’t matter what actually happens, all that matters it’s how it’s perceived.

          I hope you see where I’m coming from, i think i can understand somewhat you stance, but i also think it’s unfair that all men suffer under your perception of the male gender.

          1. annata: So this is something which has been said repeatedly on this thread, on Pharyngula, and practically everywhere this has been discussed.

            There’s no way she could have known what he wanted.

            But his behavior, if you read my link dump, resembles the behavior used by rapists. That’s all she knew about him. He made himself a threat, she did not make him a threat.

            She talked about harassment, went to the bar and hung out, announced to the room that she wanted to go to bed and left. That’s TWO distinct times when she announced that she was NOT interested in a booty call. He, however, made it clear that he was.

            And, again, has been said a million times in all the threads, he was a total stranger who followed her into a small space at a time of night when the space was deserted. He chose to be a creep in all the ways which we know, from science, are used by rapists.

            And, one more time for emphasis: he chose to be a creep in a cultural context in which it is more than reasonable to suppose that he would know what his actions meant. The blame for his actions does not lay on Watson. It wasn’t a miscommunication, it wasn’t a mistake, he chose to do something creepy.

          2. Hey, if you’re genuinely interested, read the threads at pharyngula, or at blag hag. There are roughly 10,000 comments, which you’re essentially repeating, and they’ve been answered.

            Because, frankly, I’ve answered your question. Other people have answered your question. People on the internet have turned out in droves to answer that question. If you’re on fire to learn, do your homework.

          3. Okay, I’ll try again.

            I will read them, but i don’t need those studies to judge an event were nothing happened. As far as i understand he did not push it after she declined.

            Something DID happen there. Because of the situation, because of following her, because of ignoring what she said, because of getting her alone in an enclosed space, asking was already an act of harassment. She should never have had to say “no” AGAIN to this particular guy, after making the entire focus of her talk about not making women uncomfortable by constantly hitting on them. This all happened before she ever opened her mouth to turn the guy down. Saying “no” to him didn’t mean nothing happened. Saying “no” fortunately put an end to the threatening situation he had created.

            Try this for another example: “The Implication”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MZ1lc6KASWg

            This is subtle but important. There are many women who are sick of having to say “no no no no no” all the time in situations when any reasonably polite person would leave them in peace and not ask in the first place. That video, and the elevator incident, are examples of situations designed to pressure women before they ever have a chance to say “no”.

            THAT is what happened.

          4. I pretty much agree with what you said, I just wanted to emphasise that characterising Dawkins as dismissive of the traumas of rape victims based on these comments is really inappropriate. I suppose it was done for impact, but spinning people’s words like that is pretty low all things considered.

      1. Remind me again what world you live in where you only buy insurance *after* your house burns down, you only study textbooks *after* the exam, and you only place your bets *after* the casino shows you all the cards?

        1. At which time everyone shakes their head and tells you that you should have known better, what were you thinking?

          And, you know, they aren’t my studies. I’d be fucking thrilled if they were. That’s some really serious work.

          1. For the love of poop, my brain is off. I meant that second paragraph to be addressed to annata.

          2. Keep in mind, though i might not be able to agree with you on this specific situation. I’m not your enemy, i’m for total equality for all humans, i don’t care what gender.

            i agree with you that most humans are still cavemen, but that does not only apply to men, and i can’t in factor sensibilities, which are different in cultures and individuals, into my evaluation of event’s, i don’t do it anywhere else. I judge by what the actual action entailed. I don’t assume the worst intention, if the rest of the interaction does not suggest it. Which in this case it didn’t.

            Let’s say if i knew the intent of elevator guy was more than just to get Rebecca alone and ask her out, but to intimidate her, this would change my opinion. But since i don’t know it and from what happened in the Elevator itself, i conclude he wanted to spare himself public humiliation, since he did not press the matter, once he was rejected!

            That might not be sensible, but egalitarian.

        2. Those are all false analogies.

          If they applied to this situation, Rebecca not being raped, would have either been luck or her preparedness, but either way an inevitable outcome of being alone with a men.

          Which i contest it was not. She perceived danger, but she was not in danger.

          1. And again, for the love of several kinds of fuck-knuckle, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know, except in hindsight, that elevator guy is dangerous. And, as has been pointed out, under those circumstances, he was doing everything in his power short of physically touching her (but he had followed her into a confined space) to give her that impression.

            Hind-sight, while notorious for being 20/20, has the distinct disadvantage of only being able to be applied after the event. During the event, all anyone has is vigilance.

  333. Rebecca,

    I would just like to say “Damned straight”. The guy in the elevator made an amateur social mistake (putting it in the best of lights). You were right to voice your discomfort and I applaud you for doing so.

    Dawkins is a great thinker but he is dead wrong here. Words matter quite a bit when you put them in a certain context and when people routinely misjudge the power of words and contexts, it is important that they should be informed. Misunderstanding is Dawkins’ mistake and it is a mistake that, a few days ago, I would have made, as well (I don’t doubt that I am still capable of it, either). I think that, being the well-educated and critical thinker that he is, Dawkins will see his error, as did I (quite thankfully). I hope so, at least.

    I also hope that the guy in the elevator, and other guys that would make such poorly thought out advances (sexual or not), start thinking a bit more clearly about the way they act and the social theaters in which their actions are being showcased. Being a man (closer to a boy, at my age, I suppose), it is important to know that how I act may be received differently by women than I think it will be and so, in vulnerable situations, it is wise to tread lightly and think more carefully about how my words and actions are interpreted.

    A post I made on a previous article stated that people should not be punished for social mistakes and that we should simply voice our discomfort (like you did) more freely and honestly. I hold to that. But, for clarity’s sake, I would like to reiterate/re-articulate my thoughts and say that we should make sure to use those mistakes as learning experiences so that we don’t have to voice discomfort as often. Because of this, I would like to thank you for using your negative experience to show people (and I suspect, guys in particular) what about that was faux pas, uncouth, discomforting and rude. It may take some people a little while to get it (and some may not get it at all) but a good number of people are wiser and more conscious for it. I hope that I am one of them.

    -George Rogers

    1. It might also be good to explain in the clearest terms possible that it is not an accusation or an implication that all men are psychologically capable of committing an act of rape. It seems to me to be one of the things that other guys are getting up in arms about. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read some variation on “Oh, so all men are rapists? That’s bullshit!”

      It’s wrong but common, so maybe it bears some re-going over.

  334. So I was wondering why would it be such a bad thing for a person to ask you out for coffee, or up to their hotel room for coffee? You are always welcomed to say no, which you did apparently.

    You are an attractive person, so it doesn’t particularly surprise me that a person would consider wanting to get to know you over something like coffee. It was in an elevator at 4 am, hey, maybe the guy felt a bit overly confident? Can’t blame a person for having some self-esteem, and surely can’t blame a person for trying. Would you blame a person for wanting to get to know you? You said no, apparently, which is the proper thing to do if you aren’t feeling the advance.

    Basically, I am just confused as to how that translates into you being seen in a sexual manner or how it makes you feel unsafe. How does it? If it’s because the ultimate goal of that man may have been to have sex with you, well, as a person who seems to be scientifically inclined, you should know that humans are inclined to want such things. It’s in our nature, it’s survival of the future generations. We view each other in sexual manners because we are inclined to do so (and by chemical reactions within) and it’s the same for any animal. Of course, few animals do it for pleasure but that is besides the point.

    Also about safety: Does any man who speaks to you make you feel unsafe? I am not trying to be funny or sound condescending here, I am just actually wondering why you feel unsafe. Not all of us men are like the idiots who email you threatening to rape. They are just that, idiots.

    You said that a person should be aware of how what they say makes a person feel, but when I go out, I am not constantly thinking about how I may make a person feel because I know myself and I am a harmless person who doesn’t exit his apartment with bad intentions. I can’t constantly be thinking about the other person, to my knowledge I am not trying to make anyone uncomfortable. It’s up to them to tell me how they feel (you said no to the man in the elevator, right on) So like I said before, perhaps this man only felt a bit confident and in his eyes, he may have asked you something without “bad” intentions.

    This was blown out of proportions (especially by Richard Dawkins) and in your case, you are not exempt from the natural laws and instincts that govern humans.

    1. Perhaps you could read the actual article you’re commenting on, and some references such as the links thereof. Or do you think after almost 800 comments, your questions have never been asked before *and* you’re entitled to a personal response from the blog author?

      Why, because there’s a slight chance your approach might be successful and it’s only natural to ask because you’re such a nice guy?

      The point; you’ve just proven it.

    2. Well, you could have read at least some of the comments. Or yknow, actually read up on the story itself.

      I find it strange that you consider youself a nice guy, yet have taken no effort and instead expect her once again to recount the entire thing for your puzzled mammalian brain and on your terms.

      I also find it amusing that although you leave your house without bad intentions this will somehow magically protect you from ever accidently coming across as a complete creep. The fact that you are clueless about how others feel most of the time does not, however, bode well for your magical shield.

      1. Oh come on, as if I am the only one who commented in such a manner. Don’t be asses about it, Comment Police.

        1. pyramusx,

          Or should I call you “Dear Clueless”?

          “Oh come on, as if I am the only one who commented in such a manner.”

          That is exactly the fucking point. It has been discussed again and again. You do not need a personal response to the blog owner about why this wasn’t just an ordinary invitation to take coffee. It’s all there in the vlog and the subsequent posts and the subsequent comments to the subsequent posts. It’s all over this comment thread, and by this time if you’re not getting it, then it’s pretty much a given that it’s because you don’t want to.

  335. Hi Rebecca, So I came home from work and find that comments just keep adding up. How many days since this started? Now I find letters to RD. I wonder how long this will go on?

    I think it’s time to close these thread about Richard and time that you figure out what you will do the next time you see him in person.

    I admire you and Richard both. I am certainly not angry at him like other individuals here. He made an error and revealed that he needs to be enlightened on the topic. His comment surprised me, but clearly I didn’t take ownership like many have. It certainly did bring up issues relating to being a woman, sexism, discrimination, etc. Resorting to calling him “Dick” hoping his career will “crash and burn” and belittling him seems over-the-top and not very classy. Yes, he was rude as well, but returning fire with fire just perpetuates a battle until one person maturely steps up and says “enough, let’s handle this together.” I hope you will be the one to step up and do this.

    I think if anyone has any further personal issue with Richard, they should deal with it on their own rather than piggybacking it to your initial issue of simply telling guys to “just not do this.”

    This drama needs to end. I think if people want to continue talking about sexism in the atheist movement, maybe a topic should be started, separate from your initial concern.

    1. Thanks for that post. I agree totally with your take on the situation. Enough already. One of the reasons I have enjoyed participating on Skepchick is because of the absence of this sort of angry, vitriolic, never ending type of thread. I hate this! No one individual is absolutely good or evil. People are people and they are subject to all kinds of influences and experiences and strange thinking and yes, people make mistakes. We are all idiots sometimes. Not a day goes by that I don’t do at least one stupid thing. Richard Dawkins did an idiotic thing. That does not wipe out all the good he has done. It does not make him evil. And damn it, you know what, I don’t want this whole thing to put a damper on TAM 9 because my husband and I are really stretching to get there. TAM 9 is bigger than a feud within the skeptical community. As a former Christian, turned atheist, I still find it useful in my daily life to consider the bible verse, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

      1. Yes Laika, I hope for your sake TAM9 is enjoyable. Remember if anyone starts up, take a breath, exhale and walk away and say to yourself – I choose this instead. Don’t let it stay and fester in your mind. You can control what you allow into thoughts and how your respond to people.

        I actually went to a really great, liberal New Thought church before I realized I no longer believed. I must say that I use their teachings all the time. I decided to just get rid of the woo.

        1. Thx QK! I’m sure there are many like-minded, sensible sentiments among the 800 plus posts but who has time to read them all? At this point, I am not interested in who is right and who is wrong. I choose to learn from and to have relationships with most people even if they are not perfect. This comes from the experience of having made mistakes myself and from being part of a very loving, very large, very imperfect family. If I cut off everyone who has ever mistakenly hurt me or who has ever been stupidly insensitive, I would be very lonely indeed. I think it would be in the best interest of the skeptical family if the parties involved would make peace.

    2. Calls for unity usually reinforce current power structures, and your comment is no exception.

      You and Laika are using a silencing tactic. We are allowed to talk about the mistakes that people make, and discuss them in detail to teach others how not to make those mistakes in the future.

      You don’t have to participate, but you don’t get to decide when other people’s discussion “needs to end.”

    3. Questioningkat, I too would like to thank for your reasonable words.
      .
      This whole issue, right from the initial elevator anecdote’s comment thread, has gone ridiculously ballistic. It would appear that only about 10% of the commentors, on either side, have actually read and comprehended the intitial posts and comments. It would seem that the general level of understanding and comprehension of basic English, in this issue, has hit an all time low.
      .
      And the degree of hate on both sides, men hating women; women hating men, everyone hating everyone because almost no one is listening or understanding anyone … well, it’s just sad and supremely ridiculous.
      .
      And now, no doubt, some golden-winged feminst, of any gender, is going to show their skepticred and trump me with the dreaded “Oooh! You foul, foul concern troll you!” epithet.

      Ah well. Such is life.

  336. I just wanted to throw my support and thanks to Rebecca and all of the other feminist skeptic/atheist bloggers out there fighting the good fight, trying to make the skeptic/atheist community friendlier and safer for women to join and enable more participation and contributions from women as well. I really do appreciate it from the bottom of my heart and will make every effort to make my contribution as well. Like Surly Amy, who I am a fan of, I am also an atheist feminist artist (named Amy too) so I also plan to do art for the cause.
    All of this kind of reminds me of my college days doing some peace activism and a few of the men would dominate all of the conversation. Occasionally they would make speeches where they said that women should have a say too but they never stopped from this to actually let any of us speak. Or if we did talk, any thoughtful pauses would be misinterpreted as chances to jump in. What was odd was that at the beginning the group was started by a woman, who was very cool and had lots of leadership skills but she seemed to be edged out over time. And then it seemed that every woman left in the group either dated or was dating one of the guys who were leading the group. It got icky at the “weekend retreat” which was supposed to be a working retreat but turned into a paring off thing with me and this one guy left over. Fortunately he did not try to push me into making him look good to the other guys. He was a decent human being. I finally saw the light, and though I had made contributions by doing art for buttons, t-shirts, posters and newsletters, (the high point was seeing one of my art teachers wearing my t-shirt) I realized that mostly the point of the group was a bunch of ego stroking and other stroking for a few men and I really did not want to be there for that.

  337. For men who are actually interested in getting a clue to how the other half of the population lives, google Hollaback or go here: http://www.ihollaback.org/archives/

    Fifty years ago, when I was 15, I couldn’t walk to the store in broad daylight by myself without being yelled at by d00ds. I think it is even worse for girls and young women today. How it is possible for men to live in ignorance of this basic reality is a mystery to me.
    Are they really ignorant? I’m skeptical.

  338. I for one want to thank you for continuing to be a part of the skeptical movement. As a woman, I’ve often felt like it was just expected of me to go in for woo and “natural” cures and the like, and hearing you on SGU and reading your blog made me feel like I wasn’t a freak for being a skeptic.

    And I can totally understand how getting hit on at 4am in an elevator can feel really creepy.

    So I just wanted to say: I support you!

  339. Rebecca
    I signed up here today to show my support for you.

    I do hope you will keep fighting.

  340. I’ll leave this here as well. It’s a DoJ document about stalking. It’s worth noting that 75% of all persons who are convicted of being stalkers followed their victims and/or spied on them in private.

    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000186.pdf

    And this, a study of college students which delineates the difference between courtship and stalking. It contains the following: “Factor analyses revealed six groupings of behaviors in response to unrequited courtship: approach, surveillance, intimidation, harming oneself, verbal abuse/mild physical harm, and extreme physical harm. Approach behavior was reported to be used more often by men, but there were no significant differences between men and women in the self-reported prevalence of other types of courtship behaviors. Correlations reveal that feelings of anger and depression were the most common predictors of violent behavior for both men and women. Pursuer-perceptions of what behaviors connoted “going too far” in pursuit of a relationship proved unreliable. However, when pursuers were asked whether their love interest was afraid of them, fear was a reaction perceived in response to intimidation. Although it is likely that pursuer perceptions of where to draw the line would differ from the view of the love object, these results suggest that engaging in intimidation would be an appropriate place to draw the line between courtship and stalking.” Behaving in a fashion which is likely to intimidate is a place where courtship behaviors are no longer the attempt to court, and become the attempt to coerce.

    Here’s an older study which explicitly discovers that the use of force to rape women is found in people who measure within the bounds of normal, in the US male population: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989901098

    On the feminists are prudes comment:

    http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/32/3/225.short
    (correlation between feminist ideology and sexual satisfaction, condom use, etc)

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FSjEnDrb8QcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA29&dq=feminst+ideology+consent+sexual+satisfaction+study&ots=JtOIB6NyPZ&sig=xjgMtqtYT4tNcZAbCycr8sVlppM#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The above is a partial google book making sense out of consent and sexual agency in feminism.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00349.x/full

    According to the previous links, feminists had a much more positive feelings about the subject of sex than women who described themselves as nonfeminists.

    Or, dear Sir, not being able to bully a feminist into sex does not mean there’s something wrong with her.

  341. I am saddened that Rebecca has experienced sexism to the degree that she has within the skeptical community.

    At first, my instant reaction was to side with Dawkins–in only that I put myself in the guy’s position as an ardent admirer of Rebecca and someone who has frequently called out as I have listened to the podcast “NO! Marry me!” But I slowed myself down and further dissected the situation. Deliberately following someone onto an elevator to proposition them–whether or not it was just the result of well placed hero worhsip–is completely awkward and if I were in Rebecca’s place, I would not have been nearly so polite. Putting myself in her place for a minute was all that it took to realize I was very very wrong and Rebecca was very very right.

    It’s not too late, Richard, to try that out yourself.

  342. Why does Rebecca think it appropriate to point -up the fact that emeritus professor Richard Dawkins is “wealthy, old, heterosexual and a white man” as if that constitutes a valid attack? If intended as an attack she is, in my opinion being at least ageist, sexist and envious of the wealth which has come his way from a lifetimes dedication to scientific truth and science for which his life is in danger from religious extremists.

    1. Because the world in which we live is based on staggering inequalities, and pretending those inequalities do not exist only reproduces those self-same inequalities.

      As someone who has lived that privilege, I would be either utterly dishonest or willfully ignorant to ignore the benefits that have accrued simply because of issues of birth.

      We need more people to challenge such received inequalities. Dawkins is too utterly invested in his own privilege (it stinks from his work), too willfully ignorant or utterly dishonest, to acknowledge his own privilege.

  343. Rebecca,
    For what it’s worth:

    As a white male – Great post. The more I read posts like these the more it sinks in. Keep up the good work.

    As an aspiring Christian apologist/arm chair philosopher – I’ve never really thought much of Richard Dawkins. So I will shamelessly plug Peter Slezak of the University of New South Wales as a more than worthy replacement for folks that hitched their wagons to Dawkins’ star.

    -One day I hope to meet you at the forum of the great debate where I will crush your atheistic views to the applause of many thousands, until then…again great post.

  344. I’ve read this blog for, like, 18 months now and only commented once or twice, mainly cos I don’t often have anything to say.

    I just think it’s sad, really. I don’t think Richard Dawkins was telling Rebecca to “shut up” – I think he was responding just as much to the commentators at Pharyngula, who have a habit of going over the top with their rhetoric. Sure he was a bit crass, but I took his point to be “It is perfectly possible for this exchange to be merely awkward for both parties – if one of them feels threatened in this situation the fault is with the people who grope, rape, deliberately pressurise women into sex, etc because they create the climate of fear”. I bet a lot of the commentators here haven’t read all the preceding comments in the thread which provide the context. He definitely did not defend or dismiss the youtube rape threats and I think it’s wrong imply he did.

    And now it’s being turned into some sort of feud, a blog comment so hideous it wipes out all or most of the good he’s done; let’s disregard the fact that he is in agreement with this community on several “feminist” issues. If Rebecca took it personally I don’t see why she can’t take it up with Dawkins herself if she wishes, without a load of people here sending a pile of letters. I don’t see how taking out all the frustrations caused by the harassers at conferences in this way is at all positive. I thought it sounded like Rebecca treated the student blogger pretty badly but I’m not about to start a petition to get her removed from the SGU unless she apologises.

    With regards to the discussion as a whole:

    Why is it not possible for “decent human beings” to think that all people should be treated equally, victim blaming is wrong, no means no, deliberate intimidation is wrong, but this elevator stuff is not intrinsically sexist behaviour?

    If I believe that it is not sexist but I laughed at the anecdote because it would creep me out too, why must I condemn anyone who does this?

    Am I able to disagree without it being taken as telling Rebecca to STFU?

    Some of the rhetoric in favour of Rebecca has been inflammatory (for instance Amanda Marcotte’s posts just made me angry). I’m sure it was fun to write but dismissing any and all disagreements as privilege or gender-betrayal is quite alienating if, like me, you’re not totally on-board with that point of view already. Maybe it’s meant to be, because you don’t want to explain it again but would quite like a harmless internet rage, fine, but a lot of people aren’t going to wade through vitriol in an attempt to “get it”.

    1. I think that Dawkins directed his first response at Rebecca because his message specifically mentions her and fails to mention any Pharyngula commenters. Occam’s razor and all that.
      He dismissed the rape threats by making mock of the idea that elevator sexual assault was a thing in the world, in the specific context of someone who had discussed rape threats in front of him. He doesn’t have to explicitly say “I dismiss you, rape threats!” to be dismissive of rape threats.
      “now it’s being turned into some sort of feud” – I note the passive voice here. Who is turning it into a feud? Rebecca, for making a brief “Don’t be creepy” plug? Dawkins, for trying to shame her into silence? Scores of offended men?
      Rebecca didn’t say that the elevator guy’s behavior was sexist – she said it was creepy. Why, has been explained. I’ve also explained why I, personally, think it was sexist.
      “Am I able to disagree without it being taken as telling Rebecca to STFU?” That depends on you – ideally, what change are you hoping to make in Rebecca’s behavior with your post? Do you want her to put a stop to this dispute? If so, how? Does it involve not talking about creepy men, and not publically disagreeing with Dawkins?
      If you’ve got problems with Amanda Marcotte’s rhetoric, why bring it up here? Did anyone’s rhetoric that disagreed with Rebecca make you angry, or just people defending her?

      1. Yes he mentioned Rebecca but there’s not really a way to comment on the situation without doing that, and he posted it on Pharyngula, not YouTube or Skepchick. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that his motivation might have been to ridicule them not to try and make her shut up (which would have been wrong).
        Clearly saying you can “just press a button” is a bit moronic, but he didn’t say “rape is not a big problem in Western society” or “you didn’t ask for it what are you worried about” or anything vile like that. Saying he dismissed the concerns of sexual assault victims is putting the most dramatic spin on it possible and I think that’s unnecessary.

        “I note the passive voice here. Who is turning it into a feud?”

        Well it’s escalated really hasn’t it. It was a pretty innocuous video if I remember it well, then I saw on Pharyngula the “naming names” farrago and those threads exploded with vitriol; Dawkins felt he had to join in for some reason with sarcastic comments that, if they weren’t from him, would not have been remarkable enough to have been plucked out and posted here. Rebecca’s chosen to do that and moreover she’s framed it, not as a simple disagreement, but as if there’s a great rift between them that can only be healed by him agreeing with her point of view. She’s lined up her allies, announced a boycott of everything Dawkins and asked for a third party letter writing campaign. So, for me, with this post she’s turned it into Team Watson vs Team Dawkins, solely over some poorly judged comments he made on someone else’s blog, and that’s unhelpful and frankly a little bit ridiculous. Even if it WAS a purely personal attack by Dawkins I think ideally this should be sorted out privately. But I really struggle to believe that he was saying “shut up” – I think he was saying “that is not sexist”. By all means write a post saying “I believe this is sexist and here’s why”, but what is reacting in this manner going to achieve? What happens at the next conference they both are arranged to speak at?

        Also this is the second time in a week that I think she has dealt with criticism of her ideas (that this was sexist behaviour) badly, and that’s worrying.

        There is hardly any need for me to highlight the idiotic rhetoric of the “sit down shut up” brigade here because plenty of others have done it, but they are not the sole reason why these threads go mental. People here surely appreciate that implying that anybody who disagrees is parroting misogynist thought, or saying that the only reason men ask women for sex in elevators is to deliberately pressurise women isn’t going to resolve this debate. Instead of making it clear that they don’t agree with stuff like that it’s let go and that seriously polarises the issue. You’re either in behind Rebecca, a sexist or a tone-troll. Definitely off-putting to a relative outsider such as myself.

  345. Yes, thank you for the reference material, Mouthyb! You’d think rationalists would be excited and interested to read scientific studies rather than just getting defensive and popping off? You’d think such fine minds would have been curious enough to go hunt these down on their own, even?

    I suggested some solutions in reply to a fellow above. I may have been a mite snotty about it. I am in that mood, what with all these fellows acting like it’s a one-off incident.

    PS. Guys. If I ever buy a flight to a conference and a hotel booking and meals etc. I can assure you that rape is not the only thing I do not want from total strangers at 4am in an elevator. Anything beyond a friendly nod is too much, under the circumstance.

    1. And that’s one of the really sad things. Here’s a group of people with (ostensibly) training in logic and a yen for critical thinking whose response, when people bothered to respond to the evidence I bought with me, was “I don’t like it, therefore it can’t be right.” Or “I don’t think it’s fair, you meanie.”

      I’ve stopped myself a few times from asking why, if they’re so dead set against it, none of them have asked questions about the methodology of the studies, or asked technical questions.

      I kept wanting to say “is there some reason you don’t like science, skeptic?”

      Even my intro English students know not to turn in a paper which says “I don’t like it so it can’t be right.” That is not an argument.

      All in all, I am disappoint. As much as a bunch of the trolls on this conversation have yelled about rationality, they won’t touch the science with a ten foot pole.

  346. This whole thing infuriates me. It’s been blown out of all proportion. Rebecca simply stated that someone’s behaviour creeped her out and suggested that people should learn from her experience and not behave in that way. Surely that is an acceptable thing to do. All this backlash is insane.
    I fully support her sticking up for herself and not backing down. She is not the one that made this a big deal. She is just backing her opinion and experience.
    The ”shhh shhh we should all be friends” argument is crap. The act of calling people out for irrational arguments and reactions is IMHO big part of the skeptic movement.

  347. I love all the dismissal going on..

    You’re mansplaining, you have privilege and aren’t a woman so there’s no way you know what you’re talking about.
    etc.

    Can everyone knock off the ad hominems for crying out loud?

  348. Has anyone mentioned that the douchebag in the elevator was hitting on a married woman who he didn’t know at four am? This is not appropriate.

    RD failed to understand what many men fail to understand, no matter how nice YOU know YOU are, no one can tell it by looking at you. They can only get an indication of what your are like from your behaviour. Until behaviour other than ‘douche’ is demonastrated, Rebecca has every reason to be wary of the stranger and to expect them NOT to behave like he did.

    1. “Has anyone mentioned that the douchebag in the elevator was hitting on a married woman who he didn’t know at four am? This is not appropriate.”

      Maybe about 200 men and 1000 women across a dozen websites. It doesn’t seem to make any difference… and that’s the real problem. It seems that more men than not are unwilling to even remotely consider any woman’s point a view if it interferes with what they seem to consider to be their God-given right to coerce women into bed with them.

  349. Everything that needs to be said about how clueless and arrogant Richard Dawkins’ response was has been said. What bothers me at this point is the massive amount of “don’t get it” I’m seeing here and elsewhere; there are Dawkins fanboys for whom he can do no wrong and I don’t expect them to change their minds soon; to them Rebecca is the devil for daring to question Herr Doktor so I won’t even try; but for those who just can’t grasp the fear and anxiety that follows women constantly, and would like to, I may be able to help.
    .
    First, I am a male so everything I am going to say here comes from empathy and conjecture; the moms that are here are going to have to tell me how close to reality my observations have actually come.
    As a man I have never had to constantly watch my back and all the examples of what the elevator incident was like, as helpful as they are intended to be, can never teach me what it is like at that moment or what it is like to have to constantly worry about my safety. However, I was thinking about a way to convey the fear and anxiety that would accompany such an event in a way that men like me could understand and then it hit me; the only being in this world that I would protect at all costs, to death if needed, is my daughter.
    I have contrived a scenario that is in no way meant to be equivalent to the elevator incident but may help express the feeling involved.
    .
    -Say you have a daughter around 8 or 9 years old (I use this example because that is my situation, therefor I understand it best); you want your child to be safe and therefore want to tell her about “stranger danger” so you do some research into it first; after which you talk to your daughter about what she needs to do to be safe. You do not believe that all strangers are predators but it is best to be informed. (just as women do not believe that all men are going to assault them but need to be on guard for that possibility.)
    -Now, assume that your daughter goes to the park with some friends and that there is a CCTV view of the park where you can see what is happening but you can’t hear and you can’t help. (again, not meant to be real, meant to evoke emotion)
    -As you are watching the camera you see her friends wave goodbye and leave so that your daughter is now at the park alone. You anxiety level probably just went up, not to extreme levels, just higher than baseline. (you are getting a taste of the fear and anxiety that haunts women when in public, especially after a previous assault, on a daily basis)
    -Watching further you see a man enter the park and sit on a bench away from your daughter, he is doing nothing threatening or illegal, he has not so much as looked at you daughter but your stress level probably just went up yet another notch, maybe not rational but real none the less. (like a woman feels when a threatening or unknown man in nearby)
    -Now imagine that the man gets up and moves to a bench closer to your daughter, still without engaging her, but closer anyway. Anxiety is higher still. (I imagine that this would be similar to a strange man entering an elevator with a woman)
    -The man in the park now turns to your daughter and talks to her, maybe he even gets up and starts to approach her. That feeling in the pit of your stomach, that urge to scream and run and punch whoever or whatever will get you out of that situation is real and no one should EVER tell you it isn’t. (that feeling might just give you a hint of the fear that would come when a person that you are not familiar with asks you to put yourself into a dangerous situation, like say come to his room for coffee)
    -Let’s then say that nothing happens, the man stops short of your daughter and leaves the park without incident. (just like what happened in Rebecca’s case)
    .
    Now some questions;
    -Does the fact that nothing happened make the feeling you felt less real?
    -How would you feel about the prospects of letting your daughter go to the park again, even though nothing happened?
    -How would you feel if someone told you that you shouldn’t have felt the way you felt?
    -How would you change your behavior around unaccompanied children after this?
    .
    I want to point out that this is in no way meant to be equivalent but to maybe, just maybe, convey the feelings of fear and anxiety that might be involved in fearing assault. Since I can’t make a man fear for his welfare I thought that a fear for a child would be a decent proxy.
    Mothers let me know if this is even close; my guess is that it is off by an order of magnitude, but I just don’t know.

    1. I found that scenario unrealistic, irrelevant and not in any way more relateable than Rebecca’s situation if you’re not in the same situation.

      Why wouldn’t you go to the park as soon as she was left alone? If you have time to stare on her through CCTV, why aren’t you there? Why are 9-year olds in a park unsupervised?

      On one hand you describe the events in the park pretty well, but then you try to project a reaction to that and ask the reader why they felt that. The emotions you described are in part affected by the popularisation of predators and the amount of attention it gets is highly disproportionate to the actual risk. Nothing stays glued to the TV like a paranoid parent who needs the latest tips on how to their children from said unlikely threat.

      You are judging a group of people, that you belong to non the less, for a crime that wasn’t commited on the grounds that you could imagine it. The man seemingly does nothing wrong and you take that as grounds for changing your behavior?

      When people let those emotions control them we end up with situations like this: http://www.angrymandrel.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=8304.0

      Being a male yourself, do you mean that you’ve never felt vulnerable until you had a child? If you want to try and give a male oriented example how about if you’re going to prison or walking down a drak alley in the wrong side of town.

      1. Did you actually read what I wrote?
        I said that it was not equivalent, I said that it was unrealistic, and I said that I was using it as device to show men what it was like to constantly be afraid.
        Of course I had felt vulnerable before I had a daughter but it was not constant, using the “wrong side of town” or “large gay man in an elevator” doesn’t evoke the fear-for-self that I was trying to evoke without bringing possible racism, xenophobia, or homophobia into the equation.
        All this was meant to do was evoke an emotion an try to explain how the fear get blown out of proportion and how that is not unreasonable.
        Go back and reread it and this time take the situation as given and note the emotions that it evokes, if you don’t have children you may have to go back to empathizing which puts us back at the original problem.
        .
        It was just to show that emotions (the fear of what might of happened) can be real and effect behavior even if nothing did happen.
        .
        If everything has to be real for you to believe them you must be fun at a movie. ;)

        1. “Did you actually read what I wrote?
          I said that it was not equivalent, I said that it was unrealistic, and I said that I was using it as device to show men what it was like to constantly be afraid.”

          How do you expect someone to have any emotional response other than confusinon with a scenario that is so unrealistic and with forced interjections. Why involve the CCTV, just say that you daughter is missing. That should suffice.

          “Of course I had felt vulnerable before I had a daughter but it was not constant, using the “wrong side of town” or “large gay man in an elevator” doesn’t evoke the fear-for-self that I was trying to evoke without bringing possible racism, xenophobia, or homophobia into the equation.”

          “Wrong side of town” has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia, it’s an area of town with a higher violent crime rate. Even if that was the case I don’t see why it shouldn’t be included since my case is that Rebeccas fears are grounded in a form of misandry.

          “All this was meant to do was evoke an emotion an try to explain how the fear get blown out of proportion and how that is not unreasonable.”

          Fear that is blown out of porportion is basically the definition of unreasonable fear. It’s not right just because that’s the way you feel, or that society promotes that reaction.

          “Go back and reread it and this time take the situation as given and note the emotions that it evokes, if you don’t have children you may have to go back to empathizing which puts us back at the original problem.”

          The fact that you try to force a specific emotional respons only results in cognitive dissonance when the reader tries to relate it to their own emotions. Example: I’ve been mad enough to do some real stupid thing in my time but I’ve never felt like “punching whoever or whatever that can get me out of the situation”.

          “It was just to show that emotions (the fear of what might of happened) can be real and effect behavior even if nothing did happen.”

          It show us how someone can let their emotions control their behavior opposed to their better judgement and somehow come to the conclusion that it’s actually a useable excuse.

          “If everything has to be real for you to believe them you must be fun at a movie.”

          It doesn’t have to be real, only believable enough. When watching a movie it’s quite ok to let go of your emotions, in fact it’s a great time to find out where they actually take you. Interacting with people is a completely different thing, because no matter what the context is it’s always real on some level.

          Also, unlike what you did, a properly made movie allows people to use their own emotions instead of projecting what the creator found fitting.

    2. But nothing did happen. Your precaution is warranted, but you don’t get to equate a situation where nothing happened and infuse it with all the plight and male privilege of society, and distort it into something it wasn’t. That’s not rational.

      Dawkins sees the situation as two equal humans interacting with each other, no one was threatened and nothing happened.

      Everyone else sees it as a feminist encountered a shroedinger’s rapist and head a near miss rape encounter, infusing all the issues of feminism into this event.

      Dawkins did not tell anyone to shut up, but looked at this situation for what it was, which was nothing.

      Rebecca did not escape being nearly raped on that elevator, and women being raped by man does have no bearing on the actual situation, as there should be no gender guilt, everything else is sexism on Rebecca’s part if she can’t see man as anything else than privileged potential rapist, which many women and even men here seem to share.

      This are absolutely the same arguments religious people use to stifle criticism. The same argument Muslims use against the cartoons of Mohammed, i didn’t get it there either. Just because they over inflate an issue, doesn’t make drawing a cartoon into an actual threat.

      If you judge the situation on it’s own, through the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance. This is what happened. 2 People in an Elevator. 1 person made an unwanted offer, the other person declined, the end!

      All the other arguments boiled down to that he did not actual ask another equal human being, but a feminist, which perceives a situation with from a total different perspective, in which this man is a member of a privileged class and potential rapist.

      I refuse to accept that view point in this situation.

      1. I’m sorry to butt-in halfway through a discussion here, but I have to chip-in to this one:

        What Elevator Guy’s intentions were is a completely moot point. It’s pretty obvious in hindsight that he meant no harm, however just because he didn’t intend any harm, doesn’t mean he didn’t do any harm.

        Any woman who, when followed out of a bar and into an isolated, enclosed, witness-less situation by a guy who is a complete stranger needs to be on her guard. If that guy then bluntly proposes sex (which is exactly what Elevator Guy did, let’s not pretend otherwise), then the woman really, really needs to be on her guard – Because women get raped in isolated places, late at night, by men who have been drinking. It happens. Barring spouse and date-rape, it’s the classic rape scenario.

        We don’t live in a vacuum. Elevator Guy existed in the same world that Rebecca did. If he had two firing neurones he’d know that women get raped in isolated places, late at night, by men who have been drinking. Taking all that into account, he should have known that his behaviour would cause a fear response. Seriously. That’s the issue here. If he didn’t know it, then he was ignorant, thoughtless and creepy, and if he did know it (but went ahead anyway) then he was a giant creepy douche-nozzle.

      2. annata:
        “Everyone else sees it as a feminist encountered a shroedinger’s rapist and head a near miss rape encounter, infusing all the issues of feminism into this event.”

        You’re a goddamn liar.

        NOBODY has said this. I have read the entire thread, and nothing in it even has the faintest whiff of your clumsy caricature.

        The whole point of the Schrödinger’s Rapist image is that for women a man they meet, even an acquaintance or friend of some standing (since “intimate rapes” and “acquaintance rapes” far outnumber “stranger rapes”) is an issue where she has to treat the guy as an unknown quantity. It does not mean that every interaction with a man is just inches away from being a case of rape, and frankly if you weren’t in thrall to either misogyny or pathetic Dawkins hero-worship then you’d be able to see that.

        “Dawkins did not tell anyone to shut up, but looked at this situation for what it was, which was nothing.”

        So he’s decreed on high for all of us that it’s a non-issue, but it’s okay by him if people continue talking about nothing? How mighty *white* of him!

        “Rebecca did not escape being nearly raped on that elevator,”

        Thank you for stating the fucking obvious. Now that you’ve beaten that straw man to death, would you care to have a stab at what people have ACTUALLY BEEN SAYING?

        If you can’t be honest, then just STFU. It’s not as if there won’t be any more dishonest and clueless ideologues like yourself who can pick up the slack in that department.

        1. Yes, I’m a misogynist, because i think that women’s rights issues and inequity of women in society, should not play a role in judging a situation.

          If a guy makes a women uncomfortable before asking her to coffee/sex or whatever, that guy is obviously forever alone, but it doesn’t make the situation and Dawkins hyperbole of it into something it was not.

          All those scenarios that where brought up, can only be used to explain why RW felt that way in the situation, but can not be inflated with the actual situation.

          If treating women like everyone else, with the exception that i wanna see them naked, makes me a misogynist, so be it.

          1. annata,

            No, in that case, you’re just an idiot, especially if you’re not just using this as some ideological posturing, but actually make the mistake of taking it seriously and applying it in your own life. If you don’t leave the women you know a physical exit when propositioning them, you aren’t going to get any better results than Elevator Guy. If you treat them like they’re being irrational for disliking being propositioned in this way, then you’re going to signal to them that you’re a monumental jerk.

            Now, if it were not for the fact that women are likely to be inconvenienced and threatened by your tactless asshattery, I could wish you to continue your strategy just on the off-chance that stupidity is heritable.

      3. I’d also point out that the Veil of Ignorance, in the real world, won’t protect from consequences. It’s solely an intellectual tool. Besides, intentional ignorance of relevant information is more properly termed “denial”.

  350. Rebecca, I doubt you’ll remember me, but I remember you from your ‘start’ on the old, old Bad Astronomy board maybe 10 or 15 years ago. There were like 12 of us regulars then, lol.

    I just wanted to say I’m behind you. Dawkins is being a dick. (not making fun of his name, it’s from Phil’s talk at last years TAM)

    Also somebody has just brought up the Skepchick calendars and another ‘nude’ pic you posted on the internet in some weird defense of Dawkins. I had to tell them that they were for charity, and there were Skepdude calendars too with PZ, Phil, and James Randi in them too. (I can’t remember if Dawkins ponied up or not)

    I had a long thought out post on Phil’s blog and I thought I’d repost it here since I’m afraid, like everywhere else on this issue, there is a high noise, low signal ratio.

