Very sure that I have called the elevator dude an idiot....
I am also sure I said I don't dispute a persons right to concern for thier safety. Having been violently beaten with a brick and a tree branch by three teenagers who on an individual basis would have posed no threat to me, I understand what it is to fear for my life and wonder if the next blow from the brick will smash my brains in. I can empathise with that fear - it makes me sad that I am feared an I am willing to do things to mitigate it. I got told I was overreacting.
I am a skeptic and an Atheist - I thought the movement was about celebrating our humanity and not making we're better than you judgements.
I guess we might be able to grant her the right that she's been made to be feeling "sexualized".
You don't get to claim that someone treated you as a sex object without offering any justification. That's not cricket. I don't care if you're male or female or a sheep or what. I don't care if you don't post his name in the video. If you make strong claims like that, strong evidence is needed.
As I've often said, if stupidity were a criminal offense, we'd all be locked up. This guy was stupid. But being stupid isn't the same as pointedly treating another person as nothing more than a sexual object.
Fionnabhair - I retract my accusation of elitism and racism. I still maintain south African statistics are irellavent.
Elevator Gate is relevant in that it was used as an example of the reasons for the need for A+
As I am not a person that likes conflict with my fellow human beings and our conversation is moving from the academic to the personal. I will withdraw from the field, I have found our conversation interesting and although I disagree with some of what you had to say there is a lot I agree with.
I hope any future conversations we engage in is one where we can agree and be more amicable.
T8D
I guess we might be able to grant her the right that she's been made to be feeling "sexualized".You don't get to claim that someone treated you as a sex object without offering any justification. That's not cricket. I don't care if you're male or female or a sheep or what. I don't care if you don't post his name in the video. If you make strong claims like that, strong evidence is needed.
As I've often said, if stupidity were a criminal offense, we'd all be locked up. This guy was stupid. But being stupid isn't the same as pointedly treating another person as nothing more than a sexual object.
You seem to have no problem making justification publicly that I'm labeling you as one of the "bad guys." Even though I posted line by line where I agreed with you.
Or are we going to debate semantics on what strong claims are?
Let me backtrack to something that you replied to elsewhere in this thread:
It has been my experience that if someone wants me to go back to his room at 4am, he's looking for sex (or something sexual in nature). If I'm going to ask someone to go back to my room at 4am, it's because I'm looking for sex.My experience has been the exact opposite. Of women who have asked me to go back their rooms at 4 am, in 90% of the cases it's because they wanted to talk about their boyfriend and/or relationship and wanted a male perspective, and didn't want to have a public conversation about that kind of stuff. In 10% of the cases it's because they just wanted to talk in general. In 0% of the cases has it ever been about sex. I made the mistake the first time this happened, thinking it might have been about sex, and tried to kiss her, and got slapped. So I learned not to make that assuption, a caution that has served me well since then.
Bolded is my emphasis.
Maybe the woman had justification because she got invited up to someone's hotel room before and had to slap someone to clarify that it wasn't sexual at 4 am.
Perhaps she has a priori experience(s)? And this time, she was going to nip it in the bud without bothering to follow-up thoroughly to clarify the man's intent at 4 am.?
Does she have to post each prior experience to justify her claim to make it strong enough? Does all the salacious details need to be brought out and name the individual(s) to legitimatize her justification?
Maybe that's why she felt the need to pitch Atheism+.
Also (and I'm quoting in entirety so I'm not cutting out anything and taking out of context, but the bolding is my emphasis):
This- the fact that he propositioned Watson in spite of the subject of the talk she was at the conference to give- does, IMO, make it this guy's fault that she'd feel sexualized by his actions.It's NOT a "fact" that she was propositioned for sex. In fact, the guy never mentioned it. (I don't know if he would have eventually gotten around to it or not, but neither do you, or anyone else.) The fact is that she was asked to have a cup of coffee and talk.
I myself have actually had coffee and talked with women without trying to pick them up -- without any interest in picking them up. On many occasions. Often it's work-related. Sometimes I'm just interested in what they have to say. It actually happens, despite the protestations to the contrary. I wouldn't approach a person that way in an elevator in the middle of the night, for all the reasons I've already outlined, but that has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with basic safety.
