Creepy Elevator Guy

[hollyda]

That's what irks me about the whole thing: it's an affront to her womanhood (really? love, get over yourself), and anyone who dares disagree with her, even politely, even if they're just discussing gender theory, is declared an intolerant misogynistic bigot.

Looking at the situation like this:

A man asked a woman to his room for coffee.

Yes, a vitriolic reaction at this act is completely over the top.

Add in this:

The woman was a speaker at a conference.

Okay, still not too bad.

The man was an attendee of the conference.

Still haven't crossed a line.

The woman spoke about having received rape threats.

I could understand why she'd be jumpy.

The woman said specifically she does not appreciate it when men hit on her at conferences.

The man's actions now seem insensitive, but not necessarily malicious.

And that was all that happen. Watson didn't say he was going to rape her or she knew it was a setup for a sex-crime. She was uncomfortable, not necessarily threatened. In her initial statement, she said the following:

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.

She didn't demand an apology, she didn't indicate she thought he had anything other than good intentions with a lousy choice of timing, and most importantly, she didn't cry rape. She said she was uncomfortable. I don't care what it ballooned into; Rebecca Watson, as a human being, is entitled to feel uncomfortable and to voice her discomfort politely without the world blowing up in her face. Her behavior following the kerfluffle is a different issue altogether -- I don't think she's doing herself any favors by calling for a boycott on Dawkins' work because he said something douchey, but concerning the root of the argument, the triggering event -- she was well within her rights to be wigged and voice her discomfort.

And Dawkins? Sorry, but comparing her discomfort to the plight of Muslim women was just stupid. People have a right to complain. My A/C went off a few days ago, and you can bet I did some whining. Was I not allowed to express my discomfort because in the grand scheme of things, not a huge deal? People losing their A/C for 2 days is WAAAY down on the scale of grievances, especially considering there are single parents out there having to choose between groceries and utilities; nevertheless, it was a minor inconvenience and a major annoyance, so I vocalized it.

Just because there are worse things that could happen doesn't mean everything below The Next Worst Thing is unworthy of recognition. Everyone, everyone gripes, and for everyone griping, there's someone out there who has it worse. That doesn't mean you're more or less entitled than someone else to be uncomfortable. There is a matter of degree, and in this specific instance, her initial comment didn't go off the meter. She didn't martyr herself; she repeated something she's said at conferences before, at this particular conference, in fact, and then the Interwebs went kablooey. Had she initially started off with, "I was afraid of sexual assault when he got into the elevator", that would have been overreacting..... but she didn't.

Again, I am not accounting for what happened beyond the initial statement, Myers' blog, or Dawkins' first comments. IMO, she should have said her piece (which she did) and otherwise stayed out of the conversation. And if she hadn't already said "I don't like it when people hit on me at these events" and brought up the rape threats she's received, yes, this would have been an overreaction. But she did bring it up her feelings about being approached by men and she did mention the rape threats. Take that into account, and her initial statement was very reasonable.

 

[Jazer]

Why is sex or the desire for it creepy?

Depends on if your an animal or human. For some people sex is no different for them then it is for the animals. For others they believe in one man, one women for life and you save yourself for that one special person.

"A man who has riches without understanding is like the beasts that perish." psalm 49:20

"Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them." Jude 1 10

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Looking at the situation like this:

A man asked a woman to his room for coffee.

Yes, a vitriolic reaction at this act is completely over the top.

Add in this:

The woman was a speaker at a conference.

Okay, still not too bad.

The man was an attendee of the conference.

Still haven't crossed a line.

The woman spoke about having received rape threats.

I could understand why she'd be jumpy.

The woman said specifically she does not appreciate it when men hit on her at conferences.

The man's actions now seem insensitive, but not necessarily malicious.

Maybe he genuinely didn't think he was doing anything wrong, or that it was insensitive? A stretch I admit, but still, it shows a presumption on her part: that any man who talks to her is clamouring for her body. I know women have to be on their guard, but still.