    Here’s my original post from Phil’s verbatim. It was actually quite emotional to write.

    ***
    929. Rift Says:
    July 6th, 2011 at 10:02 am

    I shouldn’t jump into the breach at this late of a date, but I can’t help myself. I’ve watched this chaos evolve from the start, not believing it was the real Dawkins in the first place, being astounded that it was, and I didn’t have that high opinion of Dawkins in the first place. He’s a damn good evolutionary biologist, he’s a lousy human being.

    Others have said this, but I’m going to join the choir. I’m a big guy. I’m six foot two, and 250 lbs. To top it off, I am from a upper middle class, protestant background and have blond hair and blue eyes. If i was rich I would be at the pinnacle of the food chain.

    Yet I can see, quite clearly, that I intimidate people, I can see it in their eyes and body language. Especially people very much smaller than me, which includes most women but also some men. I’ve gotten use to it, it doesn’t bother me, but I know I am always considered a ‘potential rapist/assaulter’. I have therefore become very soft spoken, smile a lot, and not say or do anything that could be misconstrued as inappropriate. I have never hit on a complete stranger, or even someone I’ve known for only a short time. And yes, I have told women “you go on ahead, I’ll wait for the next elevator”.

    In my experience this isn’t a sexist thing. I make men much smaller then me intimidated as well.

    I’ve seen some really dickish posts both here and at PZ’s and at other places. Yes, all muslims are considered ‘potential terrorists’, I’m considered a potential terrorist, we all are or we wouldn’t have to go through security at airports and federal buildings. Stupid analogy.

    When I was in college, I went to a rather large University. There were a lot of kids taking a particular subject and instead of having finals for each class, they’d get them altogether at night in a large auditorium and give the finals to maybe 1000+ kids.

    I loved night finals. I would go to the library early, study hard all day, and then a few hours before the final walk around campus and try to relax. It was a large, beautiful campus and I remember one night of one particular final it was a beautiful night. I walked around whistling, slowly wandering around, getting the kinks out, unwinding, trying to calm down and relax. I would then go into the final and ace it.

    The next day, to my horror, I read in the student newspaper an editorial by a woman that was titled “Get Rid of Night Finals”. I loved night finals and couldn’t understand why anybody would want to get rid of them.

    Then I read the article. She, and other female students, were terrified of going to them. Some women had been raped on their way to night finals.

    An awful, and sobering thought entered my mind and it scared the crap out of me. How many women had I inadvertently scared, creeped out, made uncomfortable and threatened just by my mere presence and size and sex as I just wandered more or less aimlessly around campus without a care in the world, and certainly not a fear in the world.

    As I recall my eyes teared up. Suddenly I didn’t want night finals anymore either. If i made one person that afraid, I wanted to avoid it.

    I’m dismayed at the number of people, both men and women, discounting Rebecca’s uncomfortableness. The men are clueless and the women are setting themselves up to be in some nasty situations.

    Yes, we are ALL potential criminals. In this society this is a unpleasant truth. Those of us who intimidate people, through no fault of our own, should try to reassure those people not belittle them. I smile, I’m very soft spoken in public, I try everything I can not to intimidate people. It isn’t that hard or that much of an inconvenience.

    I feel sorry for Lalla Ward. She’s a much bigger celebrity and goes to much bigger conventions than her husband. She is such a tiny waif of a woman that i have no doubt she has been uncomfortable many, many times. She has no doubt had rape, no matter how far back, on her mind many, many times. And she is married to an insensitive cad.

    Sorry Dawkins supporters and Watson haters. Phil and Rebecca are right on this one. PZ is right but in a backhanded kind of way. Dawkins was being a, and is being a, colossal Dick.

    And reading some of the comments posted by men, here, on PZ’s, and other blogs I am truly ashamed at being male. I cannot apologize enough for the other clueless members of my sex.

    1. Argh… I love night finals too, and I never even thought there might be a need to ban them. I’ve even had women classmates ask me to escort them back and forth to the parking lots from night classes. And I still didn’t get it. Sigh.

      Thank you for telling your story. (Damn rapists.)

  351. Two-step process to improving Dawkins’ image: apologize to miss Watson and at least ‘attempt’ to debate William Lane Craig.

    :-D

    1. I don’t see why the latter would improve Dawkins’ image. William Lane Craig is the Kent Hovind of apologetics. He’s an intellectual bantamweight who has a patter that he’s been repeating for more than twenty years, which he never varies, preferring to ignore what his opponent is saying. He comes off as convincing simply because he’s glib and a showman, not because his ‘arguments’—such as they are—have any merit.

      Let WLC take on anyone in a written debate, where his evasions, fallacies, and base rhetoric is set down in black and white and can be dismantled slowly, over time, and I guarantee you he would demonstrate himself to be the canting, dishonest Gantry type he is.

  352. “And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.”

    Really weird indeed. I have been trying to figure out what end of that range I would be at. Where do your skeptic friends at the SGU fall? Are you just not logical like them? or do they just want to fuck you? perhaps I need to write some expansive blog post defending you before you will count me outside this narrow disgusting stereotype?

    So if a goal of yours is that we, as skeptics and/or atheist, is to welcome and not alienate women from these important movements, then I counter, that as a feminist, if you do not wish offend and alienate skeptic men, you refrain from stereotyping us in such a manor.

    1. Shorter martinfryer:

      BAAAAAW!!!!! BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ!!!!!????!?!?!? *sob*

  353. I don’t expect to agree with everything that anyone says; that, of course, is a ridiculous expectation. There are many people I admire despite my disagreeing with some of their views on certain issues.

    But I have to admit, I am dumbfounded by just how *amazingly* wrong Richard Dawkins is regarding his comments on Rebecca Watson’s elevator encounter. Calling it “not even slightly bad, it was zero bad”… really? Is he not aware of the fact that sexual assaults do occur in elevators, despite there being “conveniently provided” buttons? It was a completely natural (and logical) response for Rebecca to be a little creeped out by the incident… elevator buttons notwithstanding.

    If there is one trait rational and skeptical thinkers should have — a class to which, I still wish to believe, Richard Dawkins belongs — it is an open mind, the ability to weigh evidence, and being able to change one’s opinion upon reflection. And, if necessary, admit when one has been wrong. This is one of the reasons I like being around such people: they haven’t completely closed their minds and can adjust preconceived notions. I can only hope that, given time, Dawkins will rationally think about his comments and admit he missed the mark on this one. Whether he’ll be able to man up to that, or even be able to understand why what he said has caused such an uproar, remains to be seen.

    At least one good thing has come from this incident: being relatively new to the atheist online community, I hadn’t heard of Skepchick before this. Now I’m a fan of both Skepchick and Rebecca Watson.

  354. I am still waiting on an intelligent rationalization why the concept of ‘privilege’ is any different from arguments used by religion.

    It’s meaning as used by the individuals discussing this topic is in-effect ‘you can’t understand because you’re not one of us’. Whether I apply this to feminine woes or ‘the holy spirit’; the usage and presentation of it is identical. It is ultimately the idea that a certain experience brings about a transformation of thought to a level unattainable by outsiders. This is irrational.

    1. Have google scholar? Do your own research on privilege. It’s there, there’s tons of information, and you should at least try to come informed to a conversation.

      1. I’ve been checking out your posts, mostly the sources you’ve supplied, and I have to say that you seem to be very missleading or at least cherry picking.

        http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/
        Nothing in this paper supports your summary, in fact it’s the opposite. What it says is that girls are more likely to given an excuse than to actually say no and that the boys understand what they mean. Simply, rapists hear the no but don’t care. Elevator guy got a now and left it at that.

        http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
        http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/
        “First, the stranger-force rape is a small proportion of rapes, and is all but absent from the samples of self-reporters.”
        You fail to recognize that 6 out of 7 rapes are by an acquaintance and how their ability to get away with it comes from social pressure, indicating that the random man on the street or in the elevator is the one you have to fear the least. Failing to put that 1/7 into the equation quite lessens the likelihood of elevator guy being a threat.

        http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/92/2/425/
        This is a very real problem that needs to be adressed. I’ll agree with that, hands down.

        http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000186.pdf
        “Most victims knew their stalker. Women were significantly more likely to be stalked by an intimate partner—whether that partner was a current spouse, a former spouse or cohabiting partner, or a date. Only 21 percent of stalkers identified by female victims were strangers.”
        Again, stangers pose a significantly smaller risk. Again, here we have the “men” who have severe problems taking a no, which elevator guy didn’t.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886989901098
        Basically states that you can’t use forcefulness to gauge the persons probability of being a rapist. Sure, this can be used as grounds for being suspicious of all men. With the same logic we can justify being suspicious of blacks and hispanics because they are attributed a higher murder rate.

        As for the sexual parts, im willing to believe that. Only makes sense that sex is better with someone who is comfortable to take pleasure for herself as well, making it a mutual goal.

        1. Meant ‘no’, not ‘now’ in the second paragraph and ‘I’m’, not ‘im’ in the second to last.

        2. victorj, you’re missing the point of the “Mythcommunication” post.

          “What it says is that girls are more likely to given an excuse than to actually say no and that the boys understand what they mean.”

          Wrong. The research says that EVERYONE gives an excuse instead of flatly saying NO. That’s the polite social norm for everyone in almost all situations. Only in the special case of dating do many men suddenly stop accepting those responses as legitimate refusals. This forces women to be abrupt and rude just to demonstrate the refusal they have already expressed. It also creates a social climate where actual rapists can claim they just “misunderstood” and have that claim be given undeserved credibility.

          1. “Only in the special case of dating do many men suddenly stop accepting those responses as legitimate refusals.” Could you please be more specific in where it says this, because I certainly can’t find it. I’m particularly interested in the “many” part. I sincerely hope you are not refering to something in the comments.

            Did a word serach of the article just to be sure and it contained no relevant mention of “date”, “dating”, “relation”, “time”, “many”, “majority”.

            You seem to be unable do discern the conclusions of normal male behavior from the one covering rapists.

            Normal behavior:
            “These authors, working a hemisphere and almost a decade apart, reach the same conclusion: that in sex as in normal conversation, people typically use and understand softened and indirect refusals.”

            Rapist behavior:
            “One might read this and conclude that it doesn’t matter how women communicate boundaries, because rapists don’t misunderstand, they choose to ignore.”

          2. Replying to victorj:


            “You seem to be unable do discern the conclusions of normal male behavior from the one covering rapists.”

            Again, you’re misunderstanding the “Miscommunication” post. The conversation analysis research described a pattern in male behavior, with no attempt to determine the sexual assault history of any study participants. The conclusion is that males ARE competent at hearing indirect refusal. Thus, men generally understand a refusal of consent *without* having to hear “no means no”.

            That means the arguments that men simply misunderstood, or that women were unclear or gave mixed signals, are generally WRONG. The argument that unwanted sexual invitations are just part of normal male behavior is WRONG. The argument that men couldn’t be expected to know their advances were unwelcome before “she said no” is WRONG.

            I’m not conflating normal male behavior with rapist behavior; I’m *condemning* that equivalency. Ignoring refusals is not normal and shouldn’t be excused as such.

            Here is the citation I paraphrased:


            “[Y]oung women responding to unwanted sexual pressure are using absolutely normal conversational patterns for refusals: (…) [they are] “communicating in ways which are usually understood to mean refusal in other contexts and it is not the adequacy of their communication that should be questioned, but rather their male partners’ claims not to understand[.]” (…)

            The problem of sexual coercion cannot be fixed by changing the way women talk.”

            -from pages 309-311 of Kitzinger and Frith, Discourse & Society 1999 10:293.

            As to my use of the word “many”: While only a minority of men actually commit rapes (ranging from 1 in 60 to 1 in 20 depending on source and definition), a greater number of men, possibly the majority, espouse the belief that rape and harassment happen because women are unclear in their communication of consent. In fact, this belief is common among ALL people in our culture.

            Citation, from a paper referenced in the “Miscommunication” post:


            “Therefore, as Davis and Lee (1996) have argued, current myths and stereotypes surrounding sexual assault reflect a society which exculpates perpetrators of assault and blames victims for failing to control men’s sexuality, a set of circumstances which Doherty and Anderson (1998: 583) describe as enabling, or
            constituting, a ‘rape-supportive culture’. That western Anglophone societies such as Australia and the UK represent instances of such a culture may perhaps be inferred from the results of polls such as that reported in The Guardian in November 2005, which noted
            that: ‘one in three people believes that women who behave flirtatiously are at least partially responsible if they are raped’ (Fickling, 2005), with a further 22% of respondents to the ICM poll holding women partially or totally responsible for their rape if they had had many previous sexual partners.”

            From O’Byrne, Hansen & Rapley, J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18: 168-193.

            Link to pdf

            I suggest reading the entire paper, since that’s basically the point of the research. A blog summary of it is here:

            http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/talking-past-each-other/

        3. I’ve been busy, so I haven’t had time to really sit down with this. And look what I see when I get back. You cherry picked my data to accuse me of cherry picking.

          Nice one.

          As pteryxx said, either you didn’t read the first set of studies, or you decided to misrepresent it. The point was even male non-rapists, people who did not have any sort of record (for the study–they did not choose to study convicts) refused to recognize refusal strategies, both direct and indirect. As in, guys in the general population of college students refused, in the majority of the study respondents, to listen to the word no.

          Many women are aware of this. The perceived connection or ability to intrude, in the case of many of the male study respondents, dictates their response. This may have no bearing in what we think of as reality. There may be no actual connection, not that it matters whether there was for the person’s behavior to be problematic, between the victim and perpetrator except the connection the perpetrator wishes to see.

          You also, on the set of studies under the title “Meet the Predators” neglected to notice that most of the rapes you’d like to dismiss as ‘friends/relationships so it doesn’t matter’. involved grooming. The rapist decided to do get close to the person for the purpose of testing if they could get away with rape. Amazingly, that behavior looks a lot like what elevator guy was doing. It’s almost…. indistinguishable.

          On the other studies, I listed them because they talk about prevalence, because the criteria for someone being known to the victim is notoriously vague (the victim may report not knowing the perpetrator well or having only interacted with them one or two times, but the perpetrator will often report intimately knowing the victim from their own desire to have a tie to the victim). In the cases where the perpetrator was dating the victim, these incidences are both before and after the break up– insisting that they don’t count because Rebecca didn’t know elevator guy is not relevant the way you’re using it. All there has to be is a perception in his case of connection.

          And, presumably, that is why he’s in the elevator.

          Nice try, though.

          1. I’d say I didn’t so much cherry pick as I divulged data very relevant to your summaries that you did not care to include since it didn’t directly serve your purposes.

            ”As pteryxx said, either you didn’t read the first set of studies, or you decided to misrepresent it. The point was even male non-rapists, people who did not have any sort of record (for the study–they did not choose to study convicts) refused to recognize refusal strategies, both direct and indirect. As in, guys in the general population of college students refused, in the majority of the study respondents, to listen to the word no.”
            This is what both you and pteryxx either can’t grasp or are, ironically enough, misscommunicating. The paper states quite clearly that they DO recognize refusal strategies, it is in the case of trying to explain the actions and behaviors OF THE RAPISTS that they state that THE RAPISTS choose to ignore / are unable to understand the dismissals. Yes, the prevalence of the lie applies shelter for rapist and is a very serious problem. The way you word things though implies that a majority of men are rapist or actively protecting rapists. Just read the piece of text quoted above with objective eyes. They DO heed to the word no, and several other indicators. The problem is that this majority believes that some OTHER guys don’t do this.

            From the conclusion of O’Bryne et al: “However, despite the comprehensive ability that young men demonstrably have to ‘hear’ sexual refusals, which overwhelming include refusals that do not contain the word ‘no’, when the morally troublesome issue of accountability for rape arises, a rather different picture emerges.”

            “Many women are aware of this. The perceived connection or ability to intrude, in the case of many of the male study respondents, dictates their response. This may have no bearing in what we think of as reality. There may be no actual connection, not that it matters whether there was for the person’s behavior to be problematic, between the victim and perpetrator except the connection the perpetrator wishes to see.”
            Why the hell would only the perpetrators view count? Where are you getting this from?

            ”You also, on the set of studies under the title “Meet the Predators” neglected to notice that most of the rapes you’d like to dismiss as ‘friends/relationships so it doesn’t matter’. involved grooming. The rapist decided to do get close to the person for the purpose of testing if they could get away with rape. Amazingly, that behavior looks a lot like what elevator guy was doing. It’s almost…. Indistinguishable.”
            Yeah, that’s how camouflage works. A rapist in that situation would probably try to behave like any other guy with sexual interest up until it was time to strike. If they where that easy to distinguish, it wouldn’t be a problem. If you want it to be relevant you have to isolate it from how any guy could act, regardless how clumsy.

            ”On the other studies, I listed them because they talk about prevalence, because the criteria for someone being known to the victim is notoriously vague (the victim may report not knowing the perpetrator well or having only interacted with them one or two times, but the perpetrator will often report intimately knowing the victim from their own desire to have a tie to the victim). In the cases where the perpetrator was dating the victim, these incidences are both before and after the break up– insisting that they don’t count because Rebecca didn’t know elevator guy is not relevant the way you’re using it. All there has to be is a perception in his case of connection.”
            What have you read that indicates that they would take the rapist’s perception of the relationship instead of the victim’s? Sure, their perception of their relationship most probably differ, that doesn’t really reflect on the validity of the statistics if those doing the research didn’t have the data collection ability of someone in junior high. Again, what makes you assume that all this data is based on the perpetrators perception? Unless you have a source for that, it’s just your assumption and should not be used as an argument.

            Again, your own source (pertaining to stalkers): http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000186.pdf
            “Only 21 percent of stalkers identified by female victims were strangers.”

            ”And, presumably, that is why he’s in the elevator.”
            Most definitly, he was there for sex. Nothing says he would go that far to get it.

            “Nice try, though.”
            Ditto.

          2. Replying to victorj:


            mouthyb: “The rapist decided to do get close to the person for the purpose of testing if they could get away with rape. Amazingly, that behavior looks a lot like what elevator guy was doing. It’s almost…. Indistinguishable.”

            victorj: “Yeah, that’s how camouflage works. A rapist in that situation would probably try to behave like any other guy with sexual interest up until it was time to strike. If they where that easy to distinguish, it wouldn’t be a problem. If you want it to be relevant you have to isolate it from how any guy could act, regardless how clumsy.

            You’ve just claimed that unless rapists can be reliably differentiated from normal guys BEFORE THEY RAPE, you’re going to ignore the stated, reliable information that rapists camouflage their behavior TO AVOID DETECTION BY ACTING LIKE NORMAL GUYS. This, after you just supposedly admitted that providing plausible deniability for rapists is a “very serious problem”.

            I for one don’t need any more evidence of YOUR bad faith.

      2. You (as in most of you in general) continue to use that argument as though I do not understand the concept. I do understand the concept I’m attempting to extract a rationalization from the people using the concept as to how they are operating any differently from religious zealots.

        It appears that the individuals who are taking the position are unable to defend the position they are taking.

        1. An alternate explanation is that it’s a stupid question, and asking it shows that you don’t actually understand the concept of ‘privilege’.

          But, what the hell. Here’s my attempt at describing the differences, using the ‘male privilege checklist’ as a backstop:
          1) It’s describing observable phenomena in the world, not God’s love or transubstantiation
          2) It’s falsifiable, in one of two ways. You could review a privilege checklist and disprove each one of the statements. Or, you can show that ‘privilege’, statistically speaking, does not affect the behavior of the privileged. For example, you could prove that men are no more likely than women to be dismissive of behaviors intended to mitigate sexual assault.
          3) It can be used to make useful predictions. In the mixed-gender environment of an atheist conference, which gender is more likely to perceive that sexual advances or unwanted touching is a problem? Why?

          You may not have gotten a response because you’re posting on a thread referencing a conversation in which Dawkins – provably incorrectly – dismissed the possibility that elevators provide an opportunity for sexual assault. His ‘just press a button’ statement is falsifiable and falsified by a quick google of ‘elevator sexual assault’.

          Why did Dawkins feel free to make this blanket assertion, while knowing nothing about the field? Why do you feel comfortable entering this thread and demanding that other people cater to you, instead of doing the research yourself?

          Put another way: you’re inside a box nested inside a larger box, and questioning the existence of boxes. Are you surprised most people are rolling their eyes and moving on?

  355. Dawkins isn’t downplaying the plight of actual rape and sexual assault victims. He’s sarcastically trivializing the complaints of a (rich white) woman who took an innocuous pick-up line in an elevator for a precursor to sexual assault. The fact that Watson even presents her “concerns” (i.e., being hit on by men and receiving generic though obviously distasteful hate-mail) as even remotely analogous to the horrors of sexual assault is fucking despicable.

    1. raureka:
      “The fact that Watson even presents her “concerns” (i.e., being hit on by men and receiving generic though obviously distasteful hate-mail) as even remotely analogous to the horrors of sexual assault is fucking despicable.”

      Rebecca Watson:
      “You may recall that I related an incident in which I was propositioned, and I said, ‘Guys, don’t do that.’ Really, that’s what I said. I didn’t call for an end to sex. I didn’t accuse the man in my story of rape. I didn’t say all men are monsters. I said, ‘Guys, don’t do that.’”

      Functionally illiterate much, raureka?

      1. From the very article we’re commenting on:

        “So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.”

        The fact that Watson places her “concerns” in the same sphere as rape and sexual assault is utterly absurd. That was Dawkins entire point: i.e., there are a real and genuine problems for women around the world; Watson were hit-on rather innocently (if awkwardly) in an elevator; nothing happened; get over it.

        1. raureka:
          From the very article we’re commenting on:

          “So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.”

          “The fact that Watson places her “concerns” in the same sphere as rape and sexual assault is utterly absurd.”

          She doesn’t. You invented that out of whole cloth. What do you think the phrase “and MORE SO the concerns of other women…” means if she wasn’t trying to affirm that this kind of behavior is *MORE* problematic for women who have been prior victims of rape and sexual assault?

          Again, you’re either functionally illiterate or being deliberately obtuse.

          “That was Dawkins entire point: i.e., there are a real and genuine problems for women around the world;”

          So you and Dawkins get to define what “real and genuine problems” are for women? What makes you the gatekeepers of women’s experience?

          Oh right… male privilege. I had almost forgot.

          All Rebecca Watson was saying, and all she has continued to say, is that this behavior is problematic, and it alienates women who might otherwise be inclined to show up to atheist conferences. She did not assert that this is the very worst thing that ever occurred in the world, she did not suggest banning sex, and she did not call the guy a rapist. All of these overreactions are on the side of the men like yourself, and are highly instructive as to the thought processes going on (or rather *not* going on) in the minds of these privileged male atheist jerkoffs.

          “Watson were hit-on rather innocently (if awkwardly) in an elevator; nothing happened; get over it.”

          Earth to raureka:
          It is the fact that RW was hit on that precisely underscores her point. Again, since you have completely failed to follow the issue, she complained that women are inappropriately sexualized at atheist gatherings, and said that *this* is one of the reasons why women who are atheists choose to steer clear of atheist gatherings. You’re saying, “get over being propositioned”. In effect, you and Dawkins are giving your blessing to the continued pawing and propositioning of women at these events.

          So the issue is: if you want women to come play in your atheist clubhouse, then start treating them like their bodies don’t end at the neck, and that thing balanced on their shoulders has some functional utility, and isn’t just there for ornament.

          It really couldn’t be simpler.

  356. Forgive any duplicative sentiments, but I had to respond when made aware of this discussion, without available time to read the 853 posts before mine.

    I have through my adult life had a much greater ability to sympathize with the perspectives of women involved with or posting on this blog than many other men, not because of my gender, but because I am a very large man. I am usually the tallest guy in the room, and often the biggest guy overall in the room as well.

    Throw in for good measure a booming voice that I have limited control over (whisper and bellow I have down, “inside voice” has been a lifelong struggle). At 18, I combined this with a mohawk, at 20 with long hair, beard, and various death/doom metal t-shirts.

    Oh, and for good measure, now just past 30, I still have the beard, but have traded the other physical accesories for the wardrobe of a lawyer, which can often create other unintentional instances of intimidation.

    I state all of the above to get to this–for many reasons, usually starting with my physical appearance, I instantly intimidate a lot of people–both genders. Not by choice. In fact, by choice, I kind of tiptoe through life a lot of the time (even at a heavy metal concert or in an attempt to settle a matter in advance of litigation) in an effort to wear a demeanor that does not immediately tell men and women alike “I will grind your bones to make my bread.”

    That being said, I am overly sensitive to when I am alone in an elevator with a woman at 11:30pm in a hotel that is hosting a crowded convention, or perhaps a similar situation where a woman might feel that she is alone in a crowded space, and even if she escapes, chaos or other factors around her would stall an effort to escape the position she’s in.

    I am unfamiliar with Mr. Dawkins’ physical measurements, but I’ll take a guess that he wouldn’t have made a good defensive lineman in his youth, at least based on his physical dimensions alone.

    I have been able to consider the woman’s position, because I have often been able to scare off the lone woman in an elevator because I entered it, stood at the opposite end, pressed my button, and did not look in her direction once. And, yes, even while wearing a suit.

    With Mr, Coffee, I think that many women have to start considering the “what ifs” and “maybes” of the situation. Maybe she can fight him off until she gets out of the elevator. Then what? Can she scream in the hallway enough to get a hotel occupant to call downstairs, or 911? If she can, will anyone get there before Mr. Coffee has had his way? Can she get to the stairs? Can she get to the lobby? Is the lobby crowded with convention guests? Does anyone notice her panicking? Is the hotel in New York City (not to bash New Yorkers–my whole family are New Yorkers–so you all know what I’m talking about)?

    This factoring that a woman must perform must be dreadfully uncomfortable, and average guys don’t get it. I get it. I’ve seen a palpable fight-or-flight response–in men and women–a lot, motivated by my physical presence alone. Average-sized men are in a position to be especially oblivious because they don’t get put into positions where they have to consider danger on the same basic level that women often must, and on the other end, their presence doesn’t immediately cause a primal alarm either, as mine often does.

    So take heart ladies–there are quite a few men out there who have a better idea of how you feel than Mr. Dawkins seems to have. I had to laugh when I saw this discussion only because given my life circumstances, I would never dream of putting a woman in the position caused by Mr. Coffee because, well before I reached the age of 18, I was aware that if I asked a strange woman out in an elevator, she was likely to hear “I am going to eat you.” (Incidentally, I did much better with the opposite sex after the rise of match websites, where I could telegraph my size such that I could successfully turn it into a non-issue for otherwise interested and interesting women. Also, I didn’t have to use “fee, fi, fo, fum…” as a pickup line anymore).

  357. To people who don’t get it. (I have said this in other post)

    The reason why you don’t appreciate the argument is because of Dunning–Kruger bias. As you are not educated in this field you fail to appreciate the argument.
    Hence like we tell creationist that they should read a science book before coming with argument, I think it is reasonable to suggest that you should read a book about the subject before getting into argument. What you are doing is exactly what creationist do, making arguments without education.

    Male privilege is like this:
    I’m male so I can sleep in lonely subways at night without worrying, but a women cannot. Which is reasonable fear.
    Solution to this is NOT to tell her to learn Kung-fu, NOT to tell her that she is not dressed properly, NOT AT ALL to tell that she is unreasonable in her feeling.
    Solution is to arrive at such a position in society that women doesn’t feel that way w/o learning any kung-fu and wearing anything.

    Feminism benefits men too. If a ‘husband’ cannot work and unable to contribute then there is heavy social pressure and called a looser. And

  358. Whenever I’m in an isolated and potentially dangerous setting, and I meet a stranger that I want to have sex, I have the decency to be more subtle. I might say, for instance, “I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel to play Mega Men 3, and see my pet sugar glider, Dr. Pajamas?” However, It turns out that is also a terrible idea.
    Keep up the good work Rebecca!

  359. Ladies, you’re allowed to feel fearful if you’re alone in a confined place and a guy asks you if you want to have some coffee in the middle of the night. Go for it. No one has a monopoly on emotions. But really, coffee? Clearly he’s trying to bed her /s but coffee is certainly not a bright idea if one is trying to make a sexual advance.

    But you cross the line when you blame the guy for making her scared. All he did was ask her to join him for coffee. As for all the facts that we have, that’s all we can base judgement upon. We don’t know what vibes Rebecca may have let out, and furthermore, we all know how incredible guys are at reading body language /s.

    Quite frankly, the conversations I’m reading here would apply even had the guy not said anything. Had the guy gone into that elevator and said nothing he was striking fear in Rebecca’s heart anyways. Are we honestly going to deny that Rebecca was not going to be scared had the guy said nothing? Seriously, it was 4am. But again, none of that is the guy’s fault. This is Rebecca’s problem.

    As for what Dawkin’s was saying, he was thinking logically. As a guy himself, he has little to fear for being raped by a woman, but women do have that fear. Dawkin’s point was that, statistically, the woman, of Rebecca’s status and geographical location, in the elevator alone with a guy has nothing to fear, but, on the other hand, Muslim woman do have a lot to fear. If a Muslim woman were raped in the elevator, unlike a privileged white woman in the West, she can do absolutely nothing about it after the fact without jeopardizing her safety even more. Dawkins point about simply exiting the elevator is based on the premise that men should not be assumed to be rapists. He was saying that Rebecca, if she felt fearful of the guy, and we know she was going to be fearful even had the guy said nothing, could have simply exited the elevator prior to the door closing or pressed a closer floor.

    It is not the guy’s responsibility to think that going in an elevator with someone and/or asking them to join them for coffee is going to scare her. This wasn’t just a random encounter, he was familiar with her. This is the case with celebrities, they get pestered all the time by fans… Rebecca should know by now that her public presentation, and her naughty book-advertising photos are going to invite some personally unwanted attention, in this case it just happened to be a guy.

    Again, women you are allowed to feel scared, but by doing so you are actually being sexist towards men. You are assuming men are rapists if they get in an elevator with you at 4am (what the guy said doesn’t dismiss the reality that Rebecca was scared anyways). By assuming a man is a rapist, and then blaming the guy for making the girl feel scared because she had those sexist feelings towards men, then you are, infact, a misandrist.

    As a guy, I would be scared to get in the elevator with a women in the middle of the night becaus she could unjustly accuse me of raping her. We always read about false accusations made against men regarding sexual offenses, so I reserve the right to be fearful of the woman. But that is definitely not the woman’s fault, and I’m being sexist by thinking that of the woman.

    That’s just how it is, but I honestly don’t see how Dawkins or the guy in the elevator can face any blame for what they said. Dawkins is just acknowleding the reality that Western woman should not be fearful of men. If you are fearful of men, then you’re a misandrist.

    1. c0mputar:
      “Ladies, you’re allowed to feel fearful if you’re alone in a confined place and a guy asks you if you want to have some coffee in the middle of the night.”

      Woo hoo! Thank you, pseudonymous guy on the internet! It’s so nice to have such authoritative voices of male privilege to define for the ladies what they’re allowed to do and not allowed to do. We seriously owe you a debt, otherwise women might be forced to come to their own conclusions about what is inappropriate and appropriate interaction at four in the morning, and boy do we know how unreliable *THEIR* conclusions are, eh?!

      “No one has a monopoly on emotions.”

      Translated from mansplaining to English: “This is only your emotional reaction. Toughen up and get over it, girlie.”

      “But really, coffee? Clearly he’s trying to bed her /s but coffee is certainly not a bright idea if one is trying to make a sexual advance.”

      And then in the next paragraph….

      “But you cross the line when you blame the guy for making her scared. All he did was ask her to join him for coffee.”

      Obviously you have already conceded that there was a subtext to the offer, so why go back to claiming that it’s just about a little cup of coffee now?

      Furthermore, nobody has *blamed* Elevator Guy for making RW fearful. Literally no one. I read this whole thread last night.

      Many people might say that EG ought to have respected RW’s stated wish to be left alone to go to bed and not be propositioned, and that he was a monumentally insensitive clod is pretty much a given, but nobody has assumed any actual ill-intent on the part of EG.

      All Rebecca Watson did was to relate the story and then explain that this sort of combined dismissal of her stated intentions and autonomy and the potential threat posed by a guy propositioning her in a confined space at 4 a.m. is exactly why it’s difficult for women to *want* to come to atheist conferences, where pawing and propositioning is as much on the table for women as the ostensible topic.

      Because of that, a whole bunch of dipshits like you who fancy themselves to be Elevator Guy’s White Knight and who regard this harmless statement as nothing less than the martyrdom of a fundamentally well-meaning guy whose poor hurt fee-fees and untrammeled ‘right’ to proposition a woman 24/7 are more important than any woman’s right to feel safe and secure in her person.

      “As for all the facts that we have, that’s all we can base judgement upon. We don’t know what vibes Rebecca may have let out….”

      Unbe-fucking-lievable. You’re really going there with “the bitch was asking for it”.

      Let me tell you that we know exactly the vibes that Rebecca was putting out because she told us. She has related that she had just been talking about how she hates being propositioned at these events. She had said she was tired and going to sleep. Neither of these statements can be read, even fancifully, as “Hey, guys, this is your chance! Invite me to a booty call! Especially you, guy in the corner who didn’t talk to me all night but just sat there while I was in the bar.”

      “Quite frankly, the conversations I’m reading here would apply even had the guy not said anything. Had the guy gone into that elevator and said nothing he was striking fear in Rebecca’s heart anyways. Are we honestly going to deny that Rebecca was not going to be scared had the guy said nothing? Seriously, it was 4am. But again, none of that is the guy’s fault. This is Rebecca’s problem.”

      Actually, if he had said nothing, or even said “Good night” or “I liked your presentation”, I don’t think we’d even be having this conversation because we wouldn’t know about it.

      And smooth move displacing the responsibility for fear onto the woman, declaring that it is her “problem”—as if there is no rational, easily demonstrable reason why a woman might have something to fear from a man in an elevator at 4 a.m.

      You’re really a one-stop shop of misogynistic assumptions.

      “As for what Dawkin’s was saying, he was thinking logically.”

      And Watson, by inversion, was thinking ‘illogically’. Riiiiight.

      “As a guy himself, he has little to fear for being raped by a woman, but women do have that fear. Dawkin’s point was that, statistically, the woman, of Rebecca’s status and geographical location, in the elevator alone with a guy has nothing to fear,”

      Awesome! So although 1 in 6 women in the U.S. will be the victim of sexual assault in their lifetimes, you have declared that they have “nothing to fear”, because… because… well, you don’t actually *give* a reason why we should disregard these shockingly high statistics, but you do assert it, so we should all follow your lead.

      “but, on the other hand, Muslim woman do have a lot to fear. If a Muslim woman were raped in the elevator, unlike a privileged white woman in the West, she can do absolutely nothing about it after the fact without jeopardizing her safety even more.”

      Awesome! So rape isn’t so bad after all, because women can report it later (even if rape is the most under-reported violent crime in the U.S., but we’ve already established that facts don’t matter to you).

      “Dawkins point about simply exiting the elevator is based on the premise that men should not be assumed to be rapists. He was saying that Rebecca, if she felt fearful of the guy, and we know she was going to be fearful even had the guy said nothing,”

      We DO?

      “could have simply exited the elevator prior to the door closing or pressed a closer floor.”

      Right, because if he *were* a rapist, this would really flummox him. No rapist has ever gotten out of an elevator and followed his victim.

      With all your marvelous insight into women and the threats posed by rapists, you should become a self-defense instructor.

      I can’t stand to deal with this misogynistic trash anymore. Go call your proctologist this instant and see if he can’t find your head so that you can use it in your next post here.

      1. “Woo hoo! Thank you, pseudonymous guy on the internet! It’s so nice to have such authoritative voices of male privilege to define for the ladies what they’re allowed to do and not allowed to do. We seriously owe you a debt, otherwise women might be forced to come to their own conclusions about what is inappropriate and appropriate interaction at four in the morning, and boy do we know how unreliable *THEIR* conclusions are, eh?!”

        – Trying to figure out the purpose of this response. I’m just making a point that women can be scared, but it’s not the guy’s fault. I’m going against the idea that has been put forth in this thread that because the women is scared, it is the guy’s fault. Now do you understand?

        “Translated from mansplaining to English: “This is only your emotional reaction. Toughen up and get over it, girlie.””

        – Putting words in my mouth. That’s not what I meant at all. Refer to my first point in this post. I’m trying to make the point that women can feel whatever way they want, even if it’s not rationally justified. It still doesn’t make it the guy’s fault.

        ““But really, coffee? Clearly he’s trying to bed her /s but coffee is certainly not a bright idea if one is trying to make a sexual advance.”
        And then in the next paragraph….
        “But you cross the line when you blame the guy for making her scared. All he did was ask her to join him for coffee.”
        Obviously you have already conceded that there was a subtext to the offer, so why go back to claiming that it’s just about a little cup of coffee now?”

        – Can you understand sarcasm? That’s what /s means.

        “Furthermore, nobody has *blamed* Elevator Guy for making RW fearful. Literally no one. I read this whole thread last night.
        Many people might say that EG ought to have respected RW’s stated wish to be left alone to go to bed and not be propositioned, and that he was a monumentally insensitive clod is pretty much a given, but nobody has assumed any actual ill-intent on the part of EG.
        All Rebecca Watson did was to relate the story and then explain that this sort of combined dismissal of her stated intentions and autonomy and the potential threat posed by a guy propositioning her in a confined space at 4 a.m. is exactly why it’s difficult for women to *want* to come to atheist conferences, where pawing and propositioning is as much on the table for women as the ostensible topic.”

        – Firstly, Rebecca did. Secondly, we don’t know what EG heard prior to the elevator, and announcing that you’re heading to bed is not synonomous with saying that you do not want to be bothered. I’ve announced that I was leaving a party/heading to bed all the time, doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to talk to me as I’m leaving. Thirdly, there is no such thing as potential threat. Potential threat exists everywhere.

        “Because of that, a whole bunch of dipshits like you who fancy themselves to be Elevator Guy’s White Knight and who regard this harmless statement as nothing less than the martyrdom of a fundamentally well-meaning guy whose poor hurt fee-fees and untrammeled ‘right’ to proposition a woman 24/7 are more important than any woman’s right to feel safe and secure in her person.”

        – Getting all riled up… I touch a soft spot didn’t I? Attacking people just illustrates the weakness of your argument. But to your point, we have no idea if he insidiously waited around and then followed her into the elevator. For all the evidence provided by Rebecca, they simply got on the same elevator… I see no reason why someone is not allowed to talk. While Rebecca only said it was creepy, her supporters have remarked that his actions marked him as a potential rapist. Simply laughable.

        “Unbe-fucking-lievable. You’re really going there with “the bitch was asking for it”.”

        – So skepticism in her story is not allowed on a skeptics website? I see no testimony from the guy to back up his side. Seriously, you are going to attack me for expressing skepticism on a skeptic website? Golden.

        “Let me tell you that we know exactly the vibes that Rebecca was putting out because she told us. She has related that she had just been talking about how she hates being propositioned at these events. She had said she was tired and going to sleep. Neither of these statements can be read, even fancifully, as “Hey, guys, this is your chance! Invite me to a booty call! Especially you, guy in the corner who didn’t talk to me all night but just sat there while I was in the bar.””

        – Back to an old point that I already went over… How can she know the guy knew of her intentions… He may have no been present when she left? And what in his comments indicate that he was trying to bed her? A billion reasons but you assume the only storyline that paints the guy in the worst possible light, ofcourse.

        “Actually, if he had said nothing, or even said “Good night” or “I liked your presentation”, I don’t think we’d even be having this conversation because we wouldn’t know about it.”

        – The point is that women would feel scared in that situation had he said nothing. So already the guy in the elevator is fighting an uphill battle. We wouldn’t have this conversation if the genders were reversed either. I take false rape allegations seriously, but would I call a women creepy if she asked me to join her for some coffee? That’s a joke. Women want special treatment, not equality, from the looks of this. They want men to respect that women are going to be fearful of men in certain situations, but that is the antithesis to equality, especially when it would be laughable to most in this thread for women to respect that men are going to be fearful of women in certain situations.

        “And smooth move displacing the responsibility for fear onto the woman, declaring that it is her “problem”—as if there is no rational, easily demonstrable reason why a woman might have something to fear from a man in an elevator at 4 a.m.”

