| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps he wanted to confide in her that he had been sexually harassed...
He could have been gay.
My wife said she sees nothing wrong with the way either of them acted. But that if she felt threatened or objectified, that's really more on her than him.
Prepare to have your comment completely ignored by thejeff and co, just like all of Sissyl's. :)
And stop talking sense.
You know, people keep driving past my apartment on the main road. It makes me feel unsafe. One of them might rob the place! We need to start a whole movement to re-route traffic, because my feelings on the matter are legitimate cause; Urizen said they don't need any justification, especially when you consider that someone I know might have been robbed in the past. Anyone who doesn't agree is obviously abetting crime.
I was surfing Elevatorgate response videos last night (it's a hobby) and there was one where a guy shared an anecdote about his younger brother, a new college student. He's a shy kid, and his older brother encourages him to be more social. He's out taking a walk and strikes up a conversation with a young lady, who as it happens is also new to the area, so he welcomes her to the neighborhood and leaves her with an open invitation to visit him in his place of residence.
She calls the police on him, saying that he was a dangerous, smelly vagrant and she felt sexually threatened (or something).
Moral of the story: don't talk to women you don't know, they might call the cops on you if you're not attractive enough.
Original video. Disclaimer: I don't agree with everything the guy says, or his tone tbh but I give him slack as it's clearly a very personal issue for him. Just linking for the anecdote itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And just to echo Kryzbyn, the argument hear has been reduced to a tiny point of disagreement. Everyone that's still discussing this agrees that sexual intimidation, rape etc are horrible crimes, that male or female we all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, that Watson had a right to her feelings, that the dude was awkward and a bit inappropriate... None of this is being disputed.
The last possible thing we can find to argue about is whether or not the guy is responsible for her feelings of being sexualised.
My answer would be that they've both contributed to her feeling sexualised, but that in the end, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that that's not the only possible emotional response she may have had, and in fact, not necessarily the most likely response. In that sense, I think her feelings are really more about her in that specific situation, as opposed to the many other scenarios that have been posited in this thread.
You know, people keep driving past my apartment on the main road. It makes me feel unsafe. One of them might rob the place! We need to start a whole movement to re-route traffic, because my feelings on the matter are legitimate cause; Urizen said they don't need any justification, especially when you consider that someone I know might have been robbed in the past. Anyone who doesn't agree is obviously abetting crime.
Just curious, do you take zero precautions with your home? For example, locking your doors at night or when you leave the house.
Or do you completely trust all those passerby's and leave your doors open?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do get the sectarianism of atheism. I know my chosen brand of atheism likely doesn't jive with other atheists. I brand myself a moral ecumenicalist atheist. I can even expand on that.
Moral- Personal responsibility for ones behavior. Where my morality does not come from the dictates of a deity, it comes from social obligation to better society in whatever way I can. I interpret that by being as personally environmental as I can to do my part. I also do what I can in my chosen profession to improve standard of life for those around me. (not that is much)
Ecumenicalist- Most religious folks aren't frothing at the mouth exetremists, those are just the ones you see on the news because exetremism gets better ratings than non exetremism. I agree there needs to be those who oppose exetremism, but I fundamentally disagree with anti- theism at this level. I don't find it necessary to evangelise atheism. I also don't think it is okay to try and humiliate or anger good peaceful religious folks by trying to shatter their world view, in fact I find that just mean and destructive. I think it much more worthwhile to focus your goals on peaceful coexistence with religious folks. Fighting usually gets you nowhere.
Just curious, do you take zero precautions with your home? For example, locking your doors at night or when you leave the house. Or do you completely trust all those passersby and leave your doors open?
You mean, do I get off the elevator when a guy gets on it in the middle of the night, instead of staying in and waiting to hear his pitch? Or do I carry pepper spray just in case? The message I'm getting is that it's not my responsibility to do anything at all if I "feel" something. It's entirely the responsibility of everyone else around me to adjust their behavior to suit the way I'm telling them to act.
Let me hasten to add that I think it would be awesome if no one -- male or female -- ever had to worry about that kind of stuff. But some people's brains are broken in ways that we don't know how to fix, so risk sadly cannot be eliminated. That said, demanding that the rest of the world adhere to very strict (but undefined and potentially constantly-shifting) standards of behavior to assuage our concerns, while we do nothing but scold the people who don't agree, is to my mind maybe not the most efficient way to go about improving things.