Men have certainly said and done mysogynistic things in the past, and at skeptic conferences too, I don't doubt. And those men should be ostracized by anyone with half a brain. But if every minor faux-pas, sexual or otherwise, is immediately touted as a horrendous example of sexism, it hurts everyone. Pretty soon no one can talk to anyone without being paranoid they'll be the subject of a podcast. Maybe they say something misguided, as elevator guy's approach was very misguided, but if misguided immediately becomes synonymous with sexist, then no one would feel comfortable at all. That would indeed be a kind of gender equality achieved, but not the kind we want, I think.
P.S. I hope for your sake that your incident you shared didn't drag you into some sort of sexual harassment suit. Especially if it were a co-worker. You opined that often it's work-related. I personally don't know whether a number of your 4 am conversations with women are those who you are employed with, but it might have been possible at one point you had a job where you were out on the road frequently attending seminars and/or conventions with co-workers in attendance. Only you can answer that (but I don't require one).
The reason I bring this up: what would happen if the woman you described about "your mistake the first time it happened" was placed in the position again and if for some reason she chose to speak up about her experience of "feeling sexualized" ... only to be rebuked to be told that in order to justify her strong claim, she needs to provide strong evidence ...
... should she?
So here's what I posted on a friend's facebook page. I'm a guy, I look for solutions. If you tell me that you feel sexualized, or objectified, by me, there is literally nothing I can do to stop that. So what's the point in even saying it? Other than to vaguely shame all men for objectifying women. It's like if your girlfriend tells you that she had a dream where you hit her, and now she's mad at you for it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a classic polarized debate, full of all the uglities that characterize such events. As I said, once you start demanding respect for your getting upset in relatively normal situations, communications break down. We do not communicate with others and get to reserve all right to judge when something is criminal, disrespectful or dangerous, like it or not. Once we start seeing people not as individuals and only as representatives of a group, we become dogmatic and hatemongering.
Communication IS difficult, but there is no other option if we don't want "gender wars" to mean something altogether more literal. Men and women are stuck together here, for better or worse.
There is one thing said here that I feel a need to adress. The statistics. Let's say that it's true that 6% of men have at some point raped, or tried to rape, a woman. 94% have not. The question becomes, is it possible to make a guess as to WHICH men have?
There is a swedish "professor", Eva Lundgren, who wrote her thesis ("Beaten lady") on domestic violence. She counted it this way (numbers from bad memory):
There were three groups that correlated positively to a man beating his wife: Previous criminality, substance abuse and economic difficulties. Let's say 60% of the wife beaters were criminals, 40% were addicts, and 50% had economic problems. The most interesting thing, she felt, was the group of 40% of wife beaters who did not have ANY of these three factors! From this, she drew the conclusion that you can't make ANY predictions on who will beat his wife.
Come again?!?
Given just these numbers, there is no way to know if the sum of the groups is 60% or 100% (total is 150%, but that's unlikely...) It's entirely possible that ALL of the wife beaters have one or more of these factors.
Thing is, this tidbit was snapped up by the swedish radical feminist movement and spread far and wide, claiming again and again that "ALL MEN BEAT!" It was used as the basis for reforming the legal background for the rape crime, expanding it to, among other things, include ALL cases where the victim is under 18, for example, even if it would previously have been filed under lesser sexual crimes. This in turn skewed our national statistics to show that rape was increasing wildly here in Sweden. Internationally, this is seen as evidence of the "backlash" theory, that the patriarchy is raping more women to punish them for speaking out against it.
Eva Lundgren had her thesis publicly called into question and it was withdrawn on charges of fraud. Which is not the most seriously wrong thing about it. Even so, these sound bites live on.
It is quite possible to judge whether someone is dangerous or not. Thinking that everyone is puts you in more danger, and doesn't get your message across very effectively. If we are talking about a group consisting of 6% of men, that is quite comparable to quite a few other groups. What is the percentage for violent criminals that have served time for it? How common is antisocial personality disorder? Extremist right-wing political views? Football hooligans? Heroin addicts? Paranoid schizophrenics? How do you detect these people, and why do you assume someone in an elevator at 4 am is specifically a rapist, and not a heroin addict who needs money?