        – You can’t seem to distinguish between the preconcieved sexist attitude of a women in the elevator suspecting ill of a man who makes an innocuous gesture, and the idea that the man should be responsible for making that woman fearful. I’m saying that women can feel whatever they want, it’s not the guy’s fault. Again, you miss my point, which is unfortunate because your response would have been far shorter had you not misunderstood me.

        “You’re really a one-stop shop of misogynistic assumptions.”

        – Define misogynist please. Saying it’s a woman’s problem for being sexist towards men is not misogynist.

        “And Watson, by inversion, was thinking ‘illogically’. Riiiiight.”

        – If you read the next line you’ll see that’s not what I was saying at all. In the next line you’ll see that I do not dismiss Rebecca’s position, but Dawkins’ stance is also correct in that her position may not be justified because of the statisically unlikelihood.
        “As a guy himself, he has little to fear for being raped by a woman, but women do have that fear. Dawkin’s point was that, statistically, the woman, of Rebecca’s status and geographical location, in the elevator alone with a guy has nothing to fear,”

        “Awesome! So although 1 in 6 women in the U.S. will be the victim of sexual assault in their lifetimes, you have declared that they have “nothing to fear”, because… because… well, you don’t actually *give* a reason why we should disregard these shockingly high statistics, but you do assert it, so we should all follow your lead.””

        – 1 in 6 is a number thrown around by feminists but is not used by anyone else because it was found in a completely dishonest manner. 1 in 6 figure was found unscientifically and is a gross overestimation because the number does not represent ONLY sexual assault as defined as a rape. It includes things like maybe when a chick and guy are grinding in a bar and the guy grabs her ass. Furthermore, feminists have a demonstrably poor understanding of statistics as illustrated by other figures like the wage gap.

        “Awesome! So rape isn’t so bad after all, because women can report it later (even if rape is the most under-reported violent crime in the U.S., but we’ve already established that facts don’t matter to you).”

        – Do I have to spell it out? Women are more likely to be raped in the Middle East and they have a pathetic amount of rights to protect them which further fails to discourage rapists from acting. I never said rape isn’t so bad, once again, you go off on these tangents putting words in mouth, childish.

        “Dawkins point about simply exiting the elevator is based on the premise that men should not be assumed to be rapists. He was saying that Rebecca, if she felt fearful of the guy, and we know she was going to be fearful even had the guy said nothing,”
        We DO?

        – Really? You’re going to fence this wildly? I can completely understand why a woman would be scared if it was 4am and she was in an elevator with 1 other guy. The thing I’m saying is that her emotions cannot be blamed on the guy. That is her concern. The guy cannot be expected to stay out of the elevator or remain silent because he has to suspect that she regards him as a potential threat to her safety. That’s her own problem.

        “Right, because if he *were* a rapist, this would really flummox him. No rapist has ever gotten out of an elevator and followed his victim.”

        – So you think it is correct for women to assume that the man is a rapist and that any attempt at escape is useless? You are completely overstepping even the potential aspect of someone being a rapist, you are flat out saying that in hindsight, if he was a rapist, then her suspicion would be justified. Well, what I’m saying is that you can feel the way you want, but it’s not the guy’s fault she feels that way, and it most certainly a tragedy that a man cannot speak to a woman in the elevator without scaring her shitless.

        “With all your marvelous insight into women and the threats posed by rapists, you should become a self-defense instructor.”

        – Well, with this attitude, Rebecca was doomed the moment she went into the elevator and thus anything we discuss after that moment is useless.

        “I can’t stand to deal with this misogynistic trash anymore. Go call your proctologist this instant and see if he can’t find your head so that you can use it in your next post here.”

        – I don’t see where I’ve made any woman hating comments. Seems like feminists throw that word at men just as often as the word creep, just as often as men call women sluts. Ironic how feminists get all high and mighty with respect to men abusing the slut word but throw the creep and misogynist word around just as loosely.

        1. But it’s not elevator-guy’s fault that women are disproportionately wary in enclosed spaces with strange men. It’s not Rebecca’s fault either. It’s because of a pervasive pattern of sexualized threat in our society; one that is measurably, demonstrably more of a threat to women than to men. Pretending it doesn’t exist won’t help to solve it.

        2. c0mputar:
          “Trying to figure out the purpose of this response.”

          The purpose of the response was to lampoon your attitude of patriarchal privilege by using your *first sentence* to tell the “Ladies” what they are “allowed” to feel.

          “Putting words in my mouth. That’s not what I meant at all. Refer to my first point in this post. I’m trying to make the point that women can feel whatever way they want, even if it’s not rationally justified.”

          LOL! Yes, I’m sure the “ladies” are so appreciative of your understanding approach to their irrational concerns. The poor dears can’t help being irrational, after all—their brains are just ‘wired’ to be unreasonable, and therefore we need never concern ourselves about issues women care about.

          “Can you understand sarcasm? That’s what /s means.”

          I see. So you think that inviting a woman to one’s hotel room then and there at 4 a.m. for coffee, when she’s just left a bar that SERVES COFFEE, has no ulterior meaning at all.

          Let me guess: you’d also be the person telling the little kid “Don’t be a pussy. This guy looks legit.”

          http://demotivate.me/media/demotivational-posters-dont-be-a-pussy

          “Firstly, Rebecca did.”

          You’re a liar. Albeit that is a status typical of MRAs, but nevertheless not a tactic that’s going to meet with wild success here.

          All Rebecca did was say that this situation was highly uncomfortable for her, and that the guys of the atheist movement should try to not act like Elevator Guy if they want women in their movement, which is what she was invited there to talk about.

          “Secondly, we don’t know what EG heard prior to the elevator,”

          Yes we do, because HE WAS THERE IN THE BAR.

          Don’t turn your own ignorance into a plural when it’s only you that are completely clueless.

          “and announcing that you’re heading to bed is not synonomous with saying that you do not want to be bothered.”

          Not syntactically synonymous, but it’s functionally synonymous.

          “I’ve announced that I was leaving a party/heading to bed all the time, doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to talk to me as I’m leaving.”

          How many of them corner you in an elevator and proposition you for sex after you’ve said that you were heading to bed?

          “Thirdly, there is no such thing as potential threat. Potential threat exists everywhere.”

          One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.

          Congratulations on having contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.

          “Getting all riled up… I touch a soft spot didn’t I?”

          Your head?

          “Attacking people just illustrates the weakness of your argument.”

          I don’t have an argument to make; I’m just critiquing yours, so attacking you is merely an incidental pleasure.

          “But to your point, we have no idea if he insidiously waited around and then followed her into the elevator.”

          Again, he was at the bar for hours while Rebecca was there talking. He never spoke to her there, but instead waited to corner her in an elevator before propositioning her. All these facts have already come out and your ignorance of them is not an argument.

          “I see no reason why someone is not allowed to talk. While Rebecca only said it was creepy, her supporters have remarked that his actions marked him as a potential rapist. Simply laughable.”

          So it’s physically impossible for Elevator Guy to rape anybody? Gee, that’s news to me. If he is capable of committing a rape, then what’s the problem with calling him a potential rapist? The risk of violence is what RW had to assess, and he marked himself as more than ordinarily risky by choosing to disregard her stated intention of going to bed, her explicit statements that she wasn’t interested in a hook-up, and then using the opportunity afforded by her going to the elevator, he chose that time to proposition her. When men ignore women’s boundaries, that is a signal that they might also ignore it when a woman says “no”.

          “So skepticism in her story is not allowed on a skeptics website?”

          Hypothesizing unevidenced ‘signals’ from Rebecca that would override her overt statements that she was going to bed and she was not interested in hooking up is not skepticism, but grasping at straws, and I’m going to call you on it.

          If you wish to interpret that as your kind of pseudo-skepticism not being welcome here, then that’s fine by me. Feel free to fuck off.

          “I see no testimony from the guy to back up his side.”

          Baaaaaaw!!!!! What about TEH MENZ!!!!!?!????!

          “And what in his comments indicate that he was trying to bed her?”

          An invitation to his hotel room at 4 a.m.

          “A billion reasons but you assume the only storyline that paints the guy in the worst possible light, ofcourse.”

          I assume nothing. I conclude, based on the evidence available to me, that he was looking for a hookup and asked in a way that was dismissive of both her stated intent and her desire to keep herself safe.

          “The point is that women would feel scared in that situation had he said nothing. So already the guy in the elevator is fighting an uphill battle.”

          Oh, poor Elevator Guy! My heart bleeds for the wrong done to him! It’s so… so… well, it’s not wounding, because what a woman may think of a man in an elevator doesn’t actually do him any real injury, but it’s just… so… that’s it! IT’S SO UNFAIR!!!!!!111!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!11ONE

          “Women want special treatment, not equality, from the looks of this.”

          Really? I must have missed the news about the epidemic of women inappropriately making passes at men in elevators in the middle of the night. I must have missed the news about 1 in 6 men being the victim of rape.

          “They want men to respect that women are going to be fearful of men in certain situations, but that is the antithesis to equality, especially when it would be laughable to most in this thread for women to respect that men are going to be fearful of women in certain situations.”

          ROTFL!!! Oh dear. I seriously did burst into laughter at this. Women are more afraid of men then men are afraid of women, but changing the conditions so that women need not fear men is not equality (confronting rape culture is, after all, one of the main points of feminism), but rather insisting that women give up their fear of men without changing the conditions in which that fear is warranted *is* equality.

          Talk about twisting logic into a pretzel.

          “You can’t seem to distinguish between the preconcieved sexist attitude of a women in the elevator suspecting ill of a man who makes an innocuous gesture, and the idea that the man should be responsible for making that woman fearful.”

          Actually, I can distinguish between them. The former situation doesn’t exist except in your imagination. In reality, the man waited until RW left the bar and was alone in the elevator with him to make a proposition with barely disguised double-meaning. Seriously, going up to one’s room for a coffee is something that I have understood as a metaphor for a sexual proposition since I was eight years old, displacing the previously proverbial “Would you like to come to my room and look at my etchings?”

          “Again, you miss my point, which is unfortunate because your response would have been far shorter had you not misunderstood me.”

          Actually, my response can still be short: you’re loathsome.

          “If you read the next line you’ll see that’s not what I was saying at all.”

          You’ve done nothing *but* dismiss the legitimacy of Rebecca’s concerns over a man who chooses a time when she’s trapped in an elevator to proposition her.

          “1 in 6 is a number thrown around by feminists but is not used by anyone else because it was found in a completely dishonest manner. 1 in 6 figure was found unscientifically and is a gross overestimation because the number does not represent ONLY sexual assault as defined as a rape. It includes things like maybe when a chick and guy are grinding in a bar and the guy grabs her ass.”

          You’re a liar, as custador has already demonstrated.

          “Furthermore, feminists have a demonstrably poor understanding of statistics as illustrated by other figures like the wage gap.”

          LOL! Yes, math is too hard for teh wimminz!

          Why don’t you demonstrate your superior statistical skillz for us? I’m sure it would be an education.

          “Really? You’re going to fence this wildly?”

          You mean I’m going to question your ability to read Rebecca Watson’s mind?

          Yes, I am. Consider it part of that skepticism you’ve heard so much about. I would like a demonstration of your psi ability.

          “So you think it is correct for women to assume that the man is a rapist and that any attempt at escape is useless?”

          No, I think it is correct for women to assess the threat a man might pose for them—a threat assessment that you do not have the right to second-guess and demand that women justify to your own satisfaction—and to act according to their own best judgment.

          “Well, what I’m saying is that you can feel the way you want, but it’s not the guy’s fault she feels that way, and it most certainly a tragedy that a man cannot speak to a woman in the elevator without scaring her shitless.”

          Then maybe you and your fellow MRAs should work on confronting the rape culture that makes women justifiably hesitant when a man who hasn’t spoken to them all night, though he’s been near at hand in the bar, suddenly decides to take it on himself to follow a woman to the elevator and proposition her at 4 a.m. Because right now, given those circumstances, not only am I not sure that I wouldn’t think “rapist”, I’m *still* not sure even with hindsight that the guy wasn’t a rapist. Rapists don’t attack every woman they make overtures to. Some women who shut a rapist down firmly and forcefully are often regarded as “too much trouble” for the man, especially if the man is one of those who doesn’t use a weapon but rather acts by threats and coercion.

          If “Nice Guys” stop behaving like creeps, then only the creeps will be behaving in that way, and it will be that much easier to distinguish between the behavior of a wouldn’t-harm-a-fly Nice Guy and a rapist.

        3. [reposting because I think my post got stuck in the queue because of a URL. It’s not relevant to the discussion, so I’m reposting without it and anyone looking can feel free to just delete the one that’s in the spam-catcher.]

          c0mputar:
          “Trying to figure out the purpose of this response.”

          The purpose of the response was to lampoon your attitude of patriarchal privilege by using your *first sentence* to tell the “Ladies” what they are “allowed” to feel.

          “Putting words in my mouth. That’s not what I meant at all. Refer to my first point in this post. I’m trying to make the point that women can feel whatever way they want, even if it’s not rationally justified.”

          LOL! Yes, I’m sure the “ladies” are so appreciative of your understanding approach to their irrational concerns. The poor dears can’t help being irrational, after all—their brains are just ‘wired’ to be unreasonable, and therefore we need never concern ourselves about issues women care about.

          “Can you understand sarcasm? That’s what /s means.”

          I see. So you think that inviting a woman to one’s hotel room then and there at 4 a.m. for coffee, when she’s just left a bar that SERVES COFFEE, has no ulterior meaning at all.

          “Firstly, Rebecca did.”

          You’re a liar. Albeit that is a status typical of MRAs, but nevertheless not a tactic that’s going to meet with wild success here.

          All Rebecca did was say that this situation was highly uncomfortable for her, and that the guys of the atheist movement should try to not act like Elevator Guy if they want women in their movement, which is what she was invited there to talk about.

          “Secondly, we don’t know what EG heard prior to the elevator,”

          Yes we do, because HE WAS THERE IN THE BAR.

          Don’t turn your own ignorance into a plural when it’s only you that are completely clueless.

          “and announcing that you’re heading to bed is not synonomous with saying that you do not want to be bothered.”

          Not syntactically synonymous, but it’s functionally synonymous.

          “I’ve announced that I was leaving a party/heading to bed all the time, doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to talk to me as I’m leaving.”

          How many of them corner you in an elevator and proposition you for sex after you’ve said that you were heading to bed?

          “Thirdly, there is no such thing as potential threat. Potential threat exists everywhere.”

          One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.

          Congratulations on having contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.

          “Getting all riled up… I touch a soft spot didn’t I?”

          Your head?

          “Attacking people just illustrates the weakness of your argument.”

          I don’t have an argument to make; I’m just critiquing yours, so attacking you is merely an incidental pleasure.

          “But to your point, we have no idea if he insidiously waited around and then followed her into the elevator.”

          Again, he was at the bar for hours while Rebecca was there talking. He never spoke to her there, but instead waited to corner her in an elevator before propositioning her. All these facts have already come out and your ignorance of them is not an argument.

          “I see no reason why someone is not allowed to talk. While Rebecca only said it was creepy, her supporters have remarked that his actions marked him as a potential rapist. Simply laughable.”

          So it’s physically impossible for Elevator Guy to rape anybody? Gee, that’s news to me. If he is capable of committing a rape, then what’s the problem with calling him a potential rapist? The risk of violence is what RW had to assess, and he marked himself as more than ordinarily risky by choosing to disregard her stated intention of going to bed, her explicit statements that she wasn’t interested in a hook-up, and then using the opportunity afforded by her going to the elevator, he chose that time to proposition her. When men ignore women’s boundaries, that is a signal that they might also ignore it when a woman says “no”.

          “So skepticism in her story is not allowed on a skeptics website?”

          Hypothesizing unevidenced ‘signals’ from Rebecca that would override her overt statements that she was going to bed and she was not interested in hooking up is not skepticism, but grasping at straws, and I’m going to call you on it.

          If you wish to interpret that as your kind of pseudo-skepticism not being welcome here, then that’s fine by me. Feel free to fuck off.

          “I see no testimony from the guy to back up his side.”

          Baaaaaaw!!!!! What about TEH MENZ!!!!!?!????!

          “And what in his comments indicate that he was trying to bed her?”

          An invitation to his hotel room at 4 a.m.

          “A billion reasons but you assume the only storyline that paints the guy in the worst possible light, ofcourse.”

          I assume nothing. I conclude, based on the evidence available to me, that he was looking for a hookup and asked in a way that was dismissive of both her stated intent and her desire to keep herself safe.

          “The point is that women would feel scared in that situation had he said nothing. So already the guy in the elevator is fighting an uphill battle.”

          Oh, poor Elevator Guy! My heart bleeds for the wrong done to him! It’s so… so… well, it’s not wounding, because what a woman may think of a man in an elevator doesn’t actually do him any real injury, but it’s just… so… that’s it! IT’S SO UNFAIR!!!!!!111!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!11ONE

          “Women want special treatment, not equality, from the looks of this.”

          Really? I must have missed the news about the epidemic of women inappropriately making passes at men in elevators in the middle of the night. I must have missed the news about 1 in 6 men being the victim of rape.

          “They want men to respect that women are going to be fearful of men in certain situations, but that is the antithesis to equality, especially when it would be laughable to most in this thread for women to respect that men are going to be fearful of women in certain situations.”

          ROTFL!!! Oh dear. I seriously did burst into laughter at this. Women are more afraid of men then men are afraid of women, but changing the conditions so that women need not fear men is not equality (confronting rape culture is, after all, one of the main points of feminism), but rather insisting that women give up their fear of men without changing the conditions in which that fear is warranted *is* equality.

          Talk about twisting logic into a pretzel.

          “You can’t seem to distinguish between the preconcieved sexist attitude of a women in the elevator suspecting ill of a man who makes an innocuous gesture, and the idea that the man should be responsible for making that woman fearful.”

          Actually, I can distinguish between them. The former situation doesn’t exist except in your imagination. In reality, the man waited until RW left the bar and was alone in the elevator with him to make a proposition with barely disguised double-meaning. Seriously, going up to one’s room for a coffee is something that I have understood as a metaphor for a sexual proposition since I was eight years old, displacing the previously proverbial “Would you like to come to my room and look at my etchings?”

          “Again, you miss my point, which is unfortunate because your response would have been far shorter had you not misunderstood me.”

          Actually, my response can still be short: you’re loathsome.

          “If you read the next line you’ll see that’s not what I was saying at all.”

          You’ve done nothing *but* dismiss the legitimacy of Rebecca’s concerns over a man who chooses a time when she’s trapped in an elevator to proposition her.

          “1 in 6 is a number thrown around by feminists but is not used by anyone else because it was found in a completely dishonest manner. 1 in 6 figure was found unscientifically and is a gross overestimation because the number does not represent ONLY sexual assault as defined as a rape. It includes things like maybe when a chick and guy are grinding in a bar and the guy grabs her ass.”

          You’re a liar, as custador has already demonstrated.

          “Furthermore, feminists have a demonstrably poor understanding of statistics as illustrated by other figures like the wage gap.”

          LOL! Yes, math is too hard for teh wimminz!

          Why don’t you demonstrate your superior statistical skillz for us? I’m sure it would be an education.

          “Really? You’re going to fence this wildly?”

          You mean I’m going to question your ability to read Rebecca Watson’s mind?

          Yes, I am. Consider it part of that skepticism you’ve heard so much about. I would like a demonstration of your psi ability.

          “So you think it is correct for women to assume that the man is a rapist and that any attempt at escape is useless?”

          No, I think it is correct for women to assess the threat a man might pose for them—a threat assessment that you do not have the right to second-guess and demand that women justify to your own satisfaction—and to act according to their own best judgment.

          “Well, what I’m saying is that you can feel the way you want, but it’s not the guy’s fault she feels that way, and it most certainly a tragedy that a man cannot speak to a woman in the elevator without scaring her shitless.”

          Then maybe you and your fellow MRAs should work on confronting the rape culture that makes women justifiably hesitant when a man who hasn’t spoken to them all night, though he’s been near at hand in the bar, suddenly decides to take it on himself to follow a woman to the elevator and proposition her at 4 a.m. Because right now, given those circumstances, not only am I not sure that I wouldn’t think “rapist”, I’m *still* not sure even with hindsight that the guy wasn’t a rapist. Rapists don’t attack every woman they make overtures to. Some women who shut a rapist down firmly and forcefully are often regarded as “too much trouble” for the man, especially if the man is one of those who doesn’t use a weapon but rather acts by threats and coercion.

          If “Nice Guys” stop behaving like creeps, then only the creeps will be behaving in that way, and it will be that much easier to distinguish between the behavior of a wouldn’t-harm-a-fly Nice Guy and a rapist.

  360. Blimey. I had no idea.

    Rebecca, you’re awesome — keep up the good work.

  361. I wanted to let you know that something good has come out of this whole mess. Ursa, one of the regulars at unreasonablefaith.com started a forum thread about it, and I’m in 100% agreement with him: As a middle-class white guy, reading comments by other middle-class white guys who are so, so clueless, I suddenly understood my own privilege a whole lot better. Really. It’s clicked in a way it never has before, and I’ve always regarded myself as fairly progressive. And I’m TOTALLY feeling the frustration of arguing with people who insist that elevator guy didn’t do anything wrong.

    As I said on the UF forum thread, my other half (who is a former Women’s Officer for Oxford University Union and a staunch feminist) made a great point which I shared there. I’ll quote myself:

    “My other half has made an interesting point: Those of the opinion that (other than crap timing) the guy did nothing wrong are seeing it very firmly from the perspective of guys who aren’t sexual predators; they’re identifying with Elevator Guy because in reality he probably didn’t intend any offence or harm by his actions, and would probably have been shocked that a woman could regard him as a possible threat. However. The other side to that is: 1 in 6 women in the Western world get raped. I would argue that any woman whose alarm bells don’t start ringing in that situation (where a stranger follows her from a bar into an empty elevator at 4AM and bluntly proposes sex) is either a Kung Fu master, packing heat, or has a seriously under-developed sense of danger.”

    Keep it up, dude. You’ve changed the perspective of at least two privileged middle-class white guys :-)

    1. custador, thank you for linking that. It’s so good to see people like you guys actually do understand, after all this mess.

      1. Honestly, I feel like I should be thanking Rebecca for being the catalyst of this whole debate – It’s been a total epiphany for me, to the point where I’ve had to look at some of my own attitudes and behaviours and have a word with myself.

        1. Definitely, we owe Rebecca bigtime. This all started because Rebecca actually said something about this small, ironic, elevator incident that just happens to demonstrate exactly what she talks about on a regular basis. By and large, women KNOW the world is going to explode if they speak out. It happens over and over and over again. That’s why most women never do point this shit out; and who can blame them?

          But that’s also why some few DO, and they deserve all the support we can give. SOMEONE has to say it. SOMEONE has to be first and call the lightning down.

          (I like to point this webcomic out when the topic comes up: http://www.goblinscomic.com/12232006/ )

    2. Really, the 1 in 6 figure? Why does that mythical figure persist when it has been debunked so many times?

      If people actually believe the 1 in 6 figure then it is no wonder they are scared… Too bad they can’t take off their feminist goggles and realize that the 1 in 6 figure is completely fabricated.

        1. Congratulations. A study that includes the question:
          “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?”

          So all women who later regret having sex after a night where they were intoxicated means they were sexually assaulted. That’s how bogus those figures are. They are intellectually dishonest.

          1. Lolwhut?! The evidence strongly indicates that you’re wrong, therefore the evidence is erroneous? Um, no.

            Oh, FYI: I live in Britain, where (as well as in other European countries), the law considers having sex with a person who is too intoxicated to consent to be rape. Not a great success rate for prosecutions, it must be said, but at least the law exists.

      1. I can’t help wondering if you’ll reply to that given that it contains actual, you know, evidence.

      2. Quoting my own comment from Jen McCreight’s blog:


        According to “Meet the Predators” which references men self-reporting their rape attempts, a sample of about 1900 male college students contained 120 who announced 438 attempted or completed rapes. Let’s say those rapes happened to the comparably sized female student population, and for the sake of argument, that any given woman was ‘only’ assaulted once. What would 438 rapes and sexual assaults among 2000 or so women work out to?

        22% of women.

        You still think rape statistics are padded?

        Source: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

        Men. Self-reporting. 22%.

        1. I get the distinct impression that c0mputar is going to ignore any actual evidence that he can’t argue against, and continue to announce his erroneous opinion as if it were fact. It’s a bit like debating theists, come to think of it.

          1. I agree. Denial-based arguments seem to work in very similar ways, no matter what the topic happens to be.

        2. Congratulations. You can distribute a figure taken when guys were asked whether or not they had sex with an intoxicated woman.

          1. And the fact that you don’t consider it rape when a man sets out to make a woman intoxicated for the purposes of getting her to have sex with him, tells me all I need to know about you.

          2. custador,

            c0mputar is also a “men’s rights activist”, so that too can tell you all you need to know about him.

            For the “greatest hits” of MRAs on the web, I recommend the blog manboobz.com.

        3. “Let’s say those rapes happened to the comparably sized female student population, and for the sake of argument, that any given woman was ‘only’ assaulted once. What would 438 rapes and sexual assaults among 2000 or so women work out to? ”

          The assumption that each attempt was on a different woman is also an assumption that each woman is equally desirable as any other woman and that each woman has similar social routine.

          In other words it assumes a ‘hot’ woman who spends every night at the club partying will have just as few attempts made at her as an ‘ugly’ girl who never rarely leaves her room.

          1. Should be “never or rarely”.

            Also I’m curious if the men weren’t also intoxicated at these times. Mutual rape?

          2. And you’re assuming that rapes are disproportionately directed at attractive women (they’re not), that women who are more social are more at risk (they’re not) and that men are more likely to rape when THEY are drunk (they’re not.) You’re coming very close to victim-blaming with this particular subset of assumptions. I suggest you study the literature more carefully.

            Also, are you seriously suggesting that 438 rapes among ~2000 women are LESS of a concern if it means some of those women were raped multiple times?

            The point was, the stats I cite support the validity of the 1 in 6 figure. If anything, they suggest under-reporting.

  362. We atheists all owe Richard Dawkins far to much of a debt to be so quick to write him off. As a reformed (hopefully completely reformed) sexist pig myself, a person who could so easily have been elevator guy in my younger, less evolved days, I know that attitudes can change. Empathy can be developed. We need “rich white heterosexual men” on our side precisely because they have privelege and influence. To stop reading Richard Dawkins, and recommending his books would be a great loss. His has been a seminal influence, and anybody who doesn’t see that is cutting off our collective nose to spite a man who is well worth educating.

  363. Blogger Tami has written a very good piece specifically on why Dawkins’s dismissal matters. This is why it’s an example of privileged behavior, and not just a “feud”.


    “What does is matter to this man what Richard Dawkins says about feminism. Dawkins is an expert in science and an atheist activist. THAT is what people should pay attention to. His views on women are not important.

    Except they are. They are important to women.”

    http://www.whattamisaid.com/2011/07/on-privilege-to-ignore-isms.html

  364. Thank you for a great post and I’m very sorry to hear about your elevator experience.

    It saddens me to read about Dawkin’s ignorance but I’m glad that I now know where he stands in relation to feminism, and well women in general it would seem. Just as you mention, he is already a thing of the past.

    I’m also very glad that PZ Myers text led me to Skepchick – a place I have not visited before but definitely will do from here on.

    Thanks again!

  365. Actually there are other good resources, specifically on the concept of privilege, discourse, and being taken seriously, which I forgot to mention above.

    The Terrible Bargain

    Privilege-Denying Dude

    —-
    Minority: Hey, we’d like rights!
    Majority: Here you go!
    Minority: My, that was pleasant!

  366. As a skeptic, an atheist and a friend of feminist cause, I have trouble understanding what happened.

    You said “Guy, don’t do that”, because that’s creepy and inappropriate.
    PZ Myers interpreted M. Elevator’s behaviour as sexist.
    Then Dawkins made a comment about PZ Myer’s bill, pointing that there was nothing sexist is this story, and that there was no harm.
    And now you’re calling Dawkins a “wealthy old heterosexual white man”.

    All that is so pathetic.

    Yes, you were right. The proposition was creepy and inappropriate. Thanks for the reminder.
    No, the proposition had nothing sexist. Myers has been an idiot.
    No, Dawkins did not tell you should “be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified”. He just noted (in a way that could have been much better) Myers was wrong. He actually wasn’t talking about what you said of this story, but what Myers said about it. You were not aimed.
    No, Dawkins does not deserve to be called like this. You obviously misinterpreted a few things and you are now overreacting.

    You should talk to Dawkins. I’m pretty sure you’ll find out you both agree about all that. Because all you’ve done until now (I mean you, Myers and Dawkins) is posting bills and comments and misinterpreting each others words and getting mad for nothing.

    Please, bring the peace back in the Skeptic Empire :)

    1. This is one of the many failings of public dialogue via the internet. Everyone is on the different page, and very few actually follow the dialogue as it unfolded.

      Looking back on the events it is hard to judge what actually happened because of all the external judgments and observations that have been made… many of them as baseless as the ensuing dialogue.

  367. Okay. I have a couple of questions. I’m sorry if these have already been addressed, but I don’t really want to plough through another 900 posts to find out. My questions are:

    1) Why did Dawkins feel the need to comment at all? Unless he was elevator guy, what business did he have sticking his oar in?

    2) Even if he disagreed with Rebecca’s point, why in the name of sanity did he feel the need to immediately go to scathing insults about it? He’s an intelligent guy (okay, he’s blind to his own privilege, but he’s not stupid), so why could he not have voiced his dissent like a mature adult?

    Answers on a postcard, please!

      1. Thanks pteryxx, that was one of the posts I read before the thread over at UF really blew up. I really am puzzled by Dawkins behaviour on this one.

  368. I hope people can be honest enough to see that Richard Dawkins’ style of rhetoric is the RULE and not the exception in atheist circles. Sarcasm and ridicule is the standard; why are you only speaking up now?

    Look, you are 100% right in raising this issue. But it is a women’s issue, for atheists and non-atheists (skeptics and non-skeptics, more accurately). *Most* women skeptics and women atheists have alienated themselves from the majority of women by taking part in the sarcasm and ridicule towards religious people. To make a real difference, we should agree that being dismissive, cruel, and sarcastic is wrong, too, and we should eliminate it from our discourse. Then, we should move together, skeptics and non-skeptics, and confront the very real issue of sexism.

    1. Sarcasm and ridicule are powerful weapons which should be used with more care than they are, but I don’t think that we should remove them from our arsenal because of this mis-use by Dawkins. Actually, I’d argue that his use of them here was a complete back-fire anyway, because (certainly in my eyes) the only person he’s made to look ridiculous is himself.

      1. Respectfully, I disagree that sarcasm and ridicule should be used at all if one is honestly trying to enlighten someone else. When a person has a legitimate point, but delivers it with sarcasm and ridicule, he/she guarantees that the truth of his statement will be lost on his object of ridicule. I 100% disbelieve ANY claim that a mature adult abandoned his/her position because sarcasm or ridicule illuminated their consciousness to see how absurd they had been. Sarcasm and ridicule are not devices used by people who are honestly trying to teach someone else. That is why I am skeptical that Dawkins has ever WANTED to reach out to people who don’t already agree with him.

        1. Oh well, if we’re talking intent: I agree that alienating a person with sarcasm and ridicule is a good way to ensure they never try to see your way of thinking, but on the other hand if you’re working for the benefit of an audience then a good verbal beat-down works wonders, particularly if you’re fairly confident your target is never going to be enlightened anyway.

          In this case, therefore, I would tend to agree that Dawkins’ intention is likely to have been to offend.

  369. Oh boy… I was that guy. Not your guy, not on the elevator, but that was me. The woman I propositioned didn’t call me ‘creepy,’ but a good friend did, and she added a few more choice names as well, and it wasn’t until then that I understood. As I was reading your post, I was thinking, ‘Oh boy, I’ve heard this before.’

    That lecture from my friend many years ago was all I needed to hear. I’m not that guy any more, and I’m sorry I ever was.

  370. As a woman skeptic I can’t say I completely support Rebecca.

    First we are asked to respect her feelings. Everyone has a right to her feelings and not have them dismissed. Yet her panel started out dismissing the feelings of Paula Kirby when she offered her opinion that she had not had issues with sexism as an “invalid argument”. I really don’t think Paula was arguing. If a person wants their feelings accepted without argument, they need to do the same.

    I also think Rebecca’s youtube comments are misguided and would tend to make any male defensive. If Rebecca said “Creepy guy, don’t hit on women in elevators. It made me uncomfortable” that would have been one thing. Instead she chose to apply one person’s behavior with a wide brush and make it a PSA to all men.

    It was really unnecessary, and dare I say gender stereotyping. It assumed all men are potential creeps, or morons that need to be lessoned. It takes male listeners who have done no wrong and would be our allies and makes them the target of derision. I’m trying to see how that could possibly be productive.

    Just one woman’s opinion on the matter.

    1. ” Yet her panel started out dismissing the feelings of Paula Kirby”

      Well that’s a convenient lie. My panel started out by acknowledging that Kirby experienced something different than what I’ve experienced. I said that my experience will not be the same as everyone’s, and that’s why it’s important to not generalize.

      1. This is what you said (just slightly paraphrased, I’m not a transcriber):

        “I took issue with something that was said by Paul Kirby (whose work I enjoy, etc) She made a comment that she FELT that there was no problem with sexism in the atheist community because she has never experienced any sexism in the atheist community. In the Skeptical movement we call that an argument from ignorance and in the feminist argument we call that an argument from privilege. I’m happy she hasn’t experienced sexism, but I don’t think that is a proper judgement to decide if there is a problem with sexism in atheism.”

        While you later soften this with “her experience is not my experience” later, you are obviously making a argument and providing a counter to her FEELINGS.

        We are told by many posters here, should simply be respected and accepted. Arguments of fallacy and evidence don’t come into count when a woman is just expressing her feelings. One may share her own feelings, yes. I don’t take issue with that. I take issue that you make her words as some sort of thesis to be defended with the evidence of your experiences. Why are one woman’s feelings and judgements to just be accepted and one woman’s it is then OK to be countered?

        I take serious issue being called a liar. We may interpret what you said vs what you meant in different ways, but I have presented a respectful and logical argument on my point of view. You certainly do not have to agree, but name calling does not increase my opinion of this situation.

        1. I didn’t call you a liar. I pointed out that the thing you said was a lie. Which, it was. I acknowledged her experience and then offered evidence as to why she was wrong to assume that her experience is everyone’s experience. Where exactly was I wrong?

  371. Dear Ms. Watson,

    Allow me to speak for Christian males, of which I suppose there are very few here.

    First, that fellow who approached you in the elevator was a boor. Guys really should know not to do that.

    Second, no threat of rape is acceptable. Ever.

    Thirdly, I do get it, how uncomfortable the whole hook-up vibe can be for single women (or even married women) in public gatherings. It would be better for you if that did not happen, and in a proper world, it wouldn’t.

    All that said, please consider that what you’re really saying is that perhaps the sexual revolution was not such a good idea, after all.

    You see, men are WIRED to hit on you. It’s not that they’re all bad people; men are action-oriented by nature, and males’ sexual instincts are triggered by sight. It’s how the species survives. They see a good-looking female, they want her, they go get her. This is not some evil impulse, it’s instinctive. We are PHYSICALLY PROGRAMMED to do this.

    So, how do we learn to control it? In a culture where hooking up is completely permissible, even expected, there really is no brake on the male impulses besides the law. If you go into a roomful of single men and you’re attractive to them, you WILL be approached. You can count on it. Nature makes sure of that.

    You could pass laws now making it illegal for men to approach women, or you could do as you did in your article, suggest that men should let women make the moves. The problem with that is twofold: men never learn to master their impulses, and the social structure, rather than reflecting how we’re made, reflects the opposite. The solution you offer in the modern world results in men being forced to pretend they’re not men. You want man who really ARE men, but have learned to master their impulses.

    What protected women from this in the past was a social structure that demanded that if men were going to exercise that part of their nature, they had to pay a price for it. The price was called “marriage.” It guaranteed that the male would complete the exercise of fulfilling his male nature by protecting the woman and the children, providing for them, and instructing future generations. This, also, is how the species survives.

    The price was high. It made the male think twice about how he fulfilled his nature.

    That social structure was a good idea. It protected women, while leaving men as men. Demolishing it did not liberate women, it made them objects and victims, far worse than they had been before. And trying to solve the victimization without rebuilding that social structure emasculates men.

    What feminists in the 60s and 70s did not realize was that the negatives of female social status were not so much the result of male dominance, but much more of males violating the existing social norms. It was NEVER socially acceptable for a male boss to demand sex of a subordinate, for example. Feminism did not need to demolish the social structure; it needed to more effectively punish men who violated it.

    Religious men are not perfect; reformation is always a work in progress. But I’m reasonably confident that if it were a religious conference you were attending, you would not have been approached by a boor in an elevator at 4 AM. And while the religious world has its angry head cases, few of them would have sent you the email you posted here.

    Your discomfort is the inevitable result of the sexual revolution. It cannot be relieved without undoing it. Undo it, and you can have both safety and males who act like males.

    1. I’m sorry, but speaking as a heterosexual male, I’m actually quite offended by that! Your argument seems to be, in a nutshell:

      “Men find women sexy and can’t possibly be expected to control their urges.”

      Please, tell me if I’m misreading that – Because, speaking for myself, I see women who I’m sexually attracted to most days, and I don’t assault them, intimidate them or hit on them. Do I have some kind of super power because I can over-rule the lizard part of my hind-brain?


    2. philwynk:

      “if men were going to exercise that part of their nature, they had to pay a price for it. The price was called “marriage.” (…)

      The price was high. It made the male think twice about how he fulfilled his nature.”

      …Oh FFS how sexist is this. Sheesh.

      Look, people CAN love each other and pledge to spend the rest of their lives together AS EQUALS. Regardless of who is which gender. Even when one of them happens to be a man! (Or two, or none, natch.)

      Oh, also, many women like sex too and think about sexy men a lot. Just FYI.

      1. Pfi and pshaw! Everybody knows that women are naturally at home in the kitchen wearing a twin-set and pearls, with a neat little pinny for when they’re baking cakes for their husbands. And by gosh, they feel privileged to have his pipe and slippers waiting for him when he gets home from work, and while he waits for her to cook him a delicious, nutritious meal!

        /sarcasm

        Honestly, did reading this guy’s post make you feel like it was 1955 again?

    3. I think the feminist movement did spawn problems, but the problem is NOT unrestrained male sexuality per se. The problem is unrestrained sexuality of both genders, not just men.

      The feminist movement decided that gender equality meant women emulating the sexual behavior of men in that era; that is having casual sex, objectifying the other sex, having numerous partners, etc etc. (maybe they had no choice, but still). Now many women think that being liberated means acting sexually like a 1960’s man. Just watch ANY T.V. show or movie, and you see the strong women often proposition men at bars, crassly talk about a man’s ass, or indeed, instigate sex in elevators. While it might be justifiable frightening to some women, the idea of accepting impromptu sex from a stranger is a sign of liberation to other women. I can understand how men might be confused.

      1. Maybe you shouldn’t be basing your assumptions about women’s behavior, much less their motivations, on TV shows and movies. I suggest reading the Cracked article I linked above, and look up the concept “Bechdel test”.

        1. Is my own experience as a woman legitimate, pteruxx, or no? How about my experiencing being the only female in a profession of all men? I actually DO know what I am talking about here.

          Women do face uncertainty when it comes to sexuality, and that is a reality. No one wants to be sexually repressed, but do women have to have casual sex, have lots of partners, in order to not be? Instantly you will say “Of course not”, but think about the individual woman. The reality is (and just take my word on this if you don’t believe me), if a woman does not want to have casual sex, *many* (not all) men AND WOMEN label her as prude, indoctrinated, and oppressed. IS that fair? NO.

          The point is I think sexuality should be private, and reserved rather than aggressive and constantly in-your-face. From both men and women.

          1. Hmm. No, I agree that your experience is as legitimate as anyone else’s, and you’re correct that it’s problematic for women’s sexuality to be labeled as “prudish” and “repressed” if they aren’t emulating the most problematic behaviors of men. However, I disagree that the labeling itself should be accorded legitimacy. Television and movie examples of women acting “just as bad as men” aren’t helping establish any sort of equality; they’re only reinforcing the narrative of sexual harassment that already existed.

