Getting and not getting
Phil Plait is another who disagrees with Richard Dawkins about the zero badness of asking a stranger for sex on an elevator at 4 a.m.
An important point that came up multiple times is that many men do not truly understand what women go through in such situations.This point was driven home when Richard Dawkins spoke up about it. Through his own words, he proved quite clearly that a lot of men just don’t get it.
And lots of other men on various other sites have been demonstrating the same thing. They don’t get that it matters, they don’t get that women aren’t a public commodity, they don’t get that it’s not all about them, they don’t get that they don’t know better. It’s a depressing spectacle. (Lots of men do get it though. Lots. No need to tell me that. Not that you were going to, but…but some of you probably were.)
This is a societal issue; sexism (conscious or otherwise) is still a strong force in our society, and a lot of men will dismiss claims of sexism from women. As has been made very clear here, we all need to make sure that all men understand the woman’s point of view, or else this type of thing will continue to happen… and people will continue to dismiss it as no big deal.It is a big deal. If Dawkins — a leader in the critical thinking movement and a man known for defending women against religious oppression — can take such a dismissive stance, it’s clear that we have a long way to go. I don’t know if it was sexism on Dawkins’ part or just plain obtuseness, but this attitude is shared by far too many men. It trivializes the justifiable fear women have to live with as well as their point of view, and that’s just plain wrong.
It’s not actually primarily about fear, for me (which perhaps puts me right back in “it’s no big deal” territory – except that I don’t think so). It’s primarily about not wanting things to be divided up as: men do thinking and talking and women do looks and sex.
There are the usual many comments saying things like
Men are not allowed to speak to or even make eye contact with women without express written permission, signed in triplicate, notarized with at least two witnesses. Because all men are potential sexual predators and all women are delicate potential victims. Sexism, much?
That’s only six comments in, and it’s not even the first one saying “wull how are we supposed to ask women for sex then?”
Miranda raises an interesting issue about this idea of “getting it.”
Attempting to silence and/or shout down those who dissent or disagree is rude, immature, irrational, and counterproductive.
And engaging in that attempted silencing and/or shouting down of dissent or disagreement by telling someone that they “just don’t get it” is gallingly condescending, patronizing, presumptuous, childish, arrogant, and rude.
Yes but…there also really is something to the idea that we don’t “get” everything, and that our circumstances can prevent us from “getting” what things are like for people in different circumstances. Privilege can get in the way of comprehension. It’s always possible to exaggerate that, or to see it when it’s not there, but it doesn’t follow that there’s no truth to it at all. I think I have been seeing a lot of not getting over the past couple of days.
Guys, if you’re still not getting it, these two threads helped me:
+ Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced
+ Hi. Whatcha reading?
There’s a lot to read there, but if you are actually interested in getting it and not just in defending why there’s nothing to get, reading through all the comments on both those pages would be a good place to start. (The first was linked to in the last post, but I think it’s worth repeating because it may not be obvious that it’s worth reading all the comments.)
An important point that came up multiple times is that many men do not truly understand what women go through in such situations.
Perhaps consider this: An important point that came up multiple times is that many atheists do not truly understand what Christians go though when they read a sign saying “god probably does not exist.” At least some of them are deeply offended, and so you should not put up those signs.
Yes, I am an atheist who does not understand that. And I am a man who does not really, deep down, understand what “a” woman (all women are the same?) goes through when she is proposed to by a man in an elevator. Full agreement. However, there has to be some objective measure to appropriateness and threatening-ness, otherwise the logical conclusion, as in the Christians-might-be-offended scenario, is never to permit anything except sitting in a room and watching TV anymore because somebody could always consider any random behaviour threatening and inappropriate. That is probably what the commenter you disliked was getting at. There are things that are definitely inappropriate, of course. But let’s remember, we are talking asking a question and accepting the answer here, and it must at a minimum be possible to suggest that asking a question and accepting the answer is not self-evidently inappropriate or bad, or that disallowing that behaviour would lead to absurdities, without immediately being lumped with rapists or gropers. Fallacy of the excluded middle much?
Hi,
First time poster and I wish I wasn’t posting on this topic for my first, because normally my reaction to reading this blog is “Exactly!!”, “Right On!” or “I couldn’t agree more!”, but I’m not sure that I agree with the blog on everything this time and I think there are a few points to raise (some of the following is playing the devil’s advocate):
1) The man in the elevator did not ask for sex directly (though a reasonable guess is that that was the intention).
2) Asking for sex is not the same as seeing a woman only as a sex object – when my students ask for their grades, I don’t assume that they only see me as a grade-dispensing automaton (though some may). We can’t engage all facets of a human being simultaneously and engaging one facet does not mean we are denying the validity and value of the other facets.
3) While the overture certainly may have been inappropriate, that is not the same as saying it is sexist. Not seeing a woman’s point of view in a situation is not necessarily sexist. Ignorant maybe, worthy of some social censure, sure, but that does not automatically equate to sexism (which, for me, must include viewing a woman as inferior in some way. Asking for sex doesn’t seem to imply viewing women as inferior (see point 2)).
4) This point is probably going to annoy some people, but privilege barring one from “getting it” works both ways. There is a lot of power and argument-ending trumping in an accusation of sexism (I’ve seen no end of discussions ended when someone lobs that term and everyone runs for cover). Some people overuse the accusation (I don’t know if Rebecca is one of these, though I think she was in error to refer to this encounter as sexist rather than awkward and inappropriate). While some men may not see things clearly because of their privileged status, it is also possible that some people do not see things clearly because they have gotten habituated to the power of throwing the word “sexist” into an argument. That may not be what’s happened here, but it’s a possibility to consider, just as valid as the possibility that the men aren’t getting it because of privilege.
Alex – true – but then again, this particular example isn’t all that borderline, not as described. (If it all happened quite differently from what Rebecca described, then it could be, but that’s beside the point.) It was 4 a.m., she was on her way to crash, she had said she doesn’t want to be hit on.
Dead Poet (which one? she said excitedly)
1 is debatable, I think…which is a nice way of saying I don’t believe it.
2 – in general yes – but in that context…well, maybe you’re right; it was recreation time, not podium time, so maybe so. Which means you get 3 too.
4 – sure. Good point. As I said, Miranda’s post raises an interesting issue.
See, that went well for a first time! :- )
I wasn’t aware that she had already made that clear beforehand.
Sigh. The deliberate unwillingness to understand a damned thing is wearing very, very thin. Good on yer, Ophelia, for not giving up.
I shall have my own copious thoughts on the matter up within a day or so. Further sigh. I hate having to beat this dead horse, but needs must…
Plait’s post is OK. Here’s one problem:
What people have been pointing out is that obtuseness is not some idiosyncratic quirk or congenital defect but a patterned approach on the part of privileged groups. Sexism (racism, homophobia…) and obtuseness aren’t separate, most certainly not in the sense that the latter excuses the former. Obtuseness is a privilege and the result of privilege.
I’ve been reading various comment threads about Elevatorgate, and it’s really depressing to see that so many of my fellow straight male atheists (Richard Dawkins, we hardly knew ye) really, fundamentally don’t get it. Don’t get male privilege and how it works, mainly, but somehow “just don’t get it” seems more apt.
I’m sad, and a little ashamed.
Unless I’m wildly misinterpreting things (which I doubt, but is possible), Miranda Celeste Hale is, like her pal Abbie Smith, a moron and a gender traitor, as skeptifem so graphically put it.
Nah. Miranda thinks calling out the student was wrong, and I pretty much agree with that.
I’m leaving now. Everybody be sweet! Until tomorrow.
Frankly?
I don’t think anybody really knows what they’re talking about on this. The whole idea of “approaching someone”, is unacceptable if you truly care about the feelings of others. It’s not acceptable in an elevator, it’s not acceptable at a restaurant, it’s not acceptable while walking down the street. It’s simply not acceptable, because it always has the potential to be creepy.
It’s just flat out rude. It’s not something I would ever ever ever consider doing.
This is exactly what I predicted would happen. Personalities have overwhelmed reason and all sense of proportion. Genuine abuse and inequalities have been trivialized for personality and status. People who claim to be liberal, turn out not to be liberal at all. Office politics and human nature have hijacked reason once again.
So we can’t admit any shades of gray.
To me, Dawkins went pretty far out of his way to use RW as a foil. Especially considering her video wasn’t a rampage.
That said, elevator guy’s crime was to be boorish??? To be a drunk flirt??? Doesn’t matter what his “potential” for being a predator was, there was nothing to say he saw her as “prey”. I walk onto the elevator with her at 4am and she probably gets her guard up whether I say anything or not. Just because she’s alone at 4am.
Isn’t her experience incredibly trivial next to those of oppressed women in other countries??? Would she argue with that?
I still don’t know what Ophelia wants me to “get”. That asking for coffee means you want to pull down her pants as Ophelia puts it? That flirting means you see women as “commodities”? I don’t concede any of that.
It’s only one data point and not an argument but my wife was put off by the “fainting couch” feel of many of the comments. She absolutely 100% thinks a guy asking for coffee and then going away is a non-issue. I don’t know. I can’t find real live people who don’t find it all silly (good lord if anyone thinks that makes me flip towards actual cases of rape or assault).
Hey, Adam, I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have about the links I posted in comment #1 here, the ones I said were helpful in understanding what there is to get, and then getting it.
I’m surprised by the commenters declaring that they will no longer regard the work and ideas of Richard Dawkins (including Watson herself). Lets say he’s the biggest sexist pig the world has ever seen. How does that discount his ideas on atheism or (more importantly) science? And I am not yet convinced that he is a sexist pig. I’m hoping he’ll come out with something that says “OK, maybe I still don’t quite get how the elevator thing was sexism, but improving the experience of women in the atheist community is a critical goal and here’s what I see as the important steps to achieving it.” Even if he doesn’t see “don’t ask a girl to your room at 4 AM” as an important reform, he could win a lot of people back by telling us what IS important to him regarding women’s issues in our community. Maybe one of them will even be that women should not have to be constantly hit on at atheist meetings. Even if hitting on women is not sexism (and I honestly still think it isn’t), it does make women less likely to engage in the movement, and that is detrimental to everyone.
It doesn’t. But there are plenty of other people with ideas on atheism and science I could be reading; why should I give any more of my time to someone about whom I’m always going to be thinking in the back of my mind, “what a jerk”? What a perfect opportunity to branch out and read some stuff that I might not have before.
Branching out is always good. But he is a brilliant science writer. Why deprive yourself of such a rare commodity because he may be a jerk? Anyway, lets see what he says after more time to think about it.
Quick! Mom’s out. Who’s got the key to the liquor cabinet?
Well there goes my real person status.
Since we’re all apparently airing which idiotic rhetorical tactics annoy us, can we stop it with the ‘I know so and so who doesn’t find this offensive?’ Not only is it never used in a way that actually diminishes the point or argument being made, it reeks of egoism (that word? whatever means self-centeredness). One of my fondest high school memories was my American History teacher bringing in several news paper clippings of post civil war news reports. Guess what one of them was? A freed slave waxing nostalgically about how great slavery was and how much worse freedom was.
This has to stop. If for no other reason then my mental health.
Thanks Josh. Once I see the light and understand random, unrelated articles, I will “get it”.
Maybe we can criminalize what he did. Or mace people who ask for coffee.
I think we agree he was boorish/rude/drunk/autisitic(!). Still a completely trivial incident.