And that was all that happen. Watson didn't say he was going to rape her or she knew it was a setup for a sex-crime. She was uncomfortable, not necessarily threatened. In her initial statement, she said the following:



She didn't demand an apology, she didn't indicate she thought he had anything other than good intentions with a lousy choice of timing, and most importantly, she didn't cry rape. She said she was uncomfortable. I don't care what it ballooned into; Rebecca Watson, as a human being, is entitled to feel uncomfortable and to voice her discomfort politely without the world blowing up in her face. Her behavior following the kerfluffle is a different issue altogether -- I don't think she's doing herself any favors by calling for a boycott on Dawkins' work because he said something douchey, but concerning the root of the argument, the triggering event -- she was well within her rights to be wigged and voice her discomfort.

Agreed.

And Dawkins? Sorry, but comparing her discomfort to the plight of Muslim women was just stupid. People have a right to complain. My A/C went off a few days ago, and you can bet I did some whining. Was I not allowed to express my discomfort because in the grand scheme of things, not a huge deal? People losing their A/C for 2 days is WAAAY down on the scale of grievances, especially considering there are single parents out there having to choose between groceries and utilities; nevertheless, it was a minor inconvenience and a major annoyance, so I vocalized it.

Again, I agree. I don't think Dawkins was criticising her for complaining, but for making such a big deal about it, both in her original complaint and her follow-up. Had she left it as an anecdote as an example of why women might feel threatened, that'd be fine. But the explosion of comments came from those who agree with her, and those who thought she was overreacting.

Dawkins wasn't saying she can't complain, but that she shouldn't treat it as the greatest examples of sexism. It is, at best, a very minor example of women's issues in the modern world - as Dawkins pointed out, there are far, far worse examples. That doesn't mean she can't complain about her local issues, but her treatment of it was insulting to our sisters and mothers who go through so much worse.

Just because there are worse things that could happen doesn't mean everything below The Next Worst Thing is unworthy of recognition. Everyone, everyone gripes, and for everyone griping, there's someone out there who has it worse. That doesn't mean you're more or less entitled than someone else to be uncomfortable. There is a matter of degree, and in this specific instance, her initial comment didn't go off the meter. She didn't martyr herself; she repeated something she's said at conferences before, at this particular conference, in fact, and then the Interwebs went kablooey. Had she initially started off with, "I was afraid of sexual assault when he got into the elevator", that would have been overreacting..... but she didn't.

Again, I am not accounting for what happened beyond the initial statement, Myers' blog, or Dawkins' first comments. IMO, she should have said her piece (which she did) and otherwise stayed out of the conversation. And if she hadn't already said "I don't like it when people hit on me at these events" and brought up the rape threats she's received, yes, this would have been an overreaction. But she did bring it up her feelings about being approached by men and she did mention the rape threats. Take that into account, and her initial statement was very reasonable.

I guess that's where we disagree, perhaps in our interpretation or reading of what she said. In my opinion, she overreacted. In yours, she didn't. I think, if we both agreed on how much she reacted, we'd agree on whether she overreacted or not - so, in a roundabout sort of way, we do agree

 

[hollyda]

Maybe he genuinely didn't think he was doing anything wrong, or that it was insensitive? A stretch I admit, but still, it shows a presumption on her part: that any man who talks to her is clamouring for her body. I know women have to be on their guard, but still.


Agreed.


Again, I agree. I don't think Dawkins was criticising her for complaining, but for making such a big deal about it, both in her original complaint and her follow-up. Had she left it as an anecdote as an example of why women might feel threatened, that'd be fine. But the explosion of comments came from those who agree with her, and those who thought she was overreacting.

Dawkins wasn't saying she can't complain, but that she shouldn't treat it as the greatest examples of sexism. It is, at best, a very minor example of women's issues in the modern world - as Dawkins pointed out, there are far, far worse examples. That doesn't mean she can't complain about her local issues, but her treatment of it was insulting to our sisters and mothers who go through so much worse.


I guess that's where we disagree, perhaps in our interpretation or reading of what she said. In my opinion, she overreacted. In yours, she didn't. I think, if we both agreed on how much she reacted, we'd agree on whether she overreacted or not - so, in a roundabout sort of way, we do agree

I can agree to disagree.