I want men and women to have the same chances, the same respect and the same choices to make. I would prefer it if nobody was ever raped, but that's not likely to happen, so I'd settle for men and women getting better at talking to one another. We don't need a culture where fear, danger, and crime define our thoughts. I used to think feminism was doing a good thing, nowadays I see more and more dogmatic thought and more and more group focus and stale slogans. When you look into the abyss for long enough, and all that, I suppose.
Yes. This is important. I meant to say this sooner.
We're mostly a bunch of guys debating this. A few women have been here and commented and I think every one was on the same side. That means something.
I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
I believe Sissyl is a woman, and she made points for the "misogynist" side. No one called her out though, which I assume is why she didn't bother to keep posting. None of the folks she was refuting acknowledged her.
EDIT: Whoops, there she is! Moral of the story: read the whole thread before you reply :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW I posted the question to all my female friends, including my girlfriend of 8 1/2 years and my mother (of 31 years last saturday). They all basically agree with me. It was a little creepy to suggest they go to his room, and they would have turned him down, but the rest of it seems kosher and as long as he took no for an answer they wouldn't give it any further thought. My mom even said she might say yes depending on how much she'd had to drink (!!!!).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. This is important. I meant to say this sooner.
We're mostly a bunch of guys debating this. A few women have been here and commented and I think every one was on the same side. That means something.
I've suggested a few times asking the women in your life about this topic. Maybe point them to Rebecca Watson's original video blog post. Not so much the Dawkins stuff or even this thread.
Because really, a bunch of men debating whether a woman has the right to feel threatened or whether she overreacted is pretty the problem right there.
I believe Sissyl is a woman, and she made points for the "misogynist" side. No one called her out though, which I assume is why she didn't bother to keep posting. None of the folks she was refuting acknowledged her.
EDIT: Whoops, there she is! Moral of the story: read the whole thread before you reply :)
Thank you. I am used to arguments boiling down to "can't we all just get along?" being ignored. Same with "don't do ugly statistics". =) I want to make a point clear, though. I do understand the hatred and helplessness that some people, men and women, feel when faced with things they can't control, whether it's rape or false accusations or anything else in the sad, soggy field. I understand why this becomes a shouting match - emotions shaped into words are not arguments and can't be answered by words. I am not a supporter of either side in this shouting match, but I despise ugly tactics wherever they crop up. Don't demonize people for belonging to groups they can't help being part of. Don't falsify or actively misinterpret statistics to support your ideas. Don't, above all, try to enforce subjective judgement of a complex communication problem.
Wait, you're a real lady? Well shucky darn. I guess I've learned to ignore sex on forums, since avatars can so easily deceive.
Full disclosure: I am in fact a floating skull.
Cool. I need a floating skull for my desk at work... would you...? =)
What possible use could you have for a floating skull? I'm floating, I can't even be used as a paperweight. I can probably suggest some alternative options though.
What possible use? It's wicked awesome cooooool. Besides, you can apparently type... =)
What possible use? It's wicked awesome cooooool. Besides, you can apparently type... =)
Ahh, you've caught onto that, huh? Well, if you promise not to tell anyone, I'll share with you the secret to how I type with no apparent appendages.
Come closer.
Closer still.
Closer
Aw, basely done. =)
What possible use could you have for a floating skull? I'm floating, I can't even be used as a paperweight. I can probably suggest some alternative options though.
She could use you as a pencil holder or instead of interfloor email. If Syssl was doing 40K cosplay you could be a servo skull...
What possible use could you have for a floating skull? I'm floating, I can't even be used as a paperweight. I can probably suggest some alternative options though.She could use you as a pencil holder or instead of interfloor email. If Syssl was doing 40K cosplay you could be a servo skull...
I am not a piece of meat. *harumph*
|
FWIW I posted the question to all my female friends, including my girlfriend of 8 1/2 years and my mother (of 31 years last saturday). They all basically agree with me. It was a little creepy to suggest they go to his room, and they would have turned him down, but the rest of it seems kosher and as long as he took no for an answer they wouldn't give it any further thought. My mom even said she might say yes depending on how much she'd had to drink (!!!!).