Mightn’t some or much of the reaction to this whole fiasco be related, not to many of the kinds of things that have been proposed (from what little I have read of them), but to the fact that the man cold-propositioned the women for sex without any ceremony attached to that (like, you know, buying her a drink, taking her out for a meal perhaps, flirting with her, checking for reciprocal interest in him, and – heaven forbid – actually talking to her in a meaningful way). Why is that bad? Simply because it presented her (at least, and maybe women in general) as cheap or unworthy of ceremony before rather obvious sexual advances are made?
(I call it ceremony, but I don’t think actually requiring a personal connection between people before propositioning them for sex figures as ‘mere’ ceremony; nevertheless, there just are some ceremonial features to how things usually go when sexually pursuing a woman, and they were clearly lacking in this case. Let’s face it, elevators aren’t romantic settings).
What this did, then, was to present Rebecca as – for lack of a better word – cheap, or unworthy of the effort made in trying to impress before advancing a sexual proposition. If this is the way he goes about trying to get himself sex generally, I bet he strikes out nearly every time.
In which case, all this stuff to do with fear and ‘elevator rape’ would be very much the red herring.
Karmakin,
maybe (hopefully) you are being ironic, but see, that is exactly what I was talking about.
There are those who say, you should not approach somebody at 4am in an elevator if they have just indicated that they are tired and want to go to bed. Yup, fairly understandable.
There are those who say, you should never approach a woman when there is only the two of you. Debatable, not least because many a woman would probably feel more embarrassed about this if it happened in front of an audience, but well.
Then there are those who say that any man who approaches a woman automatically treats her as a commodity, or objectifies her. Whut? Simply does not follow. (And what if a woman approaches a man, as has happened to me? Did they also objectify me? Perhaps not, because only men have privilege? Or something?)
And then there are those who say or at least write things that can only be understood to imply that no man should ever approach a woman, under any circumstances, because she could feel threatened. One male commenter somewhere else (forgot which site, sorry, may have been PZ’s) proudly wrote that he always falls back or switches the side of the road if a woman is near so that she does not feel threatened by him. Aha. Perhaps best if I lock myself in at home to be on the safe side. (/snark)
I at least do not want to turn all the world into Saudi Arabia, thank you very much.
SC
Unless I’m wildly misinterpreting things (which I doubt, but is possible), Miranda Celeste Hale is, like her pal Abbie Smith, a moron and a gender traitor, as skeptifem so graphically put it.
I read it differently. Abbie, who I don’t know at all, and have barely read her blog, seems to be looking at everything from her perspective, she’s had real problems with creeps, and this isn’t a real problem with a creep but misuse of power. In the end, we all look at it from our perspective. Without empathy, it’s just whatever works for me and not understanding any other position. I don’t know if that makes her a gender traitor or a moron.
I won’t comment on Miranda because I don’t have enough details, but she’s no moron.
On a separate note, I can’t believe people would ignore Dawkins’ work because he might be a pig. Truth isn’t the province of only the virtuous.
@21: Except, amongst all these comments, there was some fairly hard data that suggests “elevator rape” is anything but a red herring.
Ever worked at starbucks? I can totally get behind macing people who ask for coffee.
Seriously though, why the sudden jump? No one wants to criminalize the activity. The whole point of pointing out what was wrong with it is because we recognize the individuals autonomy and have enough respect for them that they will learn and in the future change their behavior accordingly.
A lot of folks have been trying to play race to dismiss Ms. Watson’s concerns. Let’s see if I can do it support her,
Would you say a store clerk tailing me every time I enter his shop until he sees my military ID be a non issue if I used it as a small example of how quiet discrimination creates an unfriendly environment for minorities?
Bull. (Not bull that she thinks that about “calling out the student”* but bull that that’s all she thinks. Bull.)
lhttp://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/bad_form_rebecca_watson.php#comment-4308476
*As I’ve said, I find this silly. With all of the platforms these arguments cross, all of a sudden it’s “But no discussing a blog post – even by an organization leader on that organization’s blog – in a keynote.” Or no bringing anything on the internet into RL. Or if it’s a student (the horror). Or if you’re MEEN. Or whatever. It’s silly on its face, it’s condescending to McGraw, it morphs constantly, and it’s never been convincing. These people likely don’t give a hoot about McGraw – she’s a pretext for attacking Watson.
she’s a pretext for attacking Watson.
Why is this? I don’t know anything about RW, why the animus?
Alex: What I am saying is that not everybody feels comfortable with human contact, and as such, people should learn to assume that their attempt at making contact may not be appreciated and as such, to be a not-jerk and simply don’t do it.
Alex SL,
I agree and you put it better than I do.
Julian,
You know, it’s one data point of mine and it’s not an “argument” or “Hey, the black guy I knows thinks…”.
My comment from a previous thread. And this incident lacked significant aspect of the elevator encounter. Please try to get it:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/a-priest-and-a-rabbi-go-into-an-elevator-and/#comment-96521
I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking. Because she’s a feminist making uncomfortable points, with whom they stupidly disagree, socially or personally. Abbie has a history of this (and, well, stupidity in general), and the whole “argument” about conference talks is just conveniently dumb.
Well aren’t you a paragon of forward thinking virtue.
I honestly don’t see what you find wrong with this. The individual writing is aware of how imposing he can be and how uncomfortable he can make others feel. He’s taking steps to minimize it. The steps likely are doing little to help the overall situation but it does show a level of awareness that many don’t have. Why are you discouraging that?
Don’t let me stop you.
Because she’s a feminist making uncomfortable points, with whom they stupidly disagree, socially or personally.
Fair enough.
ERV; the freed slave from my highschool memories.
Brian, my personal read on animus toward RW — she’s pretty but she “can’t take a compliment”, ie, doesn’t want to be hit on constantly. Also, she talks about feminism and atheism at the same time, as if they might (gasp) relate to each other. And she doesn’t pat the menz* on their heads for not actually being rapists.
*No, I don’t mean anyone posting here and now, as far as this thread goes. Mostly. So far. Because every thread seems to attract them eventually.
Abbie has a history of this (and, well, stupidity in general), and the whole “argument” about conference talks is just conveniently dumb.
I read Abbie on John Wilkins blog last night. She teed off at PZ, and it seemed like, she has a blokey thing going on. If you know what I mean. Wants to be one of the boys if that makes sense. Wilkins tweeted something gushing about her opinion, so that would seem to be the payoff.
@24 – do you mean that rapes in elevators do actually occur? Sure, I don’t doubt that at all. But that doesn’t mean, in and of itself, that the reason why people are getting so upset about this has anything to do with that possibility.
And she doesn’t pat the menz* on their heads for not actually being rapists.
I love that. Not that men do it, but that men (and yes I’m certainly one and certainly didn’t get it once, though believe I sort of do now) think that by not raping a woman they’ve done a kindness, instead of acted like a civilized equal person.
Of course, I totally accept that I could be wrong about all people involved in this. I’ve tried to avoid getting involved as I’ll say something (probably already have) that will rub somebody up the wrong way. My default position is ‘I’m with Ophelia’.
[…] Getting and Not Getting […]
Dawkins no longer a good one? ;)
I know exactly what you mean, and it makes perfect sense. It’s in part what I argued on her blog and Jerry Coyne’s. I don’t think it’s entirely conscious, but she turns on women to get in with men. It’s the same as any member of a subordinate group trying to set themself apart from it. It can work at an individual level, to a limited extent, but it’s pathetic and more generally counterproductive. Not to mention that men aren’t all the sexists this approach assumes (as of course many have happily shown). I hope she stops.
Not trying to be facetious but I would never have had a girlfriend or ever met my wife under those conditions.
What a vile and disgusting woman. And she’s accusing other people of melodrama?
If I were still I believer I’d say a hail mary thankful she was not my introduction into skepticism or feminism. I’d still be trolling /b/ otherwise.
Dawkins no longer a good one? ;)
ha ha. I used to be a Dawkophile. Sort of stopped that a few years ago. Probably just greatly respect him these days.
Nah not facetious at all, as I really recognize the problem with what I’m saying and you’re right. Myself, I met my wife in a larger talk group over IRC, and we became friends then closer friends.
It’s just that we need to provide more options for meeting people in our society than just the “cold call”, which is the majority of what exists these days, at least it seems like that to me. I’ve just seen too many comments that imply that the approach would have been OK if it happened say once they got off the elevator, or in the lobby and that just rings very hollow to me. I think a confined/isolated space is worse! Don’t get me wrong. But I just happen to think that the “cold call” approach is very problematic in and of itself, as it can be seen as overly aggressive by someone who doesn’t want the attention.
Even someone who wants attention might not want attention from you.
Abbie:
So a guy’s being, as she acknowledges, super creepy and discounting her expressed wishes. It’s wise to confront him about this alone in an elevator [!]. But you shouldn’t raise the subject of the super creepy disrespectful behavior anonymously and as a means of broader consciousness-raising (note that it wasn’t a blog post but a YT video, but I doubt Abbie had even a vague inkling of the details). Because…who the hell knows? It’s far from the stupidest thing she’s written, but it’s up there.
My nonexistent god and I thought pharyngulites let themselves get personal every now and then.
By a prometheus. I had fond memories of a skeptic who went by that moniker. After that comment
he can die in a fire.[No threats! – OB]
Jesus, do these many people genuinely hate Ms Watson this much? I used to hate the sound of her voice on the Skeptic’s Guide. Now all I want to do is meet her and apologize for every snide thing I’d ever said about her.
You seem more knowledgeable about her then me. Is she the type that blames women in abusive relationships for not walking out and being irrational? She sounds almost indistinguishable from the women I met who do that.
Actually, I corrected you about that. Several days ago. And you responded to that post. Sooooo youre actively misrepresenting me, here, and you are well aware of that.
Alas you flounced off of my blog, yet here you are, on another blog, talking about me behind my back like a jealous high school girl.
Insinuating I want to be one of the boys, like the good feminist you are, because heaven forbid a female be capable of making up her own mind or have her own opinions.
LOL!!!
Looooooooser!
THUG 4 LIFE!!! *gender traitor gang sign* Peace out, homie!
Adam:
Oh, I see. You don’t actually care about getting it. You just want to be able to say that you don’t get it and leave it at that, with the hanging implication that it’s because there’s really nothing there to get. Well, that’s cool too, I guess. If you could just say that up front instead of pretending that you cared, that’d be super helpful.
I think it’s probably the same Prometheus, and if I recall correctly it’s not the same time he and Abbie have been on the same stupid side. It’s a matter of selective skepticism.
I have no idea, but I hope/doubt she’d do that. The thing is, she’s been stalked. You’d think that would make her more attuned to and understanding of other women’s experiences, but instead it makes her dismissive of them publicly. She also objectifies herself assertively. I guess if you think of it in terms of a perceived self-defense approach, it does make a sort of perverted sense. But it assumes that the reason men have targeted you is that you were or were perceived as weak or “womanly” and that you can subvert this individually, and this is an incorrect and personally and socially dangerous assumption. Come to think of it, the film The Believer is kind of relevant to this, in an extreme way…
Hitting on women is not necessarily sexist. Cornering a woman in a lift in the middle of the night to do it — well, it’s pretty creepy, to say the least.
As some may know, I don’t care at all for Stephanie Z, but this is good:
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/07/letter-to-professor-dawkins-from.html
but I hope/doubt she’d do that
Er, I hope she wouldn’t do that.
