How dare you objectify women this way. The misogyny in this thread is rampant.72 virgins!? Why would i want to downgrade?Overrated. I'd rather them know what they're doing and skilled in the arts.You call it objectification; I call it exemplary talent. I'd put them on a pedestal. They'll be teaching me.
But I have no desire to become anyone's martyr for the chance.
And thus I'm resigned to just following through with a mere forum post in response.
It's a mistranslation of "white raisins"; you get 72 white raisins in heaven, I thought everyone knew that by now.
I thought the joke was that you get a 72 year old virgin.
It's a mistranslation of "white raisins"; you get 72 white raisins in heaven, I thought everyone knew that by now.
Yogurt covered and Valhalla and I'm in. Pitch in the mead for extra perks.
Revolutionary socialism sounds good, Doodlebug. When and where?
Behavior patterns are different though. We act differently when not face to face with people. I suspect non-verbal cues have far more of a role in communication than we usually think.I honestly think it says more about internet cultures, factionalization and flame wars than it does about atheism.Yes, because the humans on the internet are not the humans in the real world.This.
Among other things. If there were as many people shouting at each other IRL as there are participating in flame wars on the internet, I wouldn't be able to sleep for the din of violent screaming.In real life the people I talk to are people I know, who are my friends, and it's likely to take more than a bad joke or a simple disagreement for me to boycott them, factionalize my friends against one or multiple people, etc etc.
So, we can't assign motives to the guy in the elevator, but we can just assuming people posting comments of "I'm going to rape you" are joking and people should grow thicker skins?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. They met in high school. I have never said that's the only place people should meet. I said it's an example of a place where it's acceptable to hit on strangers. And not all bars either.
And plenty of other relationships, long and short term, have started between strangers. You only want people to make passes at people they know, but you don't want anyone to try to introduce themselves. Its a catch 22.
If it's someone you know to talk to, you're already probably less threatening than a stranger. If you're not, then the problem is you.
No, the problem, as dawkins pointed out, is taking something thats not serious way too seriously. Its also mis applying something to the atheist movement (such as it is) that is if anything less prevelant in the atheist group than society in general.
If he'd talked to her before at the event, maybe first in a group setting and then one-to-one
By what, hopping up and down on his seat from the back? THAT would make a good impression.
People are freaking adults, they don't need chaperones to watch out for their feelings and a dichotomous key to figure out whats appropriate up to your standards.
Especially if he did it without isolating her in the elevator.
Notice how its his fault they're isolated in the elevator, as opposed to someone just seeing a chance and going for it.
I don't know. I'd say sitting there with your nose in a book, not looking at the person coming up to you is a pretty good sign.
It isn't. To a guy, someone reading a book is JUST someone reading a book. Symbolism, nuance, and double meanings don't enter into it.'I "told" you to go away with my body language" ' is about as useful as giving your answer in Cantonese.
Did you read the parts about what happens when she stops talking or tells them to stuff it?
Yes. You should be able to tell that from the fact that i referenced the behavior.
What is she supposed to do?
Remember, these aren't isolated incidents, though the last one is extreme. This is at least half her commutes.
Grow thicker skin with regards to the group that just asks and buy mace for the rest.
Don't corner her and isolate her
Yeah, no. Not everyone wants to get shot down in front of a few hundred people, and not everyone wants to be asked in front of a few hundred people.
Take no for an answer. Take go away for an answer and actually go away.
Again, you need to equate the two. NO ONE is arguing against taking no for an answer. Stop that.
Would you say a women is reasonable to be afraid, if I approach with a bat and wave it menancingly while I ask her back to my apartment?
So, we can't assign motives to the guy in the elevator, but we can just assuming people posting comments of "I'm going to rape you" are joking and people should grow thicker skins?
Where on earth did you get that? /boggle
Would you say a women is reasonable to be afraid, if I approach with a bat and wave it menancingly while I ask her back to my apartment?
I'd imagine it would be reasonable for anyone to be afraid in that situation, women included.
So, we can't assign motives to the guy in the elevator, but we can just assuming people posting comments of "I'm going to rape you" are joking and people should grow thicker skins?Where on earth did you get that? /boggle
You're the one who said this whole incident boils down to a bad joke on the internet.