That seems to be the normal sane response.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's what I posted on a friend's facebook page. I'm a guy, I look for solutions. If you tell me that you feel sexualized, or objectified, by me, there is literally nothing I can do to stop that. So what's the point in even saying it? Other than to vaguely shame all men for objectifying women. It's like if your girlfriend tells you that she had a dream where you hit her, and now she's mad at you for it.literally nothing? I suppose, if they say that they feel sexualised by your mere presence or existence then yes.
If they tell you they feel objectified by your words or your actions, then there is something you can do. You can not say or do that.
Yes. There is literally nothing we can do to prevent a woman from feeling sexualized baring avoiding contact with them entirely. Even that causes some women I know to feel discriminated against - because it does.
This is because apparently "Hi, would you like to have coffey and talk" is objectifying. Just look at your previous post, where you take this guy's statement completely out of context.
Especially in the context where this happened: The guy basically came up and said "I really liked your talk about not sexualising women. Will you have sex with me?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this guy was probably shy, and waited all evening and well into the morning to have a chance to speak to her alone. Then he blew it by asking something under the circumstances was inappropriate. She declined, he accepted no for an answer, they went to their own rooms.
She used the experience as an anecdote to highlight her points.
She is not being a b$%&%.
He was not a potential rapist.
We done here?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What it is hard to do is try to hit on total strangers without making them feel sexualized. That's not really surprising.
What is also hard to do is initiate contact with a stranger of the opposite sex without appearing to 'hit on' them. Since asking to talk with someone is apparently asking them on a date.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that there may not be a Starbucks to go to?Then ask for a date in the morning. Or don't ask at all, since the claim is "There is literally nothing we can do to prevent a woman from feeling sexualized." He could have talked to her earlier in the evening. There might not have been anything he could have done in that situation, that would still have given him a chance.
What it is hard to do is try to hit on total strangers without making them feel sexualized. That's not really surprising.
So you are back to the never take a chance because you will make her feel bad. This is a TERRIBLE way to live your life. The guy messed up the timing. Perhaps circumstances just worked out that way and he didn't have a chance earlier in the day. If he hit on her ealier in the evening how would that make her feel less sexualized?
Hell, its possible he just wanted to talk about her ideas and had no sexual interest in her. Not every conversation is an invitation for sex.
I think this guy was probably shy, and waited all evening and well into the morning to have a chance to speak to her alone. Then he blew it by asking something under the circumstances was inappropriate. She declined, he accepted no for an answer, they went to their own rooms.
She used the experience as an anecdote to highlight her points.She is not being a b*@!$.
He was not a potential rapist.We done here?
Not by a long shot.
I think one of the communication problems is also the definition of "sexualized" and how we all interpret that.
Is every contact between opposite sex members (or between same sex members if bi- or homosexual) an instance of "sexualization" - because said contact might lead to sexual tension (even initiated by the "approached" person)?
If so, we all lose in this debate and the word loses all meaning.
Is being "sexualized" only a question of no-strings attached sexual advances or are all romantic advances essentially sexualizing someone?
Are there instances where it's OK to be sexualized?
Do you (general you) mind being "sexualized" when it's some weird stranger in an elevator asking you a non-sex social question, but not if said stranger happens to be very physically and/or intellectually attractive to you?
As has already been mentioned earlier in this thread, I think the circumstances and who is involved matters quite a lot when it comes to feeling "sexualized" and some instances are even welcome or the person involved doesn't feel "sexualized" at all, although they might if the circumstance and ones involved were different.
Yes. It will. It does not mean that is what he is doing.Asking someone to come to your hotel room to talk at 4 in the morning is going to look like hitting on them.What it is hard to do is try to hit on total strangers without making them feel sexualized. That's not really surprising.What is also hard to do is initiate contact with a stranger of the opposite sex without appearing to 'hit on' them. Since asking to talk with someone is apparently asking them on a date.
Talking to them at the bar or lounge or pretty much any public space at the convention, where the panels of the day are probably going to be a common topic of conversation is not.actually, in my experience it does.
Especially if, since you just want to talk about the panel discussion and not hit on her, you don't mind including other people in the conversation.
Given the nature of the topic, I don't think you can make this assumption at all. I know way too many people, myself included, who are not comfortable talking about these things in a group setting but enjoy talking about them in private.