Okay, I’m literally losing sleep the last couple of days reading all the fighting going on here and elsewhere. I like Ms. Watson, both her writing and presence on SGU (having never had the pleasure of hearing her talk in person). From what I can see about this incident, her initial comment (ie., Guys, don’t do that) was entirely appropriate and non-objectionable, no matter what the man’s intentions were. She was making a valid point, and it was in context, given the subject of her previous talk. Were her comments in reaction to Stef’s blog post objecting to her initial statement overblown? I initially thought so, but I’m realizing how much I DON’T know by virtue of not being a part of the meeting itself.
And I like R Dawkins. Quite a bit. This incident has not caused me to dismiss him and I will absolutely buy and read anything he publishes in the future. Those declaring that they’ll ignore him are shortsighted and, most likely 90% won’t live up to those threats once time has cooled their emotions.
My overarching response to this has been wonderment at how a discussion within a community priding itself on rationality has degenerated into maybe the most irrational side-taking, name-calling, stereotyping argument I’ve seen. Dawkins isn’t the devil. Watson isn’t a man-hating feminist. Even posts that stop short of those declarations still resort to simplifications that fail to see any shade of gray.
As for my own reactions, I posted yesterday on another thread here that the man asked, RW said no, he backed off, so where’s the harm? I said I detected prudery, since asking a stranger for sex is not, in my opinion, sexist. After reading much more about the level of suggestiveness and propositions at these meetings (I’m just reacting to what I’ve read – I haven’t attended any such conferences), my view has shifted substantially. If this is a constant part of the atmosphere at these meetings, then it will deter female participation and suggests a level of misogyny that is disappointing.
I don’t think RW’s reaction to the situation was overblown. I do think RD’s wading into the situation was done without really thinking through what he might NOT know or feel, but I do not think that makes him, by definition, sexist, nor does it detract from his value as a scientist, atheist and communicator.
The biggest problem isn’t RW or RD. The biggest problem has become those demanding the heads of others who don’t agree with them, labeling the opposition with the most trite, simplistic appellations. Many of those commenting are making PZ look like a Boy Scout.
Good work, Julian!
http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/07/05/the-epitome-of-condescension/#comment-328
I will go die in a fire as well because I disagree with something. You either “get it” or you don’t!
And isn’t it a shame that nobody has pointed you to discussions which would help you get it, if only you could be bothered to read them (and, if you didn’t understand how they related to the issue at hand, ask rather than dismissing them as random and unrelated)? Gosh, that would be swell. Such a pity it’s not the case.
Could you? If you all carpooled think how many fewer carcinogens and green house cases you’ll release ino the air.
Disagreeing is fine and generally a good thing in any group. I disagree with just about everyone over something. I’ve found it keeps me both questioning my ideas and that of everyone else. Dieing in fires is however reserved for a small subset of the participants of Ms. Smith (?) ERV blog.
Karmakin,
the problem is that it seems rather excessive to ostracize any behaviour that, to use your own words, “not everybody feels comfortable with”. This is what my parallel to religious offense-taking was trying to address.
If you want people to never say anything that might conceivably be considered offensive to somebody somewhere under certain circumstances, then the only solution is not to say anything at all. Worse than that, because if somebody wants to keep people from wearing blue shirts, they can just found a religion that considers that colour forbidden, and then act all offended until nobody dares wear it anymore. Wait, such a religion already exists. Luckily, it isn’t the dominant religion in our countries and does not really try to make outsiders respect their taboos. It would probably not be polite to go visit one of them in a blue shirt, but you can hardly expect me to throw all of them away on the off chance that a Yazidi could walk past me on the street. See how silly it can get if we follow such a nebulous approach of making sure that nobody can possibly be offended?
The same goes for making sure that women don’t feel threatened. There are obvious no-nos, just like you should not offend the religious by going into their holy places and disrupting their ceremonies (duh). But just like you should be allowed to wear what colours you want in public and put up what non-insulting signs you want even if somebody comes along and feels offended, you should also be able to approach people and ask them a question, as long as it is, in fact, simply a question instead of veiled insults or threats, and as long as you graciously and politely accept the answer. And you should bloody well be allowed to walk on the same side of the road as other people.
Once again, I also consider what you call the “cold call” inappropriate and would never do that myself. But saying that nobody should do that no matter where and how leads to a completely absurd situation.
I knew a 1stSgt who’d been raped when she was younger and, understandably, drew a very hard line on rape in her battalion. But she was incredibly hostile towards women who didn’t report their rape or their harassment. She seemed almost more hostile towards them then she did towards attackers (though I think there’s some personal history behind it. Her attacker had gotten away with it before. Details very fuzzy though).
Is this kind of response common?
Men are “still not getting it”? Lots of women aren’t seeing what all the fuss is about either. I’m just thinking this is all about gaining blog hits, twitter followers and whatever other benefits there are for this storm in a teacup. It’s a completely manufactured #firstworldproblems and that’s why people like Dawkins isn’t afraid of calling BS on it.
More nuggets of wisdom from ERV &Co.
I think it is, and the more I think about cases like Abbie’s the more I realize that it’s not limited to women in relation to men, and the more it makes me sad rather than angry. You see it with gay people who’ve been targeted or atheists who’ve been discriminated against as well. Blaming the victim is common in cultures that systematically disenfranchise people, and either victimization or potential victimization or discrimination can make people prone to it. So they say that other gay people shouldn’t be so flamboyant or atheists shouldn’t be so outspoken, or they try to distance themselves from others like them and even identify with the dominant group. If people are targeted, they probably did something to bring it on, and are courting harm by talking about it. It’s a self-protective measure, I suspect, and I doubt it’s conscious. What I do know is that it takes the focus off the larger problems and the people causing them.
(The issue of reporting is incredibly complicated, but the fact that someone is a victim should never be lost.)
Dawkins lives in a country with an absurd libel law. He’s dealing with real issues of “saying anything offensive is banned.” So maybe he’s viewing it through that lens – offensive speech is still worth protecting.
Rebecca, as far as I know, wasn’t calling for banning, but simply pointing out what creep the guy was. Which was true. But think about the sexism here: she was only afraid because it was a man. His membership in a certain class (which he has no control over) was the determining aspect of her reaction to him. That’s sexism. And guys (meaning the rest of us) don’t like it anymore than women do.
Of course, Rebecca is also justified, because men really are the source of most violence.
Maybe Rebecca could not take that guy’s behavior as indicative of all male atheist behavior. Maybe she could say, “I meet a creep last night at an atheist convention,” as opposed to saying, “If you want more women to come to your events you all should be less like this creep.” Because frankly the second comment kind of lumps me in with the creep, by simple virtue of being male.
Worse, any guy who has ever made a clumsy pass at a woman is now branded a “creep” by Rebecca’s standards. And guess what – that’s all of them (except the gay ones). That guy on the elevator was probably more scared than Rebecca was. It takes a lot of courage (or self-importance) to approach a stranger and admit you are completely in their power (as in, will do anything for sex).
Let me demonstrate my point. I observed the following at a bar once: a girl complaining to her friends that no one would ask her dance. Eventually a fellow came over and asked her, and she replied, “With you?” So ladies, if you want men to ask you to dance, try not be like that girl.
If you’re a woman, you’re probably feeling annoyed by the comparison. That’s how most men are feeling about Rebecca’s comparison, I would think. We’ve all screwed up in the past, we’ve all exposed our feelings only to be cut down, and we don’t like being told we’re creeps. That guy was a creep, sure, but I’m not, and I don’t think I need to change my behavior because of what some creep did. You know?
If people are targeted, [the assumption goes,] they probably did something to bring it on, and are courting harm by talking about it.
It might seem that this is inconsistent with the anger at nonreporters, but I don’t think it is. Aside from the fact that the reporting insistence puts the onus on victims, this sort of attitude seems linked to a reluctance to recognize the social problems and engage in activism to create social change. Not invariably, probably, but often.
I’m withdrawing from this discussion. I just read Miranda’s take (via facebook) on the comments made here since I joined in. Miranda, like Ophelia, and John Wilkins has generously aided this no-nothing in his search for some bits of knowledge. She thinks the comments here about being a moron and a gender traitor are ad-homs and unnecessary. I’d like not to be in the middle of something that I don’t have anything useful to add. I should have not posted.
I stated that Miranda isn’t a moron (that’s a fact) and that in my useless opinion Abbie perhaps didn’t empathize with RW because RW didn’t ‘really’ experience a bad situation and also likes being one of the boys. Just my opinion based on nothing more than a quick glance at blog posts and tweets. I have nothing to say about who is or isn’t a gender traitor because I’m not in a position to tell and I’m not even sure how such a thing works. That’s probably all wrong and ignorant.
Anyway, I’m leaving the discussion to those with better intellectual capabilities, knowledge and tact. Apologies to those who’ve I’ve undoubtedly maligned. Feel free to call me a moron. :)
Final thing. I thought Gred Laden’s and Stephanie Z’s posts where really good. I wonder why half of the Pharyngula crew dislikes him?
After several sentences…
Yes.
Review their history with me, and the related history with some other Pharyngula commenters (Josh and Sven especially).
@4 – yes the main point in all this is that calling out the student was wrong. I’m glad we agree on that, Ophelia. Actually, we also agree that Elevator Guy was creepy. And presumably we agree that it’s possible to believe both of these things.
Rebecca was perfectly right to point out the insensitivity of the situation, and how she felt threatened. However, the hyperbolic, colossally stupid, histrionic responses to Richard Dawkins’ post is absurd, particularly by the odious little shits on PZ Myer’s blog. Pathetic.
Dammit, I did this again – I really meant @ #11.
It amuses me more than anything how much of a storm this little late night tale has created. I have no comment to make because there just isn’t enough to go on, in my view. Not enough thick description. Only if I were an eyewitness, to the event itself and any other events leading up to it, would I feel qualified to comment.
I can say that I get on very well with women in general, except when I’m attracted to them. Then I feel intimidated. And if I feel that they’re attracted to me [which fortunately happens less and less these days] that sense of intimidation reaches nervous breakdown proportions. So I don’t know too much about male privilege.
The get it and don’t get it is not that surprising, fear is ultimately subjective. Watson was of course right to speak about the event and how it made her feel, but various people are taking this as a de jure example of how ALL women would react and feel.
Just Victorian Britain…
I wonder if those defending EG’s approach… even those saying that they think THIS incident was not proper because RW wasn’t receptive and had made that clear beforehand… ever stop to think about what it must be like to be a woman. Even to be a woman who might on occasion say YES to a complete stranger asking them for sex as the first words out of their mouths.
Just because on occasion this tactic “works” DOESN’T mean that it’s not helping create an atmosphere that oppresses women. EVEN IF no women EVER feel like they may be raped in an elevator, don’t you think it might just get to be, I dunno, a little old, a little wearying, for a woman to be treated as a potential fuck toy everywhere she goes?
A conference about a political or social issue she cares deeply about and works hard to promote – treated like a fuck toy.
Her workplace. Treated like a fuck toy.
Walking down the street – treated like a fuck toy. Shopping, driving, walking, eating, sightseeing, hanging around friends in a bar, at a damned FAMILY REUNION (yes, I’ve seen this…) – everywhere treated like a fuck toy.
After giving a speech during which she explains she is NOT a fuck toy – treated like a fuck toy.
Frankly, as a man, I don’t buy the cluelessness from other men. Not for a damned second. NO. BS. False. A lie. You all know women, you all have sisters and mothers, you’ve all heard the complaints. And you’ve all been in locker rooms, schoolrooms, business circumstances. You’ve all heard men talk about women as objects. Even if you’re now not so dumb, you may well have done the same in your clueless high school years.
You’ve possibly seen male conference attendees clustering around the one sales booth on the exhibition floor that has spokesmodels in shorts and high heels. You’ve seen them go off with prostitutes after shooting the bull with the other guys, knowing that their wives at home will never find out.