            My view is that public sexual expression probably wouldn’t be a problem except for the transgressing of boundaries and ignoring the concept of consent. However, I’m a very sex-positive individual so I’m willing to concede that most people might be comfortable with a lot less sex in their background noise than I am.

    4. “But I’m reasonably confident that if it were a religious conference you were attending, you would not have been approached by a boor in an elevator at 4 AM.”

      … because sexual harassment never happens among religious people, does it?

      “Your discomfort is the inevitable result of the sexual revolution. It cannot be relieved without undoing it.”

      The roman catholic church blames the sixties revolution as reason for child abuse by priests

      sorry dude, we may have our issues with feminism but religion remains bullshit

  372. Rebecca,

    Right you are in noting, “Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.”

    In “The God Delusion” (pp. 301-302) he simply shrugs off the issue, “the Taliban of Afghanistan, whose list of cruelties, especially to women, I find too painful to recount.”—full stop.

    It may be of interest to note that Dawkins claims that rape is only arbitrarily immoral, Sam Harris claims that rape played a beneficial role in human evolution, Dan Barker claims that rape is not absolutely immoral, and on it goes. These and more references and quotes are found here:
    http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheism-bible-rape-and-evilbiblecom-part-6-6

    1. mariano,

      Even as one of Rebecca’s supporters in this dispute and with no particular brief for Dawkins, I’d be very wary of trusting an anti-choice, creationist site for a clear picture of what Dawkins believes about… practically anything.

  373. There was no deception in anything I said. I quoted your words, did I not? You can argue my analysis, but that is not a lie, nor do I have a mission to be misleading.

    Perhaps I am not being clear, so i will step back a bit.

    The argument by many feminists is that women’s feelings are sacred. They should be heard, and heard without argument or challenge. To challenge them is misogynistic and privileged response to keep women’s objections quiet.

    Example: Posters have wondered about the man’s motivations in the elevator. Some responses have been It doesn’t matter what his intentions were. You felt violated and ‘creeped out’ and these feelings are valid. Feelings trump any factfinding or argument. They are your feelings and you have the right to them.

    Did Kirby really say “I place fact there is no sexism in the community?” Because in the panel you say that is what she *feels*. It was a feeling she had based on her experience, just liekt your feelings are based on elevator dude. As feminists, are we not just supposed to accept feelings of other women?

    You may have intended to share your experiences and not rebuff hers, but that is not the language I transcribed with talk of arguments and judgments of privilege. Your language was about trying to prove her feelings wrong (you just said so in your previous comment). Instead of saying “I do hear what you are saying, can I show you some emails some cretins send me?” You, in my perception try to invalidate her claims.

    So back to my point:

    Is it really “privileged” and misogynistic to question a women’s feeling based on experiences? Even if she has incomplete facts or may misinterpret a speaker’s intent? Why is it any more wrong for posters to ask “maybe the guy was just being nice” then you to counter another women’s feelings on sexism?

    1. moonowl:
      “Example: Posters have wondered about the man’s motivations in the elevator. Some responses have been It doesn’t matter what his intentions were. You felt violated and ‘creeped out’ and these feelings are valid. Feelings trump any factfinding or argument. They are your feelings and you have the right to them.”

      LMAO!

      This is a perfect example of what everyone has been talking about.

      Factfinding? By determining (I don’t know how—how many rapists would answer “yes” to the question “Do you want to rape me?”) the man’s feelings about the matter, we’re engaging in “factfinding” because men’s feelings are matters of fact, but women’s feelings of threat and sexualization are mere emotional impulses.

      Sexism: you’re soaking in it.

    2. @moonowl:

      “Example: Posters have wondered about the man’s motivations in the elevator. Some responses have been It doesn’t matter what his intentions were. You felt violated and ‘creeped out’ and these feelings are valid. Feelings trump any factfinding or argument. They are your feelings and you have the right to them.”

      It’s not really a matter of “A trumps B”. This is kind of an apples & oranges situation. Sometimes, a person (man or woman: most feminists I know are not as biased against men as you seem to think) has subjective feelings. Happy. Sad. Angry. Annoyed. Creeped out. Now, if someone feels one of these emotions, they feel it. It doesn’t mean that their feelings are based on complete or accurate information, and it doesn’t mean that they will draw accurate conclusions based on their feelings. But if someone feels something, they feel it, for reasons that are their own. The point you are missing here is that to judge the validity of someone’s feelings (man or woman, again) is kind of a condescending dick move. And when that judgment is consistently leveled at women more often than at men, it’s sexist.

      On the other hand, there are statements regarding objective facts about the world around us: the sky is blue. The train is late. 2 + 2 is 4.

      Now, if someone tries to make a claim about objective reality, and uses their feelings as evidence, that is a logical fallacy, and it should be pointed out. Hence the example you cite with Kirby.

      On the other hand, if someone expresses a feeling without using it as the basis for objective statements (e.g., “that dude creeps me out,”, so what? No factual claims are made here. Rebecca didn’t say Dude in Elevator was a rapist. She didn’t say he was necessarily a real threat to her. She said he made her feel uncomfortable. And he did. There’s no way to argue against that without just flat-out calling her a liar, which doesn’t seem reasonable.

      The notion that BECAUSE she felt creepy, Dude was obviously a horrible rapist is a straw man. No one’s arguing that. Only that he made her feel creeped out and that it would likely behoove us all to avoid such actions in the future, lest we make others feel similarly creeped out.

      See, the distinction here is not about whether someone actually uses the word “feel” or “feelings”. It’s about whether someone is simply stating what they feel, or using what they feel for the basis of an argument about objective fact. So your analogy is invalid.

      And seriously, dude, are semantic games the best argument you have here? Weak sauce, man. Weak.

  374. poster called “Punchdrunk” has told me there is an argument being made by the feminists in favour of sexism against men. Specifically an argument against the standard moral axiom that it is immoral to profile a birth group — ie treat people badly based solely upon how they were born. She claimed my argument had been addressed often here but I cannot see anywhere where it is.

    1. Maybe I can try one:

      Elevator Guy *wasn’t* treated badly.

      He was turned down for sex or—if you’re one of the Pollyannas who believe that an invitation to take coffee in a man’s hotel room at 4 a.m. is entirely innocent of any subtext—he was turned down for coffee.

      In either case, Elevator Guy was not victimized. He does not have a right to Rebecca Watson’s or any other woman’s company, either as a coffee drinker or a sexual partner.

      If you think that a woman saying “no” to a man for *ANY* reason is an unwarranted injury, then you are part of the problem.

  375. I see a lot of feminists _advocating_ sexism against men all over the thread (ie saying women should think of men as being rapists potentially, treat them negatively as a result etc), but I don’t see any feminist arguing that this position is moral. As I say the default position is that it is immoral to profile / discriminate against a birth group and that what feminists advocate is sexism. Advocating for an immoral position is NOT the same as justifying it.

  376. Well women do definitely get the short end of the stick in many areas of society. Even a lot women have been taught that women aren’t as capable. In the last two days I’ve heard from women that President Obama “Complains like a woman” and that hillary lost because she was “Catty”. And from men, yeah, I’ve heard a laundry list of things like this.

    So yes women DO face discrimination in pretty much every community or profession.

    In regards to this issue, does a man have a right to introduce himself to women for the object of dating/sex? Well the answer is in my mind is if it’s polite and respectful, she hasn’t said she doesn’t want it, the context is appropriate (i.e. casual social outing, grocery store, etc. NOT at work, not in a setting where it’s demeaning), and he accepts no for an answer the first time, then yeah, he does.

    And as far as ‘men’s rights’, in general society, men definitely get the better treatment. But there’s a few areas where it’s valid, generally.
    – Father’s rights. Many times courts do strip rights of perfectly responsible and capable fathers.
    – Perception of men in professions that are supposed to be female in society’s eyes. Men who are stay-at-home dads, nurses, school teachers, hair dressers, etc are often perceived as deadbeats, pedos, or wimps. Not cool.
    – Men’s issues. Generally there is a perception that men need to be strong and take everything on themselves, and I don’t think there’s great support networks for men in these situations which ultimately leads to higher suicide rates in men. There could be more visible support networks for guys on hard times.

    But other than these few areas, men definitely have the better treatment, and I don’t think Dawnkin’s response was really appropriate. But then again, I find his way of going about most things needlessly crass, so I’m not so surprised to hear him say this. In most circles, guys like Dawkins would be called ‘Assholes’.

    1. You are assuming the man wanted sex. He explicitly said he did not. So basically are you saying men should never talk to women for ANY reason or motivation except they conform to your laundry list of criteria?

      1. Well, asking for to go to a hotel room @4am is a not a smooth move. I don’t think it was as horrible as it’s been painted, but it was kinda contrary to what she had been speaking about.

        As to my criteria, let me rephrase in vernacular
        – Don’t be dick when introducing yourself
        – Don’t go up to some chick who’s proclaimed she doesn’t want to be hit on and hit on her
        – Don’t hit on women in situations that are blatantly NOT supposed to have romantic/sexual talks and don’t use sexual talk to demean their positions. When women are speaking professionally, don’t interject some sexual comment about her in their speech, it’s rude!
        – And if she says no, she doesn’t want to go out, don’t pursue anything but platonic relationships with her in the future. Plenty of fish in the sea!

        Basically respect. That’s not too hard to do is it?

      2. @davidbyron:

        “You are assuming the man wanted sex. He explicitly said he did not. So basically are you saying men should never talk to women for ANY reason or motivation except they conform to your laundry list of criteria?”

        This again?

        OK, if you personally believe that inviting an attractive stranger to be alone with you in your room in the middle of the night has no sexual connotations, you are in the vast majority of humans. Congrats. I would advice you to learn a bit about normal human interaction before attempting any further socialization, lest someone misinterpret something you accidentally say.

        But let’s just say that no sex was intended, or even hoped for. The fact remains that inviting a stranger to come back to your private room in the middle of the night is really weird and inappropriate. People (maybe not you, but most people) need a certain degree of familiarity before hanging out alone with someone in private. Not recognizing this is a bit of a social FAIL.

        Notice Rebecca did not object to a man speaking to her in an elevator. She did not post a video about a guy who complemented her on her shoes in the elevator, or a guy who politely said he was a longtime fan and looked forward to future work, or a guy who made some small talk about a common interest (“So…how ’bout that homeopathy, huh? Bullshit, am I right?”).

        No, she saved her comments for a dude who asked a stranger to go be alone with him in his hotel room. That wasn’t an accident.

        If these things were not clear to you earlier, don’t feel bad. This can be a learning experience. Or, y’know, you can get defensive and miss the point again, which benefits no one. Your call.

        1. I am just going to interject briefly and say that as a male nurse I’ve never felt anything but respected by my colleagues, and in fact have benefited from positive discrimination for being male (because male nurses are still rare so we’re very employable). In fact, male nurses are far more likely to enjoy career success (in Britain, anyway) in terms of promotion to management positions. I don’t disagree that there are some areas where men are discriminated against, but in terms of female dominated professions, my experience is that it’s something of a straw-man.

          1. Heya custador, good morning.

            There’s actually some research showing that when men work in female-dominated fields, they tend to be fast-tracked into positions of power, such as male teachers being pushed up into management when they would prefer to work directly with students. It’s sometimes nicknamed the “glass escalator”.

            So men in “women’s work” can be subjected to negative and positive stereotypes at the same time. It’s ridiculous!

          2. This is why I love acute and emergency medicine. Nobody cares who you are or what you are as long as you can do your job. I’ve never yet had somebody in resus who’s cared who was pumping on their chest. We’re very meritocratic in that respect :-p

          3. Well, women get a much rawer deal across for sure then men in female dominated professions. Admittedly, I’m in a male dominated profession, so can’t say too much.

            One thing I will say is that in my industry (computer games) women seem to be moving towards being half the workforce, so that’s positive. Despite the inequities they experience, they’re definitely making a big mark here.

            Also, and my whole comment on this issue to the guys is that it’s much easier to get laid/find companionship if you give respect and not do creepy/asshole things (like ask for coffee alone @ 4am). When women feel comfortable and respected, that’s when chemistry flows.

      3. DavidByron, you have already admitted upthread that you were fully aware that the man was asking for sex through the euphemism of “coffee”. Now you AGAIN say the opposite.

        You are a pathetical liar and you have also repeatedly twisted everything people have said about female “fear of rape” and you disgust me.

        You have embarrassed and insulted every man on this thread by opening your mouth, and you should hang your head in shame and apologise.

    2. Commenting further on what docdocprof said:


      “And as far as ‘men’s rights’, in general society, men definitely get the better treatment. But there’s a few areas where it’s valid, generally.
      – Father’s rights. Many times courts do strip rights of perfectly responsible and capable fathers.
      – Perception of men in professions that are supposed to be female in society’s eyes. Men who are stay-at-home dads, nurses, school teachers, hair dressers, etc are often perceived as deadbeats, pedos, or wimps. Not cool.
      – Men’s issues. Generally there is a perception that men need to be strong and take everything on themselves, and I don’t think there’s great support networks for men in these situations which ultimately leads to higher suicide rates in men.”

      All this is very true. Given the current discussion, I think it’s worth mentioning that while 1 in 6 or so women have been raped, about 1 in 30 men have been also; depending on the source, there may be as many or more male victims of rape than there are male *rapists*. But most rape survivor resources, shelters and such serve only women.

      All these examples derive from a presumption that men can’t do female-coded things such as teaching or parenting, or at least that there must be something fundamentally wrong with them if they try. Just as women supposedly can’t do male-coded things such as science or leadership.

      There’s a name for this phenomenon in progressive circles; “binarism”, often phrased as “sexism hurts men too” or “Civil rights is not a zero-sum game.” Basically the core problem with a sexist culture is that it divides all people into two (rather arbitrary) boxes labeled “Men” and “Women”. ANYONE whose lives don’t match up with these boxes, in either direction, tend to get smacked down. (It gets complicated quickly for “quiltbag” persons.)

      That’s why blaming a box labeled “women” for the inequalities of sexism doesn’t work, whether or not men disproportionately benefit or suffer from any particular manifestation of it. Personally I don’t think blaming “men” for sexism makes any sense either. It’s something that happens across the entire society, and we’re all stuck in it together.

      1. Can any feminist ever open her mouth without calling men rapists? it appears not. Rape, rape rap rape men rape, men are all rapists, men are rapists, rape, rape, potential rapists. End of “argument”.

        Oddly enough (because of the vast number of men locked up in the US sexist justice system where rape is perceived as a punishment) most rapes in the US are of men, not women. Even outside of jail male victims account for something like one in three rapes.

        Rape, rape rape rape rape.
        men are all rapists and that’s all they are (actual quote of popular feminist author btw)

  377. My husband has long been involved in the “sceptical community” which as a real research scientist naturally horrified me as soon as I understood what it was.

    However, now he has told me that you are standing up for women’s rights and against Richard Dawkins? In order to generate cheap publicity to sell his books, he cynically and irresponsibly said the most bigoted and offensive things about religious groups he could come up with. This disgusting abuse of his Cambridge position for profit alienated vast swathes of the public from biosciences.

    Your opposition to Dawkin’s ignorant bigotry makes me find your sceptic’s claim to represent my profession to the public marginally less objectionable.

    1. Married- I think you’ll find it remarkable how some “skeptics” have also doggedly supported Dawkins here. (To be fair, not many, but a number). How anyone could claim to be a “skeptic” and blindly support Dawkins on his comments shows the presence of a number of “situational skeptics”.

  378. Ironically, Rebecca might not have felt so uncomfortably sexualized if Elevator Guy had applied techniques from ‘The Art of Picking Up Women’, or ‘The Game’.

    1. Yep, there’s nothing like a guide to how to use psychological insight to be insincerely nonthreatening to get a lot of casual sex with the female meatpuppets out there. I’d recommend a vasectomy first, though, since the religious right are almost finished closing off women’s options for birth control, and the child support could become onerous.

  379. I just wanted to voice a few quick thoughts here (after starting what has proven to be a rather long thread on SGU):

    1. Rebecca was entirely justified in being creeped out by Elevator Guy.

    2. Dawkins was out of line in his venom directed at Rebecca.

    3. Plait’s comment about women being uncomfortable with a man on an elevator (anytime, but particularly late at night) seemed like nonsense to me, at first.

    4. I queried many women about it (online/in-person), and it turns out I was wrong. The majority readily stated that they experience at least an unease with being alone on an elevator with a strange man.

    5. I don’t intend to NOT board an elevator if I’m about to get on with a woman in the future, but it’s very helpful to know that she might be uneasy, and I’ll hopefully avoid any conduct that would make her more so.

    6. I really regret the quasi-civil war that is developing between Team Watson and Team Dawkins.

    :(

    7. If you read this far, thanks!

  380. Go Skepchick. I’ve signed up to here and taking the scarlet A off of my tumb1r blog.

    1. “Go Skepchick. I’ve signed up to here and taking the scarlet A off of my tumb1r blog.”

      So the letter A was to support Richard Dawkins and not to denote that you were an atheist. Apparently, the Scarlet A concept failed to be obvious. I don’t agree with his reply, but it doesn’t make me stop being an out and proud Atheist.

  381. This seems to have taken on a life of its own way beyond the subjects merits.

    Personally i agree with Richard Dawkins that this was a complete non event.

    In the video Rebecca indicates that the incident took place at 4am. so hardly just after her talk, even assuming the gentleman attended the talk, mention was also made that Rebecca had stated she was tired, again nothing to indicate this gentleman heard this statement.

    The gentleman framed his question politely, Rebecca does not mention any inappropriate physical advance and it seems the gentleman accepted Rebecca’s refusal and made no further advance.

    I also suspect that the gentleman ha not been given the handbook that mentioned that women feel uncomfortable in lifts, i certainly did not receive my copy.

    Personally, attractive and intelligent as i find Rebecca, I understand she is a married woman and i would not have made any advance towards her but I can understand the gentleman’s interest.

    However if the fear of this sort of advance is going to deter women from going to events then i am surprised that they ever leave their homes. that women can feel this way says more about the problems of our society than it does to the creepiness of us men.

    Richard Dawkins may have gone overboard in his statements but in general i agree with his point of view. there are problems women suffer in ours and others societies that need addressing, however this is not one of them.

    1. I don’t get that at all Jay. Rebecca’s vid was just an update on her trip…I did this, I did that and oh by the way let me tell you about this dude in the elevator. It’s been blown way out of proportion but…get this, check out the number of replies. Dude, Dawkins is even sniping at her. Rebecca’s an atheist, feminist journalist right? You know what this whole incident is? Job security my friend. Kudos Becca…you shouldn’t have a problem finding sponsors now.

  382. Frankly, I don’t know whether to be annoyed or amused–albeit darkly–by Ms. Watson’s naive assumption that feminism had no relevance in the atheist community because atheists were rational, enlightened folk. A lot of Depression & Boomer generation feminists could have told her about the prevalence of self-serving, misogynistic attitudes among atheists, typically justified by some sort of sociobiological theory. I’m sorry Ms. Watson had such a rude awakening, but it is better to know the faults of your allies than have an idealized view of them & be unprepared for their bad behavior.

  383. I can’t post an image here, but picture Privilege Denying Dude, with Richard Dawkins’ face, saying “I wouldn’t be uncomfortable if you propositioned me in an elevator”.

    1. Why not use Stef’s picture? She doesn’t seem to have a problem with it, as do many other women. Oh, yeah, Privileged White Dude is all about bigotry against white males.

  384. You have my support in this matter Rebecca. Equality could kind of be the norm someday but ignorance is strong and the road is long. I am disappointed in the stupidity of some fellow atheists but I suppose I shouldn’t be. I have been the recipient of white male privilege most of my life(all 57 years of it)and have come to the understanding that it is just another bullshit tradition. Equality can be hard to surmise as it requires a lot of self knowledge and honesty, yet you can realize that the gender, color or sexual orientation of a person is a only a small part of your relation to them. So many times they are the least interesting parts. It’s a big ‘verse out there so keep up the good work! Love SGU!

    1. WTF is this “male privilege” thing exactly? It seems to be code for “men fucking suck” and is just jargon spouted out by feminists. Men don’t have any advantages over women. Women have many advantages over men. That is the fact of life in America and much of Western Europe. Women have 60% more chance of going to college in the USA. What “male privilege” — it’s 100% sexist bullshit.

  385. Why are there people here and elsewhere defending the idea that women should fear men as default?

    It’s a stupid paranoid idea and kinda sexist.

    So what if that’s what some women are raised to believe, that’s never been a good excuse for sexism before, why is it suddenly one now?

    1. Nobody has ever said that. You are either being willfully obtuse or need to work on your reading comprehension.

      Would you give a $20 to everyone who approached you and said they ran out of gas and needed to fill up their car to get home? If not, why not? Isn’t it paranoid to think they might be trying to scam you?

    2. When girls are in junior high school, boys showing off for their friends by cat-calling and grabbing and demanding and objectifying TEACH the girls that there are SOME boys they really do need to be afraid of.

      The problem is, those boys blend into the rest of the male population, so that we can’t figure out which ones we really need to beware of.

      Perhaps if the non-scary men would identify themselves by acting like not-rapists and reminding other non-scary men to act like not-rapists, the rapists would be so OBVIOUS in their cat-calling and grabbing and demanding and objectifying that women could avoid them in particular instead of having to be afraid of all men.

  386. @meko

    “Any man has the equipment to rape. Women don’t. Therefore my concern about rape is limited to men.”

    Women can rape and they do.

  387. The local skeptical group to which I belong, which holds regular, bi-monthly meet-ups, is a fairly diverse bunch of people in terms of sexuality and ethnicity. What we lack is a reasonable proportion of women.

    One day, I invited a scientist colleague of mine to come along. She’d expressed an interest in the group and decided to check out a drinking skeptically night. What happens? The boys get to talking, then to joking around, then to raucously suggesting that the two girls present that night do a girly calendar to try to attract more members.

    My colleague hasn’t been back.

    We know not to treat LGBT people with disrespect. We have common cause and similar stories to people that have come out. Skeptics and atheists should know how just irrational it is to judge a person based on their sexuality. But there’s nary a second thought given to casually sexualising and trivialising women, and I think our current membership is a sad reflection of that.

    If there’s one thing I’m taking away from this drama, it’s that self-serving, casual misogyny is not unique to my own encounters with skeptics. It’s widespread. That’s disappointing, and that is something I’ll personally work to change.

  388. As a 30 year old woman, atheist, skeptic, feminist, and survivor of sexual assault I have mixed feelings about your video – and I’ve actually registered on this site just so I can add my two cents.

    First, I’d like to point out how appalled I am almost every time I attend TAM or any other skeptic/ atheist conference – to see women, most of whom proudly label themselves “skepchicks”, shamelessly flaunt their sexuality to get attention from the “popular crowd” and to get what they want, in general. That is to say, as soon as Richard Saunders, Penn Jillette, Phil Plait, etc. enter the room (or hot tub) the eyelashes start to flutter, the cleavage comes out and the childish giggles and attention-seeking behavior begins. I have avoided skepchick entirely because of this behavior up until now. It’s a total waste of my time.

    I’d also like to point out that Rebecca Watson is somewhat well-know for dropping sexual innuendo like it’s nobody’s business during unscripted events and podcasts.

    Finally – the pink elephant in the room… the skepchick calendar? The word “sexy” is used several times to describe photo submission guidelines on the 2010 calendar application page – and I’ve seen previous calendars. They contain a LOT of suggestive and decidedly sexual nudity. Come on, girls – do we really want that to be our marketing “hook”?

    My point is this – if we as women don’t wish to be viewed as the objects of sexualization – and if we wish to be taken seriously as feminists and as intellectuals, then we must stop publicly sexually objectifying ourselves when it serves our purposes. This behavior basically makes some men think that they have a green-light to relentlessly try to get you in bed. Which they do NOT. It is as much our responsibility to end sexism (which is definitely a huge problem) as any man’s. There. I said it.

    I realize that there is a very fine line between what I am trying to express and what some would call “blaming the victim”. That is not my intention. I have been a victim, and I know how it feels. And I understand how frustrating the cat calls, inappropriate propositions and unsolicited sexual objectification can be. Believe me. But it’s important to be able to voice the opinion that it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with from both within and without.

    That being said – I have met some awesome women at skeptic events, atheist conferences and TAM. I have also been flirted with (in some cases while my fiancee was sitting right there), propositioned and winked at. Eww. But there is a hard line between innocuous flirtation and totally inappropriate behavior. And I think “would you like to come up to my hotel room for a cup of coffee” is fairly innocuous (albeit creepy since you were alone with him in an elevator. Sometimes is doesn’t even dawn on men that that’s not okay). We’ve got to pick our battles sometimes and look at the bigger picture.

    The bigger picture is that sexism and discrimination against females is a much, much larger problem than that which presents in atheist/ skeptic circles. In this country and the rest of the world – which is why I do sympathize with RD’s argument. The conversation needs to be larger than some guy in an elevator. The conversation needs to include what can be done to make people aware of what’s appropriate – and ladies, sexing it up when you want attention isn’t helping.

    So what’s a girl to do? Have respect for yourself, and teach others how to respect you. Don’t tolerate sexual discrimination. Stand up for gender equality in ALL social and intellectual circles (I would add here that the lines do have an inherent tendency to get blurred in social settings). Keep the dialogue going, and keep it productive. Ignore objectifying male (and female) behavior entirely – then bring it up in an appropriate setting, blog, conversation, public engagement, etc. – which is exactly what Rebecca Watson has done.

    For that, I am thankful for the video that sparked this conversation. There are over a thousand comments on this post alone – and that’s great! Let’s just be careful not to alienate anybody.

    1. Abril, I was beginning to think it was just my white male privilege that was leading me to the same conclusion. I’m glad to know that my Y-chromosome hasn’t led to me completely losing my objectivity. I, and other atheists male and female, remember how the Skepchick calendars were marketed, and it was the first thing to come to my mind when this whole kerfuffle came to light. I’ve been called a “dick” for bringing it up, which I think is an ironic objectification of my male gender.

  389. So, I rarely comment on this site…but this is probably a good time to say thanks for everything. Rebecca, you’ve been so inspirational to me–you are smart, articulate, and don’t let people push you around. You, along with the skepchicks, have helped make skepticism and feminism accessible and doable for me. I definitely disagree with what some of what you all say sometimes, and the great thing is that’s totally cool. Thank you for being strong through the good, bad, and the interesting. I, and SO many others, are more empowered and overall awesome thanks to you! Hopefully I’ll get to see some of you at dragon con!

    1. Oh, and I also get a bit scared/creeped out in late-night-elevator situations. Just for the record.

    1. Disclaimer: The folks in the video are actors. Also, no opinion is implied in the sexism/feminist debate..I’m officially nuetral. I just really don’t like Dawkins.

  390. Millions of minds = no consensus.

    I am new to the ‘movement’ and recently ran across the many articles, blogs, and comments regarding this event and the fallout.

    I don’t know the details or the people well enough to have a strong opinion. In my mind everybody was correct in taking offense and justified in their defense of it.

    What this event has made it clear is that, as information flows more freely, as more people have access to information, as more people with different background come together, cohesion under one cause/banner becomes very hard to achieve. Especially is such a unstructured medium/organizations.

    Will we ever be able to act as one, being able to ignore/’move past’ slights and injustices both big and small? in order to actually exact some change. Our differences is one of our major strengths (the independent blogger coming together with the multi-millionaire old fogey author) but is also our Achilles heel?

    1. You’re right asic. In the end there were only two people there…the guy who sounds a bit socially retarded and the woman who felt creeped out. We really need to try to get along.

      But you know…I can only imagine what the situation was like for Rebbecca. Probably like the feeling I get when I go to dinner with my family and there is a special person yelling and singing and going nuts. I mean seriously, you can’t yell out, “hey retard…knock it off.” We all know that’s not right and so you have to endure it then….no one says a word about the incident. Even though everyone was annoyed and uncomfortable no one utters a word for fear of being perceived as insensitive.

  391. I’m a woman and I think you over-reacted to the situation in the elevator. Dawkins is right. A privileged Westerner, regardless of gender, should probably be letting the small stuff slide. I don’t think of men as potential rapists or perverts simply because I happen to be alone with them. I like men. Treat them with respect and they generally treat you with respect in return.

    1. Well…eh, err. I dunno there Audrey. A grown man should know better. A gentleman doesn’t proposition a married woman at 4 in the morning in an elevator. Regardless of all the sexism/feminist/massagonist (like that spelling? Trademark me.)debate going on here doesn’t it boil down to just common sense?

      1. And also, doesn’t Dawkins have anything better to do than snark on somebody on his own team? Sincerely, if I were Dawkins I’d be in the Carribean, on a yacht, snort’n coke through thousand dollar bills. Yeah, I said it “thousand dollar bills”. Cause if I were him I would have commissioned a third world nation to print thousand dollar bills with my face on it with the caption, “in awesome we trust”.

      2. I think this highlights my point. Digger (like most of us) can adequately read the situation, meaning that, if he asked a girl he doesn’t personally know back to his room at 4am, that statement will 99.999% of time be interpreted as creepy, no matter how honest or innocent his motives were.

        The thing is that there are a number of us (westerners or not) that are socially awkward, whose common sense doesn’t really line up with ours. Without clear knowledge of the intentions we automatically (probably because society has taught us so) jump to the worst possible conclusion (call it our drive to survive).

        The sad part is that many times we act out on this assumptions and judge others without any clarification. The differences are too great to overcome for most of us…..this is what drives racism, religious extremism, terrorism, caste systems, etc

  392. It appears from the comments over the last few days that the sceptical community needs to split.

    The first group will be an inclusive one which values the contribution of all. It will encourage new voices and people with very different outlooks and experiences.

    The other group will be for those who only want to hear what white men have to say.

    I think this is the only way the members of the first group will be heard.

    1. Jess, sorry there. Don’t let my replies have any sway. I’m a white male Christian. If there is a split though give me a shout.

  393. Hey Rebecca,
    Somehow your contretemps with Dawkins came to the attention of the Wall St. Journal’s “Best of the Web” people.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

    ========================================
    The Atheist Anita Hill
    We’d never heard of atheist activist Rebecca Watson either, but she managed to set off quite a hilarious kerfuffle with a dull but lengthy video telling the story of her recent travels. It seems the itinerant irreligionist went to Dublin for an atheist conference, where she spoke on a panel about either feministic atheism or atheistic feminism–we’ll just call it “feminatheism.” Then she experienced a trauma (skip ahead to 4:20 in the video):

    Thank you to everyone who was at that conference who engaged in those discussions outside of that panel. You were all fantastic, and I loved talking to you guys. All of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel? Because at the bar later that night–actually, at 4 in the morning–we were at the hotel bar. Four a.m., I said, “You know, I’ve had enough, guys, I’m exhausted, I’m going to bed.”

    So I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me, and said, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”

    Um, just a word to the wise, here, guys? Don’t do that. Um, 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 a.m., in a hotel elevator with you–just you–and don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

    Apparently she wasn’t listening when he told her not to take it the wrong way. Anyway, The Atlantic reports that celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins started a flame war on another atheist’s blog by writing “a sarcastic letter to a Muslim woman, pointing out how trivial Watson’s experience in the elevator was compared to the abuses Muslim women deal with on a daily basis”:

    “Stop whining will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery,” he wrote. “But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.”

    This was a bit inflammatory, and needless to say the feminatheists were inflamed, but Dawkins subsequently restated his argument in a perfectly reasonable way:

    The man in the elevator didn’t physically touch her, didn’t attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn’t even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that.

    Even that only got the feminatheists angrier. Oh well, regardless of the merits, this is a bit like the Iran-Iraq war. Both sides are so obnoxious, we’re rooting for both to lose. And we’re not even religious.

    ==================================================

    Not very fair or sympathetic depictions of either of you, to be sure. Just a heads-up in case you see some unaccounted-for traffic from anti-feminatheists.

  394. nullifidian,
    Well, that is certainly…interesting.
    What you have done is what is known in logic as the fallacy of the ad hominem or genetic fallacy.
    It manifests thusly, Mariano is an anti-choice, creationist therefore, we should be very wary of trusting him regarding Dawkins.
    I provided the quotation and citation thus, you can look it up for yourself (you can actually listen to the audio).
    Furthermore, the logical conclusion of your assertion is that we can only trust Dawkins’ supporters with accurately representing him. Or, perhaps, those who only occasionally support him and refer to themselves as skeptics. Or, something.
    So, I note that atheists far and wide, male celebrity atheists, claims that rape was beneficial and is either not absolutely immoral or only arbitrarily immoral and your issue is with what? With me.
    Wow!
    I will simply leave you to do your homework, which you will only do if you are a true and honest skeptic.

    PS: you forgot to mention Harris, Barker and all of the other atheists whom I quote and cite.

    1. mariano,

      Actually, what I did was warn people from placing unwarranted credibility in someone who is delusional. This fallacy, though it has no fancy Latin name, is a far greater source of avoidable error in the world.

  395. Since everything has already been said, I’ll say other stuff. I’m a pro-feminist male but I’ve got some gripes about common behaviors that I’ll intersperse below. Most of these are the result of a long-term relationship with a feminist who was active in feminism communities.

    1) Wow, I’d hate to be that elevator guy right about now.

    2) I’m regularly annoyed when the whole “privilege” thing is used as an automatic dismissal of someone’s arguments. I’m not implying Rebecca is doing this at all, mind you–in fact I’m confident she’s not. While it’s entirely possible that someone’s position of privilege leads them to make bad arguments based on faulty assumptions, the position of privilege alone does not invalidate an argument. To imply that it does is a canonical ad hom, and I’ve seen it done many times.

    3) I am also annoyed by the way “privilege” is singled out when it’s merely a specific case of a general condition: not knowing what it’s like to be someone else. Rebecca understands what it’s like to be Dawkins as little as Dawkins understands what it’s like to be an objectified woman. They can both use some understanding of one another.

    4) Unrelated to anything here, I hate having to be ashamed of my own tastes/desires. Sure, criticize me for making rude or inappropriate comments in a public setting about a woman or women in general. But don’t criticize me for being physically attracted to girls in skimpy outfits, for example. When the feminist outrage crosses the line between being offended about how men choose to behave and being offended by what they feel, it’s gone too far. Refer to #3. You have no idea what it’s like to be a man, so don’t pretend we can merely rationally evaluate our feelings and switch them off accordingly. Again, I never get the impression that Rebecca does this. I just want to get this out here, since I’m sure people will see it in the 1000+ comment thread.

    5) I hope that vocal feminists realize that decent guys are essentially terrified of making any advances toward you, ever. Whether true or not, the impression is that any advance is considered offensive by you.

    1. “Rebecca is doing this at all, mind you–in fact I’m confident she’s not. ”

      Nonsense, she used it in spades when she called Dawkins a “Rich White Man”. Hell, you didn’t even read the article if you didn’t notice her “hoards of clueless privileged people who didn’t get it.”

      She’s also intellectually dishonest in how she interjects his comment and acts as if he was casually dismissing rape threats, grouping and all sorts of other incidents.

      I highly dislike the intellectual dishonesty, irrationality, and hyperbole she’s spewing. Some of my pet peeves.

      She’s all around acting badly and had already done so with Step before Dawkin’s stepped in.

  396. “Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.”

    Some feminist have helped, and others of the leftist persuasion have argued that wearing the Burka is liberating. Ridiculous.

  397. @owie9999

    “The reason why you don’t appreciate the argument is because of Dunning–Kruger bias.”

    The Dunning-Kruger effect is a topic relating to changes in confidence as knowledge of a topic is gained. It starts at the ignorant being overconfident and slides to the point the knowledgeable doubting the certainty of their knowledge. It is NOT a magic wand to make an opposing argument invalid and is as applicable against feminism as it against any other.

    Taking the Dunning-Kruger effect literally the feminists arguing their points with certainty would actually have to be closer to the ignorant end of the spectrum.

    “I’m male so I can sleep in lonely subways at night without worrying,”

    This would be a better example if there was whole truth to it. There is a chance you could be fine in that situation but depending on many factors there’s also a moderate to good chance of you waking up at gunpoint.

    “Solution is to arrive at such a position in society that women doesn’t feel that way w/o learning any kung-fu and wearing anything.”

    Which is presenting itself exactly like segregation did. ‘Walk on the other side of the road so you don’t worry the white man (in this case the woman).’ ‘Don’t get in an elevator alone with a white man. (or woman obviously)’ I’ve seen a minimum of 5 men across this whole discussion who claim they do this.

    1. @voice – Amusingly enough, you don’t understand Dunning-Kruger. The effect on the competent is not that they tend to *underestimate* their own abilities, but that they underestimate their relative performance because they *overestimate* their peer’s abilities. Check p.1126 in the original paper.

      So: increasing confidence does not track with decreasing competence. It looks like you’re either misremembering the paper or falling prey to the fallacy of the inverse: the idea that if P->Q, then Not P->Not Q.

      I suggest to you that if you can’t use Dunning-Kruger correctly in an argument, you might want to spend some more time educating yourself before entering public discussions.

  398. This thread bothers me deeply as a feminist and a skeptic, because of the disheartening lack of both.

    Point 1)

    Watson DID act poorly. She did take an opportunity to slight people she felt slighted her publicly, and without them allowing to answer the allegation. Kind of dick-y, but certainly not something to get the whole world in a tizzy over.

    Point 2)

    Dawkin’s post was sarcastic, and more blatant than was called for. That was however already a heated (and mind-numbingly dumb) thread to begin with. PZ should have put it out of it’s misery sooner.

    Point 3)

    Sexual freedom is a two way street. If I want to ask a man (or other woman, or whatever) to have “coffee” or any other proposition delivered politely, I feel a right to do so. To ASK. Not to get. This guy was asking. I don’t want to live in a world of Victorian sexuality where a man is only allowed to ask me if I’d like to be involved with him sexual in only certain situations and contexts. Part of what I got in the whole expanding of female rights was the ability to except or decline offers as an ADULT. To act differently insults my intelligence and ability to decide for myself. If the advance strikes you as creepy, you laugh about it and move on, if it is sufficiently creepy you press charges.

    Point 4)

    Dawkin’s had a point. This was a non issue. An offer was made and declined. No need for whining or freaking out. I’ve read plenty of posts saying elevators are terrifying places for women alone that create a power imbalance. If Watson really agreed with this absurd assertion then what would she be doing alone in an elevator with a man at that hour? The answer is that she knew she was safe and that even if she was propositioned she would be able to leave the elevator at the next stop. (Really are there not stairs for those terrified of being spoken to sexually in a confined space?)

    Feminism is a skeptic topic. The inequalities heaped on women are grounded in nonsense and reason can act upon them. This non-incident doesn’t didn’t require any attention past the “no” issued by the usually excellent Watson. It does not rise to the level of “male privilege”. It does not rise to the level of “gossip”. I don’t think calling Dawkins a misogynist is a constructive use of language. Calling him racist also seems fairly ridiculous. I disagree with the very premise of this posting that we should feel as we are being told to feel about this disagreement. If you review the tedious postings that started this witch hunt (which is time out of my life I won’t be getting back), you may note that most posters were meeting hysteria with more hysteria. Frankly, I can’t comprehend why anyone would be unable to see why Dawkins post was flippant and annoyed.

    1. I feel I should warn you the last female who tried to disagree here had her lack of the experience of being raped used against her.

      1. Damn, I’ll try harder to be raped in the future. (Since people can’t tell on the webs that’s sarcasm).

        I feel my points still stand.

      2. since I don’t wish to go through the entire thread which one was that?

    2. “Are there not stairs?”

      You actually said that. Just… wow.

    3. courtnay, sadly, almost any disagreement with the primary Skepchick Ideology, whatever that may be today, or even worse, disagreement with the primary Skepchicks themselves, however well worded, reinforced with fact and/or data, or however lightly stated, is no longer particularily welcome at Skepchick.org.

      If you are a man who disagrees, it’s because of your old, white, rich, privilege (whether or not any of those things actually pertain) and the simple fact that you just don’t get it, and if you’re a woman, then you are a traitor to the cause — regardless of your bonafides — or a secret patriarchy supporter, and so forth.

      So, for your own sense of well being, tread carefully.

      1. Whoops. Sorry for the HTML tagging fail. Forgot to close the BOLD.

        I sure do miss all those old comfortable functions that used to work around here before the, ahem, necessary upgrade.