Would you say a women is reasonable to be afraid, if I approach with a bat and wave it menancingly while I ask her back to my apartment?I'd imagine it would be reasonable for anyone to be afraid in that situation, women included.
But I'm just on my way home from softball practice. Am I not allowed to practice my swing?
You're the one who said this whole incident boils down to a bad joke on the internet.So, we can't assign motives to the guy in the elevator, but we can just assuming people posting comments of "I'm going to rape you" are joking and people should grow thicker skins?Where on earth did you get that? /boggle
You're going to have to show me that.
But I'm just on my way home from softball practice. Am I not allowed to practice my swing?Would you say a women is reasonable to be afraid, if I approach with a bat and wave it menancingly while I ask her back to my apartment?I'd imagine it would be reasonable for anyone to be afraid in that situation, women included.
You're beginning to illustrate why it's fair to interpret ANYTHING as "menacing", and therefore men aren't allowed to do anything.
No, I'm illustrating that even when we think we're being reasonable, other people might not interpret it that way. Be cognizant of what your doing and where you're doing it.
I don't have a good statistic, but I'm guessing the majority of us weren't born as a product of rape. Therefore, a significant number of relationships can be started without being creepy or putting the woman in a situation where she is afraid of rape.
The fact that it does occasionally happen (that women become afraid) is not a reason to end all contact with women. It is a reason to be aware of sometimes our behavior communicates intentions we don't have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you're saying basically boils down to "come ooon, we knoooow what he wanted!" but we don't get to make that assumption. Hell, maybe he was gay!It doesn't matter what he wanted. I'm not accusing him of anything. I accept that he was perfectly innocent of any actual bad intent. He probably wanted to have sex with her, but he probably would have taken no for an answer even if she had come back to his room.
His actual intentions aren't the point. What it looked like to her at the time is the point. He (probably) left the same room she did and took the same elevator on purpose. At least he commented on listening to her talk, which suggests that he'd been there and that he'd sought her out. That's enough that a reasonable person would think it wasn't a coincidence. Just like a reasonable person would think that a late night invitation to his hotel room might include more than just coffee and talk. Even he seemed to get that it might be inappropriate because he felt the need to start with something like "Don't take this the wrong way." He knew it would be taken the wrong way, so why say it? With someone you don't know, the disclaimer is meaningless.
Even Kirth agreed that going back to his room would be stupid. If it's obvious that what you're asking would be stupid for the other person to do, because it's dangerous, then why is it wrong to be bothered by him asking it?
In order to avoid offending men by suspecting they're dangerous, should women assume all men are completely harmless until proven otherwise? Should they put themselves at even greater risk to avoid offending you
Funny thing though, if she was actually not married and attracted to the guy she very well might have gone with him. Since she was not interested the guy was creeping her out. I am afraid much of the perceived offensive behaviour of men depend on wether or not the woman finds the man's attention desirable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, elevator guy showed bad judgement. But what gets me is that he accepted "no" for an answer, didn't press the issue, sure as hell didn't rape anyone -- and yet was punished for his actions, repeatedly called out all over the net as some kind of a super-creep.
That kind of makes me feel like, as a male, you automatically fail no matter what you do. I don't rape women, so I'll stand for being a super-creep, too, I guess, but it irks me that, after a minor lapse in judgment, those are suddenly the only two possibilities that can ever apply to a guy again, in the minds of so many people.
The fact that it does occasionally happen (that women become afraid) is not a reason to end all contact with women. It is a reason to be aware of sometimes our behavior communicates intentions we don't have.
And I think this is the root of our disagreement.
I'm trying to find a solution. The choices seem to be a)never talk to women b)be aware that you're causing them distress.If I choose a I'm overreacting, if I choose b then I'm being dismissive of these stories. Because every single time I say "yep, these things do happen, I recognize this but..." I'm called a misogynist.
Really, elevator guy showed bad judgement. But what gets me is that he accepted "no" for an answer, didn't press the issue, sure as hell didn't rape anyone -- and yet was punished for his actions, repeatedly called out all over the net as some kind of a super-creep.