You’ve heard it. You’ve all heard the sexism that is not just common among men, but RAMPANT. You’ve heard of the “how to pick up chicks” instruction manuals on getting sex through duplicity. You’ve seen the “Girls Gone Wild” video commercials on every late-night TV channel. You’ve seen the beer commercials that sell watered-down crap by implying that young women will find your bloated middle-aged self irresistible if you’re seen drinking it.
You may have, as I have, experienced seeing a meeting of liberals end and as the women walk off, heard a “liberal” male or males remark as they stare “now that’s some fine trim. Like to get some of that.”
YOU KNOW the world we live in. If you don’t know, it’s because you choose not to because you LIKE it. Maybe you like choosing to be a sexist ass, and you have that right. You can be slimy if you want. but what’s really insulting is that you think the rest of us are idiots. You think the women who get treated this way every day are too stupid to know what’s going on.
You think your male co-workers, friends, relatives are all too stupid to know the score.
We’re not idiots. Stop talking to us like we are.
(I am not familiar with the rules of this blog re: the dreaded curse words. If disallowed, please feel free to edit. Or delete the whole comment, for all the good it’s likely to do.)
I want to mention a side-issue. In her latest post “The Privilege Delusion,” Rebecca cites a mean message sent to her by an anonymous person on the Internet. She often mentions such messages. There are untold millions of fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, etc. with Internet access who hate Rebecca because of what she represents. That she is a she only adds to their ire. Thus, almost any weight given to such messages would be undue weight. We can’t cite them as evidence that there is a rampant problem in men, especially in atheist men. The messages do show that Internet anonymity elicits douchebaggery, but everyone already knew that.
I am not commenting on the affair as a whole. I’m just pointing out a specific facet which I thought was mistaken.
The overture was crass, but the way I read it, not the most worrying bit of the story.
The thing that worries me in this case the way I see it more comes from the fact that the original talk or post raised it as an example of crass behaviour, and then had what she originally said mutated into something unrecognisable, to be demonised as “feminism gone mad” in a bid to avoid having to listen to it.
@Bruce Gorton
Personally I blame the fact that most high profile feminists do not publicly dissent with interpretations they consider too radical.
Personally, I don’t blame it on the feminists, I blame it on the patriarchy. That you find certain women responsible for their ‘failure’* to convince other women of what’s going on (you don’t seem to be disagreeing that something is, in fact, going on) is really just apologetics. Don’t you think that it just might be true that some women don’t get it because they are specifically rewarded (by the menz) for not getting it?
*no, not trying to imply that you used this word
@MyaR
I will assume you are addressing me. I’m not blaming certain women, many of the radical interpretations have been presented by men or anonymously. I am also not referring to the failure to convince other women, I was referring to “observers as a whole” be it men, women, feminists or otherwise.
I’m not sure what you mean by what is going on?
I get that it was inappropriate/rude/creepy to proposition Watson given all the circumstances she has mentioned. What I don’t get is the “elevators are the predators playground” angle that some commentators are pushing, I can see how that may be true in a certain scope, but far from a universal attitude.
And I definitely draw the line at treating patriarchy as a universal scapegoat.
No, I’m not saying patriarchy is a universal scapegoat, I’m saying patriarchy* is specifically to blame in the escalation of what Watson initially said. You seemed to be saying that feminists were to blame somehow, because they don’t make sure that everyone is clear that they don’t endorse the most radical possible interpretation before they comment on anything. I don’t know how else to interpret your “Personally I blame the…” comment in response to what Bruce Gorton said.
(Apologies for brevity, I have work to do.)
*Just to clarify terms — I mean patriarchy in the sense of an overall social system, that is self-perpetuating by virtue of how the people within it are rewarded/punished.
@MyaR
That’s not exactly what I meant. For an example, if someone writes a blog about some moderate immigration reform and then someone comments on that blog and say “I completely agree and deport the blacks while you’re at it”, it would be good strategy to confront that person. Or worse if a flame war between “open borders” people and racists starts and you only attack the open borders it starts creating the impression you endorse the racists or makes it very easy for your enemies to paint you as such.
So you’re saying that somewhere there are some “feminists gone mad” in this discussion, and someone (Watson? Ophelia?) hasn’t properly disassociated from them? If so, could you point them out? If not, could you clarify what the whole “personally I blame…” statement was about? I’m confused.
I was mostly thinking about pharangula. Pharangula is where Dawkins made his statements and Phil Plait has made it appear as if he was responding directly to Watson when he was in fact responding to the discussions on Pharangula. Now I’ve not read all the Pharangula comments on this matter but I have in the past seen a lot of “feminism gone mad” things in there. Although actually I think that article the other month on here that insinuated Arnold Schwarzenegger a gang rapist was pretty “feminism gone mad”.
” Now I’ve not read all the Pharangula comments on this matter but I have in the past seen a lot of “feminism gone mad” things in there.”
Oh. You’re just kind of a douchebag, then. Adding to the mental list of “people I can safely skip reading because I find they contribute nothing to my understanding of the topic”. Because I’ve read a lot of the “feminism gone mad” comment threads on Pharyngula (check your spelling, btw), and they consist of people who are solid feminists dealing with Cupcakes and Douchebags who whine about how mean the feminists are, and how they should cater more to the menz. Unless you’d like to redeem yourself by pointing out some actual instances (and yes, you need more than one comment, you need to show a pattern) where the feminists went mad?
OFFS: will this black cloud never pass?
Mya,
So if my wife “doesn’t get it”, it’s because she’s been rewarded by the “menz”? I honestly don’t know what that means. I did learn she and other females were “gender traitors”.
As Miranda said on her blog, it’s not that we aren’t “getting it”, it’s that we simply don’t agree.
“Oh. You’re just kind of a douchebag, then. Adding to the mental list of “people I can safely skip reading because I find they contribute nothing to my understanding of the topic””
I may be a douche bag but this douche bag has only so many hours in the day.
I’m sorry I don’t really have time to go through the comments systematically and establish a pattern, it is the impression I got. If you want you can label me “too unqualified to comment” and ignore me. Of course it’s entirely possible we will disagree what exactly “solid” feminism is. That’s something I’ve never been sure of myself.
My goodness. I do hope she finds out how to be one of the boys. I’ve been trying to years, and have got nowhere. I still flounce about with flapping wrists and the most outrageous lisp. Cos, you know, trying to be one of the boys is what counts, if you want to be a traitor to feminism and all that. Or so I have heard.
You know what the problem is here? It’s people not thinking of others as people. It’s not easy sometimes. Men think of women as… well… women. Women think of men as those big frightening things. But in the end, it’s all about people. So someone might have been clumsy, or threatening. Someone else reacting to that. It’s all a huge complex mess, as is much of life. Then there is this power imbalance thing. Men don’t get attacked by women very much.
The thing about this kind of mess is that it doesn’t mean any one person has to be entirely right or entirely wrong. I rather like people who appreciate the complexity of such situations. So, in this case, a rap over the knuckles for Dawkins, and a handshake for Abbie and Miranda.
And a gentle hint to those who think that it’s now impossible to ask a woman for sex. If you are asking a woman for sex, aren’t you doing it wrong? A nice meal out is generally a good first step. Tedious, I know, but that’s the way it goes.
And propositioning people in places where they can’t run away if they don’t like you is really not nice. It’s not just creepy, it’s extremely ill-mannered.
Argh. It’s going to take me 3 hours just to catch up…
Are there any threats here? I haven’t had time to read every word yet, and Miranda said at her blog that I may be okay with threats at my place but she’s not. I’m not okay with threats. Has anybody seen any threats here? Please point them out so that I can do whatever needs doing.
Fuck. I seem to have made a whole raft of enemies overnight, while I wasn’t even here.
The key, I think, is that “You don’t get it” should never be used to end a conversation or discussion. It should only be used as a preface to the two people sitting down and figuring out why they aren’t on the same page. And it should never be used in a context of talking about privilege or blame.
Essentially, translate “You don’t get it” in most of these cases to “You don’t know how it feels to be me” and act accordingly.
I haven’t seen any threats. Some insults, sure, but no threats. Of course, I skipped some of the longer, probably-tedious comments, but they seemingly wouldn’t have threats against Miranda, as they seem to be on the same side. I think. I’m somewhat confused on what side everyone’s on, and what some of the sides are. Maybe we need some sort of matrix in which to place everyone’s opinions on each of the separate issues.
Thanks Mya.
I’ll read every word as time allows. I have too much steam coming out of my ears right now.
She’s probably referring to “die in a fire” at #47 and #55.
Ah! Thanks Josh. (Thanks for your comments, too.)
julian: no “die in a fire” stuff. That’s right out.
Well, you can delete my #55 (and this) which was simply pointing to Julian’s comments on Miranda’s blog. Unless there’s two people named Julian who have the same style in which case I stand corrected.
Ah, I hadn’t read that as a threat. I guess one can (and some people do, I’ve seen it before) interpret that as a threat, but it’s a long-standing internet meme, probably chosen because of the commenter’s moniker is “Prometheus”. Interpreting it as a threat seems a somewhat disingenuous claim to me, but I also don’t see the harm in avoiding the usage.
I feel kind of stupid contributing my two cents to the giant shitstorm over a relatively minor incident of the obtuse Elevator Guy (because when mountains are made out of molehills, it’s pretty stupid to contribute to the process). And I really do get the point(s) of the many bloggers who have attempted to explain exactly why Rebecca Watson would mind being hit on in an elevator at 4:30 am. However, these points also make me very sad, and here’s why.
I’m a woman, fairly young, not particularly ugly, not particularly physically strong or imposing, not in possession of mace, or a gun in my purse, or anything of the sort (though I do have a pocket knife on my keys — it comes in handy pretty often), not familiar with any martial arts or self-defence techniques. I have also been sexually assaulted a couple of times as a child — not raped, mind you, it didn’t get very far, and both times it was by women, not men. It was traumatic at the time, but not especially more so than a number of other violent incidents I’ve encountered.By all accounts, by the assertions of many bloggers out there, I should be pretty scared most of the time, but the thing is, I’m just not. It’s not that I lack the capacity — I get scared sometimes, whether the threat is coming from a person or a situation.
But threat assessments are not part of my daily routine. It’s just not something I think about much. I don’t mind going out alone after dark. I sometimes offer rides to strangers who are walking down the street and don’t look like they are just trying to get some exercise. The thought “is this man going to try to rape me” just doesn’t cross my mind, unless there’s an actual man yelling sexually suggestive things at me, or exposing himself to me (both things have happened).
You see, I resent the suggestion that I should be afraid, that I should take measures every day to assure my safety, that I should constantly access threats and be aware of my surroundings. It seems to me that doing so would preemptively rob me of my peace of mind — nothing bad need actually happen to me, I could live a long time, unmolested by anyone, yet never enjoying my safety, never feeling safe. I realize that this is not how everyone feels, man or woman, and everyone is, of course, entitled to continue to feel and think what they do. It just seems to me that assuming that all women, especially vulnerable, defenseless looking women, are perpetually walking around in a state of terror is just as silly as assuming that all women are going to be flattered and gratified by any guy propositioning to them under any circumstances.