Whenever I read through various forums and the comments section on articles, I feel a little bit like Kyle from the South Park movie. Instead of punishing Kyle for using foul language, Kyle's mom went on a crusade that ultimately brought war between the US and Canada. Humans have this overwhelming need to categorize things and shift blame to whatever scapegoat works. Apparently female atheists are just now finding out that men can be jerks sometimes. So instead of dealing with the incidents as they come, women must form a new group.
A friend of mine is what I would call an evangelical atheist. He spends much intellectual capital on his Facebook page "like"ing various Atheist group photos and talking about how he's being persecuted by whatever the religious group du jour is. Most of the posts are about what the religious group is doing or believes, not what the atheist group is doing or believes. I find it quite funny then, that a group that defines itself by what it doesn't believe, is somehow shocked and outraged by a subgroup that defines itself by what it doesn't believe. Honestly I can't even figure out what atheists believe. I just know what they don't. I'm not an atheist (nor am I a theist), but I think these groups would be better off being exemplars instead of being inquisitors.
Just curious, do you take zero precautions with your home? For example, locking your doors at night or when you leave the house. Or do you completely trust all those passersby and leave your doors open?You mean, do I get off the elevator when a guy gets on it in the middle of the night, instead of staying in and waiting to hear his pitch? Or do I carry pepper spray just in case? The message I'm getting is that it's not my responsibility to do anything at all if I "feel" something. It's entirely the responsibility of everyone else around me to adjust their behavior to suit the way I'm telling them to act.
Let me hasten to add that I think it would be awesome if no one -- male or female -- ever had to worry about that kind of stuff. But some people's brains are broken in ways that we don't know how to fix, so risk sadly cannot be eliminated. That said, demanding that the rest of the world adhere to very strict (but undefined and potentially constantly-shifting) standards of behavior to assuage our concerns, while we do nothing but scold the people who don't agree, is to my mind maybe not the most efficient way to go about improving things.
I was pointing out the flaw in your analogy. You already don't trust those people on the road. If you did trust them, you wouldn't lock your doors. We don't accuse people of being racist, classist or whatever because they lock their doors at night. We don't accuse them of being overly afraid or too sensitive.
People don't trust their kids with strangers either. Even though most people aren't going to kidnap or molest them. If a random person knocked on your door and said "Hi, I'd like to take your kid to the park" would you ever say yes?
So, this hyperbole about moving traffic and roads is pretty pointless.
So, this hyperbole about moving traffic and roads is pretty pointless.
I thought the analogy was fairly exact. The kerfluffle isn't about her feelings on the matter (which she's perfectly entitled to); it's about whether those feelings by themselves constitute legitimate grounds for enforcing sweeping, unnatural, and invasive standards of behavior on everyone around (I maintain they are not).
Urizen's stance was that a woman's feelings in an elevator, justified or not, are all the justification that's needed to require all male convention-goers to adhere to very rigid standards of behavior: they should not be allowed get on an elevator with her or with any other female (which is courteous anyway), but furthermore they should not be permitted to ask to speak with her or any other female under any circumstances that might possibly be misconstrued as hitting on her, etc. (which is entirely subjective and impossible to enforce).
We don't accuse them of being overly afraid or too sensitive.
No one did that, least of all me. I repeated ad nauseum that it was smart for her to feel a bit apprehensive. The thing is, I also feel that in no way was she overtly treated as a sexual object -- and in no way is forcing standards of behavior on everyone around her a reasonable response to the (non-)incident.
Certainly, a verbal exchange that consisted of...
"Don't take this the wrong way, but I was interested in your talk, and wanted to know if you'd have a cup of coffee and tell me more?"
"No way!"
"Okay, sorry, I understand."
... is not reasonable grounds for spurring a massive crusade and alienating half the community, is it?
Her original response was 30 seconds, buried in the middle of an 8 minute vlog. Not exactly a crusade, either.
Her original response was 30 seconds, buried in the middle of an 8 minute vlog. Not exactly a crusade, either.
I don't think she herself necessarily meant to start a crusade, but some of her overzealous followers gleefully took that 30-second response and turned it into an entire movement. When asked if the response was appropriate to the impetus, they sought to excommunicate any dissent with it, and continue to do so.
I have no quarrel with Rebecca Watson herself; only with the people who used her reaction as a spurring-point for their witch hunt. If that brands me as a sexist pig, so be it.
Her original response was 30 seconds, buried in the middle of an 8 minute vlog. Not exactly a crusade, either.
You should do some background research. Heres a good breakdown.