      2. I agree that there is an overwhelming sense of in-group outrage that even having to make issues clear to men is an act well below the dignity of the Skepchick posters.
        I don’t get it. But I know that won’t then mean that people try to make the wrong committed or the expected behaviour clearer. What will happen is that I am dismissed, because I don’t get it.
        By virtue of the fact I don’t understand what all the fuss is about, I lose credibility to such a degree I become an outsider.

  399. I had every intention of reading all 1,000+ comments on this thread because I’m utterly fascinated by it all as a newish atheist and long-time feminist but I’ve finally run out of steam. Rebecca, I’m a new fan of yours and am 100% behind you on this. Please keep talking. We desperately need women like you in both movements.

  400. Making a woman uncomfortable is dishonorable. There is no exception.
    Mr. Dawkins is ungentlemanly.

  401. Rebecca, I first saw you in the Communicating Atheism conference video and was glad to have learned of another smart woman blogging on matters of skepticism, feminism, atheism, etc. I thought your talk there was a valuable mirror held up to the face of the atheist community. Your comment here that sparked all of this was not unreasonable or unfair. And what resulted, while an unfortunate route, seems to serve to make your point. I understand it’s not directly analogous to it, but it reminds me of a video of yours I saw where you said of people who attack you and not your argument how they just bolster your belief that you are right. Remember that? Feel that. Please, keep doing what you are doing. We are all better for your efforts.

  402. Thank you so much for speaking up.
    I am so sickened by the apologists saying that it was not creepy, many even saying it was POLITE!

    I am a man. I understand why women quicken their pace if I happen to get off a bus and be walking behind them on a darkened street.

    My mother was abused by men, one of whom turned out to be a serial rapist and murderer. And you know what? He was a very charming, polite guy. When he wasn’t strangling women, that is.

    My sisters have both been married to abusive men.

    When I was a pre-teen and teenage boy, I was sexually molested over a course of several years. In rooms much bigger than an elevator, usually with the door open. On occasion people even walked in. They “excused themselves” and walked back out.

    Once was in a public park. Outdoors. No walls, no doors.

    I guess if an elevator is an easy place to escape from as all of these apologists claim, then I have no excuse for having allowed myself to be abused. I clearly could have escaped. The only place I ever did escape to was out of my body and into the ceiling.
    Now I have PTSD and still dissociate like that.

    There never was any help for me. Not from family. School officials thought I was on drugs. I stopped going. Dropped out of sight.

    I am a man now, these things will not happen to me again, because I am big enough and also because I’d rather die fighting than have it happen again. I also can take that risk because since I’m disabled I have no family or close friends to try to stay alive for.

    Most women don’t have the ability to resist that I have, and most women have a far, far greater chance of becoming a sexual abuse victim or of even getting unwanted touching and advances than I do.

    I am sickened at how pervasive the cluelessness (at least) and outright misogyny there is among atheists. Frankly, I can’t find myself joining and fighting in a cause with so many creeps and creep-enablers in it.

    So I’m an individual atheist. More organized advocacy is now on the back burner (for what little I was abloe to do anyway…)

    There are bigger fights to fight. Dawkins did in one way have a point – what whining should I be doing as a male atheist who might have occasional knocks on the door from Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a little whittling away at my rights, when there’s half of the population who have NEVER enjoyed all the rights I have?

    When there’s no ERA, when sexism is pervasive, when there are no nationally-guaranteed and equal rights for LGBT people, why am I fighting my little battle against “In God We Trust” on my pocket change? Yes, there is a crossover… but still.

    Feminism and LGBT rights are now my first priority. They should have been all along.

    1. Heya Jafafa Hots. Thank you for adding your support; and props for your bravery.

      (to the thread in general)

      It’s been pointed out a few times now that men can also be victims of rape, and women can also be rapists. The cultural narrative that men’s role is to pursue and women’s to refuse does a particular disservice to male victims. Everyone deserves to have their consent respected. Everyone.

      Several accounts of female-on-male rape are given in this thread:

      Open Thread for Male Survivors

      and Newsweek on male-male rape in the military:

      The Military’s Secret Shame


      “The military doesn’t want to talk about it because, as embarrassing as male-female rape is [from their perspective], this is even worse. The very fact that there’s male-on-male rape in the military means that there are warriors who aren’t strong enough to fight back.”

      1. O_O

        And to follow up on myself, because I just found information *I* had never heard and have no excuse not to know.


        “1 in 6 men have suffered an unwanted or abusive sexual experience before the age of 16.”

        This probably sounds unbelieveable, but the commentors have done (and are still doing) an exceptional job of critically analyzing the sources and the assumptions made in presenting the data. One relevant comment:


        “As Toysoldier pointed out, studies finding high rates of sexual abuse towards men have existed since that 90?s. That’s over a decade ago. The Dube HMO study finding a 16% rate of childhood sexual abuse towards boys was published in 2005. It’s now 2011, and despite all your anti-rape education from feminism, you are only just now making a shocking discovery. (…)

        “On another subject, these findings of high rates of sexual abuse towards men are a good reason to consider studies plausible finding high rates of rape and abuse towards women, which are controversial to many non-feminists (like the Koss study, which is flawed, but supports at least a 10% rate of rape). I once went on the Spearhead and argued this notion… yeah… lots of downvotes.”

        http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/1-in-6/#comment-1742

        1. Sadly, I did know that. I have the dubious honour of having been one of them. I also get a lot of friends open up to me about their experiences, probably because of my profession and because they see me as trustworthy. all I know is, there are a lot of men out there who never reported their abuse.

          1. …I feel for you, bud.

            All this just makes me even more bloody determined that the silencing ends, and the next person to tell me “but men MUST harass chicks or else extinction!” is going to get an explosion of angry statistics in their face.

          2. Meh. I moved past it a long time ago, with the help of some good people. But I am determined that I’ll always be there for those who haven’t been able to move past it.

          3. Yep. Not even getting into the gender differences, as a kid, adults are authority figures. When they betray you, you often decide there’s nobody you can trust but yourself.

          4. In my case I had the delightful combination of a stepfather who was easily manipulated by his son into (often extremely violent) displays of anger against me, a mother (who I love/d very much) who turned a blind-eye to that, plus various emotional and sexual abuses. I was an angry, angry teenager. I honestly don’t know how I didn’t kill somebody, but I wanted to. I can only describe my teenage years as a cycle of obsession. Obsession is a misunderstood word by people who haven’t really had one. For me, from the age of about eleven up until I was about nineteen or twenty, the things that I went through as a child were at the back of my mind (if not at the forefront) every single waking minute of every single day. That’s obsession. I won’t even get into the nightmares, insomnia and subsequent eight years of therapy and medication. If you haven’t been raped or abused, you will never, ever understand the strength it takes, not just to survive but to move past it and live.

            What’s really weird to me is how easy I find it to spot other people who’ve suffered similarly. Others have said the same; I think it must imbue something in your character that’s identifiable only to other people with it.

          5. replying to custador:

            At the risk of going way off-topic, I admit I’m morbidly curious to see what your survivor-dar makes of me. Could you tell if I’ve been abused or not, based solely on commenting to each other in this thread? Not that it’s a reasonable request to make; but I wonder where *my* empathy has got to in all this mess. (Also, the stats would indicate a ~20% chance just at random.)

            —Personal spoiler alert—-

            But OT or not, I wanted to specifically thank you for describing how your viewpoint has progressed over the years of recovering. I needed to know what it’s like, because I’m just starting to deal with the anger *now*, and I’m only a couple of years into the process.

            Thanks to Jafafa Hots, too. That short sentence means a lot to me.

          6. @ pteryxx:

            Sorry for the delay. There was drinking last night. Also a mosh-pit. Heads are therefore fuzzy.

            To address your question: Funnily enough, I was talking about this last night with a friend who’s also an abuse survivor… I’ve never tested Survivor-Dar on the internet, but it tends to be something that you realise about other people over a period of getting to know them, by their reactions to different situations. If I’d thought about you in that context from our brief interactions, I guess I would have said that you showed an emotional awareness (and some degree of rawness) that suggested that something had transpired to cause it, but I wouldn’t have yet realised that it was “abuse” in the classical sense – Although I would argue that the most common form of abuse is emotional abuse, and it’s not well recognised, even by survivors of it.

            Another interesting thing is that you can often tell how far along the recovery journey somebody is by how dark their sense of humour gets.

            If you want to ask a mod for my email address, please feel free. I’m happy to talk about my experiences and listen to yours.

    2. “There are bigger fights to fight. Dawkins did in one way have a point – what whining should I be doing as a male atheist who might have occasional knocks on the door from Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a little whittling away at my rights, when there’s half of the population who have NEVER enjoyed all the rights I have?

      When there’s no ERA, when sexism is pervasive, when there are no nationally-guaranteed and equal rights for LGBT people, why am I fighting my little battle against “In God We Trust” on my pocket change? Yes, there is a crossover… but still.”

      Really? Even Dawkins admitted that “other people have it worse so I shouldn’t complain” was a bad argument.

      You fight those things because they are bad and you should not use “others have it worse” to justify doing nothing.

      As he, PJ Myers and others noted you should fight everything bad, not just the really bad things but the things that are just sorta bad.

      1. Well of course, but I have only so much energy for fights, so I must prioritize.

  403. I live in new orleans, one of America’s murder capitals, where rape and violence are an everyday part of life. I’ve been robbed, assaulted, knifed, left for dead … and each school year I lose at least two students to gunshots.

    So, comparing Watson’s fear of an awkward guy in an elevator to actual violence makes me cringe, because it belittles true feminism — something Dawkins’ work highlights whenever he talks about Sharia Law, female genital mutilation, etc.

    On a side note, I saw the link above to Schrödinger’s Rapist post, and will be sharing it with all my students this coming year. It’s well written and deserves a place in any curriculum. Furthermore, I saw someone else say that the skeptic community should split. If that happens, it’ll be sad day for non-believers everywhere.

    1. A is worse than B therefore railing against B demeans the fight against A? Slight logical fallacy there methinks.

    2. RW gently suggested that propositioning a complete stranger in an elevator at 4am especially after she’s repeatedly said, where he’d been listening, that she didn’t like that was not a good idea. “Guy’s please don’t do this, it makes women uncomfortable.”

      That’s not real sexism? Women not wanting to have to deal with unwanted approaches everywhere, EVERYWHERE, even after they’ve made it abundantly clear that they are not interested – that’s not “real Feminism?”

      You’ve been handed this clue repeatedly on a freaking silver platter. If you choose not to take a hint, that women not having to been seen as objects to be hit on everywhere they go IS a feminist issue, then don’t complain when people call you on it.

      To say that it “demeans true feminism” is beyond insulting.

    3. Wow, yes, of course!

      “True feminism” is the kind of ‘feminism’ that only looks at what’s happening over there, in those terrible places and tut-tuts itself into a frenzy. Meanwhile, it never actually does anything about what’s going on over there, but it pulls out the events over there as a convenient way of rhetorically dispensing with anyone who wants to do anything about inequality or sexism over here.

      In short, “true feminism” is all about denying the lived experiences of women all over the world, as long as we can think abstractly that someone, somewhere in the world has it worse.

      Awesome!

      1. Yep. Same way true atheists only confront religion when it’s killing people.

        It’s startling how many apologists crawl out of the wordwork, isn’t it? Sadder how many of them are women.

      2. Seems it’s relatively easy to be a crusader for obviously-wrong-cause-X, right up until self-reflection is required. But only addressing the flaws in oneself proves good faith.


        “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

        –Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  404. Dear Rebecca:

    You are fucking awesome. It’s 3am and I’m a little sleepy but I’ll do my best to elucidate. I have missed SGU most of the summer, but I just heard about this, just now, and I had to register so I could comment.

    Keep calling people out on their shit. As a privileged white dude who considered himself a humanist, it took a lot of reading, and talking, and most importantly listening for me to realize where I stood in relation to women. And I’m still learning. My point is, this is important stuff. I’d rather begrudgingly accept a religion with real equality than live in a word where everyone is a misogynist, atheist, “rational humanist.”

    Anyway this may not make a lot of sense, but again, it’s 3am. I’ll catch up on my missed SGUs this weekend. Keep up the absolutely fantastic work. As not only a skeptic but a feminist you are an inspiration.

    Yours very sincerely,
    Dan Bouvier

    1. Don’t you know better than to call a woman “fucking awesome” at 3am?

      “Coffee-drinking awesome” is way smoother, dude.

      *ducks*

      1. Surely that isn’t the most egregiously sloppy phrase in my comment :)

  405. Replying to pteryxx:

    Well the article doesn’t say anything about the frequency or context of men making unwanted sexual advances, it says that they understand once they get shot down. I’m not saying that it’s that normal for the average man, but as far as that paper states it’s not an indicator for a rapist unless he has a problem accepting the no in whatever form it comes.

    As for the many part:

    ‘We suggest that the discrepancy between these young men’s showing of knowledge and their telling of ignorance lies in the need for them, as men, to accomplish the local management of (masculine) accountability for rape.’
    O’Byrne, Hansen & Rapley, J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18: 187.

    ‘Only in the special case of dating do many men suddenly stop accepting those responses as legitimate refusals.’
    ~You

    What you where expressing there was the use of the excuse in a completely different context, as in that they use it to justify rape for themselves. What O’Byrne, Hansen & Rapley concluded was that the excuse is primarily used by a large portion of men in a misguided attempt at expaining why rape occurs, not necessarily condoning it or using it as a justification for themselves.

    1. Replying to victorj, FOR THE THIRD TIME.

      “Only in the special case of dating do many men suddenly stop accepting those responses as legitimate refusals.”

      Yes, that is what I said. I stand by it. For the third time, MANY men (stats in O’Brien et.al.) do not accept refusals by women as valid in a dating context. This does not make them rapists and does not conflate them with rapists, because rapists make up a much smaller proportion of the population (see: “Meet the Predators” for instance Lisak and Miller 2002.) However, the widespread refusal to accept women’s responses as legitimate PROVIDES COVER for actual rapists. Actual rapists then have greater freedom to use intrusive approaches, and greater plausible deniability for their crimes, because of innocent bystanders who disbelieve legitimate refusal.

      You need look no further than this very thread for many MANY examples of individuals asking how men can *ever* propose to women (general case) or how Elevator Guy lost the presumption of innocence (specific case). The point was, there were sufficient situational and personal cues to indicate implicit refusal. An EXPLICIT refusal should never have been necessary.

      This is the third time I’ve explained this to you. I consider my obligation fulfilled.

      1. “Yes, that is what I said. I stand by it. For the third time, MANY men (stats in O’Brien et.al.) do not accept refusals by women as valid in a dating context. This does not make them rapists and does not conflate them with rapists, because rapists make up a much smaller proportion of the population (see: “Meet the Predators” for instance Lisak and Miller 2002.) However, the widespread refusal to accept women’s responses as legitimate PROVIDES COVER for actual rapists. Actual rapists then have greater freedom to use intrusive approaches, and greater plausible deniability for their crimes, because of innocent bystanders who disbelieve legitimate refusal.”
        I’m not disputing that point. I’m disputing the fact that your wording makes it sound like many men in relationships ignore refusals, while it is in fact the perception that such behavior is justified that is the problem. The distinction between what men actually do and what they expect of others (the misscommunication) isn’t clear enough.
        What I feel important to highlight though is the amount of weight put on this paper is probably disproportionate:
        “Indeed, by these standards our sample size (n=9) is EXTREMLEY small, and the participants themselves—as a SELF-SELECTED group of middle class, male, university students—may be regarded as entirely unrepresentative of the (male) population at large.”
        It’s about a group of guys that probably are part of the same social circle. This could be, and in my mind quite likely is, the study of ONE click in ONE class in ONE university.

      2. Copied the other reply form a word processor and lost the spacings, this should be more readable:

        “Yes, that is what I said. I stand by it. For the third time, MANY men (stats in O’Brien et.al.) do not accept refusals by women as valid in a dating context. This does not make them rapists and does not conflate them with rapists, because rapists make up a much smaller proportion of the population (see: “Meet the Predators” for instance Lisak and Miller 2002.) However, the widespread refusal to accept women’s responses as legitimate PROVIDES COVER for actual rapists. Actual rapists then have greater freedom to use intrusive approaches, and greater plausible deniability for their crimes, because of innocent bystanders who disbelieve legitimate refusal.”

        I’m not disputing that point. I’m disputing the fact that your wording makes it sound like many men in relationships ignore refusals, while it is in fact the perception that such behavior is justified that is the problem. The distinction between what men actually do and what they expect of others (the misscommunication) isn’t clear enough.

        What I feel important to highlight though is the amount of weight put on this paper is probably disproportionate:

        “Indeed, by these standards our sample size (n=9) is EXTREMLEY small, and the participants themselves—as a SELF-SELECTED group of middle class, male, university students—may be regarded as entirely unrepresentative of the (male) population at large.”

        It’s about a group of guys that probably are part of the same social circle. This could be, and in my mind quite likely is, the study of ONE click in ONE class in ONE university.

        1. Now you’re misrepresenting the source material. The conversations logged and analyzed in O’Byrne 2008 are from focus group conversations with nine individuals, and they justify the specific utility of this sample group in the paper; namely to demonstrate “how young men invoke the miscommunication, the victim precipitation and the social structural models in order to account for the phenomenon of rape.” They proved that miscommunication is the dominant model chosen by their sample.

          The prevalence of this model is demonstrated by other research cited, including Kitzinger et al 1999, which is discussed in the other post you supposedly read, Mythcommunication.

          And once again, the prevalence of “how else should he know / she was giving mixed signals” comments in this very thread should be evidence of the widespread acceptance of the miscommunication theory, as well as its cited presence in polls, media, legal proceedings and in fact most of the rest of the culture.

          tl;dr Cherry picking fail.

          1. “Now you’re misrepresenting the source material. The conversations logged and analyzed in O’Byrne 2008 are from focus group conversations with nine individuals, and they justify the specific utility of this sample group in the paper; namely to demonstrate “how young men invoke the miscommunication, the victim precipitation and the social structural models in order to account for the phenomenon of rape.” They proved that miscommunication is the dominant model chosen by their sample.

            The prevalence of this model is demonstrated by other research cited, including Kitzinger et al 1999, which is discussed in the other post you supposedly read, Mythcommunication.

            And once again, the prevalence of “how else should he know / she was giving mixed signals” comments in this very thread should be evidence of the widespread acceptance of the miscommunication theory, as well as its cited presence in polls, media, legal proceedings and in fact most of the rest of the culture.

            tl;dr Cherry picking fail.”

            And again, I AM NOT DISPUTING THE EXISTANCE AND PREVELANCE OF THE MODEL. GET THAT NOTION OUT OF YOUR HEAD. I know it is not something they just came up with for this paper. I understand what the sources are saying. It is the way YOU choose to express/interpret that I oppose since I know that a lot of people won’t bother with following the links and will draw the wrong conclusions if they don’t read very carefully.

            The fact that the sample was actually part of the intended group is kind of a no brainer. It’s still very limited in number of participants, variety within that group and geographical location. Such a sample does in no way prove anything, at most it gives an indicator.

  406. I really agree with everything you have said here and I identify with your cause, but this upsets me:
    “I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door. Maybe they could wait for her to make the first move, just in case”.

    I think it would put you in a stronger position to argue your points if you treated men by the same standard that you would like to be treated if you were a man. All breeds of feminism are based on a fundamental premise that woman and men should be treated equally (where feminisms diverge is in how we think this concept of “equally” can be attained). If being treated equally is a fundamental right, it should be gender neutral.

    To assume that by virtue of being a man, a person is trying to get in the pants of every woman that walks through the door, you seem to be judging men and women by different standards. If I happened to be a man who you’d approached, your comments would have made me feel uncomfortable. I may not have feared rape or assualt, but I would have got the impression that you thought less of me simply by virtue of me being a man.

    1. As soon as the power differential between men and women is eliminated and we actually ARE equals, women simply can’t afford to automatically treat every man as they would like to be treated themselves. We live in a patriarchy which means men have privilege and power over women so until a man proves himself to think of me as an equal, I cannot assume that’s how he feels.

  407. As a father of teenagers in the 1990’s, I found it difficult to originally convince my daughters that feminism is not only relevant, but still required today. Like you, they gave it a passing nod, but felt that society had progressed further. Instead, it takes reminders such as yours, and actions and willingness to wake up a world constantly desiring complacency, to continue positive growth and change. And while other issues may sometimes come to the fore (human-influenced climate change, homophobia, and others), women have been always either at the fore or at the local level front lines, and this requires that feminism continue with each generation.

    Thank you.

  408. I posted this earlier, but it’s now so far up I doubt anyone will answer it. I’d really like to hear what people have to say about this, though, so am reposting it:

    Please could someone let me know
    (i) what MRM and MRA stand for, and
    (ii) why these are used as insults on this thread?

    I searched Wikipedia and it came up with “Men’s rights” (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights)

    It this what these two acronyms refer to? If so, I am confused as the Wikipedia article seems to indicate that this is a movement that is not a horrible thing, but something which has helped people, such as Indian men facing unfair dowry laws.

    I would be grateful if someone could explain this to me, or post links. Maybe I have the wrong meanings!

    1. @ox,
      MRA- Male rights activist, MRM – Male Rights Movement

      While not necessarily pejorative in other contexts, they’re pejorative in the context of discussing sexism mostly because it’s bad timing.

      During a discussion of female rape it’s not the best time to go on a rant about how men are oppressed too.
      They may very well be, but it’s seen as dismissive and tends to be coming from a position of privilege.

      1. Ah, thanks for explaining that to me. Yes, I can see how it would be bad timing!

    2. The vast majority of men’s rights activists I’ve encountered on the internet have shown that their core belief is that we no longer live in a patriarchy, that women now have privilege over men and that they are being actively oppressed by women. And by vast majority, I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE.

      What they are so obviously (to me at least) missing is that the patriarchy is what is oppressing them and making them feel powerless. Instead they view women as the enemy which just further props up the patriarchy that ultimately oppresses us all.

  409. I wish I had read this concerning Richard Dawkins before I wrote my 2 cents on the matter, Rebecca. I’m very appalled by it and sorry I thought better of him then that. OK maybe I did give him enough credit in what I wrote- I said I did not think he was the sort of man who ask that of a woman in an elevator. I don’t know, but I gave you kudos for looking out for your own safety, because bad things do happen to women alone in a strangers hotel room and while the majority of sexual abuse happens by people we know well, not all are that way and do happen with strangers. I linked to the stats on this. You’re a smart young woman, Rebecca, and I hope you don’t let any of this get to you.

  410. Not only I 100% agree with Rebecca, I also think that the blog-pocalyptic shitstorm we find ourselves in is much needed. There are too many movements, institutions, associations, what have you, that have sexism as a problem.

    In particular, religions, to which we like to think atheism/skepticism is a better alternative, are especially prone to it, and some even unapologetically embrace it. I think most of us would agree that among the harms that religion does/promotes in the world today, gender inequality is arguably #1. Or Top Three at the very least.

    We like to think of ourselves as better than that. That in a world without religion, we would get closer to equal rights regardless of (insert characteristic here). If so, we need to have a better look at ourselves. This is why I don’t mind one bit if this issue totally overwhelms TAM, if Dawkins gets boycotted, or even if “the movement burns” as Rebecca put it.

    We need this issue on the front burner until most of us “get it”. It will happen one privileged person (woman as well as man) at a time.

    As a 6’4″ man, my work calls for me to interview people in person, and I have had to deal with defensive or cautious female repondents. For many years I was a dick who didn’t get it.

    It took this. Thank you, Rebecca.

    1. Oh, and I’m now a subscriber to this site and SGU. As for RDF, if none of its next 5 updates is an apology (and not a man-pology), then I am done with it. I can always look elsewhere to read about the subtleties of Galapagos tortoise shell shapes.

  411. I’ve held back from commenting, but no longer can:

    See:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/social-bar-beating-woman-_n_495144.html

    My daughter is 23, small, brilliant and very attractive. She would’ve felt exactly as Rebecca did; similar things have happened to her.

    Guys (including Richard) – if you don’t get it, just behave as you have been instructed until you do. We don’t care about your rationale and fragile male egos. Women are not toys for you to screw around with for your amusement. Try to develop more mirror neurons if you can, so you are not permanently and hopelessly out of touch.

    There are fathers out there like me who couldn’t care less about your “intentions” or your privilege. You’re not the only ones with the ability to make someone feel threatened or uncomfortable. Be careful.

    Enough said.

    Except this: Women – please use this as an opportunity to flood this movement with your presence, wisdom, warmth, talent and understanding. Be heard. Fight back. Without your active and forceful participation, we as a movement will go nowhere. Please don’t let arrogant, insensitive men continue to be dismissive of your fears and emotions. We need you. Stand up and fight. There’s a ton of men backing you up. Go Rebecca!!

    Greg

    PS – Richard is a thoroughly decent, thoughtful, sensitive and progressive person who cares deeply about behaving in a moral, considerate and ethical manner. He is, however, a product of his times, which leaves gaps in his understanding of certain issues. No one is perfect and we all continue to grow. I (and a number of women who know him) have no doubt that Richard is reflecting on this and will come to understand that he has made a mistake. Of all people, Richard is entitled to that. Let’s not eat our own; let’s educate and sensitize them. Yes, even Richard.

    1. “Let’s not eat our own;”

      At least not the 70-year-old ones. Babies taste better.

  412. Hello everyone, I just read about this whole situation this morning and so I took some time to read rebecca, dawkins, PZ, evidence, and others that have taken the time to chime in. I just wanted to make a few comments myself.

    From Rebecca’s account of what the guy in the elevator said, it is obvious that he propositioned her in a very respectful manner.

    He started out clarifying as an attempt to not concern her “Don’t take this the wrong way”

    He then tried to put his proposition in a good light by paying her a compliment “I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more”. Even though its obvious that he likely wanted to do more then talk, he communicated to Rebecca that he valued her ideas, which is actually a positive thing.

    He finally then made his proposition “Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee”. And presumably since Rebecca did not mention anything else, he backed off peacefully and without issue when she said “No”.

    The guy was in no way mysoginistic, he respected women, he respected rebecca, and he may have been hoping to get laid. Hoping to get laid is not disrespectful to women, its also not objectifying women, its a natural biological urge and pretending otherwise is really unreasonable. Women have these too and in other situations I have been propositioned by women and politely said “no” but I did not blame them for asking. They wanted sex.. how else are they do get it if they don’t ask? I see nothing wrong if it is done in a polite way.

    Rebecca brought up the fact that the encounter made her feel uncomfortable and politely asked her male audience not to do that. That is fine and it is well within her rights to do that. It does not mean however that she speaks for all women or that she shares concerns that all women have.

    This was a Rebecca Watson issue, not a women issue, and I do not mean that in any derogatory way, but it is important to realize that all women cannot be lumped into advice that happens to apply to you.

    Many women would be flattered by the strangers advances, and not uncomfortable due to his politeness in the way he approached you. It’s quite likely that this man has gotten laid by using similar methods and that’s not a bad thing if those women accepted.

    Peoples comments on rape, or the possibility of rape, are unfounded and a sort of straw man to this situation. He was polite there was no reason to think there was danger, yes Rebecca felt uncomfortable but that does not mean the action was wrong for the guy as he did not know she was uncomfortable, as many other women would not have been.

    Now we come to Richard Dawkin’s comments. I believe he truly responded emotionally and not rationally. His original post was a very poorly formed argument saying that because there are greater evils the lesser evils do not warrant attention. This is obviously false and it was a mistake for him to make an argument like that, which I honestly don’t think he believes himself. This is just an example that even Richard Dawkins is human and it happens to all of us, even the best of us.

    However what made dawkins decide to respond was likely an emotional response to reading something he thought was just blown out of proportion as he saw the guy in the elevator did absolutely nothing wrong, and he likely saw the fact that it was even mentioned with hints at the need for correction of the situation was really just silly.

    None the less, I think he needs to make his actual objection more clear and retract his poor argument that really has nothing to do with it, and perhaps apologize for accidental insults it may have caused.

    However, I think the response to Richard’s rather ignorant posts have been just as bad. Richard has been an unparalleled voice of reason and aid for so many, myself included. To wage war on this wonderful man and drag his name through the mud because of poorly worded response in objection to one woman’s generalization that all women would be uncomfortable in the same situation (as telling us that it is a problem and we need to move on and solve this problem really tells us that she believes this isn’t just a ‘rebecca was uncomfortable’ issue, but instead was a ‘rebecca speaks for all women and that all women would likewise be uncomfortable and thus men should not do this’ issue).

    Comments like: “if none of its next 5 updates is an apology (and not a man-pology)” -> are just plain sexist themselves

    Jens comments: “Words matter. You don’t get that because you’ve never been called…” -> Richard knows that words matter and he has been called a great many things I am sure by the religious nuts that he has fought all his life while he worked tirelessly for the sake of reason and setting many of us free of religions grasp. Just listen to one of his email readings, he is threatened with death all of the time. You two are allies and not enemies, why make this pot hole into a gaping chasm?

    As for this comment: “Dawkins is not the present. He is the past.” -> No, I’m sorry, but this is really at best delusional. I understand that you are trying to feel better after being hurt, I get that honestly. It is however not true, Dawkins remains by FAR the largest draw of any atheist crowd, and the largest opponent as far as the religious are concerned, dawkins is MR. Atheism as far as the public is concerned. Dawkins is very much the present, and to deny this is just denying reality because you want it to be so.

    I suggest humbly to Rebecca that if she wishes to boycott richards lectures, products, and anything else with his name on it over this PR mistake of his, then by all means I understand your position, do it. However as a sort of mini-public figure yourself, using your public spot light to rally others around that cause is irresponsible and will only help to draw attention to a single mistake of an otherwise intellectual hero and force for good in this world. It will create a chasm where none need exist.

    Dawkins is wrong, you have a right to be upset with his comments, but to crucify him is fanatical at best. Are you perfect? have you never slipped up? Why not try a little empathy instead of vengeance, be the bigger person and correct the wrongness of his comments with civil lessons and not public war. Polarizing the community to take Feminists side or Dawkins side, is really just destructive, is that your goal? Because that seems to be the effect you are having.

      1. I listened to the video where Rebecca herself talked about what the elevator guy said to her. I quoted her quotes word for word.

        I also have read a great many of the comments here, so what is it that I am missing about elevator guy that you know, please share.

        Also your link does did not work for me, not sure why.

        As for male privilege, I understand that issues exist where men have an easier time then women in some regards, and other times women have an easier time then men (like custody cases). I am against sexism of any kind, but that does not mean I am for feminist fanatics or masculine fanatics either, both extremes are equally disrespectful.

        Rape culture? that is not relevant to this situation, seeing that Rebecca reported only kind words from elevator guy, honest questions, and no hint what so ever of threats or restriction of movement.

        1. As has been mentioned above. Rapists can be oh so very polite.

          However the man was NOT polite. He (a complete stranger) deliberately followed her to the elevator at 4am in the morning to pester her for sex, knowing full well he would catch her alone in a cramped space.

          That is not respect. It is creepy.

    1. Besides “Schrodinger’s Rapist” I would specifically suggest reading “Mythcommunication” and Gavin de Becker’s book “The Gift of Fear” to demonstrate why Elevator Guy’s behavior was threatening.

      Briefly, someone who approaches in a polite and friendly manner, IN AN INAPPROPRIATE SITUATION, is more likely to be a threat than someone who behaves appropriately by keeping their distance.

      https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/

      The first chapter of Gift of Fear is online at Amazon, or here:

      http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Gift-of-Fear-by-Gavin-de-Becker

  413. Rebecca, I had to quit reading comments, because my blood pressure was spiking. But I did want to say thank you for not backing down. It’s always disappointing as hell when people you like and could have sworn were smarter than that fail on such fundamentally simple issues. And the “exceptional girls” aren’t helping either. (“Oh, no! I’m not one of THOSE Feminists! Tee hee!! I’m on YOUR SIDE, guys!”)

    Keep up the good work. I honestly don’t see how you do it without using expletives every other word. I would be (as you may have noticed from past comments).

    Also, to everyone who thinks getting angry isn’t a logical or rational response? You’re not a Vulcan. Sometimes anger is the only rational or logical response.

  414. This place has been overrun with MRM proponents and every type of troll, none of whom are listening, or have any intention of listening, to anything anyone who doesn’t agree with them says.
    When have the pile of wheat is chaff it’s time to move on.

    1. They don’t just overrun here though, they are on every blog covering anything to do with women’s issues. They are also at conferences, seminars and pub meetings.

      They are making it very clear that women are not valued.

      1. Oh yeah. And cue whining about how women are too stupid to ‘get’ atheism or critical thinking, and how women need to be more assertive and need to just stop being so shy.

        1. I see you are familiar with the words of Paula Kirby!

          I have really loved the comments you have made over the last few days, btw.

          1. Oh Great Galluping Gobs, yes. And had an all over shiver.

            Because it is the reasonable position to put the entire burden of changing on women changing to be easier to put up with for men, who are (of course) the people just trying to be logical, just trying to be reasonable, who will rid them of these burdensome women?

            And thank you. It gave me something to do which I believe to be necessary and which makes me feel as if I could contribute.

            And I’m a touch feisty and shit. :D

  415. @Munashe_Cheetah

    Propositioning someone you just met, alone in an elevator, at 4am, doesn’t sound like the most respectful thing in the world to this male skeptic/atheist.

    Just saying.

    On the main issue: Sigh. Sure, Richard, women oppressed by violent patriarchal religions do have it worse. That doesn’t mean we should belittle the problem of rape in the western world, or the effects of the problem on women everywhere.

    When I go on a first date, I am confident that any sex that occurs will be with my permission. If I walk to the corner store alone at night, I may have fears, but they don’t include being sexually assaulted. I know three women at my place of employment who have been raped. I know zero men who have been raped. I do however know two rapists, both men, who will never be convicted because no charges will ever be pressed.

    And yes, if a woman propositions me in a lonely elevator at 4 am, I don’t have to worry about her stopping the elevator between floors and raping me, or if the floor that the elevator stops at will have empty hallways, or if I will be overpowered and dragged into a room. Nope, if I am propositioned in an elevator, I’m fairly confident that my answer, if not respected, will at least be heeded.

    I am sorry. No man can know what it is like to be a woman in a society where 1 out of 6 women will be sexually assaulted. Because we can’t know, too many of us make light of fears and concerns that we can never share. Too many of us read the original post and think; “I wish someone would proposition me in an elevator….aerosmith fantasy high five! What is her problem?”

    The best I can do is listen, try to understand, and when a woman tells me, “guys, don’t do that,” to not do whatever was the “that” in question.

  416. “Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. ”

    Richard Dawkins does not think you should shut up about being sexually objectified, he thinks you should shut up when whining about being harmlessly and innocently hit on by the opposite gender.

    From your own account of what Elevator guy said to you from your video, you cannot justifiably claim that he was objectifying you. You were not treated or seen as an object. You were treated and seen as a human being, which is why elevator guy talked to you politely even showing concern for you “dont take this the wrong way”, and then paying you a compliment “I find you very interesting and would like to talk more”. Then his proposition, this was also not objectification, sex is something that human beings do with other human beings and he was attempting to initiate that with you, you declined, and he polietely dropped it.

    ““No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.”

    Yes about as weird as someone thinking “that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.” I am sure just like your jokes, the comments you quoted above were also ment in jest.

    “like how we tell women they should be quiet and polite and not question what is told to them”

    This is not occuring in the atheistic movement to my knowledge, if you have data that shows otherwise, please provide it, otherwise this claim is just as lacking in evidence as any other religious claim.

    “And I got messages from women who told me about how they had trouble attending pub gatherings and other events because they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men.”

    There is no reason to feel uncomfortable around the other gender. I dont feel uncomfortable around groups of women. This is something that they need to get past if they are having a problem with it, no one is holding them back except themselves.

    “They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away.”

    It should not come to them or you as a suprise when someone of the opposite gender finds you attactive and hits on you.. that is in our biological programming, its natural and is expected. As long as its not done in a rude way, you can be civil about it. Making advances on men or women is EXPECTED and driven by nature, and there is no reason that this should be a negative thing. Just back off when you hear “No” and be polite the other person is a valuable human being just like you.

    “I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on.”

    And you rightfully shouldnt have minded, what changed? because thats where I am seeing it from right now.

    “Maybe they could wait for her to make the first move, just in case.”

    So women are allowed to hit on men and not the other way around? Seems like an unreasonable double standard to me. If we want things to be truly equal then we need the same standards applied to both men and women. However if both men and women were told to wait until the other makes the first move then a lot of happy opportunities would be missed. Thus allow men and women to hit on who they want, when they want, in a kind, respectful manner, that makes sense for the environment. If your no interested, simply say “No” and its over.

    “I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists”

    I can guarantee you that most men would find this unacceptable behaviour and those that are doing this are the very small minority. Surely you are not basing some crusade for women on some deviant subset of men and considering that a problem actually exists from that sample size?

    No, most men would not be inappropriate with you either physically or verbally. Yes they may think it would be great to have sex with you, your a pretty women, and quite honestly thats just fine, and if they want to make a pass at you at an appropriate time and setting then I see nothign wrong with that, as long as they back off when you say “No”, thats nature, and your likely guilty of it too with some guy or another =)

    “I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one.”

    I am sorry but I have to call bullshit on this one. You would like people to believe there is some huge sexism problem within the atheist community that caused you to become feminist, however there is absolutely no reason to believe that. Yes there are very few women in the community, and I would definately like to see that change, but I am very skeptical that this is due to a sexism problem

    I think that if you are going to make the claim that sexism is an issue in the atheist community then the burden of proof is on you to prove that there actually is one. Until I see that proof, I will continue with my lack of belief that a sexism problem exists, and so will most atheists.

    “This is especially interesting since Richard Dawkins sat next to me in Dublin and heard me talk about the threats of rape”

    These threats are such a small minority of men that they are statistically insignificant. Using them as your sample size for your argument really is not helping your case.

    They are no different from ricahrd dawkins life threatening emails from christians who want to run him over with a church van. These emails are not a fair representation of christians and other then comedy, is not something to build an argument on.

    Not to mention that your rape emails have nothing at all to do with richard dawkins comments so I am not really sure why this section was even included in your article.

    “So to have my concerns – and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault – dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us.”

    This is nothing but dishonest slander.

    Richard Dawkins did NOT compare rape survivors as you suggest. He commented about the problem you had about a guy politely hitting on you.

    Also it is sexist of you to assume that just because a man is on an elevator with you, you are at danger of being raped.

    Here is how the argument goes. Imagine you are a white man, and a black man stands behind you on an elevator. He has done nothing threatening but you grip your wallet anyway.

    Is this racist? The answer is yes.

    Now imagine your a white women, and man stands behind you on an elevator. He has done nothing threatening but you become uncomfortable due to your belief that he might rape you.

    Is this sexist? The answer to me seems to be yes.

    “that this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experiences as an atheist woman”

    I am not even sure if he truly knows who you are. Maybe he does, maybe he doesnt. But why should he? with the amount of people he meets in any given year is there a reason he should specifically pay attention to you and your experience?

    He commented (perhaps rudely) on your seemingly irrational reaction to a harmless and perhaps genuine guy who may have had a crush on you, maybe for your ideas from earlier talks. After having given this more thought, it really does seem to be a poor reaction, one that is potentially based on sexism of being fearful of being raped just because he was a man.

    “But those of us who are humanists and feminists will find new, better voices to promote and inspire”

    I am humanist, and no, I do not agree with you. Dawkins is not the enemy, he is on our side and a brilliant voice of reason. He may have been insensitive in his comments and produced a bad argument initially, thats about all i can give you. It doesnt mean that you should try to rally people to drag his name through the mud, especially with all he has done, we owe him far better then that.

    1. Wow, there’s not even a need for new responses anymore.


      Telling someone they’re attractive isn’t necessarily a threat. Telling someone they’re attractive as a stranger, in an enclosed space, coupled with an invitation to go to an even LESS secure place, when speaking to someone who has said plainly in many ways that she doesn’t want to be hit on, is ALREADY a threat because he’s ignoring all of that to focus on the chance of sex for himself. Ignoring the other person’s safety, preference, privacy and ability to make her own choices, IS OBJECTIFICATION.