I’m also someone who daydreams a lot and gets bored easily. If I’m walking somewhere, I’m lost deep in my own musings and oblivious to the outside world. If I’m waiting around somewhere, I usually pull out a book or handheld video game, because I hate being bored. But it’s not a “do not disturb” sign. I’m happy to talk to people, of any age or gender — it’s usually just as entertaining, or more so than whatever it is I’m doing, and I can always go back to the book, or the video game, or the daydreaming later. It’s not that I’m particularly sociable — quite the opposite, in fact, I like being alone most of the time, but I just like interacting with random strangers in small doses. It’s not that I think everyone should. I even understand that such intrusions by random strangers are often perceived by others as an unwelcome assault on their personal boundaries, and I really, truly do see their point, I can imagine being in their shoes and feeling this way. In my mind, when such random strangers strike up a conversation, it’s pretty much even chance that the person they are approaching will not welcome the contact (they could be tired, sick, in pain, going over their shopping list or calendar in their head, just not in the mood, startled, etc). Oftentimes, these random strangers are particularly obtuse or oblivious, or even creepy, like the Elevator Guy, and I have to admit that, sometimes this kind of attention makes me want to go home and take a shower. But it seems to me that a certain degree of obtuseness or even obliviousness is actually required for any random stranger to ever try to strike up a conversation with someone who seems lost in thought, or a book, etc. Obviously, context is important, and some people (of both sexes, really) get it very, very wrong. But my point is that it actually takes the kind of person who doesn’t think about this sort of thing too hard to actually try approaching someone who may or may not welcome it. And I have to say, I, personally, would be kind of sad if all random strangers cease striking up conversations with me from this day forward.
I’m not suggesting that Rebecca Watson was overreacting. This is not in response to anything she said, but in response to many other people who responded to her (and the reason I’m not naming names is because I really don’t feel like reading every post on the subject, many of them redundant). I do think that a lot of the people participating in the ensuing shitstorm are. What I think is maybe, just maybe, the constant struggle that women as a group face in trying to get recognition of their autonomy, get respect as human beings of equal status has resulted in some oversensitivity and hypervigilance, and that this oversensitivity, this allergic reaction to a shadow of a suggestion of something untoward can also be a bad thing (not regarding Elevator Guy in particular, but regarding “rules” for approaching strangers for any sort of contact). I understand why it exists — I really do, I just think it might be good to be a little more vigilant about this hypervigilance.
Yeah, let’s not get bent out of shape about simple rudeness or poor manners! He certainly didn’t mean it literally. He’s not going to actually put her in a fire. What’s the harm. Why can’t we put things in perspective.
This has become surreal.
Not that Steve and Anna are saying the exact same thing, but I’m pretty close to both their positions. They put it more eloquently than I have. Like Anna said, it can’t bear this much analysis (which I’ve certainly engaged in).
Adam, I assume that heavy sarcasm is aimed at me, since I’m the only one who said anything directly relevant between your posts. Miranda characterized it as a threat, not simple rudeness or poor manners. I was commenting on my own perceptions, and how someone might (validly!) see things differently. In other words, doing what you seem to continue to refuse to do, see the situation from the other POV.
So I’ll make my position explicit: “die in a fire” is probably not a good meme to perpetuate, since some people interpret it as a threat. So, guys*, don’t say that.
*Gender-neutral “guys”. Yeah, I’m from Wisconsin. I usually avoid the usage, but I wanted the parallel construction.
Right. I don’t much want people telling me “die in a fire” so I think Miranda gets to want the same thing. There are a few generic things that I really don’t want here – maybe only two – sexist/racist/etc epithets, and “die in” stuff.
I’m not best pleased with Miranda for announcing that maybe I’m okay with threats here, but she still gets to want no threats.
MyaR,
I can see things from the other side and still think Dawkins’ little analogy was rude *and* a complete non-issue. Just like you can see that you shouldn’t tell people to die in fires yet understand Miranda will probably survive and it doesn’t warrant a Federal case.
Like Miranda said, it seems like *some people* (and I’m lost at this point as to who said what) don’t just want me to “get it” but to agree with them. Those are two different things. I have a wife and I could say a lot of mawkish things about the fact that she has to think more than I do in a big city. I’m not sure what more I can do than listen to people here and listen to my female friends IRL.
As someone reminded me elsewhere, “threat” isn’t really the right word. I need a new word, perhaps “threatoid.” It’s like the whole rusty knife sideways thing…not a literal threat, but not an ornament to a thread, either, so it’s unwanted.
It’s “language that creates a hostile environment”, but that’s a bit long. There’s probably a term of art for it somewhere out there, but I can’t think of it off the top of my head. Toxic language? I probably wouldn’t personally go there, but that might be my personal associations.
A bit long and also imprecise. It’s the threat-like quality that makes it special, so it needs something that includes that.
OK, I’m going to immediately disagree with myself — “toxic language” is pretty apropos to this situation. While I think I agree with Julian’s sentiments above, no one but the person(s) the language is directed at can decide if the language is toxic or not — his intention doesn’t really matter. But it isn’t a threat, even if it’s perceived that way, I think. That’s something outsiders can determine on a little more solid ground.
Missed your post, Ophelia, as I was too busy disagreeing with myself. I don’t think it’s particularly threatening, more dismissive of the person and a sign of contempt, but maybe I’m overthinking. I can do that. (Not commenting on “die in a fire” anymore. Unless people clamor for me to, which I’m pretty sure is as likely as my dying in a fire today is.)
Menace?
Well seeing as how language is your field, Mya, I think people should clamor for you to comment on “die in a fire” more if you have more to say about it.
“Toxic” is quite good really. It’s not literally a threat but the hostility behind it is…well, toxic.
“Menace”…hmm, yes, kind of.
I don’t know why this all went so pear-shaped. It’s not a particularly provocative post.
Intimidation?
Well the waters were already choppy before you got in Ophelia. Groups have been formed and anything anyone says that could be perceived as against “us” means they’re automatically one of “them”. Miranda Hale had the nerve to agree with something Abbie Smith wrote, therefore she’s one of the people who Julian (#58) thinks should “die in the fire”. The is no way any productive discourse can happen on this issue at the present moment. Right now what you write won’t get much consideration becuase most of the comments will be people from seeking new venues to carry on the arguments they were having on other blogs.
You know, even with what I said earlier I do agree with Anna and Adam as well. It’s just a very tough subject for me personally, as someone who really does assume that I’m going to come across as a “creeper”, due to image issues. And I’m not blaming women for this. Not one bit. I don’t like approaching men either. I DO have more sensitivity about approaching a woman, when it’s needed for whatever reason, because I understand the subtext that our culture puts on such interactions. I don’t believe this is reverse sexism or whatever you want to call it in the slightest.
It’s a natural reaction to reality.
But I do think that in the end that in our society there really is kind of a natural privilege towards being an extrovert that’s at play here, and I don’t think that anybody is really discussing. It’s not a matter of blaming any individual, group or gender. I’m don’t think that most people are really doing anything wrong in terms of this, or at least they don’t intend to.
Steve, yeh maybe. But I had thoughts about the “getting it” question…
I don’t line up neatly with either group. I agree with Abbie about calling out Stef McGraw in a talk, but not about calling it a “bitch move.” I agree with Rebecca and PZ and Barbara Drescher and others about the purport of the elvator incident. There’s a lot of stuff about which I think ?????? because I just don’t know enough to tell what I think.
I could always just shut up about it, of course, but hey, I’ve been talking about the intersection of feminism and atheism for a long time.
Arrrgh. I came to B&W because I thought that HERE I’d find the most sensible discussion. Actually, that’s still mostly true, but I guess the “WTF HOW MAKE BABBYS NOW?” crowd is much more prolific than I thought.
As for the “Aspie” defense of Mr. Elevator: From my experience at least, the Aspie move here would be to be terrified of appearing creepy and to go out of one’s way to avoid doing it. The sex proposition strikes me as unusually socially forward for somebody in that particular part of the spectrum. I’m not a doctor or expert though, so that’s anecdotal.
Drinking and late night posting don’t mix.
To Ms Hale.
If you felt I was being threatening or trying to threaten you or Prometheus, I apologize. I have no intention of harming you, Prometheus or anyone who doesn’t mean me harm first. It was a very hostile comment on a post trying to move away from the overt hostility in many of these threads and while no malice was meant I can see why someone might read it that way.
My opinion of ERV and Ms. Smith though remains unchanged. It’s quiet literally what every believer I’ve ever argued with accuses pharyngula of being.
Hahahahahaha
julian, I was sober as a judge!
Oh, you mean you…
Oh yes, Ophelia. I was not advocating keeping quiet, merely trying to think about why the thread went so pear-shaped. I know the “shut up argument” comes in many nice sounding guises, but that was never my intention. I’m far from happy with the status quo. I’m just in a fatalistic mood right now.
I’ll admit that characterizing those who disagree with me in that way isn’t exactly inviting a meaningful debate. However, I have definitely seen commenters on the various internets saying things not too dissimilar, as though 99% of their interaction with women takes place in 30 second intervals in elevators in the wee hours of the night (ergo the “Well, now I’ll never meet anybody” sentiments). By saying “Hey maybe that’s not a great idea” it seems to me that Watson was simply giving practical advice to people who otherwise might be inclined to do such a thing. It’s not like she maced the guy or called the cops on him. The majority of people critical of her seem to ignore a great deal of the context of the situation and the content of her rebuke.
Oddly enough this is considered by many evidence that she should shut up about it. Something about ‘if it were a REAL issue blahblahblah.’
I’m mildly uncomfortable sometimes just walking past people on the sidewalk or in a hallway (What’s an appropriate level of acknowledgment? Eye contact? smile? oh shit, they noticed that I looked at them, I’d better look around at everybody to kinda mask that I looked at them then look down at my shoes. I hope I didn’t impose on them…) But even I know not to make that kind of pass in an elevator. No, it’s not really a big deal, but nobody really treated it as a big deal. So what’s the big deal? I guess it’s really just a bigger discussion being superimposed onto a smaller one.
The thing is that even if that were the first post I’d read by her I would already be suspicious that the conference-talk criticism is more a lever to knock feminists than any sort of principled stand or concern about McGraw. As I’ve said, I don’t think any formulation of the argument that there was something wrong with Watson’s actions holds water, but it could be discussed rationally. But the “bitch move” language, the ridiculous comments about Watson’s video, the confusion about the facts (which don’t seem to matter), the hyperbole, the changing emphasis, and especially the fact that it’s part of a larger pattern of behavior by her which demonstrates hostility to feminists and a keenness to disparage other women (see for example what I quoted from her about the sexual harassment case in the thread I linked to above) makes me think that it’s only “about” the conference remarks because of who made them and on what subject.
So even if I agreed with her in some way about the conference criticism, which I would acknowledge were it the case, I would still make a point of noting that I don’t think – unlike you – she’s really all that concerned about that as an independent event. I don’t think she would have written those posts if the people involved had been men and the argument unrelated to feminism. I don’t think it’s entirely or consciously a sham, but in Abbie’s case especially I believe it’s motivated by an opposition to certain people and arguments rather than a reasoned position on generic behaviors. It’s a stance of convenience.
Oh for Zeus’s sake. In my case I care very much about the treatment of students and about good behaviour from people who hold power over them. I know that McGraw wasn’t a student in the ordinary sense, but I think that her situation was closely analogous at this conference. I’m appalled by the way she was treated, independently of anything else I think. I am also appalled to see people whom I usually respect – PZ Myers in particular, to name names – egging her on. And I’m appalled that Watson is now basking in her new-found fame, if you look at various of her gloating comments lately, and has learned the lesson that she can get away with this kind of behaviour and even profit from it. I don’t like the expression “bitch move”, but otherwise I’m totally with Abbie. For my money, she is one of the few people who “gets it”, and my respect for her has gone up as I’ve observed her dealing with the issue rationally and fearlessly.