The thing that really bothers me is that here is it, nine pages later and we're still talking about Elevatorgate as if it was of any kind of importance at all. [Hides thread]
The thing that really bothers me is that here is it, nine pages later and we're still talking about Elevatorgate as if it was of any kind of importance at all. [Hides thread]
Well, ya know, the Trotskyite/Stalinist split had a pretty big effect on the whole worldwide communist revolution thing you're into; some people are worried that the Womynist/Dawkinist split will so fragment the burgeoning skeptical movement that it will collapse.
Her original response was 30 seconds, buried in the middle of an 8 minute vlog. Not exactly a crusade, either.I don't think she herself necessarily meant to start a crusade, but some of her overzealous followers gleefully took that 30-second response and turned it into an entire movement. When asked if the response was appropriate to the impetus, they sought to excommunicate any dissent with it, and continue to do so.
I have no quarrel with Rebecca Watson herself; only with the people who used her reaction as a spurring-point for their witch hunt. If that brands me as a sexist pig, so be it.
So you're claiming that her crusade started before the threats of rape.
So you're claiming that her crusade started before the threats of rape.
Anonymous drive-by postings on internet forums are generally indicative of pure trolling. I don't believe these comments are indicative of a "rape culture" that has infected the skeptic community and must be stamped out through inquisitions. Find me incidences of actual rape that's occurred at a skeptic conference by participants, and I'll be very happy to re-evaluate that stance.
That said, I think if any person making those sorts of comments could be tracked down and arrested to spend the night under police interrogation, the internet would be a better place.
|
Just curious, do you take zero precautions with your home? For example, locking your doors at night or when you leave the house. Or do you completely trust all those passersby and leave your doors open?You mean, do I get off the elevator when a guy gets on it in the middle of the night, instead of staying in and waiting to hear his pitch? Or do I carry pepper spray just in case? The message I'm getting is that it's not my responsibility to do anything at all if I "feel" something. It's entirely the responsibility of everyone else around me to adjust their behavior to suit the way I'm telling them to act.
Let me hasten to add that I think it would be awesome if no one -- male or female -- ever had to worry about that kind of stuff. But some people's brains are broken in ways that we don't know how to fix, so risk sadly cannot be eliminated. That said, demanding that the rest of the world adhere to very strict (but undefined and potentially constantly-shifting) standards of behavior to assuage our concerns, while we do nothing but scold the people who don't agree, is to my mind maybe not the most efficient way to go about improving things.
I was pointing out the flaw in your analogy. You already don't trust those people on the road. If you did trust them, you wouldn't lock your doors. We don't accuse people of being racist, classist or whatever because they lock their doors at night. We don't accuse them of being overly afraid or too sensitive.
People don't trust their kids with strangers either. Even though most people aren't going to kidnap or molest them. If a random person knocked on your door and said "Hi, I'd like to take your kid to the park" would you ever say yes?
So, this hyperbole about moving traffic and roads is pretty pointless.
locking your doors is a basic precaution just like being aware of your surroundings out of the home is. Then you have the folks with dozens of motion activated floodlights, loud sirens, boobytrapped yards that do an armed perimeter sweep every hour. That is more akin to the "every man is gonna rape me" crazy thought process.
|
|
The thing that really bothers me is that here is it, nine pages later and we're still talking about Elevatorgate as if it was of any kind of importance at all. [Hides thread]Well, ya know, the Trotskyite/Stalinist split had a pretty big effect on the whole worldwide communist revolution thing you're into; some people are worried that the Womynist/Dawkinist split will so fragment the burgeoning skeptical movement that it will collapse.
PCU yeah i forgot the name of that one lol
locking your doors is a basic precaution just like being aware of your surroundings out of the home is. Then you have the folks with dozens of motion activated floodlights, loud sirens, boobytrapped yards that do an armed perimeter sweep every hour. That is more akin to the "every man is gonna rape me" crazy thought process.
So, revisiting the analogy, Atheists+ is not advocating basic precautions (getting off the elevator/pepper spray : locking door of house), nor extreme ones (rape whistles and guns and tasers : floodlights and boobytrapped yards). Instead, they're advocating that no one ever be permitted to approach in such a manner that any precautions are necessary (can't get on the elevator or engage in conversation except under very stictly defined circumstances : traffic gets rerouted away from the house).
|
|
locking your doors is a basic precaution just like being aware of your surroundings out of the home is. Then you have the folks with dozens of motion activated floodlights, loud sirens, boobytrapped yards that do an armed perimeter sweep every hour. That is more akin to the "every man is gonna rape me" crazy thought process.So, revisiting the analogy, Atheists+ is not advocating basic precautions (getting off the elevator/pepper spray : locking door of house), nor extreme ones (rape whistles and guns and tasers : floodlights and boobytrapped yards). Instead, they're advocating that no one ever be permitted to approach in such a manner that any precautions are necessary (can't get on the elevator or engage in conversation except under very stictly defined circumstances : traffic gets rerouted away from the house).