I will say her jumping to being sexualized threw me off kilter, too. When I first heard about this (because the soon-to-be-hubs lurks on skeptic blogs and listens to podcasts all day) I didn't know about the rape threats or that she'd made it clear she didn't appreciate being approached. I reacted with, "Umm, jeez, RW. Way to think everyone wants in your pants." Once I learned the mitigating circumstances, my tune changed. Overall, though, aside from that one last part about being sexualized, I didn't see anything wrong with what she said -- and that one thing might be a little off-putting, but maybe he sexualized her more in what his body language said than what he actually said. I don't know, but I can sympathize. As I understand, this whole conversation was sparked by an aside she made in a video otherwise chronicling her successful trip.

As I said, though, her behavior sense this thing became A Thing is a different story. Calling for a boycott on Dawkins' books is rather silly, and blows this into a W-T-Frak of epic proportions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can agree to disagree.

I will say her jumping to being sexualized threw me off kilter, too. When I first heard about this (because the soon-to-be-hubs lurks on skeptic blogs and listens to podcasts all day) I didn't know about the rape threats or that she'd made it clear she didn't appreciate being approached. I reacted with, "Umm, jeez, RW. Way to think everyone wants in your pants." Once I learned the mitigating circumstances, my tune changed. Overall, though, aside from that one last part about being sexualized, I didn't see anything wrong with what she said -- and that one thing might be a little off-putting, but maybe he sexualized her more in what his body language said than what he actually said. I don't know, but I can sympathize. As I understand, this whole conversation was sparked by an aside she made in a video otherwise chronicling her successful trip.

As I said, though, her behavior sense this thing became A Thing is a different story. Calling for a boycott on Dawkins' books is rather silly, and blows this into a W-T-Frak of epic proportions.

Exactly. She overreacted a little bit - and then overreacted a lot. Crazy lady. But at least we can agree To be honest, I'm surprised this thread hasn't exploded like on the blogs - maybe we're just a higher calibre or sceptic

 

[plindboe]

I like The Amazing's Atheist's response to this (non-) issue.

(Contains so-called bad words, so don't watch if you are so easily offended) -> ‪Don't Take This The Wrong Way‬‏ - YouTube

Peter

 

[plindboe]

And Dawkins? Sorry, but comparing her discomfort to the plight of Muslim women was just stupid. People have a right to complain. My A/C went off a few days ago, and you can bet I did some whining. Was I not allowed to express my discomfort because in the grand scheme of things, not a huge deal? People losing their A/C for 2 days is WAAAY down on the scale of grievances, especially considering there are single parents out there having to choose between groceries and utilities; nevertheless, it was a minor inconvenience and a major annoyance, so I vocalized it.

On the face of it it does indeed look fallacious. But I think it's perfectly valid to point out the absurdity of the atheist/skeptic communities arguing about this tiny issue as if it's the most important matter in the world. These communities have much more important issues to deal with, than an awkward moment in an elevator. I've never heard them debate so fervently and passionately about real oppression of women, as I hear them debate this coffee incident. It's shameful when you think about it.

That said, had she just said that it had made her feel awkward and explained why, avoiding curious labels like "sexualizing" and "misogyny", and if she hadn't gone rather petty and aggressive later on, I doubt it would have been an issue at all. There's nothing wrong with feeling awkward especially if you think someone is coming on to you. I think many of us have been in similar situations.

Peter

PS. I realize the irony of me giving this issue attention while pointing out that it doesn't deserve it.

 

[hollyda]

On the face of it it does indeed look fallacious. But I think it's perfectly valid to point out the absurdity of the atheist/skeptic communities arguing about this tiny issue as if it's the most important matter in the world. These communities have much more important issues to deal with, than an awkward moment in an elevator. I've never heard them debate so fervently and passionately about real oppression of women, as I hear them debate this coffee incident. It's shameful when you think about it.

I guess that's another part of it for me, too. Maybe PZ shouldn't have blogged about it -- not gonna judge, 'cause he's a pretty cool guy (and I get to see him talk in the fall). More to the point, if Dawkins felt it wasn't a big deal, why make it a big deal? We do have much more important issues to discuss. I think it's only those within the skeptical community that would immediately recognize names like PZ Myers or Richard Carrier (though I could be very wrong), but Dawkins is regarded as a sort of authority on skeptical matters, so getting involved in the discussion at all implies it is worth his time while simultaneously not being worth his time. If that makes sense.