      Also, you don’t need a zero-sum game of well SOMEONE has to hit on someone for sex to happen. Not true. There’s plenty of sex between people who got to know each other and made the decision mutually. There’s even plenty of sex between people who responded to POLITE expressions of interest. If you can’t figure out the difference, there’s some studies on yesmeansyes and Gift of Fear that I linked earlier today.

      The racism comparison was debunked days ago in these comments. Go look.

    2. Munashe-Cheetah,

      I agree with almost everything you say.

      If I wanted to add anything, it would just be to acknowledge (and I feel fairly sure you would agree) that both the perceptions and the realities of situations such as the one in that lift are understandably different for women, both historically and in the present, even in relatively gender-progressive societies.

      My only small bugbear is that feminism addresses the valid issues in a very one-sided way. Beyond that, I don’t have a problem with it.

  417. This seems like quite an extreme reaction to a only mildly offensive comment. True, Richard Hawkins comment was overly aggressive, but i think his message in this it merely that complaints about men as a whole over such a minor event that happened to rebecca watson. I think complaining about such a minor event seems infantile compared to some of the things that happens to women. I agree Dawkins was in the wrong, he was uninformed and needlessly aggressive, but Dawkins isn’t a femenist, he’s and evolutionary biologist, even him with such a high profile can make mistakes

  418. Replying to pteryxx:

    “You’ve just claimed that unless rapists can be reliably differentiated from normal guys BEFORE THEY RAPE, you’re going to ignore the stated, reliable information that rapists camouflage their behavior TO AVOID DETECTION BY ACTING LIKE NORMAL GUYS. This, after you just supposedly admitted that providing plausible deniability for rapists is a “very serious problem”.”

    I wasn’t suggesting ignoring anything. I was mearly trying to illuminate the paradox of trying to identify something as deviant by the criteria that it seems normal.

    And how, exactly, does this pertain to providing rapists with plausable deniability? They can and will always make the claim that they’re just normal guys (as long as they keep up the act in public) no matter what you do or how attitudes change. What’s your argument going to be? “Look at how normal he is! He has to be a rapist!”?

    1. Finally after all this time you ask that question?

      Here’s your answer:


      “Um. Just a word to the wise here, guys: Uhhhh, don’t do that. Um, you know. [laughs] Uh, 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 4am, in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and—don’t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

      So, yeah. But everybody else seemed to really get it.”

      -Rebecca Watson

      Normal guys can help to distinguish themselves from potential rapists by being respectful of women, sharing control and consent with them, and choosing not to harass or corner them. Congratulations.

      1. “Normal guys can help to distinguish themselves from potential rapists by being respectful of women, sharing control and consent with them, and choosing not to harass or corner them. Congratulations.”

        And you mean a rapist couldn’t fake that until she lets her guard down? That sounds a lot like what should be normal behavior, which is what they’d go for. This is exactly what I mean (I was a little sceptical as to use Elevator Guy’s actions as normal) when I say that you can’t use “how normal he is” as some kind of gauge.

        1. The point being, that decent non-rapey folks can learn to behave respectfully, thus shifting the definition of “normal” romantic behavior towards mutual consent and away from manipulation. Which will give less plausible deniability to actual rapists. Since rape by definition occurs without consent, it’d be rather difficult for rapists to conform to a set of norms like that.

          If it’s a universal, perfect solution for rape that you want, though, by all means feel free to pray for one.

          1. I do think it would do away with a lot of plausable deniability, but sadly this will most likely lead to more outright lies.

            I don’t think that they’d have a much harder time to adapt to that norm than the current one, although it would make the line clearer between an impulsive rapist and one waiting for the right opportunity. More rigid consent would, in my min, most likely not do away with the manipulation, just move it into different areas.

            I also think that it would be hard to incorperate the change since quite a lot of both men and women seem to enjoy “playing the game” too much. Although a flawed system, this is something that has likely been around since the dawn of man and changing things like that take time. I wouldn’t count on it happening in our lifetime.

  419. pteryxx: You’re a freaking super hero. My hat is off to you.

    I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say which will change victorj’s mind. He or she has decided to move the argument goal posts until there’s no burden of proof which will satisfy him or her. It’s some maddening shit.

    I wanted to sort of generally add that it is the perception of the aggressor which dictates their behavior. My point earlier was that all the aggressor has to do is perceive there to be reason to be aggressive, whether it’s the assumption that he or she has the absolute right to intrude or, in other cases, the right to abuse the other person physically. The measure of whether someone is ‘in a relationship’ or ‘friendly’ with their attacker is often used to obscure the fact that the action was the aggressor’s choice and mitigate the effect of their behavior, hence all that bullshit popping up on threads all over about Watson “leading him on” or “confusing him.” That’s also a reason why refusals are often not honored: the perception of the right of the perpetrator.

    Hence the discussions about privilege: privilege is the assumption of the right of the aggressor (in this case)– the assumption that enough of a relationship existed to supercede Watson’s stated preferences. And the thing is, that assumption may or may not (we don’t know) have entered EG’s mind, but it sure as shit dictated his actions.

    I often get a bit irritable with the question “Well, was the victim in a relationship with the aggressor” on those measures for that reason. The relationship is mostly irrelevant to the choice to transgress, and people who do stalk or assault others will often report a relationship when there wasn’t one in the conventional sense.

    Also, the studies in question are self-report. This is what those men are reporting about themselves and their behavior. Of course they’re going to report social conditions which give them the right to ignore refusal.

    Ick. Just ick.

    Rebecca, if you’re reading, I just want to re-affirm that you have been more than polite, and it is absolutely reasonable to react any way you deem necessary.

    A lot of these trolls radically misunderstand consent. Probably on purpose– there’s a lot of seriously bad faith arguing going on here.

    1. “I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say which will change victorj’s mind. He or she has decided to move the argument goal posts until there’s no burden of proof which will satisfy him or her. It’s some maddening shit.”

      I’ve moved nothing. Both of you have continuously attributet different viewpoints to me without ground, like assuming that I deny the existance of the rape culture or the misscommunication model/lie and forming your responses mostly around that. Next you’ll be accusing me of being one of those who blaim Rebecca. My issue has always been that you misrepresent the sources you use to preset a stronger case than they actually support.

      “Also, the studies in question are self-report. This is what those men are reporting about themselves and their behavior. Of course they’re going to report social conditions which give them the right to ignore refusal.”

      So first you use those sources as grounds for your argument and when someone comes and uses them against you they are no longer valid? With exception of the O’Byrne et al paper, all the sources I used came from you first. You know, when you where “kicking ass with all the reference material” – pteryxx?

      1. As several people have pointed out to you already, you have consistently misrepresented those studies. Moreover, you refuse to concede the results of those studies (eg the implications for society). You’ve repeatedly contradicted yourself, and before you ask, it’s already been pointed out to you.

        And you should really read the definition for validity. It does not mean what you seem to think it does.

        Were you actually debating this, instead of repeatedly attempting to assert that this or that portion of the study can’t be true because *hand wave* it just can’t be that way and that’s not how you read it, a discussion could have been possible. Hell, I can think of some things which might be debatable in the research methods and I think these are very useful studies, but I’m not going to do your homework for you.

        And, frankly, you appear to consistently ignore the implications of the study, the conclusions of the study, the methodology of the study, the framework of social science and what is assumed of the relationship between research studies and the world around them, any portion of the study you don’t like (while accusing me of it). You have taken little portions of the studies and argued voraciously both for and against various pieces, as it suits you to do so.

        You. Aren’t. Making. A. Case. You’ve alternated between willful ignorance, lying outright to the thread about the content of the studies, changed what you’re asking for/concluding repeatedly and generally done everything in your power to avoid any sort of position which communication would be possible around.

        And that, sir or madam, is because your views on the subject appear to be all over the map. I am not surprised. If there’s anything I have seen consistently from people who cannot stand the thought that there’s something wrong with the larger society, it’s arguments which skitter and leapfrog along opportunistically, anything that person can say to deny the fact that the problem is large, systemic, implicates practically everyone, and is incredibly serious.

        I’m a woman and sexism implicates me as well, because at any point the prevailing system can influence my actions. Humans are social and tend to behave, whether they mean to or not, along group lines. It’s an uncomfortable thought, but my discomfort with it, like your discomfort with it, does not change its existence.

        The only thing which will is willfully changing your behavior, as many people here have pointed out. In fact, people have been unaccountably generous on this thread to offer their own stories, their own moments of fault, in order to model the behavior they and others have been talking about. It’s a pity that it is so poorly appreciated by the men and women who have showed up to this debate to demand, over and over, by any means necessary, that there can’t be a problem and that it can’t effect them.

        The sad thing is, when people argue in good faith (eg are able to change their minds in the presence of better information), it is possible to actually have a debate on these studies. But in order for that to happen, you would have to have made an effort to engage which was not absolutely full of misrepresentations.

        In some ways, you have my sympathy. I have no doubt it is unwanted, but you still do. I remember the period in my life when I denied these things. For me, it was miserable.

        1. And what, exactly have I been denying? What have I said that contradicts what the sources actually say? Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in that I wasn’t supplying a summary, just putting important factors, like social context that actually narrows down where you might find a rapist, that you seem so uninterested in. I have never said that is untrue except for one thing:

          As for your and pteryxx represenatition regarding the misscommunication model, you fail to state that these men use it as theoretical reasoning for why OTHER men rape and with no indication that they use it for themselves. Thereby you misrepresent the nature of the problem, that people believe in misscommunication more than that they actually abide to it themselves.

          I think it’s sad that you accuse me of debating in bad faith when it’s pretty clear that you have your stance and will debate or acknowledge very few of the minor corrections I provide. The fact that you “remember the period in my life when I denied these things” shows quite clearly that any form of compromise towards my direction is regarded by you as reverting and you are only waiting for me to come to the point where I agree with you completely. How open minded.

          You time and time again claiming that I deny the existance of specific issues or the fact that we live in a male dominated world, which tells me you rather attribute me with standings that are easy to debate than actually responde to what I am saying. I’m not saying that these issues do not exist, I only ask the question of how they are ever going to go away if we just keep playing by those rules and never break the circle?

  420. To be clear, Dawkins’s reaction is comparing not the suffering you may have received or women in the west receive at the hands of men to that of muslim women. He was comparing your complaint that a guy who didn’t know how to ask you out the right way, and you deciding it was relevant to feminism (which it isn’t) to the suffering of muslim women, which actually is relevant to feminism.

    After all I’ve read about this incident, and everyone’s comments (okay not all 1000+ of them) I’d have to say that yes, Dawkins may have reacted rudely, but he’s not wrong. In fact your reaction to his reaction only serves to emphasize his point. You look like a whiny child in your response, and are showing a clear penchant for exaggeration. I find this surprising because I tend to find most of what you say very interesting. I may now have to go back and re-evaluate.

    I’ve seen many people saying that this incident may very well harm Dawkins’s credibility. I don’t believe this to be the case. If anything it seems more likely that it will harm your own credibility, especially within the realm of feminism. In the long run this entire incident will be largely forgotten. So get over it. There’s no need to boycott someone you claim to have held respect for, because he pointed out the truth. That truth being that you blew things out of proportion. Even if he did do it rudely by ranting about the hardships of muslim women.

    You both owe each other an apology, but you also owe your readership an apology. So apologize and let everyone forget it within the month.

    1. and i think you need to learn what feminism is. Let us hope you do so before opening your mouth again and placing your feet in it.

    2. adlehyde,

      Two simple questions: how did Rebecca Watson exaggerate what happened, and how do you know that?

      1. In my opinion Rebecca did not exaggerate on her reaction to the guy in the elevator, so the post was very appropriate. I found very inconvenient instead the way she over-amplified the reaction to Dawkins’ answer. This is a very common behaviour among intellectuals: when a bright personality gets weaker then jump to their throat and finish them. It has nothing to do with feminism and has nothing to do with rationalism. It has more to do with psychology and social behaviour. The more I think about it, the more this harsh argument with Dawkins looks totally unnecessary.

  421. Just wanted to drop by to give my support to Rebecca Watson (and I’m not just saying this to get into anyone’s pants). I didn’t know about the rape threats until I read her post, but definitely being a public figure of sorts and being known by people you don’t necessarily know, and having strangers make threats of personal violence on you like that to try and silence you, makes any sort of potential threat to one’s personal safety all the more credible, and frightening.

    Richard Dawkins clearly has never been in a position where he’s feared for his personal safety like that (how many people want to rape Richard Dawkins? Not many I reckon), so what does he know? I’m sure many a small guy thrown in prison knows exactly how many women feel virtually all the time in a male-dominated society, to be looked upon as nothing more than fresh meat, as an object to be used rather than seen as a person with thoughts and feelings.

    I, being no Jet Li and probably shorter (yes, he’s actually 2 1/4″ taller than me, and he’s not a big guy) would no doubt feel just as uncomfortable being propositioned or otherwise hit on by some stranger while alone with them in an elevator, and yes, I would feel trapped. If the person hitting on me was persistent, aggressive, or just plain bigger than me (as most guys are) I think I would feel much the same as Ms. Watson, although I’ll never know the fear of, say, being impregnated by a rapist, the sexual violence and violation alone of a sexual assault is reason enough to genuinely worry about one’s personal safety and to become paranoid about other people’s intentions.

    In general, straight guys in our male-dominated society have no idea: all the while they’re checking out (i.e. ogling) chicks and giving them some unwanted attention, they don’t stop to think about how it would feel if they were surrounded by bigger guys who were busy checking them out in the same way. They’d probably feel really threatened. Maybe they weren’t close with their mom, sister or some female relative, maybe they’ve never had an appropriate and healthy relationship with women in their lives, but at the very least you would think heterosexual guys in all their latent homophobia would be able to stop and think of how it would feel to be sexually objectified and threatened by guys who have the strength to overpower and have their way with them.

  422. Hi. Just jumping in here. I’m a guy, btw. ‘Bias’ declared. :] That’s a joke. I don’t particularly subscribe to gender stereotypes, and I like to think I’m egalitarian. at least I try to be. Which of us can honestly say we can transend all the possible pitfalls, eh?

    I sympathize with Rebecca’s sense of discomfort, and she is, IMO, quite entitled and indeed quite correct to ask guys to be more sensitive about this sort of thing (I refer to the incident in the lift). And Dawkins subsequently dropped a blooper. He’s imperfect.

    But (and of course there is a but) I’m afraid I have to step away from the stormy teacup at some point. This is because it’s my view that feminism, for all its benefits ( and I accept there are many)has one inherent problem. It’s divisive and often simplistic. This is why I can’t subscribe.

    I think this is what alienates so many guys. Granted, quite a few of said guys are probably guilty, to varying degrees of sexism. OTOH, a lot of ’em are just guys. Imperfect guys. Guys who realize that words like ‘privilege’, ‘sexualization’ and ‘blatant misogyny’ are, sadly, a tad overused in feminist circles. I believe all three were used in Rebecca’s video in which she related the incident in the lift, and I’m not sure they were entirely warranted.

    Just my tuppenceworth. Happy to discuss in a civilized fashion. :)

    1. skepchap:
      “Guys who realize that words like ‘privilege’, ‘sexualization’ and ‘blatant misogyny’ are, sadly, a tad overused in feminist circles. I believe all three were used in Rebecca’s video in which she related the incident in the lift, and I’m not sure they were entirely warranted.”

      Your reason for believing this clearly isn’t based on actually having seen the video or having read a transcript of it.

      This whole thing reminds me so much of the Muhammad cartoon controversy. One of the things that certain provocateurs, who wanted to refocus people’s anger away from the despots to the West, did was to circulate fake Muhammad cartoons that were far more appalling than anything in Jyllands-Posten (including the infamous turban one) and used that to inflame a reactionary backlash.

      So on the one hand, we have the Real Rebecca that we get in these posts and on her vlog, and then there’s the Reactionary Backlash Rebecca, who is the very caricature of a ball-busting, raging ‘feminazi’ who is out to string up a hapless guy because in his guileless innocence asked her out to a ‘mere’ social occasion.

      Here is the full transcript of the Elevator Guy discussion from Rebecca’s vlog:

      “So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?’

      “Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. 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 4:00 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.”

      That’s it. That’s all there is. Only one of the terms you listed was there, and one can reasonably observe that sexualization is implicit in EG’s making a pass at Rebecca.

      The furious nature of the backlash is, as is usual, more revealing about the nature of ingrained attitudes that *are* indeed sexist and privileged, if not necessarily misogynistic. We have Dawkins acting like the gatekeeper of what issues it is permissible for women to care about, and using his gatekeeper status to pour scorn on a woman who is simply saying “We need to do something about stuff like this if we want atheist conferences to be welcoming places for women.” Playing women off each other (e.g. we can’t do anything about X until we’ve solved every worse problem for women in existence) and denying the appropriateness of women speaking up about their experiences are two ways in patriarchal attitudes are manifested in conversations like these.

      You may not see a problem, but as something of a veteran of conversations like these, I’m fairly well attuned to the fact that most of the blowups don’t happen over the most extreme expressions of radfem postings, because men can simply shrug them off. Instead, these conversations are most vitriolic when it’s about policing the boundaries—making sure that moderate concessions to feminists never happen.

      And, just FYI, I’m a man too.

  423. I really don’t see why you even video bogged about the encounter. It was extremely minor incident. As a woman, lesbian, and feminist the problem with feminism is it only wants to empower certain types of women. Example any of you support our sista’s out there who work in the sex industry? Anyone stand behind Tracy Lords or Jenna Jameson? No why because they you feel it objectifies women. And it doesn’t because anyone with half a brain knows the difference between fantasy and reality.

    Real Feminists stand up for the Stay at home moms, working moms, strippers, porn stars, prostitues. If you talk to a stripper they will tell you they love their job. If you talk to a porn star they will tell you the same.

    As far as your threats of rape welcome to the club! There are fucking sick people out there….Stars get threats all the time anyone who forms an opinion and shares it with the world will be threatened by some sick bastard out there. My friend who is a gay male wrote an editorial some how a crazy loon got his home address not only threatened to kill him because he was gay but also threatened to shove a bunch of large object up his ass to “teach him a lesson”. Ever get shouted at by some religious nut job on the street cause you’re holding your girlfriends had. Ever have been threatened to be killed while leaving a gay bar.

    The problem with Feminism is that it doesn’t give slack to they guy who only asked a question. I don’t know what lezbo hasn’t had someone say …”all you need is a big dick” And when someone says that to me me I say “I already have one..my girl straps it on and takes me for a ride..” then i say a few more words before you know it smile is a frown and they are gone.

    There are real problems out there for women. I enjoy Dawkins sarcasm and the second I read it I totally got where he was coming from.

    Rape is real and sex trafficking is real, the issues of our sisters in the middle east, Africa and elsewhere are real. Sorry the issue you took with a guy that asked if you wanted to get coffee in his room is something you talk about with your friends not make a federal case over. And to try and boycott him is just absolutely not called for.

    1. “Example any of you support our sista’s out there who work in the sex industry? Anyone stand behind Tracy Lords or Jenna Jameson?”

      Yes and yes.

      Oh I’m sorry! Did the facts just get in the way of your strident point? What a shame.

      1. No not at all doesn’t bring down my argument cause you support them…your beef with this guy should have never been made public. A simple little thing like a guy hitting on you is not an issue at all.

        So if a chick would’ve hit on you in the same manor would you have even bogged about it?

        1. Women, in general, don’t rape other people. And most women are not very strong. So the answer is there is no reason to blog about it.

          1. What women in prison get raped all the time. I also guess that there’s no abuse in a lesbian relationship!?

            A few books, Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships by Dr. Claire M. Renzetti,
            No More Secrets: Violence in Lesbian Relationships by Janice Ristock,
            Woman-to-Woman Sexual Violence: Does She Call It Rape? by Lori B. Girshick also cover the topic of rape of women by other women

            “And most women are not very strong” really that’s really sexist. WOW

          2. I get what you’re saying but neither do men, in general, rape women. The difference in numbers of male and female rapists might br quite high, but that does not mean that it’s common among men to rape.

          3. Okay, you have a point if I were in a prison elevator with another female inmate. Then I WOULD blog about it.

        2. I don’t think it’s just the being hit on part which was scary, it was all the circumstances surrounding it and on top of it, like it being late at night, in a foreign country, being alone in an elevator, etc.. She has every right, not just as a woman, but as a human being, to put it out there (in a vblog, even) that what the guy did made her feel uncomfortable. It’s a person’s feeling, and one that I think a lot of women share, but even if it was just her, it’s her right to tell people that it creeped her out and that guys who may be a little clueless about this sort of thing might want to think before doing it if they don’t want to be (presumably mistakenly) assumed to be a creep.

          And there’s more than one brand of feminism, and most women that I know subscribe to the more modern view of the sex-positive feminist who supports women who work in the sex-trade industry of their own volition and without coercion by others or by financial circumstance.

          Not that I disagree with certain views of traditional feminist thought which does tend to view pr0n as being a method of objectifying women sexually and the idea that it is created almost entirely for the benefit of the heterosexual male to the detriment of women. And I say that as a guy who does consume pr0n. Ideally, we’d be living in a world where socioeconomic conditions for women were such that they truly are free to choose sex-trade work because they love it, enjoy it and want to make sexual pleasure and the sexual pleasuring of others their life’s calling, and far be it for me to presume to know better than the woman herself what she may want to do with her life and her body. That being said, we live in an imperfect world where the reality is that there are quite a few women even in the legitimate mainstream pr0n industry who ended up there because they were psychosexually ‘groomed’ (for lack of a better term) to end up in that profession, whether it was due to childhood sexual abuse, or domestic abuse, or for financial reason, or maybe even something as relatively innocuous-seeming as the sexual portrayal of women in mainstream media (which, for all that it is not deliberately and physically coercive in a violent sense, is possibly all the more insidious because most people, male, female or otherwise, are totally unaware of it and thus unable to deconstruct it rationally with their conscious mind).

          So… in some respects I do have to agree that while it’s wrong to stigmatize sex-trade workers or delegitimize their calling (as this only serves to marginalize them and put them at even greater risk from predatory pimps and violent johns), the reality is that we as a society, as a human race, don’t really know if women really would choose to aspire to become pr0n stars or prostitutes, if the sexes truly were equal and there weren’t things like pink collar ghettoes and glass ceilings for women in the workplace and in the boardrooms. I’d like to think that if I had, or ever have a daughter, that she’d grow up to be sex-positive and accept her sexuality and enjoy it… but I’d still want her to be a doctor or lawyer or something because I want to see her obtain the kind of self-esteem one only gets from fulfilling their full potential as a human being and to contribute to the greater society and betterment of humanity. I’m not saying sex work isn’t important: I’ve read of sex workers in other countries (might have been Germany) where they work to give disabled people sexual pleasure. That’s a very progressive idea, that view that human beings are fundamentally sexual creatures and just because one is disabled does not mean that one stops wanting to have sex, and what is more cruel to an already disadvantaged person than to relegate them to some class of human who is undeserving of sex just because they aren’t healthy, whole and perfect? It may be a form of charity sex, but I’m sure if I were them I’d be just as grateful because it beats the hell out of, uh, beating off. But short of becoming a doctor who specializes in sex therapy, or researching the boundaries of human sexuality, it’s not exactly work that necessarily stretches one’s mental capacities. Granted, not every person is smart enough or willing to do the schoolwork necessary to go into those careers, and even in our society someone needs to be on the front lines, actually having sex with people, not just talking about it or writing about it, so people who aren’t much for hitting the books but absolutely love having sex might be perfect for that.

          I don’t know, I’m not a sex worker so far be it for me to belittle their work. But I’ve read about the realities of the hardships they face, that I certainly wouldn’t want someone I know to have to suffer those kinds of hardships if it was possible to avoid them. In an ideal world, sex workers would be prized and treasured as goddesses (or gods, or whatever sex you may be) who perform an invaluable service, not a marginalized group of vulnerable people who are in constant threat of danger every hour of their working days.

  424. I have to say that I understand the feeling of Rebecca being propositioned in the elevator. But I disagree with much of what has been said on Dawkins. I don’t think his answer was particularly brilliant, but he tried to push an idea which I partially share with him: women in Muslim countries (and generalizing: religious countries) are abused beyond imagination, whereas in the western world an episode like that of Rebecca is considered unacceptable by many (in particular Rebecca who has correctly rebelled to all this). Dawkins says, in a quite rude way I admit, that Rebecca received no harm since the guy in the elevator just expressed on words the crap he had in his mind. Dawkins unfortunately misses the point that the episode was unpleasant and creepy, and here he’s to blame. The example of the chewing gum was taken from a conference he did in Berkeley where it was fitting better the context. However, labelling him as misogynist goes beyond what appears to me to be the reality and appears a bit preposterous. Saying that he “represents the past” as Rebecca wrote above gives me the feeling that all these criticisms are the result of self-complaisance for appearing brighter than a bright man.

  425. Rebecca and others,

    Your reaction to Dawkins is misguided. If your goal really is to help educate people who don’t get it, don’t use faulty emotional appeals to prove your point.

    #1 Dawkins white skin and wealth are not related to his inability to get it.
    #2 Not reading Dawkins on science because he doesn’t get this issue is illogical.
    #3 Dawkins admits he does not get it. Attacking him and boycotting him will not help him get it. Dawkins has asked for elucidation and said he will apologize once he gets it. Self-righteous indignation should not be used against the ignorant if you are sincerely trying to educate.

    1. Very well said.
      All these criticisms against Dawkins look more like shouting than reasoning. I am not his praiser at all, but my wish is to turn all this into something positive for rationalists, atheists and women rights. If this story will end in a positive way (Dawkins and Rebecca reckoning each other’s arguments) then it will have helped to raise conciousness about the female oppression everywhere (which is something Dawkins wrote when discussing feminism in “The God Delusion”).

    2. “Dawkins has asked for elucidation and said he will apologize once he gets it. Self-righteous indignation should not be used against the ignorant if you are sincerely trying to educate.”

      Self-righteous ignorance should not be used against the indignant if you are sincerely trying to learn.

      Dawkins has said “explain this to me” AFTER explanations and evidence have been provided, and only AFTER his initial post in which he denied there was anything to be learned in the first place. He is refusing to let himself be educated, and by making his apology continent on that education, he’s blaming everyone who tries for his own lack of insight. He’s far from the only one; it’s all over these discussions.

      To phrase it another way: “I do not keep him in ignorance. His ignorance is a fortress he has built himself and defended savagely.” -from Robin Hobb

      1. Dawkins thought he got it. His “self-righteous” comments came well before his request for explanation. This plea came at the last sentence of his 3rd and, so far, final comment on PZ’s blog.

        That’s the problem, isn’t it? People who have “self-righteous ignorance” do not know it (that’s what it means to be ignorant–you don’t know something). When someone (Dawkins) who in the past has had good logic in other areas looks around and sees that others are not agreeing with him, and then asks for clarification, the correct response is to give him the clarification for which he has asked.

        By now, I’m guessing he gets it because reasonable people whom he trusts (PZ, for one; Phil Plait, for another) have explained it to him. My disappointment is with the feminist community that resorts to vituperation instead of calm logic.

        There is a learning curve that he has never had the need to learn. Give him time to learn, for goodness’ sake.

        1. I’d say it ill behooves *any* skeptic to dismiss someone’s observation out of hand, unless and until that person or observation has been thoroughly debunked. Appeal to cognitive biases (ignorance and/or sexism) may be an explanation, but not an excuse.

          In Dawkins’ case, he did sit on a panel in which Rebecca *discussed* the problem of sexism in the atheist community. I’m disinclined to believe he’s merely ignorant of it.

          1. For an alternate viewpoint, see Jen McCreight’s blog:

            http://www.blaghag.com/2011/07/dawkins-is-not-misogynist.html

            Personally, I’m not convinced Dawkins is truly a misogynist or not, and I’m not sure it matters. I’m offended, not hurt, by his comments. But many people feel far more hurt and betrayed than I do, and they have every right to withdraw their support from someone when they can no longer support in good conscience.

  426. Ok, two disclaimers. First, I’m not really a member of any skeptic community, nor am I an atheist, but I am planning to attend TAM and learn more. Second, I’m a guy.

    But coming at this whole controversy from a skeptical perspective, it seems to me that this is an opportunity for exploration of an issue. Rebecca had an emotional response to a situation which may or may not be based on real issues (i.e. potential for sexual assault, etc). Dawkins had a rational response that did not attempt to understand Rebecca’s emotional perspective, and it dismissed the possible real issues facing women (especially professional women) in today’s society.

    So instead of taking a side, wouldn’t it be more proper to examine, based on evidence, whether Rebecca’s uneasiness was justified? What are the statistics regarding sexual assault in these types of cases? Should women be more cautionary, or forgiving, when someone propositions them in an isolated environment?

    In other words, instead of making this a controversy that creates a rift, wouldn’t it be better to understand the rationale behind the concerns and educate?

    1. Nobody has the right to judge whether someone should be uneasy in a given situation. Rebecca Watson has said how the approach made her feel and simply asked that men should not do what the man in the elevator did. Richard Dawkins’ dismissal of the matter was really rather sad and I would have expected better of him, especially once others pointed out, repeatedly, why they disagreed with him.

      Do you understand why approaching a woman in this way would be likely to make her nervous, by the way? Have your opinions been changed by what you have read in the last few days?

      1. Let’s put it another way. Someone fears the wrath of god. They act in an emotional way due to that fear. Does someone else have the right to educate them as to the chances of the rapture actually happening next week?

        Similarly, people fear vaccines. They don’t get vaccinated due to that fear. This is an emotional response. Should a skeptic look at the actual data and determine whether that fear is rational?

        1. Women are attacked in all sorts of places, with attack by strangers being particularly prevalent in secluded ones. Why should a woman be happy to give a man in such a situation the benefit of the doubt when that means putting herself at risk?

          You didn’t answer the question, by the way. Has this episode changed your understanding?

    2. Keep in mind that it’s a very common cognitive bias to interpret a woman’s argument as “emotional” when it’s reasonable, and to interpret a man’s argument as “rational” when it’s emotional.

      Relevant statistics have been discussed all over this thread, but to summarize: a significant fraction of women are uncomfortable or afraid around strange men, because of personal history or social training or both. Small enclosed areas are risky places to be alone with strangers, especially for women. Ignoring another person’s boundaries is both alarming and a danger sign. Cultural narratives suggest women’s boundaries are particularly likely to be transgressed by men, and women are well aware of this. And sexual assault and rape are common, which is relevant for the immediate risk and the fraction of women who have already experienced it.

      mouthyb has linked several resources in this thread, and so have I. See also “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin de Becker, and various police agencies’ crime prevention guides.

      There’s the education. Perhaps after all this discussion, *some* skeptics will be a bit less likely to dictate how an entire diverse half of the population “should” feel because they happen to be women.

  427. Being sexually objectified is good thing for a lot of people. For some, I guess it’s not so good. So here’s a question:

    If it came down to a choice with no middle ground, would it be better to be sexually objectified or sexually ignored?

    I would have to go with the first choice because the other choice would really suck. Who would want to be ignored?

    Of course there’s a middle ground. There’s an infinite amount of variables and choices to be made. Maybe this guy in the elevator didn’t make an appropriate choice given the nature of Rebecca’s view and what she said during her turn to talk on the panel. If this guy was present for that talk and listened to what Rebecca said, then what was he thinking? It seems kind of stupid in that context, but as much information that is known by anyone other than Rebecca and the guy in the elevator, the context is still very ambiguous.

    The semantics: 4 am, alone in an elevator, and in a foreign country. Would it have been a better choice at 3:59 am? Ridiculous. How about 4 PM? Does the time even matter? How about a crowded elevator at 4 PM in her own country where the guy would have had to raise his voice in order to be heard? Would that have been more appropriate? How about at the bar a half hour earlier with everyone around? Would that have been more timely? The answer to all of these questions is as ambiguous as the questions themselves. The only way to know is to ask. And that’s all this guy did. Maybe it was inappropriate given some very extenuating circumstance, but it was a just a question and not a rude one at that. He didn’t say “hey babe, how about we go to my room and fuck.” Which has worked in the past by the way. No. He asked to share some coffee and talk.

    This guy was referred to as a creep. I don’t think Rebecca said that but it’s been said in many posts. Why is that? What if the guy in the elevator was Brad Pitt and he was single? Would 4 AM be more appropriate then? I don’t know about Rebecca, but for a lot of women, any time and any where would work if it was Brad Pitt. And the same thing also goes for guys as well if it was Angelina Jolie. Appearances do make a difference for a lot of people, even if they refuse to admit it. We all emotionally respond to what we think is attractive and unattractive and we don’t have much choice or control over those initial responses.

    Another issue is that being hit on by Brad Pitt may be much more flattering than being hit on by the Hunch Back of Notre Dame. Brad Pitt is sexually objectified while the Hunch Back of Notre Dame is probably not (by most people). In my opinion, many people think it matters more as to who is doing the asking then other details such as time and place. That would make some women sexists too because they only want hot looking guys to hit on them and are repulsed when a creep hits on them…. Just like many sexist guys. For many people It plays to their ego when a hot looking person hits on them. Gender doesn’t matter when it comes to ego. We all have ego but not all of us recognize it and/or can control it.

    It may seem shallow to respond to someone based on looks alone, but a first impression strikes at our emotions before our thoughts. That’s also not gender specific. Only after we think about what we see can we process our thoughts and influence our emotions. Sometimes that takes time. If we determine a hot looking person is a total ass, then no amount of looks will make up for that feeling of repulsiveness we feel. But with very little time to get to know someone, visual and other sensory initial cues are the primary basis of our response and judgement.

    And then there’s the road that no one has gone down. What if all this guy really wanted to do was have some coffee and talk? You know, sometimes people are honest and actually want what they ask for. I find honest people refreshing in a sea of bullshit. Maybe he had no sexual desire for Rebecca and just wanted to share some views? Did anyone ever think of that? Did you Rebecca or was it definitely about sex? There are some guys who will not find Rebecca sexually desirable. They may just admire her for her merits, thoughts, and wisdom. While there are plenty of guys out there who use any opportunity to get sex, there are many guys who are sincere and just want to talk. There’s a novel idea, an honest person. You know sometimes they exist.

    And then there are some guys who are truly romantically inspired and really want a good relationship. They want to get to know someone to see if there will be any chemical reaction and then they are trounced upon like a wolf caught in a hen house.

    Rebecca may have really missed a very good opportunity.

    Potential motivations and desires can be very vague and ambiguous so if one isn’t sure all one can do is take a chance and ask.

    For whatever reason, Rebecca said no and this guy respected that. As it should be. With too many people not taking no for an answer, I definitely wouldn’t call him a sexist for that. She said no and that was the end of it. No coffee and chat for her.

  428. When I first read about this issue, I was initially in the “what’s the big deal?” camp, thinking that perhaps Rebecca was overreacting to what sounded to me to be a fairly innocuous incident. The more I considered it, however, the more I came to realize that none of my internal arguments could adequately counter the fact that a come-on in a closed elevator genuinely made her, and would presumably make other women, uncomfortable. An opinion doesn’t and can’t change the fact of the emotional response, and none of gets to dictate how another human being should feel. I am taking Rebecca’s statement as intended, as a good piece of advice about how to avoid being perceived as a creep. This has also been an opportunity for me to reflect on, and regret, those times when I might have done the same kind of thing as the elevator man, or been otherwise unintentionally sexist or racist through inconsideration. As far as Dawkins’ comments, well, they seem to be so utterly non sequitar as to preclude rational response. At least now we know that even the brilliant people can put their feet in their mouths and make public dumbasses of themselves just like the rest of us.

    I am grateful for, and enlightened and a little chastised by, Rebecca’s sharing of her experience.

    1. Phred,
      I agree. When I first heard Rebecca’s vlog, I also thought, “Hmm, no big deal.” When some people didn’t get it, I also thought, “Yep, no big deal. It is a problem that society is still trying to understand.” But when the feminist community became strident, I became embarrassed for us. That’s when it became a big deal for me.
      Do WE not get that GUYS and cute, young girls don’t get it. Come on, think about it. When did you get it? Phred (I’m going out on an Atwood limb and assume you’re female), if you’re a cute, young girl, I bet you safely traded on your sex appeal and received all sort of nice benefits: you never got indignant about that cop who didn’t give you that $200 speeding ticket, right? Did you try to educate that man who helped you pick up your dropped groceries? Hell, no! And good for you! People should be nice to cute, young girls AND to anybody who needs help.
      When a lone woman whom you have not met gets into an elevator at 4 in the morning, a man should be nice and realize that she is in a box and it is not nice to proposition her–nevermind that she has just given a talk about sexist behavior. But the cop that lets you off the speeding ticket is the same guy who propositioned you in the elevator and is the same guy who makes the analogy to Muslima.
      These guys don’t get it. So help educate them because–I don’t know about you, but I know I deserved the speeding ticket I didn’t get.

      1. LOL. I like your posts, susanvan. But be careful, your rationality and logical sensibility, and especially your expression of some of the nuances (and their hypothetical turn-around) in such complex situations as these may get you slam-dunked and barred.

  429. Well put, thanks.

    I grew up with the stereotype that women don’t keep to the subject. Looking over men’s comments from the beginning, I think we’d do well to stop making that claim.

  430. It could be that Dawkins simply needs his consciousness raised again. He has been so sensible in other areas, and continually talks about consciousness raising being a necessity for others at different levels; perhaps these responses will trigger a moment of humility in him.

    1. I’m hoping the apology comes soon. He is NOT a misogynist and his track record stands. The feminist community needs to take a deep breath, realize they have had an emotional reaction, and give him time to sort things out. This is NOT about a guy and a girl in an elevator, it’s about feeling unheard, dismissed and told to stop making a big deal out of something, when they weren’t making a big deal in the first place. Don’t give up on Dawkins, be mature enough to work things out and not bail on him.

  431. Hi Rebecca –

    It was me. I was the elevator guy, but in view of all the stuff that has been written about me after your piece, I hope you don’t mind me writing under a pseudonym.

    I am sorry if my offer disturbed you. In hindsight, I know it was not welcome, but I must say I did not expect that you would find a polite enquiry objectionable. As far as I was concerned, it was a simple question between two adults, and you said no, and that was that.

    My approach was mainly because we didn’t really have the opportunity to speak one to one earlier. I wanted more time with you, as I liked your ideas and by and large agreed with them, but didn’t have a chance to voice some of my own. But I also thought your intelligence and confidence added to your attractiveness. And I must admit that if getting to know each other better would have led to intimacy and sex, yes I would have been open to that as well.

    I really did not expect you to find me threatening, even while we were – briefly – in the lift. I thought there would be more trust as we had shared the overall conversation and the theme of the discussions for most of that day and evening. So I had no idea you wouldn’t think of me as an equal, a colleague with a common interest.

    Instead, I think you reduced me to your stereotype of a male and, ultimately, objectified me.

    1. “Instead, I think you reduced me to your stereotype of a male and, ultimately, objectified me.”

      THIS^^

      If you are the legit elevator guy, I don’t think you could have responded any better. Also, what’s YOUR side of the story?

  432. Rebecca — It was sweet to hear the SGU crew support you on the show this week regarding this bizarre controversy. However, I’m still curious to know your new and improved analogy for Einstein’s concept of gravity. The guys talked right through your punchline opportunity! I hope you’ll sneak it into a future show.

  433. Well, this is enlightening. I’d heard friends of mine say some rather unflattering things about Richard Dawkins, but wasn’t sure whether to believe them, given that I knew very little about him and really had no interest in doing so. Now I realize that hir description of him was accurate–what an unpleasant human being.

    As an often socially awkward guy who for the longest time didn’t get it, who at one time would have taken the original video as an insult, and as someone who still isn’t sure he’d be able to walk the “don’t be an ass; respect a woman’s boundaries” walk when it comes to people I’m attracted to*, I have to say, thank you, Rebbecca Dawson. You are exactly right. I can only hope that this whole firestorm will become a catalyst for lasting positive changes in the Skeptic and Atheist movements.

    * Not that that’ll stop me from trying.

    1. Jeebus, I totally need to learn to proofread. Rebbecca Dawson? Where the heck did THAT come from. It’s WATSON, darnit!

  434. Wow. Doesn’t anyone think that this is all a little over the top? I honestly can’t understand why Mr. Dawkins would even get involved in this. It simply wasn’t his place to challenge how another human felt. I suspect his original letter was a backdoor to slam Islam.

    I just read an article in The Atlantic and I found this blog along with others and their posted comments. Whoa. There are some over-educated people stretching their positions. Let me simplify it for them.