To be blunt, I’m not happy with Ophelia for concentrating on some gormless, intrusive, and yes creepy – but not threatening, or in my view sexist, objectifying, or necesssarily even sexual – after-hours behaviour at a conference, rather than the humiliation of one of our potential leaders of the future at a CFI event, apparently with no sign of an apology from the CFI (in the absence of Watson’s apology). That’s the real issue here, as far as I’m concerned. It’s time for Ron Lindsay to weigh in about this and make clear that this sort of thing was not acceptable to his organisation, and I’ll be contacting him. (If you’re reading this, Ron, you’re on notice.)
I’ve kept out of this debate as much as I can, partly because debates like this can be intimidating for men who are not totally insensitive to the position of women in our society, but also because I have a feeling that anything I say will make things worse. I’d rather see women discuss it than have men chip in, perhaps inflaming the situation. But it’s getting more and more difficult to be relatively silent, especially when I see the women who seem to be the voices of reason in this whole thing – Abbie Smith and Miranda Hale – being vilified as gender traitors. (Is that sort of language acceptable around here, Ophelia?) I’ve offered supportive words to both of them, and also to McGraw, as I think those three people need them a lot more than Watson.
I realise that Ophelia agrees with me on what I see as the main issue, so she therefore”gets it”; but right now Watson sees her as a supporter.
Ophelia, you know I regard you very highly. You’re a great ally, and I consider you a friend even though we haven’t met. You get to write whatever you want. But I beg you to focus on the issue of how Watson humiliated McGraw, as it’s being lost amidst all the extraneous stuff about Elevator Guy’s rather trivial display of intrusive, creepy conduct, and about whether or not Richard Dawkins “gets it” in some sense.
I suppose I’ll regret writing this, but I also regret not saying more – partly, I suppose, out of cowardice – as this has unfolded. I’ll have regrets whatever I do or don’t do, so here I am.
Hold power over who? Ms Watson is not (to my knowledge) this woman’s professor or instructor. She is not responsible for grading her exams, deciding where she can or can not go or in control of any medium Ms McGraw has to respond for herself. How is Ms Watson holding power over her?
I have seen this claim made several times by your camp (especially at Ms Smith blog) I never see it accompanied by citations, quotes or anything of the like. Meaning no disrespect could you please post some of the comments you feel Ms Watson made that indicate she’s gloating over Ms McGraw or anything really.
Humiliating how? The views expressed there would have had less of an impact on how Ms Mcgraw is viewed if they had been expressed on a blog?
You object to Ms Benson commenting on an aspect of the story that resonates with her and on discussing the ‘feminist’ implications of this story?
Quoted for no other reason then it makes me giggle.
Which is somehow more deserving of pity then the storm of entirely personal, pointless and idiotic insults leveled at Ms. Watson.
These are all adults. They certainly don’t need anyone’s support to state their views. A number of people who feel Ms Watson’s story and actions resonate with their life experiences and their hopes for the skeptic’s movement have posted ‘way to gos.’ A similar number have said the same to Ms Smith and Ms Hale for the same reason. (among them arguably the most influential atheist around) I don’t see this power imbalance your lot keeps talking about between the evil Skepchick and the Righteous post feminists.
I wasn’t talking about you, or every person making this argument. I was talking about Abbie and some others (especially several of those who commented at her blog). She’s someone who wrote this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/bat_sex_is_not_protected_by_ac.php#comment-2515103
and has other history that make it perfectly reasonable to see her position in that context.
It most certainly was not. Watson doesn’t hold power over her, and she was free to respond to Watson’s response to her criticism in any number of venues, to cheering from several quarters, as we’ve seen, and get more recognition. She’s an adult who has no problem speaking her mind, and this attitude is demeaning.
And I find this language about how she was “treated” ridiculous.
I haven’t read any gloating, and if anyone’s been attacked here, it’s her. Someone criticized her publicly, suggesting that her remarks were hypocritical, and she responded in a talk by explaining why the criticism was clueless and a problem. At which point McGraw or anyone else could respond to the substance of her comments.
To be blunt, this is disappointing.
Stop before the but.
Stop before the but.
Heh.
Of course it is. You might want to think about why it wasn’t possible.
Is this a joke? About my characterization of Abbie “Actually, I didnt call Judy Mikovits a c*nt. I said if she was publicly accusing other scientists of fraud/bribery/conspiracy, without any evidence to back up her claims, then yes, she would be a GIGANTIC c*nt” Smith? [I inserted the asterisks, by the way – not her.]
I hope so. I regret reading it.
In defense of my employer (CFI), I’ll jump into the fray just a tiny bit:
I was busy in my office during Watson’s talk, and have willfully avoided this whole thing since. But after reading Russell’s comment I just went and finally watched the video. I have to say, the segment in question is surprisingly tame. Although people can and will still find honest faults in Watson’s language, I’m sure, I’d have to argue that calling it “humiliating” is very much an overstatement. Lesser words may be more accurate, but not “humiliating.”
Subsequently, I don’t feel that Watson’s behavior was at all egregious enough to demand an apology from CFI. Any really-existing fault of tact and responsibility for it lies with her. But that decision is above my pay-grade, so to speak. I’ll let others have that one out, aside from arguing that calling the incident “humiliating” just isn’t accurate.
Anyway, FYI all: we should have the video up sometime later this week, so you can all go about making your own assessments.
Ugh. I’m getting really sick of this. (So stop talking about it. No it’s not the subject I’m sick of – it’s the being told what to do. Frankly. It’s the having men say “support Abbie Smith right now!!!” It’s the emails and Facebook posts shouting at me about Abbie Smith.)
I don’t have time to research everything – I don’t have time to research the CFI talk, I don’t have time to read more of Abbie’s stuff, I don’t have time to find out exactly what every person said at every point. I’ve focused on the bit that interests me. I think I get to do that! I’m not Human fucking Rights Watch.
You may be a huge fan of Abbie’s, Russell, but I’ve always had major reservations about her blog because of the epithet problem. You shout at me about “gender traitor” but Abbie uses fiercer language than that. (And I don’t have time to go looking for examples, and I didn’t want to get into this anyway – I wanted to leave it alone. But since you and Jerry had to tell me what to do: that’s why.)
I’m in a filthy mood right now. I was in a better one, having gone out for some recreation, but now I’m in a worse one than ever. I really do not see why I’m somehow responsible for what RW did to SMcG. I said I thought it was a bad move, and wrong; I’m buggered if I see why I have to focus on it.
Salty Current,
Rebecca Watson called out Stef McGraw as either being an anti-feminist or at least spouting anti-woman rhetoric, and insinuated that someone like her might not defend women who were being raped, at least according to Watson’s summary of what she said. She did this as a keynote speech at a conference, and thus in a place where McGraw might not have been willing to directly confront her. The speech was also about the Religious Right’s War on Women — again, from Watson’s summary — which means that she associated McGraw with the most egregious forms of sexism and misogyny possible.
Yeah, that’s not good. Watson was ticked off by it, thought it would make sense, and screwed up badly. She need not really apologize for what she said — although I think she exaggerated McGraw’s view to a staggering degree — but should apologize for how and when she said it.
This sounds like just reason to be insulted. (does not sound like humiliation or many of the other charges labelled against Ms Watson.) Could I see where you’re getting it from?
How so? By this standard I could claim you just called all religious conservatives serial rapists.
Ms. McGraw’s name was brought up (from what I understand) as an example of how sexism can even reach women and they can be used to hold back progress. This seems entirely legitimate to me. (It also sounds like how Ms McGraw used Ms Watson prior to this speech.)
Meaning it would have been more appropriate if she had not been there? I’m not really following.
Ed Beck @ #130,
if you have seen footage of Rebecca’s CFI talk, is it available anywhere publicly so that people can watch it for themselves and make up their own minds on what she said?
I have been active on other blogs discussing this affair but have been loathe to discuss the issue of Watson’s criticism of McGraw simply because the original source has been obscured from public view, and the reports from different people in the audience seem to be wildly in disagreement; not to mention the accounts based on second-hand or third-hand chinese whispers of what Watson is supposed to have said.
For example, Russell’s use of “humiliation” to describe Watson’s treatment of McGraw is merely a mild version of one the chinese whisper versions – on Jen McCreight’s blog, a poster who I believe was attempting to argue in good faith summed up Watson’s criticism as, “Message sent: yay women! but if you disagree with Rebecca Watson about feminism, then fuck off, misogynist.”
The thing, is neither the Blaghag commenter, nor I, nor Russell Blackford, will actually know exactly what Watson said, but will have relied on hearing it through someone else, and if you’re going to criticise someone you base it on their actual words, not on hearsay of what someone else thinks the person said: too many people have weighed in about Watson’s comments without watching her vlog, and I am skeptical that everyone has read the blog that Watson criticised to know what Stef McGraw’s argument contra Watson actually was.
If the video isn’t available, then a transcript of the first few minutes of the talk I think would go a long way to bringing one small part of this furore back to some recognisable form of reality.
With respect, and regards, Philip Legge
julian,
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/
“Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”
You also can’t ignore associations; while it may not be what she said, she should have been careful about when she said it to avoid such implications, which is what I was referring to there. And whether McGraw was there or not, saying it where Watson was important and where McGraw, if able, simply could not feel comfortable replying is not appropriate. I’m not calling Watson evil, but I think she picked a really bad time to make that point.
A part of me is kinda happy this much happened without the majority of the commentators having heard what was actually said. It sorta lays out people’s biases and preconceptions out for them (and their followers) to look at. Might even convince a few people to be more careful with future interactions or be less accepting of their respective ‘heroes’ version of controversial events. (I for one will not drink and comment. Boundaries I have in irl don’t translate well online and there’s no buffer in my head.)
@ Philip #134
Agreed on the hearsay. We’ll have the video up in the next few days at our YouTube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/centerforinquiry
We have a few more important ones (in terms of substance, not appeasing all this drama) to edit and get up first. I have the feeling everyone and their dogsitter will know when it goes online…
Ed,
many thanks in advance.
PML
I really don’t want to get involved in this discussion, but there is one important point that, while not meant to excuse actions, could provide some context.
Many people seem to think that the conference where Rebecca Watson spoke about Stef McGraw was like any other atheist, humanist, or skeptic conference. Indeed, I’ve seen some people compare Rebecca’s actions to Massimo Pigliucci’s actions at TAM last year. Perhaps their actions were similar in theory, but the CFI conference and TAM — or most other conferences, for that matter — are very different in nature. The CFI conference was open only to student and organizational leaders, meaning the crowd consisted of 80-85 college students from secular campus groups across the U.S., and about 20-30 CFI employees/volunteers.
This created a tight-knit, comfortable, and positive atmosphere, which to me is at least partially the reason why so many students felt weird about Rebecca calling out Stef. They just assumed Rebecca was on their side, and going to provide information and rallying points for our cause. While most of her talk might have done that, one little snippet is enough to cause a commotion.
She said she apparently failed to understand objectification and was spouting antifeminist tropes, both of which are true and should be pointed out. McGraw had fundamentally misinterpreted Watson’s comments and missed her point in her preachy post, complete with a simplistic dictionary definition of feminism.
http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/06/fursdays-wif-stef-32.html
She talked about those kinds of comments possibly leading to a perception among some women. I think there’s a case to be made for that, given what McGraw ignored or trivialized in her post. In any case, anyone who thought her argument wasn’t fair could argue with it. That’s what we do. If her comments are being accurately represented, there was nothing humiliating about them.
http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/
So? She could confront her immediately afterwards in any number of ways, and did, though she again failed to grasp the substance and instead chose to focus on herself having been discussed.