That kind of makes me feel like, as a male, you automatically fail no matter what you do. I don't rape women, so I'll stand for being a super-creep, too, I guess, but it irks me that, after a minor lapse in judgment, those are suddenly the only two possibilities that can ever apply to a guy again, in the minds of so many people.
Except as far as I can tell, his identity isn't revealed in all of this.
Because the problem isn't actually the elevator guy
The problem is that people thought Rebecca Watson was wrong for saying she felt nervous for being in that situation.
No. No one said she was wrong for feeling nervous. You're just pulling that out of thin air.
If the problem isn't elevator guy, then elevator guy did nothing wrong. If he did nothing wrong, don't tell him not to do that.
What she was wrong to do is tell him "don't do that". If you're saying it's only important that people are cognizant of how uncomfortable you might make other feel, then there's evidence he was precisely that. Telling people "don't do that" is counter to her actual message, which was (should have been?) merely to elicit empathy.
Revolutionary socialism sounds good, Doodlebug. When and where?
Let me holla at ya!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the problem isn't actually the elevator guy
The problem is that people thought Rebecca Watson was wrong for saying she felt nervous for being in that situation.
I don't think she was wrong for being nervous; I might have been, too. But I think she was very wrong for blaming him for making her "feel sexualized." Yeah, I agree, I wasn't there, but nothing about what he actually said strikes me as being in that vein at all. But of course, since he made an effort to speak to her, he must be only after one thing, right? Obviously, he can't, you know, actually be interested in talking to her and maybe even hearing more of what she has to say. I get the sense that she's so focused on guys being creepy, priveleged stalker-types who obviously see women only as objects that she immediately projects that onto a person who, honestly, doesn't seem to fit the bill. When she says, "Guys, don't do that," she's basically saying (a) it's his fault for making her feel nervous (probably the case), but moreover, (b) it's his fault she "feels sexualized" (probably not the case).
I think people criticizing her for concern are off-base. But I think her fans are equally wrong for the constant demonization of the guy for what amounted to a minor faux pas, because she felt "objectified" as well. If the elevator guy isn't the problem, then why do so many people spend so much time attacking him for being a stalker? Why did Rebecca Watson herself immediately jump to the conclusion that he was some kind of a mysogonistic douchebag who was "making" her feel that way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.
If the problem isn't elevator guy, then elevator guy did nothing wrong.
I half disagree. It is his fault she felt nervous, because, let's face it, approaching on the elevator with her like that was pretty dumb. So he did at least one thing wrong.
It's not his fault, however, that his wanting to talk to her makes her feel "sexualized," unless he was all licking his lips and looking her up and down, which doesn't sound like it was the case. And that's what she was really railing about. That's what makes this a "feminist" issue, as opposed to a "public safety" issue.
Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.
Your disgust is entirely warrented if the resistance is simply mindless backlash by people feeling like their privilege is being threatened. I can't speak for anyone else here, but my resistance is because she blames him for "making" her feel like she already felt before she ever met him -- sexualized by men. If she was made to feel that way by a bunch of loser guys, then THEY'RE the ones she should have been chastizing, not the poor anonymous loser in the elevator.
It's a mistranslation of "white raisins"; you get 72 white raisins in heaven, I thought everyone knew that by now.Yogurt covered and Valhalla and I'm in. Pitch in the mead for extra perks.Urizen,
I thought you were more of a buffalo sauce type guy with hard cider ;)
"I can't believe it's beer."
Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.
The problem is that your comments have been overtly sexist themselves. Let's treat sexes as equals? I know, it's crazy.
let's face it, approaching on the elevator with her like that was pretty dumb. So he did at least one thing wrong.
The only thing wrong, IMO, is suggesting his room for a venue. Putting myself in his place, it's entirely possible he just chanced upon a meeting with someone he admired in an elevator and couldn't live with himself if he wasted an opportunity to pick her brain. Because if that was me in that elevator, and the woman was someone I had just traveled to Dublin to see talk, that's about all I'd be thinking about.