Not by a long shot.I think this guy was probably shy, and waited all evening and well into the morning to have a chance to speak to her alone. Then he blew it by asking something under the circumstances was inappropriate. She declined, he accepted no for an answer, they went to their own rooms.
She used the experience as an anecdote to highlight her points.She is not being a b*@!$.
He was not a potential rapist.We done here?
<sigh> Well, ok then.
See the Musical Interlude above.
I gotta question to ask you true: Are you a chef? 'Cuz you keep feedin' me soup!
Not walking up to random strangers and asking them out is a TERRIBLE way to live my life? I've taken plenty of chances, asked women out. Some have worked out, some didn't, but it's always been someone I've known at least a little. Someone I've had a chance to talk to and get to know in some other setting before I started hitting on her. Why would I hit on someone if I didn't already like them?
If you are hitting on a total stranger, what are you basing that on other than sexual attraction? You don't like her as a person, you don't know her.
How is he going to get a chance to ask her out if he doesn't introduce himself to her? All those people you interacted with and then asked out - you had to be introduced to them somehow. If you rely on just random chance to meet new people, you are severly limiting your options. I can count the number of eligible women I meet in a year on one hand. Villifying this guy for wanting to talk to her makes it harder for anyone to introduce themselves, and causes wierd rifts in the comunity that cause people not behave naturally.
Sexualization is not a bad thing. It is involved in almost every interaction you make with annother human. To tell people to stop doing it is unnatural.
As for not knowing the person when you asked them out -I've already given 5 examples from my family for which this is true. Hell, my grandmother flat out admits the only reason she asked my grandfather out was because she liked the way he looked in his army dress uniform at the bus stop. At my cousin's wedding last week she admitted that the reason she started talking to him was because she had a crush. Its the way many relationships start, and they don't always leed to casual sex. One of my best friends admitted to me that his thought process before he introduced himself to me was "That person is hot. Are they a boy or girl? Eh, doesn't matter."
If you are hitting on a total stranger, what are you basing that on other than sexual attraction? You don't like her as a person, you don't know her.
Um...the fact that you saw her speak earlier in the evening and she seemed really cool and smart? I know, I know, there goes me using logic.
And I'm guessing the guy realized what such an advance would seem like. If only there was something he could do to cool her nerves, to reassure her he's interested in talking to her, not sex. Perhaps, oh I don't know, opening with "don't take this the wrong way, but I find you really interesting and would like to talk more". Nah. That'd never work. Heck, that's sexual objectification right there!
3rd time hitting preview button and still not likeing the responce- then noticing somone else responded better than you could. Thanks meatrace.
3rd time hitting preview button and still not likeing the responce- then noticing somone else responded better than you could. Thanks meatrace.
What? There are other people in this thread? Get out! This is my personal webzone to verbally abuse thejeff!
Rather, I believe that Watson was propositioned based on the context: it was 4am; he had plenty of time to talk to her at the bar before getting on the elevator; he was asking her to go back to his hotel room, rather than to some more public venue. As I said a page or two back, if I (a woman) were to ask someone to come back to my hotel room at 4am, it's probably because I'm looking for sex. I think that most people who invite someone back to their room at 4am (especially when they could have easily had a conversation earlier) are also likely looking for sex unless they take measures to make it clear that's not actually what they have in mind. A...
Well first I want to correct you. She never said the guy followed her from the bar, just that she was leaving the bar to head to her room. Just for the sake of dissecting minutiae, usually the hotel bar is connected to the lobby, which is then where the elevators are. Without knowing the specific hotel layout, let's not jump to conclusions.
Secondly- So you're in an elevator and someone says that same line that Elevator Guy says. Except she's a fellow woman. You assume it's for sex?
Measures to make it clear that's not what they want? Well, clearly it's imperfect, but opening with "don't take this the wrong way, I find you interesting and would like to talk more" might meet those criteria.
I'm a chronically antisocial, cynical person-hater. And yet, I still give people the benefit of the doubt. If someone comes up to me on the street late at night and asks "hey, what time is it" I pull out my iPhone, check the time, and answer honestly. Even though I know that's often just an excuse to get a person to stop walking so you can rob them.
To be fair though, I am a floating skull.
And blowing people up...