Please.
I don’t think she was, particularly. I think she was concerned about these messages coming from young women in the movement and their possible consequences, and thought this was the right audience for that message.
Baloney. To all of this nonsense.
***
So before this she was some nobody but at the same time a bigwig power-wielding speaker capable of silencing people permanently with a few short remarks. Yeah, that’s consistent.
Who do you think you are, Russell, to tell us what should be important to us? Who?
Not exactly damning (of course insinuations wouldn’t be. What makes them so irritating) I was hoping for something along the lines of ‘individuals who fail to ectectect.’ This sounds like a general complaint aimed at how poorly people think thru what they say and the impact it’ll have through a distinctly feminist lens. I won’t fault Ms. McGraw for seeing the implication but that’s not how I read the statement.
Yes I can. I ignored them when it was believers telling me Dawkins was comparing religion to Nazism and I can do so now if I don’t see the speaker drawing that association.
I’m not seeing this either. Individuals names are bandied about on blogs, at political rallies, on pretty much any medium you can think of to exchange ideas. How is using Ms McGraw as an example inappropriate there but not in say a book on the subject or a blog or a random classroom somewhere where this is being discussed? Ms McGraw would be afforded even less opportunity to respond and the same ‘blow’ (if there even was one) made to her reputation would have been made.
Taking everything into account, I can see why Ms McGraw feels as she does but I still don’t see how Ms Watson behaved inappropriately.
At the risk of sounding preachy, that kind of thinking should be embarrassing. I really do hope that’s not what happened.
But McGraw’s post about Watson on her group’s site wasn’t seen as contrary to a positive, supportive atmosphere? How’s that work?
I’d typically agree with you, Julian, but again, this conference was a bit different than typical atheist/humanist/skeptic conferences. Open debate and criticism was welcome, and did occur, but the conference focused less on thoroughly examining big ideas and more on helping students and others become better group leaders and local activists for the cause. At least that’s the sense I got. Ed Beck can correct me if I’m wrong.
Again, this is not meant to excuse anyone’s actions, only to describe the scene.
SC, I’m only describing what I felt was the atmosphere at the conference. I think the context is important for helping people who were not there to understand the situation.
I should note that while I did attend the conference, I was not able to attend Rebecca’s talk.
@Michael DeDora
So it was more of a student workshop or (and trust me I don’t mean this with any offense) a political rally? Just trying to get a feel for what this event was.
@Julian, sure, you could say that. It certainly felt that way.
But McGraw’s post shouldn’t be excluded from that context. Unless you’re suggesting that simply because they’re young they should be able to criticize older people publicly however they want and the older people should not be able to respond openly in contexts when they’re all together but should just be nonresponsive cheerleaders at these meetings, which I don’t think should be the case at all. I wouldn’t go along with it. I don’t care for the suggestion that Watson somehow revealed herself to be not on their side because she responded to the remarks of a young person as she would any other adult.
I do get that vibe a bit. I’m confused about why McGraw would express shock at Watson’s bringing it up, saying that she had been excited about talking to her about it in person. If she’d wanted to do that, why didn’t she just wait a day and talk with her before posting about it publicly?
@Michael DeDora
I’m feeling a little more sympathetic towards Ms. McGraw (if not sympathy then understanding) but if the goal was just to inspire the masses a much less controversial topic could have been picked then feminism. Fortunately, (going off what I understand happened) the lens that was to be aimed at religion got turned back on us for a few seconds. Unfortunately upon closer inspection we still leave a lot to be desired.
The exchange between Plait and Dawkins shows exactly what I find disturbing about the “don’t get it” side of the argument. Dawkins minimizes the trouble by comparing the EGs actions to someone chewing gum. Well, that seems too much minimization for me, but Plait is horrified and escalates dramatically:
So there would be no misunderstanding, Plait reiterates:
No, he is not comparing chewing gum to a potential sexual assault. Dawkins was comparing chewing gum to what the EG did, not what he or someone else might have done in similar circumstances. Anyway, why are we so sure that EG is guilty of a “potential” crime? When did we start convicting people for what they might have done if they turned out to be as bad as they “might” be?
This is either dishonest or so excessively emotive as to be an appeal to prejudice. What the EG did was not good, but how the hell does anyone know what Plait seems to assume, that this was a “potential sexual assault”? I’m sorry, but if this is an example of not getting it I’m glad I don’t. I get the parts I should get, not this overblown version.
For the record, I’ve always been sympathetic towards her and do understand how this would be unexpected and difficult, and I’m incredibly impressed by her and, really, all of these students. I am very much on her side. But it’s a movement founded on open criticism and public debate, which is centrally important to helping all of us be better, and I see this as a live-and-learn moment. I find the “pick on someone your own size” argument to be condescending to McGraw.
It was inspiring to be around those students all weekend, especially the high schoolers: Damon Fowler, Zack Kopplin, Harrison Hopkins, and Jessica Ahlquist.
Probably wouldn’t say condescending but yeah. She’s an adult. So’s Ms Watson. Barring blacklisting campaigns and the like, that’s really all that matters.
“… focused less on thoroughly examining big ideas and more on helping students and others become better group leaders and local activists for the cause…”
You don’t see how pointing out how group leaders can be seen as NOT being good group leaders might have something to do with being a good group leader? Sure, some people will disagree with the assessment, but it doesn’t seem to me that it was at all inappropriate to bring it up in that context.
Like Michael I was in Amherst for Rebecca’s talk and don’t think Rebecca did anything wrong. People seem to focus on some “power” or “authority” that Rebecca has. Barbara Drescher did a great job of explaining why that’s simply not the case: http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2011/07/on-sexism-objectification-and-power-and-maybe-a-new-era/
In my book, people’s public statements are fair game for a talk and I don’t know how this is different just because Stef is a student in college or because Rebecca has more blog hits. We’re all adults and at a it’s OK to have a frank discussion as long as we are criticizing views and not people.
But that isn’t what is going on though. If someone is giving a key-note they are not on a peer level with those who listen. Take a convention at which say Dawkins or Hitchens speak. They are not on a peer level with the audience. An audience member if lucky can get a brief comment in in the Q&A. There is a massive difference in the platform and time granted.
It is not unlike what in politics is called the bully pulpit. A stage that gives extra weight to a voice.
I have absolutely no problem with Rebecca Watson debating her difference with Stef McGraw. That is not the issue here. The issue here is that the difference was dragged into a setting which plainly was not appropriate or proportional to the argument and their difference on it and the platform that Stef has compared to Rebecca.
And to say that is not condescending to either Rebecca or Stef. It is to recognize that if we do want to debate someone as a peer we seek to indeed address them as a peer in a format where they truly can respond as a peer, where we do not set their opinion in an inappropriate negative context (anti-women war of the religious right) etc etc.
That of course assuming that one does want an honest debate and does want to look at the other as peer, and not just as someone to parade around as wrong on stage, and make as a poster example of what is wrong with the attitude of others. I’ll grant that Rebecca may not want the latter, but what happened made it to be rather close to that. And that is very valid criticism, because it’s also just a rhetorically improper move. It’s not fighting fair if there is a fight to be had here.
And Rebecca surely recognizes the difference in platforms. She could have responded to comments on a panel in Dublin in the Q&A and instead moved it to her full presentation the next day. It’s because rather than give a brief comment she could level the platform and give a whole presentation. That is a benefit that many do not have and to be mindful of that is not just a courtesy, but is what honest debate is about.
@Hitch
So we’re back to the supposed power or authority Ms Watson had over Ms McGraw but I’m still not seeing it. If what made the talk unfair was that Ms McGraw would have less time to respond what makes any other medium you use to disagree with someone, other then face to face, balanced?
MyaR,
I was going to make a longer response to everyone else, but I think your comment can let me sum up part of the problem:
“You don’t see how pointing out how group leaders can be seen as NOT being good group leaders might have something to do with being a good group leader?”
But not when the only reason you have for saying that she wouldn’t be a good group leader is that she disagrees with you on what an incident specifies, and certainly not in a speech that wasn’t actually about that. And certainly not when it would be awkward for her to reply and when you are expected to mean precisely what you say. Blog posts allow for direct rebuttal, whereas a speech that is now made a video won’t, and blog posts also are less formal so precise phrasing isn’t expected, whereas it is for speeches. That’s why Watson should not have tried to shoehorn this into this speech, but simply waited and blogged about it later.
julian,
Unless I ban you or delete your comments, in any post on any blog you have the ability to comment directly and have that be seen with the original criticism. Face to face you get equal time and it isn’t recorded. Debates insist on equal time. Books and papers don’t necessarily allow for direct rebuttal, but then we do — or at least should — hold them to higher standards of fairness; you are expected to interpret your opponents as fairly as possible or be considered to be lacking in intellectual integrity.
So the short answer is: most of them, and those that don’t recognize that they don’t allow that and work to make sure that they present it fairly to minimize the power difference (which I hate as a term, but when in Rome …).
It is. Those were the exact words used by Abbie Smith. She was suggesting that Watson had invented EG, and when people pointed out how nasty this was, she responded that Good, she was trying to be nasty, since she wanted Watson to talk to her instead of McGraw. Then she said that. Those words.
During the talk. But as soon as they leave the room, people can respond in any number of ways, including online where the response will be read by far more people than had been in the room. It’s a temporary situation in which the speaker “has the floor,” but so is a web site or a book. It doesn’t permanently silence anyone, so stop suggesting it does. It didn’t silence McGraw. I’ve publicly taken issue with things Dawkins has written on his site and others for months. He’s generally ignored me, but If he criticized me in an address at a huge conference (where I wouldn’t be since I don’t like large events, but that aside), I would respond in writing as I always have. It’s what we do, and I don’t like the suggestion that temporary, situational “authority” is the same thing as inherent, permanent authority.
Well, that’s good.
These differences cross platforms constantly (I listed a number of them on a previous thread). This is one more occasion of that. And I disagree about its approriateness and proportion. But that’s because I’ve read McGraw’s post and took her words seriously. The underlying insinuation of arguments like yours is that the substance of what she’s saying shouldn’t be taken fully seriously, like if Watson had been responding to a post by Dawkins or Ophelia.
Watson put up a video. McGraw responded to it critically in a post on her group’s site. Watson responded critically to the post the next day in a conference talk. The next move would be for McGraw and whoever wanted to to respond to that. And so on. That’s it.
I’m not sure of the timing here or when she became aware of McGraw’s post, but in any case a talk before the larger group seems appropriate to discuss problems relevant to the larger group. But of course McGraw could have waited to talk to her in person or in a small group setting at the conference rather than posting about it online the day before Watson’s talk. But none of this is important since whatever the momentary imbalance of platforms it isn’t permanent. McGraw said she wouldn’t have cared if Watson had responded on her blog, which has a readership far larger than the number in attendance at this conference, but it wouldn’t be a bully pulpit in any meaningful sense, either.
You’re implying something about her motives here that’s very silly.
I try to present people’s arguments fairly whatever the context, as I’m sure do Watson and McGraw. The possibility for “direct rebuttal” should be no excuse for not arguing fairly. This should be the standard in all communication.
And if people want to argue that this is different because Watson was in a role not just of speaker but of mentor, that’s fine. The problem with that is that McGraw’s post wasn’t at all in the role of “mentee.” It was in the spirit of an equal, adult participant in a public discussion, which is how Watson responded to it. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you can’t be the latter and expect to be treated like the former. That’s not fair to anyone.