So what you're saying basically boils down to "come ooon, we knoooow what he wanted!" but we don't get to make that assumption. Hell, maybe he was gay!Regardless of what convention you're at or for whatever reason you're staying at a hotel, if someone walks up to you w/o having prior casual acquaintance with you in the past and asks if you want to come up to their room at 4 in the morning for a drink, what is your first thought that comes to mind? Doesn't have to be an elevator. It could be in the lobby for all that matters.
You. Me. My room. Drink. 4 am. Gut reaction.
Not necessarily. He may just want to rob you. Maybe fuel paranoia that he's going to knock you unconscious and leave you in a bathtub with ice and a missing kidney (to joke on an urban legend).
It doesn't matter what his intent was. Do you think it's appropriate that someone approaches you w/o you've having a prior conversation with them to invite you up to their room at 4 in the morning for a drink?
Why not the bar or a coffee shop instead?
What if it were a woman instead of a man, but the same scenario?
Again. Gut reaction. You get to make your assumption. Of course you don't know their intent.
What do you do?
The only thing wrong, IMO, is suggesting his room for a venue. Putting myself in his place, it's entirely possible he just chanced upon a meeting with someone he admired in an elevator and couldn't live with himself if he wasted an opportunity to pick her brain. Because if that was me in that elevator, and the woman was someone I had just traveled to Dublin to see talk, that's about all I'd be thinking about.
Hey, if some dude approached me in an elevator and wanted to come to my room in the middle of the night, I'd be nervous, too. That part of it is his fault.
The fact that her knee-jerk response was to "feel sexualized" by this is NOT his fault, though, as near as I can tell -- rather, that was a pre-existing condition, which she was expressly there to talk about women having at these conventions. It's a tragedy that women should be made to feel that way by men in the past, but it's not kosher to blame all future men for that as well, if they're in fact treating you with respect. "Please don't take this the wrong way," and "I understand" are not exactly hallmarks of unbridled lecherism being forced onto somone else.
A lot of the vitriol could have been avoided if people had been willing to talk about the two things separately, instead of lumping them together.
Do you think it's appropriate that someone approaches you w/o you've having a prior conversation with them to invite you up to their room at 4 in the morning for a drink? Why not the bar or a coffee shop instead?
I agree 100% with all of this, but it misses her own point. She didn't so much lambast him for making her feel nervous (which I keep insisting is justified), but for "making" her "feel sexualized" (which I don't think is).
Cool. Maybe I just see it differently because my mother was attacked in an elevator.
There were many, many, many comments on Watson's posts about how if they saw her in an elevator, they would rape her. Not sure if those comments survive today, if it were my website I'd probably delete them because I wouldn't want that trash there.
Considering that 1 in 6 women have been victims of sexual assault in America, I think telling them that any fear they might feel is unjustified is misogynistic as well. His comments that they should stop complaining about being afraid of rape because women in muslim countries have their genitals mutilated is also misogynistic.
I just want to add that I've been afraid to be alone in an elevator during the *day* with a man. You don't grow up female in the US without learning where you're vulnerable. Add that to the fact that Ms. Watson was in this elevator at some godawful time in the morning when the crazies come out -- and I completely understand her reaction.
Maybe the guy really was a nice guy. But he was inviting himself to her room (!!) to have a cup of coffee at like 4 in the morning.
And I don't know anything about Dawkins except that he's a big atheist writer. But after his reaction to her very valid concerns, I will *never* read anything by him. To my mind he's clueless about half the population and isn't willing to learn.
Since I'm now reading this forum, I just realized that I'm kinda late to this particular point, and ya'll are already making it for me. :)
Add that to the fact that Ms. Watson was in this elevator at some godawful time in the morning when the crazies come out -- and I completely understand her reaction.
Which reaction?
Feeling nervous and physically insecure?Or feeling "sexualized," which she already felt before meeting the guy?
One is reasonable, the other not so much. And they're not the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grow thicker skin. If you can't take being shot down in public don't hit on strangers.
Oh gods. This is hilarious. Telling women to have thicker skins and not to feel threatened every time a guy talks to her? Misogynist. This though? I'll call it what it is, misandrous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see her blog entry as calling him out as much as saying: Guys, here's an example of something you do that bothers a lot of women. Don't do that. We don't like it. Is that really so horrible?