    Ms. Watson had a right to feel as she did and to express it any way that she wanted. She does not enjoy being hit on by (presumably) strange men. Especially in confined spaces. This guy was at least a bit creepy. I have been hit on by men and women in similar circumstances and it is not very comforting (ok, once it was). I am not sure, however, why she considered this to be evidence that she was being treated as a non equal. God help us all (That’s for Mr. D.) if we are not allowed to ask out the opposite sex (or same sex?) if we consider them to be our equal.

    Dr. Dawkins made some interesting points about how Muslim women are treated. But, then he compared it to Ms. Watson’s case. Why? It didn’t concern him and was none of his business. I am a big fan of his work, but he should have known better to get involved in this. First, it was how she felt, and secondly, he must have known that there are people that are never going to allow a male to respond to this issue (even if it were his business). There is a lot of unforgivable hatred in the comments. We often talk about women haters, but rarely do we talk about those that hate men. I am not speaking of Dr. Watson, but if you read the posts from the blogs, you will understand what I am referring to.

    Lastly, I hope that Ms. Watson is really not childish enough to boycott his work on evolution because of his views on the incident (I think I read that somewhere-my apologies if it is not true).

    Under ordinary conditions, I would suggest Dawkins ask Watson (or she him!) for a drink somewhere to talk this over. Probably not a good idea!

  435. The god botherer’s will be going to town about this.
    (there’s already now articles in the now popping up claiming Dawkins is a misogynist)

    Will Rebecca be seen in the same light as Anna Ardin is to Julian Assange ?

  436. Hi, my name is Sergio. Oh, are you Italian? No, I reply, I’m actually Mexican. An underwhelming “Oh” is often muttered after my clarification. The second thing you must know, is that yes I am a male, and quite sad that the word Machismo has received such a high degree of pop culture distribution while many can’t spell the standard Misogyny, perhaps most feel comfortable associating Machismo to our culture because it gives them comfort the Western cultures treat their women better. Third, I happen to like the equality of both sexes and the idea of either one being superior is ludicrous in my opinion, and I also enjoy the work Dawkins which has contributed so very much to the field of Atheism. Therefore, a response by me should be vilified and viewed with high level of critique because one is presumptions often, but I look forward to unique people who have the intellect to listen to theirs. I am to assume that if you’re reading this far, you’ve given me a fair chance, so I shall state my comment.

    I hope you contribute more than Dawkins to the Atheist movement and I hope this little popularity surge incident helps Women’s Rights more so than hinders it.

    Thank you.

  437. “Instead, I think you reduced me to your stereotype of a male and, ultimately, objectified me.”

    If this is true, it’s another miss and again a misrepresentation of what was said. What was said was not that it was threatening, but that it was uncomfortable and guys, don’t do that. The action was criticised, not the person. I think there are a about a thousand comments saying why, and it’s because of the context. If you actually want to get know someone better, it’s best not to do it in an elevator, in the wee small hours and invite that person back to your room/territory. Instead of hitting them up cold, after that person has stated their intentions to do something else, a person that really is interested in getting to know another would respect that and if they wanted to get to them suggest meeting in a way conducive to that (that would be something like suggesting meeting up later if the other person seemed receptive to the idea). There is and was nothing there that suggests the other person was interested in you. The reality is it wasn’t you being open to intimacy and sex, you were testing *her* to to see if she was open to it. You then make out it’s her fault, and you’ve been reduced to a stereotype. With all due respect, it’s you that have acted in a stereotypical way and if you don’t like being called on it, don’t act that way. Your behaviour, you own it.

    That, like so many comments, that make it all about you and your feelings with an added “how dare you state what you are comfortable with” just underline the whole problem. It’s not making it comfortable for women attending these conferences, it doesn’t take into account that women are there for the same reasons as men (to meet like minded people and learn something new) and are not just there as an potential dates or sex partners. It’s the same syndrome when a speaker introduces a man by talking about their education and contributions, and a woman by her looks which was another issue I read about recently. It’s not respecting women as intelligent individuals with something to contribute in their own right, and I’m happy to say the speaker concerned understood that point and responded to it well. In this case though, it isn’t happening and even well respected leaders in the movement treat it in a way that says, just shut up, don’t discuss this and address the issue. It is a subtle one of attitude but it’s evidently still there and needs to be talked about.

  438. I posted this on another thread, but I think it is worth repeating.

    RD’s response wasn’t even directed at RW, but all the raving loonies at PZ’s blog. Reading his statement out of context does him no justice. His second response clarified his point, but at that point, everyone only sees the word “gum.” He was trying to provide perspective to the pharynguloids, not “worse stuff elsewhere, so stop complaining” logical fallacy, because they were making mountains out of molehills.

    The listening to the current The skeptic podcast, and RW is pretending that RD’s response is only to her and not in PZ’s forum. You respond to a forum, because you are responding to the people in it. If he were writing his response ONLY to RW, he would have posted it on her site. RW is being extremely intellectually dishonest.

    1. I disagree. It’s not the natural logical assumption that Richard Dawkins would only post on Rebecca Watson’s blog if he meant his response to her to only be to her: he could have just as easily e-mailed her in that case, or sent her some kind of private message. No, it’s clear he wanted _everyone_ to see his response, and the more the merrier, no doubt because he believed everyone would grin and nod at what he wrote, so he posted in a forum where he believed he’d most likely garner the most support at Rebecca Watson’s expense. Posting on her blog where she’d more likely to have supporters would be foolish on his part, and wouldn’t satisfy the attention whore within him if he could post somewhere else which had even greater readership than Rebecca Watson’s personal blog.

      And the tone of Dawkins’ post is snide, sarcastic, and really quite intellectually arrogant. It’s the sound of a man who not only reads his own press, he’s starting to believe in it too. Apparently he’s not immune to the god delusion when it involves himself.

      Oh I have no doubt that Dawkins believes somewhere in his heart that he has all manner of empathy with the plight of women everywhere, and especially the Muslim women being oppressed by the evil religious theocracies, but that doesn’t mean he really understands a lick about what it’s actually like to be a woman, any woman, and he shows it by the amount of understanding and compassion he showed in his initial and subsequent posts.

      1. “No, it’s clear he wanted _everyone_ to see his response, and the more the merrier, no doubt because he believed everyone would grin and nod at what he wrote, so he posted in a forum where he believed he’d most likely garner the most support at Rebecca Watson’s expense.”

        Oh, see, you agree with me. His response wasn’t _ONLY_ to RW. But your reason as to _WHY_ he would put it on PZ’s blog is bit of a stretch there. Are you a mind reader? If not, I don’t think you can tell what RD’s motives are for posting there, and you must have a pretty low opinion of him even before this stuff started to think that. Or, maybe you are simply a misanthrope in general.

  439. “I thought there would be more trust as we had shared the overall conversation and the theme of the discussions for most of that day and evening. So I had no idea you wouldn’t think of me as an equal, a colleague with a common interest. ”

    You do understand that watching someone talk to a group that you’re in isn’t the same as actually having a conversation with that person, right? Because right now you sound a bit like on of those people who end up on the news after they’re caught stalking celebrities because they think they “know each other so well” since they watched the celebrity on tv so often.

    “I wanted more time with you, as I liked your ideas and by and large agreed with them, but didn’t have a chance to voice some of my own. ”

    Apparently one of her ideas you didn’t agree with was “please don’t hit on me at conferences”. And there’s an awful lot of what you want in that sentence, and how important you think it is to tell her your views, but absolutely no indication that you thought about what she might have wanted in that situation (which, as she had already stated to everyone, was to go to bed and get some rest). You’re proving that you think your opinions are so important that they must be shared, and that overrides any consideration of her feelings. There wasn’t even any interpretation of body language or signals needed; she stated outright that she was tired and needed rest, but you thought you were important enough to override that.

    “Instead, I think you reduced me to your stereotype of a male and, ultimately, objectified me.”

    No, she reacted to your actual behavior and what you actually did. No stereotyping needed.

  440. Pity you didnt get my point, carlie – elevator guy may have just seen the speaker as powerful woman who would be perfectly able to say yay or nay to expressions of interest in further discussions, coffee or whatever.

    The sterotyping and objectification came later, when she blagged about his attraction to her to the world. Maybe he thought she was a confident person who didn’t need to do this.

  441. P.S. I am completely with Dawkins on seeing things in perspective. I really don’t understand why some of the energy in such feminist indignation – real or otherwise – could not be invested in helping their sisters in those many parts of our planet where they would not even think of being able to go out on their own / speak in public/ have drinks in a bar/ etc etc. Or be stoned publicly if they did decide to follow someone into a hotel room.

  442. “The sterotyping and objectification came later, when she blagged about his attraction to her to the world. Maybe he thought she was a confident person who didn’t need to do this.”

    Wait, are you him, or were you pretending to be him as a thought experiment? You just went from speaking in the first person to the third.

    She’s allowed to speak about things that happen directly to her in her own life, right? It has nothing to do with confidence. She was speaking on being hit on at conferences, and used as an example a time when she was hit on at a conference. And didn’t even disclose the name of the person who did it.

    And back to the stereotyping bit to be clear: your/his first comment to her showed clearly that you had not listened to her when she was speaking all day about not wanting to be hit on (or thought she was somehow “wrong” about what she wanted), and that you did not respect her clearly stated wish to be left alone to rest. And on top of that, you started off with “don’t take this the wrong way but”, which shows that you knew quite well that you were about to say something that she’d probably object to, but went ahead and did it anyway. Saying that’s a bit creepy and/or threatening isn’t stereotyping; it’s an accurate description of someone who has just proven that in his mind, her boundaries and desires don’t matter compared to his. It’s clearly someone who already hasn’t taken “no” for an answer at least twice*, so the likelihood that he wouldn’t take no for an answer again is a lot higher than the null hypothesis.

    *1.”Might she want to have a deep conversation with me that will hopefully lead to intimacy and sex?” Well, she did say that she didn’t want to get hit on and that it annoys her, so that’s a no.
    2.”Might she want to have that deep conversation hopefully leading to intimacy and sex right now?” Well, she did just say she was exhausted and going to bed, so again, no.

  443. >> Wait, are you him, or were you pretending to be him as a thought experiment?

    Crikey, did that really fool you. I wouldn’t have done it, was just trying to explore his perspective (or one possible version of it). Maybe her powerful speeches acted as an aphrodisiac. Or maybe he meant it as a joke which misfired as she couldn’t see the humour in it. Or maybe he thought that she (like many other men and women) draw a distinction between their public and their private personae.

    >> She’s allowed to speak about things that happen directly to her in her own life, right?

    Of course she is. And he was allowed to ask her for ‘coffee’. And she was allowed to say: NO.

    And that was that.

    1. Hilarious! I actually thought you were a misguided supporter of mine, since your “thought experiment” actually clearly supported my position.

      1. Sorry Rebecca, just got back, it was a Sunday too sunny to miss.

        Not sure whether you mean you thought I was misguided because I was a supporter, or a supporter who is misguided as he is not following the party line…. ;-)

        In any case, I was just trying to portray some options, before our poor, naïve elevator guy is completely tarred, feathered and quartered. Or neutered, more likely.

        Actually I have started wondering whether he had a tongue firmly planted in his cheek, making a pass at someone who has kept proclaiming all day that she has to fend off all these unwanted advances. In which case, the right response might have been to laugh it off and say good night.

        I think there are a lot of posts in this thread by folk who probably just take themselves a bit too seriously, or have too many axes to grind.

        Rather than tackling the abuse women are still subjected to elsewhere today, including FMG, forced marriage, ‘honour’ killings?

  444. “I wouldn’t have done it, was just trying to explore his perspective (or one possible version of it). ”

    Which you could have done by prefacing it with “Perhaps his thought process went like this:”

    In any case, that was a pretty creepy perspective you came up with.

  445. Does anyone here happen to have accurate statistics for the rate of false reports of sexual assault (women reporting against men)? The range I’ve found so far is between 8% and 25% and that’s just too large to use. Also the average conviction rate and sentences of an convicted rapist versus the average sentences those who file false reports.

    I’m attempting to make a case for why men should be uncomfortable about being alone with women (no witnesses of innocence). It should have the desired effect of guys leaving gals alone if it takes root.

  446. Let me post again what in really care about – and support you and other feminists in, if they took up the cause. Its not this.

    Instead:

    >>….I really don’t understand why some of the energy in such feminist indignation – real or otherwise – could not be invested in helping their sisters in those many parts of our planet where they would not even think of being able to go out on their own / speak in public/ have drinks in a bar/ etc etc. Or be stoned publicly if they did decide to follow someone into a hotel room.

    1. Yes, well, pretending to be someone you’re not, and posting a wholly dishonest post is not going to make you any friends, nor help smooth these waters of contentious discourse.

      1. Ghosh John – are you serious? you actually took my piece literally, thinking i was him? Sorry you didn’t ‘Get It’. I was just trying to explore what our antihero might have been thinking. After all, we heard only one side of the story.

        1. I won’t call you a liar, but I will say I do not for an instant buy your disingenuous innocence regarding people “buying” your post as legitimate. To claim surprise at people thinking it legitimate makes you either a fool, or dishonest.

          As far as I can determine, no one “got it”, to use your hollow disclaimer, and that may be because you clearly wrote it to appear genuine.

        2. And you managed to catch the vibe of an obsessive stalker perfectly, ytheworldgoesround! The only thing that was missing from your missive was “Sincerely yours, John Hinckley, Jr.”

  447. You know, one thing that occurs to me is the resources we’ve been given. We have thousands of post by cretins who have no business in polite society. We have the ear of the leadership of the skeptical movement. We have the momentum (JREF felt obliged to add a Code of Conduct, after all).

    Use it. Use all of it to the fullest. Us the comment threads and Twitter feeds to identify the people who threatened women and used awful language to silence them and showed their misogynistic ways….name them. It is effective and has consequences. One dangerous pervert has already been removed from TAM due to his tweeting a threat to assault women at TAM…when his employer found out, he lost his position. That’s the sort of pressure we can put on these scumbags. Name them, shame them, and make sure they are put on the spot in their local groups, and weed them out of participation in blogs, podcasts. Work with JREF to see that they don’t get tickets to TAM10.

    Second, I think this is the perfect time to put in place a TAM Women’s Advisory Group to vet speakers and presentations. This group could weed out people who have shown themselves to be hostile to women (Dawkins is a gimme, but I’m thinking of other person-“oids” who need to be ejected from the skeptical fold). Removing these anti-woman people from TAM would go a long way toward getting people like me to show up there!

    1. Jansob said:
      .
      “We have thousands of post by cretins who have no business in polite society….”
      .
      “Use it. Use all of it to the fullest. Us the comment threads and Twitter feeds to identify the people who threatened women and used awful language to silence them and showed their misogynistic ways….name them….”
      .
      “This group could weed out people who have shown themselves to be hostile to women (Dawkins is a gimme, but I’m thinking of other person-”oids” who need to be ejected from the skeptical fold). Removing these anti-woman people from TAM would go a long way toward getting people like me to show up there!”
      .
      Perhaps we could pin little gold stars on them too. You know, to help ensure that we all know who “they” are.
      .
      Just sayin’.

  448. Rebecca,

    I think you are missing the point. Dr. Dawkins is only trying to show (in a rather tongue-in-cheek style) that your issues are not really that big in the larger scheme of things. And he is correct. I don’t think he is saying that your issues are not valid just that we have bigger things to worry about right now. Perhaps, he should have just said so and none of this would have come about.

    I think you both agree on much more than you disagree and on much more relevant and pressing issues so this argument is much ado about nothing really.

    1. I wouldn’t say it’s much ado about nothing. Clearly, at best, Rebecca Watson was somewhat uncomfortable about what happened to her, and she spoke her mind about it. Great. And then out of nowhere she gets blindsided by Richard Dawkins who, with his considerable heavy-weight reputation in the atheist/skeptic realm, decides to mock her feelings in a very rude and incomprehensibly ignorant manner.

      Yes, we get that her ‘discomfort’ is nothing compared to what Muslim women in oppressive religious nations deal with day-to-day: but where in Rebecca Watson’s video blog did she ever say anything to suggest that she felt it was? Nowhere. She just pointed out that the way she got propositioned (and there’s no mistaking it as anything but a proposition, when you take into consideration the time, location, circumstances and the wording) creeped her out, and asked guys to not do that if they don’t want to be thought a creep, and to try to think about what it’s like to be a chick alone in an elevator early in the morning with some half-drunk dude trying to hit on her, before you decide to try and get her in the sack. I personally don’t understand what’s not to get about what she said, or why Richard Dawkins of all people got so irate about it as to personally comment on it, even though it was merely an aside in a much longer video blog about many other things.

      Her feelings are hers, and regardless of whether she may or may not have been justified in her fears, the reality is that there are a lot of genuine sociopaths out there who have no qualms about skulking about at some ungodly hour to try and find some vulnerable victim to take advantage of. This isn’t just TV or media over-reporting: these things do happen, and I personally think it’s a reasonable fear. Ideally, we’d be living in a world where women didn’t have to worry about these things (and neither should children nor small heterosexual guys like me) but reality is far from ideal. I may not be a chick, but I’m small enough that I can get my head around the idea that a lot of women (even ones bigger than me) might feel uncomfortable in the circumstances as Rebecca Watson described, and more so if one were a ‘public figure’ so to speak and have had problems with sexual harassment of one type or another in the past. I totally don’t blame her for feeling uncomfortable, and had I been in her situation I probably would admit to feeling more than just uncomfortable, I’m not ashamed to say I might feel fearful under similar circumstances. I’m not big and strong, my fists aren’t registered as deadly weapons, so I’d be worried. Even if the guy was just a potential mugger, I’d be worried.

      Like it or not, we live in a dangerous world where it pays to be prepared, it pays to be almost paranoid if it means erring on the side of caution. And sadly, we do still live in a society where, despite the great gains feminism has made for women’s rights and how women are treated in this society, it hasn’t stopped sociopathic men from continuing to prey upon women and until such time as women can at least reasonably feel safe being alone at night in our society, we still have a long way to go.

      I might add that I’m not suggesting that this guy who asked her for coffee (in his room, though?!) was a sociopath or some type of violent rapist: I have no idea who he was or what his intentions were. But I am saying that if a lone woman were to err on the side of caution, she would err on the side of thinking the worst about what he might be or do and prepare herself mentally (and hopefully physically) for it rather than just imagine the world is sunshine and rainbows and happily follow him back to his room where he proceeds to slip rohypnol in her cappuccino. I might also add that if I had been that guy, I wouldn’t have asked her out under those circumstances, and in fact I probably would have got off at the next stop just to make sure she didn’t feel uncomfortable by my presence. That’s just me, though.

  449. “Dr. Dawkins is only trying to show (in a rather tongue-in-cheek style) that your issues are not really that big in the larger scheme of things. And he is correct. I don’t think he is saying that your issues are not valid just that we have bigger things to worry about right now.”

    So he’s in agreement that no one should fight creationism in schools, since there are people who are being killed for apostasy somewhere in the world?

  450. Rebecca, I am spent 2 days coming up to speed on this. Frankly as a skeptic that has supported the movement for years and have followed the SGU, I was caught unprepared on having an immediate response on this issue. The more acrid responses to your situation has helped forge my opinion as unquestionably supporting your views on this. The reason I drink beer with skeptics in the first place is that I am supporting a culture of science and critical thought. The entire purpose of these discussions is to create a forum where issues can be discussed without people feeling physically threatened or harmed for expressing their intellectual ideas. Science does not work well if individuals or a group of people change how they interact with a group because they feel physically threatened.

  451. If you think Rebecca is uninteresting or pretentious, that’s fine. But noone is forcing you to read this website or listen to the SGU or her speeches, so why the hell do you care? Go read other blogs if you can’t stand her. Leave her to us who appreciate what she has to says and stop sending her sexual innuendo or even rape threats.

    Also, fuck you, you unempathetic bastards.

    1. What you’re saying is that ultimately you want no disagreement. How on earth does that prove constructive or useful to anyone? Unless, of course, your goal in life is to be a happy smiling sycophant.

      1. No, I’m not. I’m saying that if all you have to say is how you hatehatehate Rebecca and everything she stands for, you should simply stop listening to her. Ask yourselves what you are accomplishing by threatening her, belittling her and saying how ugly she is. You are entitled to you opinions, but if your goal is not to change anyone’s mind but rather make a person shut up and feel worthless, that makes you a terrible human being.

        I never smile.

        1. abbe said:

          “Ask yourselves what you are accomplishing by threatening her, belittling her and saying how ugly she is. You are entitled to you opinions, but if your goal is not to change anyone’s mind but rather make a person shut up and feel worthless, that makes you a terrible human being.”

          Ah, I see. That makes more sense. I am getting pretty uncomfortable that a majority of Skepchick commentors, on both sides, as well as some Skepchick “authorities” seem to have adopted the “make a person shut up and feel worthless” tactic over this issue and others, rather than participating in dialogue, discussion, and debate.

  452. Why I stand with Dr. Richard Dawkins:

    The skeptic community is embroiled in an acrimonious debate concerning whether “Elevator Guy” was obtuse and harmless or sexist and harassing in his overture to Ms. Watson in an elevator in Dublin. When I arrived to this debate, quite late, “Elevator Guy” had been repeatedly insulted and his motives thoroughly debated (in commentary long on assumptions and emotional intensity and short on facts). Some “feminists” derided his actions as sexist and emphasized the potential for sexual assault, citing statistics and research on rape. Others, siding with Dr. Dawkins, argued that this perspective constitutes “hysteria” (admittedly a sexist term) and serves not to elevate women, but to demean men by presupposing that they are all potential rapists. Some “feminists” shot back by accusing their opponents of ignorance on issues of sexism and male privilege.

    While I certainly do not doubt or have any desire to minimize the experiences of Ms. Watson and other women who repeatedly receive unwanted sexual advances (and threats), I believe that the entire issue is overblown.

    First, I disagree with the notion that this event was unquestionably an act of sexism:

    Sexism is the belief (and more importantly, the differential treatment that results from such belief) that one sex is superior to the other. In the American historical context, men have long been (incorrectly, obviously) regarded as superior to women. (Undoubtedly, Christian doctrine played a large part in promoting this view.) It is clearly apparent that “Elevator Guy” dismissed Ms. Watson’s statements concerning her discomfort with unwanted male pursuit and her intent to retire for the evening. He is thus rightly chided for being obtuse, selfish, and disrespectful. Concluding that his actions were sexist, however, requires demonstrating that he disregarded Ms. Watson’s stated intentions because of her sex. While there is certainly a long history of men ignoring women’s preferences concerning sexual advances, I am not convinced that the fact of this history alone is sufficient grounds to state with certainty that “Elevator Guy” is sexist or misogynist.

    I also resent the assertion that my position is patently callous or sexist. I recognize that I not only enjoy male privilege, but that I also experience what could be termed “double male privilege” due to my sexual orientation. As a gay man, I do not relate intimately with women and thus am unaware of the personal concerns that they may express only in the privacy of their romantic relationships. Nor must I heed such concerns when pursuing romance, since I pursue men. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that merely believing that this issue is overblown makes me (or Dr. Dawkins) ignorant or insensitive concerning issues of sex inequality.

    Certainly men must recognize the legitimacy of female discomfort in enclosed spaces. But when some “feminists” suggest that “polite” and “considerate” men decline opportunities to enter an elevator in which a woman stands alone, I do not see an argument promoting respect and equality for women. Instead, I see a rather insulting assertion that women are frightened, helpless, victims-in-waiting unable to defend themselves. This perspective also limits men – presumably even gay ones like me – by implying that a woman’s right to not feel any level of discomfort, whether justified or not, transcends a man’s right to ride in the elevator. This is not equality; this is a reversal of who has privilege.

    Second, and much more importantly, I believe that Dr. Dawkins has been unfairly pilloried:

    Dr. Dawkins entered the debate shortly after it began, sarcastically comparing the incident to the appalling oppression of women in fundamentalist Islamic societies. I believe he intended to express that the incident hardly merits the attention it has received. After his comment was widely panned, Dr. Dawkins clarified his position, requested additional information, and acknowledged that he could be mistaken. Whatever your opinion of his tone, a close reading of his three comments does not reveal him to be the domineering misogynist he has been made out to be.

    But I am no longer chiefly concerned with my ability to convince others of my perspective on whether or not the elevator proposition was sexist. A much more pressing matter is the extreme, divisive reactions that Ms. Watson and some of her supporters have recently posted on Skepchick. In “The Privilege Delusion,” Ms. Watson refers derisively to Dr. Dawkins as a “stinking rich” “wealthy old heterosexual white man,” states that she will boycott his work, and thanks her supporters for “bravely battling [Dawkins] and the hoards of clueless privileged people who didn’t get it.” The open letters to Dr. Dawkins are more severe: “I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn,” wrote Mindy, who concluded with “you don’t get a second chance.” Another letter opened with “Dear Dick” and accused Dr. Dawkins of making the skeptic community “blatantly unsafe” for women.

    Language such as this, dripping with negative emotional reactivity, eclipses the legitimate perspective the writers wish to express, reveals as hypocrites those who have targeted Dr. Dawkins for his tone, and threatens to split apart a movement that already has more than enough challenges. (Dr. Dawkins now faces retribution in the actual press.) Further, the ferociousness of the accusations of sexism and misogyny directed at Dr. Dawkins and others only serves, rightly or wrongly, to provide ammunition to the real “men’s rights activists” out there who believe that feminism is about revenge rather than equality.

    We can do better than this. The first responsibility of any skeptic is to be skeptical of his own perspective. That ability, along with a healthy dose of modesty and humility, has been abandoned in recent days. It is long past time to let this issue go.

    1. chriswillett,

      Your response stands as another example of how the backlash to Rebecca Watson’s perfectly unobjectionable observation has muddied the waters.

      The whole point has been that whether harmless or threatening, the behavior of Elevator Guy is not the kind of thing that is calculated to make women comfortable when attending atheist conferences (or any other sort of conferences). That’s all it was: a simple observation from real life of the sort of behavior she was talking about at the previous day’s conference.

      Here’s how rape got brought into the conversation (I’m quoting a post that isn’t mind and was from another blog):

      “I think that the issue of sexual assault has been dragged in not because Rebecca Watson mentioned or even hinted at it but because people, in response to the Bretheren of the Clueless who kept posting ‘but WHY was propositioning her at 4am in an elevator SO WRONG!!!???!!’, tried to helpfully explain that for a woman an elevator at 4am with a man you don’t know and who has followed you from a bar without uttering a word is maybe, just maybe, gonna set a few alarm bells ringing. ‘But WHY would this make her uncomfortable???!!!!’ says the Bretheren. And then, again trying to be helpful, more people gave links to elevator sexual assault statistics and links to ‘how not to get sexually assaulted’ sheets prepared by police departments which say things like ‘Don’t get into elevators with strange men late at night’.

      “The Bretheren then, instead of going ‘Oh! I have been enlightened! I now understand why women might feel uncomfortable in this situation.’, move to ‘OMG!!!!! Rebecca Watson accused poor EG of sexually assaulting her!!!! That poor misunderstood (and yet still strangely anonymous and not in police custody) man!’”

      Now, when you have this conversation and you see the backlash, the willful incomprehension from people who are plainly smart enough to get it (like Dawkins), and the counter-accusations of being a ‘ball-busting feminazi’ to a small snippet of a harmless vlog, you can quickly tell that the ostensible topic is not what generated so much heated response, but rather the suggestion made by a woman (*gasp!*) that men ought not to do something if they want women to regard their groups as welcoming. This stands as a challenge to male privilege to be able to call the shots in every situation and disregard the perspective of women, and it is this rather than any radfem ideology (which men simply brush aside) that is being upheld by people like Dawkins. This is all about policing the boundaries and not giving in an inch, rather than standing up for men (who really don’t need the help, not in this society).

  453. Something for your consideration:

    Many I’ve known (including myself) have joined organizations and groups, thinking we were coming home to rationality and superior thinking, only to discover that people are people where ever you go. Very disappointing, every time.

    You mention having greater expectations of rationality and conscientious behavior from fellow Atheists, and being shown all too intensely that there are a-hole atheists, just as there are a-hole theists.

    I think Dawkins might fall into the same camp. AS you say, he appears to have “bought his own press,” and forgotten how to think or behave as an honorable person, in favor of thinking as a ‘celebrity.’

    I would not suggest you discard feminism, or that you simply accept bad behavior and threats of violence, but I would suggest that you watch out that you might be accidentally combining the incidents happening to you, with your disappointments about the organizations, and constructing a world view of exaggerated negativity.

  454. Seriously Rebecca I feel horrible when I hear about the hate mail you get. It makes me want to punch people. Dawkins’ childish reply makes me want to weep.
    I certainly think you and anyone deserves better.

    However, I can’t get over the fact that you speak about how the community sexualizes women, How conferences may make them uncomfortable. Then you promote and pose for a cheesecake calendar-for the same community!!

    However just think on it. If we are supposed to respect men and women skeptics for their minds, having and image of them (male and female) almost nude in hot poses stuck in our mind is probably counter productive. I do not think posing in any way makes anyone ‘asking for’ abuse. However I certainly think it sends the message that it’s perfectly OK to make atheists into sex objects.

    It’s just too hypocritical. As a woman I just don’t feel like I need to be defended/represented by Skeptic “chicks”. I can defend myself. I’m unsubscribing from the podcast.

    1. Context is everything.

      I would not be more likely to ask someone for sex if they have appeared on a tasteful calendar in order to raise money for good projects. I certainly would not be more likely to ask someone for sex “inappropriately” just because they had either.

      Your comment bears all the hallmarks of “she was dressed slutty so she asked for it”.

      1. Honestly,

        I don’t think that was what moonowl was implying. On Dawkins’, Harris’, Shermer’s or any other male dominated skeptic website there is no equivalent of the semi-nude calendar or Skepchick thong. If the websites run by men don’t feel compelled to express their sexuality why should ones run by women? You’re right that context is everything. But a lot of men (and women) who view the Skepchick calender only focus on the sex context and the models’ intellects get flushed away.

        But setting that aside, what happened to Rebecca and all women who have and are being violated at scientific conferences is horrible. No human being should be treated that way. What should stand out is a woman’s intellect at these conferences and they should be treated with respect and dignity. I am shocked that Dawkins gave such a response.

        I have never been to a skeptic/atheist meeting and never plan to either. I have been to many scientific meetings (eg. American Academy of Neurology) and I regularly attend medical grand rounds at my teaching hospital. In that milieu, the women professionals (professors, nurses, residents, medical students, etc..) to my knowledge have never been sexually objectified or harassed. Indeed, medical schools have strict policies in dealing with these matters and we all have periodic sensitivity training in matters such as racism and sexual harassment. Maybe something like this should be adopted in the skeptic/atheist community at these meetings.

  455. “The skeptic community is embroiled in an acrimonious debate concerning whether “Elevator Guy” was obtuse and harmless or sexist and harassing in his overture to Ms. Watson in an elevator in Dublin. ”

    Well, no. That’s not it at all. The point is that it doesn’t matter if he was obtuse and harmless, his actions were still sexist and harassing. Her whole point in bringing it up was to cure the guy of his obtuseness and let him know that no matter what his intentions were, he was acting like a sexist harasser so he (and others) might not want to do that in the future if they care about making skeptic conferences welcoming to more women.

  456. If the feminist community wants some men to behave better, doncha think we ought to set an example of behaving better?

    Firmly state your opinions, use logic to connect your ideas, and stop name-calling. Give guys–especially older guys–a chance to get it. This is not an easy thing to understand if you can’t experience it. It reminds me of the South Park episode where Stan finally “gets it” when he tells Token he doesn’t get it.

    Help the guys understand that they aren’t going to get it.

  457. Rebecca, my problem with your approach is that it takes a rather patronizing view of women. Women are victims and they need to be protected. They are sensitive to male behavior, therefore we should avoid subjects that might upset them. They also do not engage in casual sex unless they were forced or tricked.

    I’m honestly not being sarcastic. It seems your default position is that women are victims and need to be protected. I think that it is out of proportion with the actual threat to women. I believe you said something to the effect that when you go out you operate under the litany “don’t get raped,” or something like that. I find your approach to not be in the interest of equality or safety of women, but rather one of hysteria.
    Your experience in the elevator could have played out in many different ways depending on the situation and the people involved. Some women might be flattered; others might have went in for a consensual one-night-stand, and others still may have been more terrified than you were. Its a case by case basis. Women are as different from each other as men are.
    Lastly, I’m not sure why you post the ridiculously over the top emails that some morbidly obese agoraphobic sent you from his parent’s basement. I’m referring mainly to the one that said you deserve to get raped. That is the internet equivalent of some punk scratching a swastika on the inside of a bathroom stall.

    1. “Lastly, I’m not sure why you post the ridiculously over the top emails that some morbidly obese agoraphobic sent you from his parent’s basement.”

      I post them because normal human beings with the ability to empathize read them and realize how much insane shit I get on a daily basis, noting that this is a problem if we want to encourage more women to get involved. Assholes, though, read them and dismiss them as though they’re not actual missives filled with the actual opinions and desires of actual people who happen to be using the relative anonymity of the Internet to express themselves.

      1. I guess I’m one of the assholes you’re talking about even though I had no intention of coming off that way. I just think people like that are internet exhibitionists that post the most offensive thing they can think of in order to get a rise out of their target. I liken them to the Westboro baptist church and find that they are better left ignored and marginalized.
        So the guy at the bar was a jack-ass and didn’t take the hint. The problem, it seems, is we have a lot of social retardation showing up to SGU and other skeptic events, not predators. Social retardation is self-punishing/correcting. The guy who asked you to get coffee not only got turned down but he was lambasted over the internet. Hopefully he will alter his approach next time he’s in the elevator with another women.
        What’s all this talk about “privilege?” No one is privileged. sometimes you show interest in another person and that interest may or may not be mutual. If it is not mutual then you move on. Anything beyond that and we have grounds for harassment regardless of the genders involved.
        Rebecca, do guys proposition you frequently at skeptic events? I mean is it more frequent than anywhere else?

        1. You don’t marginalize groups with sick viewpoints by ignoring them. You marginalize them by confronting them.

  458. I’ve been lurking about the site for a while now, but this topic finally convinced me to register. Kudos for covering this volatile topic.

    I wish I could remember the source for you, but I was taken aback when I read remarks Dawkins made about the Catholic Clergy and the unfair manner in which old and feeble men were being persecuted for actions as mild and innocent as a little fondling. It was almost as if he were saying in these instances that no one actually got [physically] hurt, so the treatment of the priests involved was overkill.

    I will continue to look for that source and send you the link.

  459. Rebecca,

    What are your thoughts on Dawkins? Do you hate him (and I bet you don’t)? Or do you think that he is simply no longer truly an intellect? Or do you feel sorry for him that he cannot grasp the hell that women go through in regards to gender relations?

    It took me a while to grasp what was happening to women in the atheist/skeptic community and I feel ashamed that I doubted you and all other women here. I’m sorry. I feel I have been educated. If I can do better and recognize my male privilege do you think Dawkins can too?

    I am mainly confined to the medical arena and we all have sensitivity training on issues such as race and gender. No doubt sexual harassment occurs in my field of work but there are serious repurcussions to those who commit these acts. Nationally, medical schools have policies on this matter to foster a safe intellectual climate for women in medicine. As a former director of medical student education, I have been told that this has been effective in preventing the violation of women’s civil liberties. Should there be something similar in the atheist/skeptic community?

    Lastly, if Dawkins reformed would you think better of him?

  460. First of all, SkepChick, thank you for the tactical advice regarding the subject of approaching intelligent women and perhaps, at some point, trying to seduce them. This does seem to be, the vein in which that story was told, and after all, you did not denounce the actions of that man as abusive, or even patriarchial, simply-slightly sexist in that he completely missed the point of what you had said earlier that evening, as evidenced by his decision to hit on you at that particular moment. It was, actually, very good advice. In an earlier time in my life, I could easily have been that man, on that elevator, making exactly that unsuccessful gambit for your romantic attention.

    I find Mr. Dawkins’ letter troubling mostly because it completely misses the point. “Guys, don’t do that.” seems to be a gentle way of pointing out how, as men in the skeptical communitay, we can occasionally be sexist in our pursuit of intelligent women we admire. Your remarks do not, in any way, seem to indicate that you feel you endure horrors akin to sexual mutilation and abuse your her everyday life. Thus, Dawkins’ letter seems to be responding to something else-something he thinks you said.

    Perhaps it is because he feels that men, those in the skeptical community in particular, behave as well as can be expected, and there is no point in asking us to curb our actions any further. Maybe I am reading too far into his letter, looking for a more thought-provoing message worthy of his intellect. After all, ten thousand years ago we were brutish, spear-holding warriors fighting Smilodons during the day and dragging intelligent young women, by the hair, back to our caves at night. Perhaps we can do better, perhaps not (I hope to think we can), but it was certainly good advice on how not to appear creepy, and I thank you for it.

  461. Hello Rebecca and anyone else who knows the answer to the following.

    I just read your article, not the original one, and I have a question.

    Context:
    A man and a woman meet at a conference. They hang out at a bar until 4am talking. Either the man is attracted to the woman or the woman is attracted to the man.

    Question 1a: Are you saying that neither should invite the other to their room for a cup of coffee? Question 1b: Is it even ok to be old fashioned, and ask someone out on a date? Before answering, please see notes below.

    Note 1:
    Most of my academic colleagues who are in relationships, marriages, etc., met in academic contexts, including conferences. Note 1b: Research takes a lot of time, and academics don’t have a lot of time to otherwise socialize.

    Note 1c: For these relationships to have occurred, it means that one of them, by picking up on clues from the other, took a risk, and made a “first move.”

    Question 1c: Are you saying that this is inappropriate?

    Question 2: If so, how does one ask out a colleague on a date, etc.?

    Note 2:
    Note that the reason why asking someone out on a date takes courage (and why I rarely do it) is because of the potential for rejection. Note 2b: In other words, the clues can be misinterpreted, the classic reason why expressing interest in someone takes so much courage in the first place.

    Note 3:
    I am a scientist, and most studies in this area that I was able to glance through prior to writing this message seem to indicate that most women expect the male to “make the first move.” This isn’t my area of expertise, but this seemed to be a central theme in the research, as I glanced through it.

    Question 2recap: So, given the above, I was just wondering if you could advise single people on how to express interest without engaging in the kind of inappropriate behaviour that you described. .

    1. Advice to decent, single guys on how to ask a woman out and not seem like a creep:

      If you have never spoken to the woman, do not do so for the first time when she is alone, in an enclosed space, early in the morning, and after she has just announced that she’s tired and is going to bed to sleep. Most importantly, the first time you talk to her, it should not be to ask her to visit the room with your bed in it.

      If you have heard her speak recently about feminism and the objectification of women, and you tell her she is interesting so you’d like to bring her to your room with a bed in it, she is right to think you have seen her but not heard her.

      When people say “don’t take this wrong,” they know on some level that what they are about to say can be taken wrong. So if you feel the need to say that prior to issuing a date request, that is your clue to yourself that what you are about to say may come off as creepy.

      Other than that, I think you are safe to nicely ask women out.

      1. Susanvan:

        First, many thanks for being polite in your response. Now some additional questions:

        “If you have never spoken to the woman, do not do so for the first time when she is alone, in an enclosed space, early in the morning, and after she has just announced that she’s tired and is going to bed to sleep. Most importantly, the first time you talk to her, it should not be to ask her to visit the room with your bed in it.”

        But according to Rebecca’s original video, she had been talking to the man, in a group, at a bar until 4am. Do you think that expressing interest in a woman after talking to her in a bar for four or five hours is too soon?

        “If you have heard her speak recently about feminism and the objectification of women, and you tell her she is interesting so you’d like to bring her to your room with a bed in it, she is right to think you have seen her but not heard her.”

        Note that Elevator Man said that he wanted to talk some more, and the attraction was implied. Relationships generally involve both an intellectual and physical component. Are saying that it was inappropriate for him to express sexual interest. When is it appropriate? What if they had been flirting at the bar (this happens frequently at bars, and at many conferences that I have attended)?

        “When people say ‘don’t take this wrong,’ they know on some level that what they are about to say can be taken wrong. So if you feel the need to say that prior to issuing a date request, that is your clue to yourself that what you are about to say may come off as creepy.”