That said, had she just said that it had made her feel awkward and explained why, avoiding curious labels like "sexualizing" and "misogyny", and if she hadn't gone rather petty and aggressive later on, I doubt it would have been an issue at all.

Agreed. Rebecca Watson's response to the whole kerfluffle wasn't in good taste at all. That's where she lost my sympathy.

There's nothing wrong with feeling awkward especially if you think someone is coming on to you. I think many of us have been in similar situations.

LOL. Yes. One particular personal example of the above involved a one-legged red-eyed guy asking me if I was faithful to my fiance while I was waiting for my prescription to be filled at the pharmacy. He assured me he was, uhh, bigger. This was broad daylight and with plenty of witnesses, but I still sprinted for my car.

 

[sandwiches]

I like The Amazing's Atheist's response to this (non-) issue.

(Contains so-called bad words, so don't watch if you are so easily offended) ->

Peter

I love the Amazing Atheist. He is such a direct and straightforward guy. He has a good point. The whole mess has to do with this dogmatic and irrational aversion to sex and the stupid feminist idea that any man who enjoys sex or thinks of women as physically or sexually attractive is a misogynist. Like the AA said, if it had been two gay men or two gay women and one had asked the other for coffee, would we be also saying that this is totally inappropriate, sexist, and creepy? Of course not.

What possible rational reasons do atheists have to feel like it is wrong for a man to proposition a woman for sex?

No. Her having received rape threats has nothing to do with somebody asking her for a cup of coffee in their room. She said she has talked about how she feels it's inappropriate and creepy for men to come up to her with romantic advances there because she doesn't like be "sexualized like that." What does that even mean? She doesn't like for people to find her sexually attractive? She doesn't want men telling her that they find her attractive? She doesn't like sex? What??

Sorry, but what the guy did was not offensive or creepy and he even sounded like he was trying to be nice. That she decided to take offense is entirely her own problem not some endemic problem with men or society as a whole.

 

[plindboe]

I guess that's another part of it for me, too. Maybe PZ shouldn't have blogged about it -- not gonna judge, 'cause he's a pretty cool guy (and I get to see him talk in the fall). More to the point, if Dawkins felt it wasn't a big deal, why make it a big deal? We do have much more important issues to discuss. I think it's only those within the skeptical community that would immediately recognize names like PZ Myers or Richard Carrier (though I could be very wrong), but Dawkins is regarded as a sort of authority on skeptical matters, so getting involved in the discussion at all implies it is worth his time while simultaneously not being worth his time. If that makes sense.

I can imagine since he had participated in the conference and the issue was already rather big, that people had made him aware of the issue saying that it needed his attention; he, being Dawkins, addressed it in a rather direct manner, being honest instead of tactful. I'm sure he really feel that these other issues are so much more important to discuss that he expressed his annoyance at the whole time-wasting debacle, an annoyance I can totally sympathize with. Of course when you tell people to stop something often it will end up having the opposite effect.

Agreed. Rebecca Watson's response to the whole kerfluffle wasn't in good taste at all. That's where she lost my sympathy.

Same here. It's funny how some people who label themselves skeptics and critical thinkers, often just stop thinking and go with their emotions and biases instead.

LOL. Yes. One particular personal example of the above involved a one-legged red-eyed guy asking me if I was faithful to my fiance while I was waiting for my prescription to be filled at the pharmacy. He assured me he was, uhh, bigger. This was broad daylight and with plenty of witnesses, but I still sprinted for my car.

Ewwww, that sounds like a nasty experience. I've had my share of awkward moments, but nothing quite like that.

Peter

 

[Wiccan_Child]

LOL. Yes. One particular personal example of the above involved a one-legged red-eyed guy asking me if I was faithful to my fiance while I was waiting for my prescription to be filled at the pharmacy. He assured me he was, uhh, bigger. This was broad daylight and with plenty of witnesses, but I still sprinted for my car.