As I'm repeatedly trying to establish, she's blaming him for two things, only one of which is clearly his fault. So, yeah, that's not right. If you want to give me a ticket because I'm weaving all over while driving drunk, that's legit, but you can't also give me a ticket for a busted taillight at the same time (assuming they're both intact) because you personally associate lousy drivers with busted taillights.
I thought it was him inviting her to his room.
Either way, that was gauche to the point where someone should have thrown him down the elevator shaft. But again, that's a public menace thing, not a gender wars thing like people are making it out to be.
|
I thought it was him inviting her to his room.Either way, that was gauche to the point where someone should have thrown him down the elevator shaft. But again, that's a public menace thing, not a gender wars thing like people are making it out to be.
Where else can he entertain her at 4AM? The hotel lobby probably didn't have anything available. Supposing that he was not going to have any other chance to speak with her, of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
]There are ways to meet people other than harassing total strangers. I mention several.
All of which would limit your pool of possible dates to a very limited number of people. No. Your idea is radically fringe, not remotely common sense, and on top of that incredibly patronizing to women because you don't think they should be able to handle themselves. Some women do say yes at the opportunity, you should allow them to pick and choose without enacting some wall of silence in public.
Just please, when you're trying to chat up total strangers, think about how it might look to them. Try to make it as non-intimidating as possible
I look scary pretty much no matter what I'm doing. Hell, I've had problems introducing myself to girl wolves.
Not creepy. Not threatening.
Creepy and threatening are, in this case, something that exists entirely in her own head. Thats what i'm objecting to: the idea that a male is automatically at fault for a female's emotional state. Its the effective law in some states and its as annoying as it is unrealistic.
You're in a social setting with other people around. Nor are you risking public rejection since you're not asking her out then, you really are just talking. Then, if she seems willing to talk to you, you can make your actual pitch in a quiet moment or if you can't find the right time, then at least in the elevator she's had some interaction with you.
To you, someone sitting quietly intent on a book is really just dying to talk to a perfect stranger? I get irritated enough when I'm trying to read on a plane or somewhere in public and people interrupt me.
I read a lot in public and have people ask me what the book is all the time. Probably because they're on a train, bored as hell, and talking to me is marginally better than staring at the seat in front of them. I don't read anything into it.
I met a friend in college because I was sitting there reading a world of darkness book and they liked the system. I told him about the FLGS in town.
So you should mace people who are "just talking to you"? Even if they won't stop talking to you, but haven't yet touched you or threatened you?
If they're "just talking" like bike guys rant where he threatens her? Hell yes.
Three strikes is probably a good guideline.
I'm not suggesting he should stand up at the panel and proposition her there. It doesn't even have to be in front of others, just where others could hear if she yelled and/or where she could walk/run away if she needed to.
If we're going with the idea that her feelings are his fault, what if she's upset about being asked in front of 20 people?
Which is one of the reasons for using an elevator. She says no, she hits her floor, she gets off and walks away. If you want to call the elevator gauche specifically fine, but taking a very large part of human interaction out of the equation is simply not going to happen.
Do you think it's appropriate that someone approaches you w/o you've having a prior conversation with them to invite you up to their room at 4 in the morning for a drink? Why not the bar or a coffee shop instead?I agree 100% with all of this, but it misses her own point. She didn't so much lambast him for making her feel nervous (which I keep insisting is justified), but for "making" her "feel sexualized" (which I don't think is).
I will posit that some individuals may be more sensitive to come to that conclusion than others.
Maybe it was the 'come up to my room' part when on the elevator.
Which we both agree was boneheaded to begin with, even if his intent was purely non-sexual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this really happen that often in your world? Women are so attracted to you that they'll go to your room with you when that request is the first thing you've ever said to them?
I've seen people pull it off. Some people pumped charisma.
Blah blah blah.
Now that we've beat to death what happened in Ireland in an elevator over a year ago, what about Earthquakegate? 'Cuz that sounds really stupid, too.
Question: Isn't Ireland markedly safer than the US for the sort of thing she was worried about?