Sounds about right
There's a very nice summary at FREETHOUGHT KAMPALA. I also enjoyed the Q&A posted in the comments section (I suspect "JK" is Jean Kazez, a female; incidentally, she seems to share my views on the matter, and Mrs. Gersen's as well*, all the way down the line):
No, It was inconsiderate, certainly, but not sexist.
2. Should men proposition women in elevators?
For the sake of our species we have to form relationships between the sexes, but he chose the wrong time and the wrong place.
3. Did Rebecca Watson abuse her position as a keynote speaker at the CFI conference in calling out Stef McGraw?
Yes. Rebecca made Stef feel uncomfortable. Even if she was unaware Stef was in the audience, when she became aware Rebecca should have apologised. When elevator man’s actions made Rebecca feel uncomfortable, she blamed elevator man; yet when Rebecca made Stef feel uncomfortable, she blamed Stef.
4. Are women who disagree with Watson’s assessment of the elevator situation gender traitors?
No. And such emotive terms are not useful in a reasoned debate.
5. Is Feminism an integral part of Atheism and Skepticism?
It shouldn’t be — by which I mean you shouldn’t need to be an atheist to be a feminist, or visa-versa. One would hope support for equality is a good enough cause in itself, without needing to be dependent on something else.
6. Is Rebecca Watson using this to simply draw attention to herself?
I doubt she is manipulating the situation in some calculated Machiavellian way, but she doesn’t seem to be someone who shies away from the limelight.
7. Is ‘rape culture’ really pervasive in America?
I suspect this is more perception than reality. Certainly the fear of rape, like most violent crime, is worse than crime figures merit — that is not to belittle rape or downplay its impact, merely to note that statistically stranger rape (like being attacked in an elevator by someone you’ve never met before) is very rare. You are far more likely to be raped by the person you usually share your bed with, or someone you know.
8. Is it because of sexism that woman are not participating in atheist-skeptic events?
I suspect the figures are largely down because the economic downturn has hit women (and mothers) harder.
9. Was Dawkins right, and is this is an overblown affair?
Mostly, but he was wrong in the comparison he used. Just because Western woman do not suffer to the extent of women elsewhere, does not mean that should not complain. That’s like telling someone not to complain when you cut their arm off because elsewhere in the world there are people with both arms cut off.
Also, the way he phrased his intervention was (as often is the case) not exactly tactful.
10.Was Dawkins wrong, and is he a misogynist?
I don’t think he is a misogynist. And throwing around labels like that too liberally means they soon start to lose their impact and meaning.
11. Is group-think pervading the atheist-skeptical movement?
Yes. And all movements of any reasonable size.
12. Atheism has dos and don’ts? Who decided that, and how?
Not atheism dos and don’ts, but human…
13. Is it sexist to be skeptical of feminism?
No, Sexism (like racism and every -ism) is about the answers you give not the questions you ask.
14. Do women live in perpetual fear of rape, and must men modify their behaviour to accommodate this fear?
No, I doubt the majority do. Like the majority of us don’t live in perpetual fear of being mugged in the street. However, sometimes it is just good manners to recognise a circumstance were someone might become temporarily afraid, and avoid it.
15.Are men privileged?
In some ways yes; yet in other ways they are equal. It would be silly to deny the great strides that have been made in equality in some parts of life over recent decades. Yet it would be just as silly to think these strides apply to every area of life.
16. Are women privileged?
In some ways yes. In the case of divorce, for example, women are far more likely to be awarded custody of the children, even if the father is a more willing and suitable parent. Even if the man is awarded custody, when it comes to maintenance payments women are typically instructed to pay much less of a percentage of their salary (even if they earn a substantial wage) and are less likely to be pursued by authorities if they fail to pay.
17. Is it wrong to call each other “dicks” or “t#~&s”?
Name calling doesn’t help.
Of course, if she'd chosen to go back to his room with him and he raped her there, it would be considered "date rape". All the trial would have been about whether she consented or not and that she willingly went to his room would play a big part in that.
Which I agree is a sad state of affairs. But it's an indictment of the legal system more than it is of the skeptic comminity, I think. Especially because he didn't rape her (or attempt to) at all, nor give any indication that he would have -- not in the elevator, not in a room, not anywhere.
Just reacting to the quote.
Gotcha. Yeah, I sort of didn't like that point -- I agree with you that it seems irrelevant and misleading. I included it for the sake of completeness.