Hahaha, that's a story to tell the grandkids - Or the girlfriends on the hen-night

 

[plindboe]

I love the Amazing Atheist. He is such a direct and straightforward guy. He has a good point. The whole mess has to do with this dogmatic and irrational aversion to sex and the stupid feminist idea that any man who enjoys sex or thinks of women as physically or sexually attractive is a misogynist. Like the AA said, if it had been two gay men or two gay women and one had asked the other for coffee, would we be also saying that this is totally inappropriate, sexist, and creepy? Of course not.

What possible rational reasons do atheists have to feel like it is wrong for a man to proposition a woman for sex?

No. Her having received rape threats has nothing to do with somebody asking her for a cup of coffee in their room. She said she has talked about how she feels it's inappropriate and creepy for men to come up to her with romantic advances there because she doesn't like be "sexualized like that." What does that even mean? She doesn't like for people to find her sexually attractive? She doesn't want men telling her that they find her attractive? She doesn't like sex? What??

Sorry, but what the guy did was not offensive or creepy and he even sounded like he was trying to be nice. That she decided to take offense is entirely her own problem not some endemic problem with men or society as a whole.

I agree completely.

About her rape threats it seems to be the usual troll threats that anyone on youtube with more than 1000 subscribers get (you can read her prime example here). Heck, I've even received death threats before, just for banning someone before from a room on a minor p2p service. Over the internet these things happen all the time because it's done so easily without consequence. It's still serious of course, but these troll threats are still very different from actual written and phoned death threats from people in your actual life. That she uses these meaningless troll threats as evidence for some systemic problem I find rather disingenuous.

About being "sexualized" I don't get it either. Some feminists seem to consider it offensive for a person to consider another person to be sexually attractive, if the former person is a man and the latter a woman. It's a thought crime. And the worst you can do is reveal your feelings, as that's like admitting that you've commited a crime.

I'd be happy to apply the label "feminist" to myself, if it wasn't for the fact that the movement seem to have become overrun by people with sexual phobias. Calling myself an equal rightist doesn't roll of the tongue as easily.

Peter

 

[Jazer]

I've even received death threats before, just for banning someone before from a room on a minor p2p service. Over the internet these things happen all the time because it's done so easily without consequence.

After 911 the laws got a lot stricter. Any sort of a threat can get you in trouble. Even a treat can be considered an act of terrorism and there is no statute of limitations. Even if you can not take them to criminal court you can take anyone to civil court or even small claims court. They have to show up in your town to defend themselves. But you have to go to their town to fight an appeal because it is their court that collects the damages.

 

[USincognito]

The personality cult of Rebecca is not to be challenged.

 

[Super_Rational]

1. Do you think Dawkins was genuinely being hateful towards Islam?
2. Do you think the point Dawkins made (or claims he was making) was valid? Namely, that Skepchick was a) overreacting to what may well have been an innocent offer of coffee, b) overreacting to what may have been an actual offer for sex, and c) overreacting to what she perceives as 'sexism', when there's so much worse in the world?
3. Do you think PZ Myers was right for lampooning the Elevator Guy?
4. What are your thoughts regarding the general explosion of comments and discussion on sceptics blogs, such as RDF and Pharyngula?
5. What are your thoughts regarding the incident itself? Do you think the man was genuinely asking her to talk over coffee, or was it a veiled offer for sex? Do you think she was right to feel threatened, or was she overreacting?

Glad to see there are others who haven't joined the witch burning. Regarding Watson's supporters, never have I seen such a hateful, irrational witch hunt by the very people who claim to rational, skeptical, or tolerant. Nearly every atheist blog I've seen is dominated by these irrational people hiding behind accusations of sexism, misogyny, or other popular buzzwords. They want agreement, not discussion. I think has really made people show their true colors (not all, of course).

I don't think Dawkins was being hateful towards islam as a whole (highly critical, yes). He was only attacking the practices, beliefs, or culture w/in islam that I believe deserve to be attacked. Even if he were being hateful, I've never heard him "preach" anything but open, honest criticism, and certainly never violence or unequal treatment.