        But if the guy was genuinely interested in her, then “don’t take this wrong” would then mean that he didn’t want her to think that he was looking for a one night stand.

        “Other than that, I think you are safe to nicely ask women out.”

        I am seriously starting to doubt that it is safe. I increasingly avoid expressing interest in people who are in professional or academic circles. The strange thing is that my parents met this way, though.

        Some younger female science students in my social circle were complaining about how rarely they were asked out on dates (they were both attractive). Perhaps guys are trying to avoid Elevator Man’s mistake? Or perhaps internet dating has taken over (less chances of accusations, perhaps).

        1. Excuse me but I had never spoken to that man in my life. He was amongst a larger group that I spoke to for several hours, and at no point did he engage me in any kind of conversation.

          It was inappropriate because the subject of my talk AND the conversation at the bar was entirely about how I DO NOT WANT TO BE HIT ON/TOUCHED/FUCKED WITH.

        2. I’m guessing that your understanding of the creepiness factor of the elevator guy is clear now that you know that he and Rebecca had never had a conversation.

          But there’s also something to be said for certain phrases people say that put a lie to their literal meanings. “No pun intended,” “no offense but,” and “don’t take this the wrong way but” are all phrases in which the speaker is actually warning the listener of the opposite.

          There is nothing wrong with one night stands between consenting adults. But when one adult spends a lot of time explaining she’s not into that type of relationship, it’s creepy and frustrating that the other adult was listening, says he found it interesting, but, based on his behavior, did not hear her. It’s the very definition of objectification.

          1. Susanvan:

            Yes, my understanding is improved by learning that Rebecca had never met Elevator Man. Indeed, I would say that he is probably socially awkward. Some would say “dork”! His approach was a terrible way to try to initiate a relationship (or other encounter) with someone.

            But to my naive eyes, his infraction is a far cry from the oppression, segregation, and violence that it is being compared to.

            I would say that his kind of awkwardness transcends genders, sexual persuasions, and races. It probably doesn’t have a lot to do with being white, male, or rich.

            Rebecca: Do you think that “non-white” males, or females, do not hit on people that they are attracted to?

      2. you make it sound like women are spooked prey animals who have to be slowly groomed and charmed before approaching them. The guy Rebecca met in the elevator was an idiot, that’s all we need to say about the matter. There isn’t some large lesson to be learned and there sure as hell isn’t a need to neuter and domesticate guys attending skeptic events so women won’t interpret sexual attraction as sexual assault. If he harassed or assaulted her then all bets are off. As far as We’ve been told, he did neither.

        1. nickolas said, “You make it sound like women are spooked prey animals who have to be slowly groomed and charmed before approaching them.”

          If you were referring to what I wrote, I’d be interested in how you got “spooked” and “prey” out of what I said, yet you can still say the guy was an “idiot.”

          On guy on this blog asked how to nicely ask girls out without acting like an idiot. I explain, and you understand the guy is an idiot but I have made the woman sound spooked. Either we there is a larger lesson to be learned, or we have misunderstood each other. I’m hoping it’s the latter.

  462. I’m gonna make this real, real simple.

    A group with privilege had that privilege threatened, and they didn’t like it. Because when a longstanding privilege is threatened, it can make people who are usually rational lash out. Alot of men are used to behaving any way they want without regard to how it might make others (or Others) feel, and when they’re told they shouldn’t do that anymore, they get mad.

    It kinda reminds me of years ago, how some white racists reacted when they heard they couldn’t call black men “boy” in public anymore.

    1. Did you really need to bring racism into the discussion and make this even more emotionally charged than it is? “Privilege” might be relevant if were talking about men who harass or assault women. Rebecca’s experience in the elevator doesn’t fall under either. If anything we are dealing with social retardation.

      1. Or just maybe the reference to privilege wasn’t made in response to Elevator Guy, but to the men like Dawkins who are using silencing tactics and policing what is considered ‘acceptable’ discourse by arguing what Rebecca experienced is a non-problem, even though it tied in perfectly with her talk the previous afternoon about why conferences weren’t welcoming places for women?

        Naw, that would make the discussion of privilege look like an admissible argument!

        1. “by arguing what Rebecca experienced is a non-problem,”

          Well yes that is a matter of debate; whether or not feeling uncomfortable is comparable to actually being in danger.

          As well as if anything can even be done about the feeling uncomfortable or if it won’t just keeping following any efforts at progress. (addiction to feeling uncomfortable)

          1. voice,

            I know you’re addicted to trolling these comments, but no, it is not a subject for debate, because the issue was never how likely Rebecca was in danger. She didn’t say, “Sexual propositions from atheist guys are okay if you’re not dangerous”, she said that this kind of thing is inappropriate, makes women feel uncomfortable, and atheist guys should knock it off if they’re serious about wanting women to be a part of their groups and conferences.

            That mild observation has been answered with a “Hell no, we don’t want women in our clubhouse if it means we have to change anything even slightly to accommodate them.” And you’re driving that point home every time you keep on deliberately muddying the waters and shifting the discussion—and blame.

  463. It is very sad to see these types of arguments spring up in the sceptics community. Not because debating a difficult topic such as male/female roles and sexism isn’t interesting and important, but because even the most ‘rational’ of us can’t seem to do so without resorting to the sort of fire and brimstone rhetoric we typically decry in groups such as religious organisations.

    So much for lets have a rational discussion about something and I’m interested in what you say even if you disagree with me.

    It seems to be instead: Here is the right answers and if you do not agree you are either a sexist privileged misogynist, or a crazy man hating asexual feminist.

    I’m afraid Rebecca Watson and her fellow sceptics at Skepchick seem as guilty as anyone with this sort of particularly irrational form of discussion.

    Continuous ad hominem attacks on Dawkins’ wealth, age and other aspects seem to be the sort of thing we expect from a fire and brimstone preacher, not leading lights in the sceptical movement, who are supposed to value what is being said over who is saying it.

    The amount of venom sent Dawkins way seems to far out stretch any genuine objections to what he said. It seems to be again a case of Here is the ‘right’ answer, and if you disagree well you are worse than Hitler (to paraphrase the Simpsons)

    I’m picking on them simply because this is their website, there have certainly been others on what could be known as the other side of the debate who display the same sort of behaviour. I could have easily said the amount of venom sent Watson’s way seems to far out stretch any genuine objections to what she said.

    For all the niceties in the sceptical movement that we are interested in hearing from those who don’t agree with us (rather than your average FOX News watching who tunes in to have their position repeated back to them), this unfortunately does not seem to be the case.

    I find myself in the some what curious situation of having a position on this discussion but not agreeing with either side, since both sides seem to have gone off the reservation and frankly I do not wish to be associated with either group through the process of expressing a position that in some why lines up with on of them.

    If anything I’m closest to Richard Dawkins, not because I agree with what he said but because he seems to have said it, clarified his point, and then shut up about it sense then (correct me if I’m wrong).

    No further attacks on individuals, no calls for boycotts, no claims that if you disagree with him you must be evil, no letter writing campaign, no violent threats etc (again both sides are partaking in this childish behaviour, I’m not singling out the Skepchick members).

    It is unfortunate and some what depressing that as a community we can see the destructive nature of such aggression in other groups, such as when two religious groups get into a back and forth war of words over some doctrine they disagree with, but we can’t seem to step back when it happens in our own community.

    A very very sad day for the sceptical community, no matter what position you take on male/female interactions and sexism.

  464. Dear fellow atheist feminist. Note that you started as an atheist, then became a feminist atheist, but now you’ve graduated to being an atheist feminist :)
    Congratulations. I agree with nearly every word in this post except: “about how their goals so clearly overlapped those of the humanists and skeptics and secularists”.
    These new dogmas are simply methods for the patriarchal elite to shift power amongst themselves, again, and again. Humanism, skepticism, secularism are but godless outgrowths of Christianity.

    I as all humans, was born without religion, thankfully, I was never duped by my peers into beliefs, though some tried very hard. Patriarchy and modern religions are one and the same. Those who hold privilege and power in our society SAY they want equality for women, as long as that only means nearing their salaries and having equal access to jobs… equalism, AS LONG AS WE DON’T SHAKE THEIR POWER STRUCTURE: PATRIARCHY. As soon as feminists start knocking on the doors of patriarchy, that’s when men otherwise rational men become violent and stupid. Feminism is not equalism, I dot give a hoot about men’s “jobs”, as a feminist, I am interested in changing society, I just happen to never had any religious beliefs, so I start with a clean slate. On a a side-note, the reason LGBTs are so ‘welcomed’ in the atheist community, is that they’re only asking for equality… they’re not shaking the patriarchal tree of power. If feminism does not mean shaking that tree, then it means nothing.
    As we say in French: Bonne continuation :)

  465. “…if you’re a cute, young girl, I bet you safely traded on your sex appeal and received all sort of nice benefits: you never got indignant about that cop who didn’t give you that $200 speeding ticket, right? ”

    I have heard this argument made before and wanted to take this opportunity to comment on the logic of it.
    A cop does not give you a ticket and that is you trading on your sex appeal. You are responsible for what he did. That is illogical and irrational.

    Women are not responsible for what men do to them.
    Women are responsible for what they do.
    Cute young girls are not the only ones that sometimes do not receive well deserved $200 speeding tickets. However, for some reason they seem to be the only ones blamed for it.
    Funny how that works, eh?

    1. No one is blaming anyone for HAVING privilege–only for using it when you have been asked not to.

      You are right to question my story. I did make it sound like I knowingly traded on my sex appeal. I need to set the record straight. I once unwittingly got away without getting a ticket. I was surprised as heck that the officer didn’t give me one. It is only on reflection and life experience that I realize why I didn’t get a ticket. I certainly don’t blame myself, but I would if I continued to speed and knowingly batted my eyes at all cops to avoid tickets. Women like that should be held responsible for how men treat them.

      After that one stop, I have never been stopped. I’m 50 now; my privilege, a thing of the past.

    2. Ten years ago, a female cop reduced my ticket from something like $240 to $100. She never told me why. The thought “Now I should give her a nice, flirty smile” never crossed my mind. I gave her my pissed-off face the whole time.

      Thanks, thebewilderness, for this cnsciousness-raiser.

  466. Well put, Rebecca. I hope you and Richard do meet on the SGU stage. I think you could settle it with a quick round of science or fiction. Bet you would kick his ass.

    Seriously, though, there is a real problem. I did not realize the unease felt by women in the movement. I like to think it is because I have not been able to attend a conference or TAM, but I do not know. I probably would have overlooked your and others’ discomfort.

    Thanks for the great work. Keep up the fight.

  467. re: privilege

    I think privilege is one of those abstract words like paradigm that takes awhile to grasp.

    Looping back to this post from hours ago:

    “3) I am also annoyed by the way “privilege” is singled out when it’s merely a specific case of a general condition: not knowing what it’s like to be someone else.”

    (general condition)
    I agree that much of the disagreement here stems from not understanding what it’s like to be someone else. It is understandable to me that many men haven’t previously thought about disliking being hit on by someone in an elevator. (And if in this scenario you aren’t picturing someone a few inches taller and stronger doing the asking, I don’t blame you for over looking that likelihood.)

    (specific case)
    Not knowing what women experience if you are not a woman is kind of par for the course. But, when women start talking about how they feel and what they experience, being told their opinions paranoid or hysterical or unreasonable or wrong or minor is very judgmental and dismissive. (And it’s been happening all over this thread. Quite a few men are skipping past “why do you feel that way” and jumping to telling individual women that how they feel is ridiculous.)

    Telling women that what they feel about their lives is wrong because it doesn’t mesh with your different/better experiences is privilege. (I think the privilege bumper sticker says “My POV is of course the only correct POV”.)

    More graphically, you guys don’t walk around in my pants, you aren’t generally in the room when a man I don’t know well is trying to get into my pants. (Assuming we’re pursuing our liaison somewhat privately.) You don’t know my experience and likely can’t accurately guess my experience, so how can your opinion about my experience be more valid than mine? I don’t like it when people who don’t know much about my life lecture me on what is the right way for me to feel.

    I freely admit I don’t know how you feel, unless you tell me. I also admit that I can’t know your intentions either. The way you would hypothetically treat me if I came to your hotel room and we started kissing and groping each other is a question mark. What I know is how other potential sex partners have treated me. When a man and a woman are seducing each other for the first time in a hotel room, most likely IF he decided he wanted to leave before a completed sex act happened, he might fear an argument, but he generally has no fear that during such argument she will physically bar him from leaving the room in order to continue the argument.

    There is still some stupid baggage in our culture about not taking a woman’s “no” seriously because of prior limiting of a woman’s ability to say “yes”. This “not listening to No” has not been eradicated. Rape may be not very common on any one weekend at any one conference, but Not Listening To No still has a fairly high frequency of occurrence. (Conjecture.)

    Again I admit that I don’t understand what it’s like to be you. Men keep saying that they hate to be treated like potential rapists. I can’t really imagine what that feels like. All I can imagine is that it’s frustrating that I won’t sleep with you until I really, really trust you. My personal bias is that I’d much prefer to have sex with someone I know well and can communicate well with. Not all women share my POV or preference.

    I haven’t been raped or threatened with rape, but I have been badgered and pressured.

    For me, what’s uncomfortable about propositions from strangers or near strangers is “how is he going to react?” I don’t have a large fear that he is going to shove me up against the wall and rape me. (This is just my personal POV, and it would change if he had menacing body language.) My sinking feeling reaction to an elevator proposition from a regular guy that I barely knew is “crap, how do I handle this?” And when I’ve figured out how to phrase it and given him my answer, what I’m worrying about until he replies and further until I am back in my room is “Is he going to yell at me? Menace me with his size? Call me a bitch or frigid? Argue with me? Bargain with me? Use emotional blackmail?” I can see why many men would like a gently polite reply, but sometimes that kind of softness can be perceived as vulnerability and it doesn’t discourage “pursuit” as much as brusque firmness does.

    Being hit on can be awkward. Adult men started hitting on me when I was 14 or 15. (Maybe it was just creepy compliments with no pursuit.) I didn’t know how the hell to deal with it. There IS (used to be) a Girl Scout etiquette badge, but it didn’t cover this! I never dated a lot or spent a lot of time in bars, so never did develop suavity in handling offers of sex. Yup, women can be awkward, too. Even women like me who love chatting with new people at conferences. I just like to meet people with my clothes on and keep my clothes on. I would probably like a button that said “I’m not here for the sex”.

    (Note: I didn’t define privilege as well as this quote from the Feminist 101 page does:
    “Privilege is about how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal… “. [Betty, from A primer on privilege]

    1. “Quite a few men are skipping past “why do you feel that way” and jumping to telling individual women that how they feel is ridiculous.”

      Assuming that is true it is then possibly a matter of can we reasonably accommodate how people feel. Is it reasonable to take measures such as has been suggested by people on PZ Myers’ blog (if not here) that men shouldn’t get into elevators with lone women? Or that they should walk on the other side of the road when they find themselves traveling in the same direction as a lone woman?

      How can we prove that the end of one fear won’t just lead to the rise of another fear? (after all it’s not like a stalker has to follow you on the same side of the road) What happens when we start questioning if men should drive down a street a lone woman is walking down?

      How do we rationalize these expectations as not being sexist? Further at what point do such expectations start being self-defeating? That is to say at what point do the expectations breed more contempt for women than they do consideration? At what point would you only be making actual threats harder to identify thus emboldening threatening individuals?

      Ultimately you’re also looking at how to reconcile the idea that no feeling is more correct than another with what that would actually entail. How does one correct an individual who feels obliged to commit unwanted sexual acts or a theist who feels that their beliefs, no matter how absurd, are correct are an unalienable right? To do so would establish that there are correct and incorrect feelings in the end would it not?

      Disclaimer: This is a thought exercise, save your flames people.

  468. Just listened to your comments on the SGU and thank you for them. All made sense to me.

  469. hi from Toronto – genesis (sic) of the original SlutWalk. And if you don’t know what that is by now, you might consider holding one. I like it that we haven’t descended to ‘evolutionary’ talk about Richard Dawkins failing to evolve (and his patronization of muslim women is jaw-dropping) but the utter cluelessness of most of the ychromes on this board takes my breath away. ’twas ever thus, when women dare to join the geeky boys club (hypatia, anyone?) I think Skepchick’s response has been measured, thoughtful, articulate, and clear. And we should all thank her. So – Thanks, Rebecca! We’ve got your back (and sides :-), eh?

  470. I’m just waiting for Rebecca Watson and Dr. Dawkins to announce that the entire thing was just a huge social experiment aimed at seeing how difficult it would be to turn the skeptic community against Dr. Dawkins by only using a single blog post. A fickle bunch it seems.

    1. If the “skeptic community” is supposed to make obeisance to a handful of white male spokesmen, regardless of what they happen to say or do, then perhaps the word “religious” ought to be substituted for “skeptic”.

      Dawkins’ new “God Delusion” is that he thinks he is one. Apparently, he’s not alone in that belief.

  471. As a fellow feminist, I really hate to call Watson out, but I don’t really think this is doing feminism any favors. Conflating rape with an invitation for coffee is just wrong. Yes, Dawkins was wrong in his attempt to minimize other feminist issues by pointing to genital mutilation, etc. But Watson is also in the wrong. Grouping some guys awkward attempts at flirting with rape is a complete overreaction. Acting like a victim when you haven’t been victimized is foolish.

  472. I notice that this blog moderates its comments.

    Can commenters here give me an idea as to the level of cenorship practiced in this blog?

    From 1 (free) to 10 (iron hand), how would you rate censorship here?

    I hope this post gets published 8-O

  473. First, I did not want to participate in this discussion, but after so much being said about Richard Dawkins (was there even a boycott of his books proposed?), I had to react. I really support Rebecca’s focus on women, and her effort to make them more active and respected part of skeptical movement, as well as I really find those gross emails she receives utterly atrocious and disturbing. I, on the other hand, do not agree with the notion of making the elevator weirdo some kind of symbol that stands for all the emails and the bad treatment she receives.

    Let us imagine an alternative (and not that improbable) scenario, where Richard Dawkins is proposed the same thing by some shy (weird) woman. He declines her, and nothing else happens.
    How was this situation different? The situation was uncomfortable for Richard, and he was sexually objectified (probably – I am not from the same cultural context so I am not sure whether “coffee” equals “etchings”. In my context, coffee means rather a date, which, on the other hand, should not take place in someone’s room.). Was the situation Richard’s fault? No sane person would argue that. Would this story provoke a strong public reaction? I do not think so. So where is the difference? What increases the inappropriateness of the situation? I might be wrong, and I would certainly like to hear other ideas, but it seams to me that the main difference is the sex (gender) of the main protagonists. Now, I know it was not mentioned explicitly, and it might be wholly just my impression, but isn’t it somehow implied, that the man could be a sexual aggressor, and that is why the whole situation is more inappropriate, creepy, and uncomfortable? How would you feel about a situation, where Richard Dawkins was proposed by a stronger (but obviously nervous) homosexual man? It would probably make a better story, although I really doubt it would invoke such a strong response. My point is, that those different standards seam (to me) very much like a sexism. And this sexism allows this weirdo to become such a symbol, and perhaps the absence of this bias makes this incident really petty in eyes of some people, though I do not doubt there can be other, much lower motives.

    Anyway, I am sure Richard Dawkins had his share of hateful emails and weird (and perhaps dangerous) encounters. I think it could be worth a while to consider his experience in this matter (which is probably much more extensive than Rebecca’s one) to be the reason of his point of view, rather that his privileged status.

    Just some thoughts….

  474. I just wanted to say that I agree with you, Rebecca; so many of the people in the atheist community seem to be clueless about feminism or even cognizant of social norms that I don’t feel inclined to get involved myself. I wonder, though, what it is about atheism/skepticism that attracts people with those sorts of attitudes. My personal theory (sans evidence) is that the logical, rational thought process that tends to lead to skepticism also tends to lead to a person feeling like he (usually he) is an objective observer and thus is able to discount other people’s experiences and perspectives as non-objective and irrational. Why does this inclination seem to be much more pervasive among men? It might be culture, it might be biology, I don’t know if there’s a way to tell at the moment.

    At any rate, there’s clearly a problem with the chain of reasoning here: (a) community wonders why there aren’t more women getting involved; (b) a woman shares her perspective; (c) this perspective is criticized and discounted as being irrational or unreasonable. Regardless of how irrational or unreasonable that perspective might be (and I don’t think it is at all), it’s still an accurate answer to the question posed in (a). If this community wants to incorporate more women’s voices, it has to actually listen to those voices. If it’s more important for atheist men to be “right” in their minds than it is for them to include women in their community, they should admit that that’s the choice they are making and they should be willing to accept the sausage-fest consequences.

  475. My evolution through the “EG scandal”

    – listened to a video explaining that RW felt uncomfortable being propositioned in an elevator, late at night in a foreign country. Thought to myself that it seems like an over reaction to a bad attempt at “getting to know someone”.

    – Read a few of the reasons that women listed as to why RW felt uncomfortable and realized she had a point. I then realized that since fear of sexual harassment never existed in my world view, I couldn’t properly understand the position. I do now. The point was driven home after reading an actual threatening email to RW.

    I don’t entirely agree with PZ though in his view expressed here: “Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior.” What if a woman felt uncomfortable with a drink offer at the hotel bar. Lets say I saw RW at the hotel bar that evening, introduced myself and offered to buy her a drink as a way to start a conversation. I assume that would be ok. But what if I saw “very-conservative Jane” and did the same thing making her feel uncomfortable. Would that have been inappropriate behavior?

    I guess my point is, just because it makes someone uncomfortable doesn’t make it wrong. If I’m missing something again please let me know.

    1. Yes, 25121632, you are missing all the context clues that the elevator man had that his advances would be unwelcome. She just finished talking to people about sexist behavior within the atheist community. There are more clues for that particular senario that this thread has already discussed, but actually having verbalize how she wants to be treated is enough.

      The point is if a man is sincere about not appearing inappropriate, he should show that his interest in a woman is not just for sex if she has shown through her words and actions that she is not interested in sex.

      1. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my post… I agree the elevator guy was in the wrong. I suppose the gist of my post was that I didn’t agree with the broad statement from PZ quoted in my original post. Seems too black and white.

  476. Thank you very much for writing about this – as a woman who was raised an atheist in a science-oriented household (two parents who are doctors, one also a researcher) and a feminist (a mother who did her training during the late 50s/early 60s, was the only woman in her graduating class…which all added up to a wonderful lesson in how social beliefs influence and distort science), I’ve run across just this issue in many forms. I find it’s particularly pernicious in medical science, but that may just be because I’m more familiar with the skeptical medical science (or more to the point, anti-woo) segment of the skeptical community. It’s like they truly believe that they’re somehow personally above having confirmation biases (and conveniently forget that they’re human and our brains just don’t work like computers).

    While I have many male friends who are skeptics and we discuss things informally, I’ve steered clear of joining any skeptics or contemporary atheist groups because too many of the people involved seem a bit too much like the kind of people who join MENSA. I’ve also noted a very disturbing trend of people

    It now occurs to me that maybe blaming religion for all the ills of the world is a way to avoid looking at how systemic oppression really works (both historically and today) and to avoid recognizing one’s own privilege if one happens to be a wealthy white male who benefited from privilege. I haven’t met very many (any actually) educated/wealthy white female women who identify as feminists that don’t recognize how they benefited from the privileges of being white and having access to certain education/work opportunities (they may well exist, I just haven’t run across them).

    I find it particularly insulting and in bad taste that Dawkins employed juvenile sarcasm and appropriated the suffering of women under religious regimes for his own purposes. Does he also think that the GLBT community should shut up about homophobia because its even worse in the Middle East? It really only confirms just how bad the issues Skepchick brought up are in the skeptic/atheist community when you get someone of Dawkins stature behaving like an asshat in this way (and it’s really rather funny from my perspective since feminists were deconstructing and pointing out the issues with religion – and how religion can corrupt science – long before old rich white guy Dawkins decided he was some radical to address the subject a good 20-30 years later!)

    So, thanks Skepchick, I’m excited that a woman is finally addressing some of these issues so they can be discussed and hopefully it will bring something more constructive than hurt male egos lashing out (at the very least, we’ll get to see who is actually rational enough to discuss it and who is just clinging to an idealized vision of themselves as some uber rational supermensche so get their panties in a bunch when it’s pointed out that neither being an atheist or calling oneself a skeptic automatically make you rational or even a critical thinker – particularly if a general criticism is taken personally).

  477. “Let us imagine an alternative (and not that improbable) scenario, where Richard Dawkins is proposed the same thing by some shy (weird) woman. He declines her, and nothing else happens.

    How was this situation different? The situation was uncomfortable for Richard, and he was sexually objectified … So where is the difference? What increases the inappropriateness of the situation? ”

    What I feel the need to point out that (generally, and I know skeptics don’t like generalizations) women have different lived experiences with sexual objectification and sexual assault. Men generally have the privilege of not getting lots of unwanted sexual attention and of not having trouble stopping it. (Men may not all believe the first half of this is a positive privilege.)

    How sexist am I personally? Maybe a little bit. If a woman propositioned me in an hotel and I thought what she wanted was sex, I wouldn’t go back to her room. (I’m het woman and monogamous.) If I thought she wanted conversation, I’d consider going to her room IF I wasn’t tired (!) and if we had been talking previously.

    I want to dispute your description of a comparable elevator companion as “shy”. To me, I see similarities between EG and strangers who hit on women at bus stops at night. Bus stop guys don’t come across as shy, they come across as aggressive. If you aren’t female, you may not have experienced this as much as your female friends. If you don’t read feminist discussion of their lives with a believing attitude, then you may not hear these common stories. My “experience” of sexualized interactions between women and men is derived from what has happened to me and what I hear about from friends and acquaintences. (I’m not a skeptic, I’m an athiest. I don’t skepticize my friends, I believe them.)

    1. @smhill:

      I just want to clear out that with “strangers who hit on women at bus stops at night” – there is no doubt they are scary, and I am always really worried when my girlfriend is coming home late at night. There are, nevertheless, always two sides of the story. My friend has a really bad experience: It was a night and some women lost something that could be a small wallet; he wasn’t sure. He picked it up and ran after the woman shouting that she has left something behind. Eventually, he was rewarded by a charge of pepper spray into his face. Of course it is always better to be cautious (and I am very paranoid when it comes to my girlfriend’s safety), but even the kind of sexism that sees every man as a sexual aggressor has its victims.

      I don’t want to defend the elevator guy – I wasn’t there after all – but according to what we know, he probably didn’t belong into the category of “strangers who hit on women at bus stops at night.” He might as well have been a bit drunk, socially awkward nerd, who was afraid of a humiliation resulting from a possible public rejection. So, in his state of mind, he didn’t come up with anything better than to approach Rebecca in an elevator. As a result, he was inappropriate, awkward, and creepy. Who knows what his intentions were, but it is important that no one was harmed, and, in case the above described situation is true, he will never speak to a woman again.

      I believe the part about the unwanted sexual attention, and frankly I wouldn’t expect such problem when surrounded by (supposedly) sophisticated crowd. However, I find the Rebecca’s examples about people touching her (!) at the conferences much more serious, disturbing, and deserving to be topic of this argument. Really do not see how this elevator weirdo deserved so much attention…

  478. I don’t know if there is a point in leaving a comment with over 1000 people ahead of me, but..here goes..

    First, Rebecca, congratulations for having this post and issue make it to Big Think: http://tinyurl.com/5sgzl3e

    I originally heard about this issue on your youtube channel. I think these attitudes and behaviors are appalling. I applaud you for standing up for yourself. As you have been finding out, it isn’t easy.
    Someone has to do it in order to improve things so kudos to you.

    It has been several decades since I went atheist at 18. I have stayed away from groups for atheists being turned off by the subculture which I found to be sophomoric and self-congratulating.

    I have a friend from college who tried to get into the online atheist community with the result being that she will no longer call herself an atheist despite having those beliefs. She was that turned off by the subculture.

    After arguing about it for years with me she now has a way to understand why I will not call myself a feminist despite believing in legal equality and equal respect for women. I just found the subculture of feminism to much, as a man, to stomach.

    In my experience, you can’t change the subculture of a group.

    I do think your efforts are worthwhile as you will force some individuals to think.

  479. First off. I’d like to point out that those emails are reprehensible. No one should act like that to any other human being. Even as a man I can relate. I’ve dealt with the same thing.

    My first issue is. Are we on the verge of making taboo, the act of making an attraction to someone known? It’s not sexist to be attracted to someone and to make? that attraction known.

    I would COMPLETELY understand if she felt threatened, BUT to call showing an interest in someone, sexist is ridiculous. I’m not sexually objectifying a woman if I’m sexually attracted to them. That in no way implies that my opinion of them is broken down only to that of sexual attraction.

    Whether you like it or not, MANY people, men and women alike, don’t want to deal with dating and courtship parts of relationships. If you prefer that you get to know someone before sex is even an talked about then that is your right. Nothing wrong with that. That’s my personal stance as well, but I also recognize that there are people out there that don’t. If they make that clear I move on.

    I’ve dated women that only wanted sex before and I didn’t take offense to it. I just never called them again and moved on with my life. It was there right to decide that they don’t want relationships and just want sex. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to recognize that that is their choice, and I sure couldn’t accuse them of sexual objectification.

    I would be assuming that that sexual object was the only thing they saw me as and that there was no way that they just weren’t interested in a relationship. That’s a big assumption. To say that someone just wanting to have sex with you means that they only see you as an object is an unfounded assumption. There could be any number of things about you that they could be attracted too. I for one think intelligence is extremely sexy. It’s one of the many things I love about my wife.

    I’m not saying that this is what he was attracted to, but there is no way for her to know, and maybe she doesn’t care. Nothing wrong with that. No she shouldn’t automatically be flattered at all, but to automatically accuse him of sexually objectifying her is just as useless. Both would be unfounded.

    As for the time and location. Some people have personal preferences for when such a thing is acceptable, but you can’t expect everyone to agree on when that should be and you can’t set some arbitrary status quot that everyone should follow. Especially since there is no justified reason why it was wrong, just that some people believe it to be so.

    I’m a big supporter of the feminist movement. I think it is important for women’s rights, but I personally think things like this really hurts it more than helps. At least in the context of the elevator, not the emails. That EVERYONE should be outraged and if they’re not then their moral compass is skewed.

  480. It’s worth pointing out that Watson makes an entirely reasonable post about her experience – no big emotional drama but a rather calm post explaining why approaching a woman (who has been busy publicly speaking about how she finds being hit on at atheist/skeptic gatherings a problem and why it alienates women from some kinds of atheist/skeptic gatherings) has a problem with being hit on by a guy who’s chosen to do so in an isolated, confined space at 4am. Then Dawkins responds in an entirely emotional way by employing sarcasm and appropriating the suffering of women in the Middle East for his own personal ends. Doesn’t he realize that by denying and trivializing the real experiences of women he’s actually entering into the realm of those who indulge in non-reality based thinking for ideological (or personal identity) reasons? Thankfully he doesn’t actually speak for all atheist/skeptical men and there have been thoughtful posts by many of the other leading lights.

  481. Rebecca, you are awesome. I am a big fan but hadn’t heard about this story until I was listening to the SGU on Sunday. So glad you shared because I’m not always checking in online.

    What a Dawkins disappointment! Obviously this is an issue that has needed to be addressed for some time and now it’s truly risen to the surface thanks to you. Let’s keep the discussion going. You’re not alone.

  482. I think that maybe where the basic differences of opinion originate on this issue may begin with something you mentioned in your first paragraph in the above blog entry. You said that Dawkins thinks you should just shut about about being “objectified.”

    Isn’t the fundamental difference here that Dawkins doesn’t view someone asking you to their room for coffee (euphemism?) as being “objectification?” And, even if it is “objectification,” it’s not a big deal?

    I side with the folks who don’t think the clumsy overture in the elevator was a big deal, and I also don’t think it’s “objectification.” Not all inappropriate comments or inquiries are a big deal, and not all of them are “objectification,” either.

    The guy asked you to his room for coffee. Inappropriate? Given the context, yes, I think so. At worst, he was being skeevy and trying to dog you after he knew you weren’t interested. At best, it was a clumsy, awkward attempt by a nerdy dork to get in your pants. Well, maybe at best it was a clumsy attempt by a guy trying to be an enlightened male and really ask you for coffee non-sexually. It’s possible. There are plenty of men at atheist conventions who really would like to just have coffee with you, and would have no interest in you sexually.

    But, from worst to best, it’s hard to see it as objectification. Maybe he found you attractive. Maybe he was falling in love with you. Who knows? Nothing in asking you for coffee means he treats you or thinks of you as an object. That appears to be more about how you see yourself interacting with the world, or it may simply be your preconceived notion about how you think men see you.

    I think that everyone sets their own boundaries of propriety. You may think one context suggests certain behavior is appropriate, but there are other men and women who think your boundaries are to flexible, and others who think your boundaries are too inflexible. We all have those boundaries, and we all find them breached from time to time.

    Elevator Guy’s breach of etiquette was just that – a breach of etiquette and hardly anything more than that. It was the equivalent of a gay man hitting on me, a straight man, when I don’t want him to. I am called upon to fend off polite inquiries if they occur. Women have hit on me and I have to fend off their advances. They “objectify” me by trying to pick up on me? Really? Or, is it only men that can “objectify?”

    Anyway – I think that women have a lot of serious gripes in this world, and even in our relatively enlightened western world. But, getting asked for coffee at an inappropriate time and place when the man should know you aren’t interested? That ain’t a big deal. If that means I “don’t get it,” then so be it. I’ll send it right back atcha – you “don’t get it.”

    1. horacerumpole – The problem with “it was just a breach of etiquette” perspective is that it doesn’t take into account that a Watson had just finishing discussing how this kind of behavior bothers her. So, we have a lack of understanding social boundaries AND a total ignoring of the previous refusal of these kinds of advances that Watson had already made. This means this person (consciously or not) has already shown that they don’t understand “no means no” (because apparently they thought their advance would be welcome even though it had been made clear it wouldn’t) AND they chose to make their advance in a context where Watson was alone, and potentially trapped and vulnerable. When someone has shown they don’t understand “no means no” and they’re willing to breach social/personal boundaries, there’s no way of knowing just how far they’re willing to go in terms of violating social and personal boundaries.

      1. I have a question – how do you know that EG was at RW’s sketicism-feminism talk?

        Thank you.

  483. I hope you realize the absurdity of ignoring his writings, speeches, research, etc., all because of a few comments he made on a blog. A disagreement on one issue should not stop you from paying attention to his quality input on other issues. Your petty disagreement with Dawkins in no way diminishes the importance of his ideas about skepticism, atheism, etc.

  484. Rebecca. I say this as a male. You are doing the right thing, and I can’t think of a better way in which you could be doing it. There’s a lot of thinly veiled bigotry and piggishness and ignorance in way too many people. You’re going to be bringing it out of some of them. You know this. You may or may not directly get someone to change his behavior by what you say. But, at the very least, by keeping the issue alive and being talked about, you get other people involved. That’s how real change comes about. It’s just slow. Don’t get discouraged. Never give up! Never surrender!

  485. If you wish to arbitrate between men and women you need to refrain from taking sides and consider his point of view regardless of your feelings about his actions. I understand you may have felt apprehensive or afraid because he approached you as an unknown in close-quarters and suggested talking further in private. I agree it would have been more diplomatic of him to at least suggest coffee in a more public setting and if at all possible try to speak to you when the elevator door was open. The man that approached you probably thinks the world of you. While it is entirely possible he desired a sexual encounter it is equally possible and probable that his motivation in approaching you was to get to know YOU: a human being with thoughts hopes dreams and opinions. He probably is quite hurt and confused if he is aware of the public drama that ensued after he approached you. He clearly had no intentions of forcing himself on you and now is a public example of either male oppressiveness or Feminist entitlement depending on your view point.

    Please try to understand that as a male I grew up being told not to be what I am. That confrontation of any kind is to be avoided, that you must assist and protect those weaker than you but also not make them feel weak. That asserting one’s self is a bad thing. Try to understand how hard it is to have self esteem and a sense of self when feminist teachers and relatives, backed by public opinion, are raising you into servitude and humility. I do not pretend that this is as bad a situation to be in as being a woman in the 1930’s nor is it the case with every male of my generation. You and I are both privileged to live in a time where at least on paper, in the countries we live in, we are equals before the law. There are injustices on both sides and of course we each care more about the injustices closer to the ones we experience.

    Please do not alienate me and other men because one or even some of us were a little forward. Please do not call men in general the problem. Please empower yourself. Carry pepper spray or a taser or learn a martial art if it increases your self confidence when alone in public. Believe me when I say that men are not immune to the fear of being accosted but generally deal with it using bravado or arming themselves.

    For what its worth I will not be boycotting any further ideas or thought you may wish to share on the subject. I am quite willing to wade through the ideas I find wanting to find ones I can learn from and it is with this attitude that I will continue to read the writings of Mr. Dawkin as well.

    1. I would also like to point out that while the man`s comments to not indicate he is not a sex criminal had he said nothing and done nothing he would still be a potential attacker. Talking about the actions of forward but non-violent men will not prevent sex crime or prepare you for a potential attack. Being a little more prepared for a potential attack however will likely reduce your stress when dealing with strangers who mean you no harm.

  486. I find it somewhat surprising that anybody would be surprised that Dawkins is a sexist. He’s a man who not only anthropomorphizes DNA, but treats it like it’s a horny man on the make. His chapter on sex in his vastly over-rated The Selfish Gene is comical in the extreme, and clearly an indicator that he thinks unwanted hitting on people in elevators is simply wired into males.

  487. “I don’t want to defend the elevator guy – I wasn’t there … but according to what we know, he probably didn’t belong into the category of “strangers who hit on women at bus stops at night.” He might as well have been a bit drunk, socially awkward nerd, who was afraid of a humiliation resulting from a possible public rejection.”

    Yeah, I don’t put him in the same category you do.

    Coming at this indirectly, my reply to people who think he really only wanted conversation is that he could have had conversation in the bar. Because of this I am assuming he is proposing something that requires privacy. A conference is kind of designed to enable big communal conversations. I love those kind of conversations, so maybe I have a bias understanding wanting private talk.

    Looks like we disagree as to whether he was like a stranger at a bus stop with a proposition. I see him as being like a stranger because he hadn’t spoken to her. I am personally affronted when a man I haven’t shown a particle of interest in thinks I might be receptive to a sexual proposition. And he’s not quite “just asking”, he’s also hoping for yes. (Empathy can sometimes be a pain to have.)

    Sexual objectification:
    I want to set Rebecca aside for this paragraph, as well known bloggers are a special case due to their “fame”. I’m going to create a virtual woman (yes, with some straw) who’s also in the bar during the bar conversation but isn’t speaking. Some guy follows her from the bar and immediately hits on her, inside or outside of the elevator. I would consider this objectification because this guy has looked at her but not spoken to her or listened to her before the proposition. That indicates he is attracted to her body, he knows nothing of her mind or personality.(Because EG had listened to RW speak at the conference and had sat in on some of her conversation in the bar (?), his level of interest in her personhood is too fuzzy for me to determine.)

    Touching at conferences:
    My only recent experience going to conferences is going to parenting type conferences where whole families are there. And I’m now middle aged so roaming men aren’t trying to separate me from the herd so much, either. But I can remember Sci Fi type conventions and SCA events from long ago when I was younger and better looking. Posts I read about the hug/don’t hug stickers on Mensa convention badges reminded me of not great experiences at those events. A minor, but not uncommon thing, is the large awkward guy you don’t know, but get introduced to, who gives you the awkward “too long” hug. I can hear people telling me to cut these guys some slack, and I will, a little. But hear me when I’m saying that starting my attendance at convention with a vaguely disturbing hug in the first 15 minutes influences my attitude towards the event. (Side note: If I didn’t like it when “you” hugged me and I pushed to get away, I’m really not going to like it when you hit on me.) Conclusion: guys that are clueless about boundaries may/can/will cross the boundaries of women at the convention. A person who is not exhibiting normal restraint (not EG in my mind right now) is disturbing for me to deal with as a woman.

  488. Excuse me Ms. Watson –

    I posted a one-line comment asking you what if the EG may not have been at your skepticism-feminism talk.

    You deleted my comment.

    May I ask why you deleted my comment, so I know what is allowed and what is not. Thank you RW.

    Rostam

Back to top button