I'm not afraid to say that I think Dawkins was spot-on with his criticism. He was fair, not hateful, but brutally honest. Can't say the same for Watson & her supporters. Watson, who comes across to me as someone who craves only controversy & attention, got exactly that. I don't have a problem with her video - she's certainly entitled to her opinion & can cry if she wants. It was pretty tame to say the least. But from what I heard, she then used her position of power as a conference speaker to squash a another female (& feminist) who committed the heinous crime of disagreeing - apparently punishable by public humiliation in some atheist circles.

What gets me is we've never heard anything from or about the guy in the elevator except from Watson. Are we sure he even existed? And maybe i'm one of the few, but I don't even think what he did was creepy, if not even downright courteous the way he did it. And then - nothing happened from it! Maybe he didn't hear her conference talk, maybe he wasn't listening to her at the bar, maybe he didn't hear her say she was tired - no one seems to know anything, except that he's a sexist creep exercising "male privilege" who was "sexualizing" her & was capable of raping her (because he was a man). He's a witch! Burn him!

Besides, from my experiences from being around scientists for years (which is probably similar to the atheist community, there are many guys I suspect would actually prefer coffee & an intellectual chat over sex. Or, maybe he did just want sex, we have no way of knowing. Big deal either way, I think. If an polite requests turns into this, she needs to get over herself, maybe spend a few days on Bourbon St. And I don't care if it was on an elevator. I'm guessing he was no Brad Pitt, else I suspect she may not have made the video. She's oversensitive & begging for attention. It's sad that the incident even warranted making a video.

I didn't know this response would be so long! Brevity is not my strength.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What gets me is we've never heard anything from or about the guy in the elevator except from Watson. Are we sure he even existed? And maybe i'm one of the few, but I don't even think what he did was creepy, if not even downright courteous the way he did it. And then - nothing happened from it! Maybe he didn't hear her conference talk, maybe he wasn't listening to her at the bar, maybe he didn't hear her say she was tired - no one seems to know anything, except that he's a sexist creep exercising "male privilege" who was "sexualizing" her & was capable of raping her (because he was a man). He's a witch! Burn him!

Exactly, even in the worst-case scenario, it's not nearly as bad as people are making out. It's like everyone's clamouring to be seen to be as pro-feminist as possible, but out of fear of being called a misogynist. You can't have a rational conversation about gender or race if your opponent will brand you a misogynist or a racist if you so much as dare to disagree with them.

 

[The Beast Rabban]

In viewing some of her blog this Watson person remind me a bit of another feminist - Andrea Dworkin (now deceased). In a chapter in one of her books Dworkin wrote about walking through a typical airport. In her mind every male was ready to jump out from behind a counter and attack her. Every interaction she had in the airport was a "mini-rape". Bear in mind that Dworkin was probably one of most hideous females on the planet. All of this was simply paranoid delusions.

Now, Watson isn't as ugly as Dworkin, but she certainly isn't a raving beauty. She, like many other feminists, seem to have a constant need to feel oppressed by males in some fashion, usually sexually. The base motivation is an empowerment on her part. The more she feels hit upon, the more desirable she feels. Base motivations are what drives people - not higher notions of female equality and such.

Seems like these skeptic or athiest conferences tend to filled with males that are de-balled feminist sympathizers, so they are the type of males most likely to "sexualize" Ms. Watson.

The silliness of this issue is beyond belief. If I'm on a elevator at 4 AM with Watson and she is uncomfortable, she can take the stairs. I'm not going to alter my behavior to suit the paranoid delusions of some silly twit.

 

[Cabal]

I'm still shilly-shallying on what to make of this issue.

The main counterargument floating round in my head, that I haven't seen an adequate counter to, is - "Well, sometimes women make false accusations of rape against men. I don't feel comfortable in an elevator with a woman in case I get falsely accused of rape, so all women should just be aware of this and modify their behaviour".

I mean really - would we ask a minority to do this? "Sorry dude, you really shouldn't be so insensitive and come close to me - I mean, you're black, and I can't tell if you're going to rob me or not".

I was discussing this on another board and was going to crack a joke about "Schrodinger's feminist" - then I discovered that there actually is a meme drifting about for a few years now used by some feminists to discuss this issue called "Schrodinger's rapist". That absolutely infuriates me - that attitude is what is sexist here.