VS is rather close what what I say. yes one can write a book. But if one writes a book in which one does not present another person in the proper context and considers how much of a public figure the person is and what impact the style of argument has on the person, it’s not proper. Honest debate is about trying to characterize the other person as fairly as possible, and to see it as responsibility to actually give equal voice.
I’m sorry but calling people out in a keynote as an example is almost always not great style.
I think it’s OK to discuss developed disagreements in key-notes. Say Dawkings and Gould had hashed out their differences on NOMA. To then discuss each position and what that means in a keynote, naming the other side, is quite appropriate. But if the keynote was used to get someone who hardly had time to articulate their difference, then it just isn’t about peer exchange. And you won’t people who give presentations in academic settings doing this. It is not done, and it is not done exactly because it is not the right place to advance a position in an emerging discourse. Even more it is not the place if the topic of the key-note is tangential to the dispute.
And that is despite people fully recognizing that discourse is cross-platform. It can be exchanges of articles, it can be blog posts, it can be personal emails, or phone calls. To inject a difference into a public platform of the type that is a key-note early is not just crossing a platform. Stef didn’t complain that she had a debate with Rebecca, she complained precisely about the format in which she was engaged. I cannot but say that Stef understood this precisely as it worked
The arguments about later opportunities simply forget what the actual complaint here is. The image in the eye of the audience. Sorry, but hallway discussion after, or a blog post do not serve as remedy to the perceptions created to a specific audience at a presentation. The presenter, if interested in fair discourse, has to make sure that the dispute is in a fair light to the audience present, not to a shifting amorphous cross-medium audience.
Also on this:
Rebecca has explicitly stated her motives. I am not implying anything beyond what she herself has stated. I really cannot respond to whatever else you may read into it.
I do not think that Rebecca intentionally did anything. I do think that many people not just Rebecca are not aware of the dynamics that I describe and that indeed we should be mindful of the setting, the way and the context in which we make our arguments, if we do want to make fair arguments.
If the goal is to just win, and have a side be in dire straights, well go ahead and juxtapose people we disagree with on a certain specific question with people who won’t come to help when someone is assaulted. Talking about implying something about another person by the way. So I am glad you realize that we should not imply intentions on others, but I do think you should bring that concern to Rebecca if you haven’t already (I don’t know if you have).
I’ll also echo Amanda Marcotte’s sentiments that this supposed rule about “speaker etiquette” looks a lot like “Calvinball”:
Full article here: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/because_of_the_implication
Tried to add a link to the original article but the comment moderation filter wouldn’t let me. If you google “because of the implication pandagon” you’ll find the complete article.
Simon: You think this is a fair characterization of Stef’s attitude, intent etc:
I’m sorry. I don’t buy this: this is to silence feminist voices. Noone has said Rebecca cannot respond or dispute with Stef, at least noone sensible. Noone has said names can never be named. I think what we do say is quite clear for those who are interested.
There are fair and not so fair arguments. And I am sorry if that draws displeasure, but claiming that a different view is “anti-woman” and that that view as voiced makes people think that the person will stand by idly to bad things happening, is not a fair argument. It serves to frame the other, and make them out to be anti-empathic.
What is the response to the above argument? Really nothing but a correcting of the mischaracterization. I.e. No, I’m not anti-woman, I just happen to interpret that specific example differently or have a different angle on it. And yes of course I will help people in duress. So what has been gained by rhetoric like this? Nothing much but paint the opponent into a corner where they have to defend themselves by stating the obvious. That’s not a fair argument and I think Rebecca should be, quite clearly, criticized for making such arguments.
So she named names. But she also put her in a specific negative light. I only have a problem with one of the two in this setting, and it’s not that a name was named, but what was linked to the name.
And it’s not because she is a feminist (as am I) and it’s not because voices need to be silenced (they shouldn’t be) but it is because this is an unfair argument and we shouldn’t make such arguments.
I don’t see a problem in Watson’s usage of McGraw’s (1st) post at all during a speech. She cited it and wanted to comment on it. What better way than to go through an actual example and point out what’s wrong with it? I can only assume that this was Watson’s intent.
I think Watson does this rather well in her post-speech blog post. I think I understand why Watson takes issue with the quoted paragraph of McGraw’s post. Even though I’m largely ignorant of Feminism 101 ;-). And no, I probably won’t be seen with a specific feminist book as there are other topics which are more relevant or pressing to myself. Most of what I see argued on the (feminist) blogs I frequent – at least to me – falls down to basic empathy (try to put yourself in my shoes).
I check out the odd links posted in related discussions, I liked the Schrödinger’s rapist one. What I take away from it is an emphasis on situational awareness – not constant fear of men (I seriously don’t get how some see that being argued for), which women in general have to focus on more due to ubiquitous sexual remarks/harassment. But it still was a “well, duh” moment for me as I’m employing a similar principle of graded alertness to potential threats (albeit of a different nature).
Good news. I want to judge for myself if Watson really lumped McGraw’s blog post together “in a category with people advocating for her to be raped” and the other impressions McGraw laid down in her post about the speech. I would take issue with Watson on this particular point. Based on Watson’s naming names post I doubt it, though. If that really happened I’m positive Watson will clear that up.
I even understand why Watson points out those youtube comments as it’s a good way to illustrate how ubiquitous non-related sexual comments are. Given the cesspool of idiocy that youtube comments generally are, personally, I’d mostly shrug them off as I feel that’s a bit like fighting against windmills. Nope, I’m not saying she should ignore those, it’d be my personal way to deal with them, as I think youtube comments are a rather useless format anyway and not easily suitable for rational discussion. I don’t see them improving either given the idiotic unrelated shout fests that occur on music videos. But that’s just me and based on how I view certain online interactions. I rather seek out platforms which are better suited to conversations. Again, let me stress how Watson deals with them is up to her.
Other than that, I’m still baffled and really appalled about Dawkins’ comments at Pharyngula. I hope he comes up with a sincere apology for those. Watson’s main (and highly simplified) point to me is: “Try not to make other people uncomfortable”. And no, Richard, other people chewing gum in your vicinity might annoy you, but that’s not comparable to unwanted sexual advances or remarks. Chewing gums is a behaviour restricted to the chewer. It doesn’t involve you. But being on the receiving end of advances or remarks directed at you does involve you.
Meh, even though this erupted into a mess with some redundancy and comments I thought were way out there from all sides, I think it’s good to have sparkled additional discussions. At the very least, it put the topic of feminism/sexual harassment into the spot light. I guess some folks where exposed to stuff they didn’t consider before. And I might start to follow additional blogs, as if my reader isn’t already way to full.
I’m sorry but this is wrong, and even if it were correct, BFD. “Not great style” would barely rise to the level of mention.
What are you talking about? She had all the time in the world to state her position beforehand, in the critical post she chose to write. She could respond after the talk and then had all the time on the world to respond afterwards. (And again, she hasn’t, instead making this about Watson’s talking about her rather than the substantive issue.) And this idea that she “used” the platform to “get someone” is what I’m talking about when I say that you’re imputing motives to her and it’s silly.
Yes, it is.
And that complaint, however understandable given that for her a response in this context was unexpected, is baseless.
There’s no “the audience.” We’re always talking about an overlapping set of audiences, some larger, some smaller. There was the audience that saw Watson’s original video. There was the audience that read McGraw’s post about it. There was the audience at the talk. There was the audience that read McGraw’s post on that, and Watson’s response, and how many other of the various posts and comments about it. There’s the audience that will watch the video at the CFI site. They’ll take from all of these different impressions of the issues and the people involved. It’s a public discussion.
You’re also shifting between the platform from which she responded to the content of her remarks. I haven’t seen evidence that Watson presented the “dispute” unfairly, but, again, we should present things fairly in any communicative context.
I think I’m done with this. I find these arguments about Watson’s responding to a post during a talk as unconvincing as I did several days ago, and we’re going around in circles at this point over what I see as a distraction from the important issues. Best to all.
Ophelia nailed it @117 as far as I’m concerned.
And I really can’t believe atheist feminists would invoke the ‘you don’t get it’ ploy. It’s precisely what some theists argue; you don’t believe in God because you don’t get it, your heart isn’t open, blah blah. I don’t think anyone has trouble seeing the emptiness of that response in that context, and it has no more substance in this scenario.
Hitch comment #164 (emphasis mine):
Hitch comment #167 (emphasis mine):
See why this is Calvinball? The disagreement seems to be over something different with every comment.
Argh, Hitch, I overlooked that paragraph you quoted when re-reading it right now. I stopped just above and only skimmed the rest of the post.
Yeah, I don’t see McGraw’s 1st post as being “ancient anti-woman rhetoric”, either. And implying that McGraw wouldn’t help victims is just plain awful. In addition, can only women be victims (DAMHIK)? I wish Watson would have written that in a less gender specific way. I could now get riled up about how RW wouldn’t help non-female victims. But I won’t. I take it she simply felt it unnecessary to state that differently in this particular context. I hope she will improve her writing in the future, though.
I already gave in the Dawkins/Gould example as a case where naming names is NOT the problem. So thanks for not stating what I have stated, twist me arguments, to make a cheap point to dismiss.
Simon, I asked you an explicit question. “You think this is a fair characterization of Stef’s attitude, intent etc”?
Lost control: Thanks I’m glad to get some acknowledgement on the point. Frankly I’m exasperated just how hard it is to get on the same page with folks on the matter, and just on basic things like this. I’m not even talk disagreement. I think there are many legitimate disagreements to be had here.
Haven’t been visiting much, but I had just heard about this. Didn’t get it. I thought ‘I know who will help me get it.’
Thanks for being real, OB.
“And this idea that she “used” the platform to “get someone” is what I’m talking about when I say that you’re imputing motives to her and it’s silly.”
With all due respect, SC, you seem to be doing precisely the same thing to ERV above:
“These people likely don’t give a hoot about McGraw – she’s a pretext for attacking Watson.”
“I don’t think it’s entirely conscious, but she turns on women to get in with men.”
“I don’t think it’s entirely or consciously a sham, but in Abbie’s case especially I believe it’s motivated by an opposition to certain people and arguments rather than a reasoned position on generic behaviors. It’s a stance of convenience.”
Sorry, I don’t find your telepathic abilities or skills in psychoanalysis via blog posts any more convincing or less silly than the ones you are protesting.
I’m going to make one last comment. It was. McGraw’s post both misrepresented Watson’s argument in the video and trivialized her discomfort in that situation. Watson had pointed to the elements of the context that made it a scary situation in which to be propositioned and her previously expressed intent and wish not to be objectified at these events. McGraw trivialized this.
Saying “propositioning me alone after you. a stranger, have followed me into a hotel elevator at 4 AM in a foreign country after I’ve explicitly said I was going to bed and been talking that day about my desire not to be sexualized and objectified makes me incredibly uncomfortable – please don’t do it” should be absurdly comprehensible and uncontroversial. Instead, McGraw questioned and trivialized Watson’s discomfort in that situation and suggested that in order to avoid being a hypocrite she would have to recognize the same behavior by a hypothetical woman as equally problematic (because so many men are raped by women in elevators and men having their expressed wishes ignored by women who view them as sexual objects is a huge social problem). That sort of trivialization and dismissing of women’s reasonable fears and concerns (with the added suggestion that asking men to listen to you and think about the effects of their actions on you is somehow denying people’s sexuality or banning flirting, which assumes men can’t and shouldn’t have to control their expressions of sexual interest) is “ancient anti-woman rhetoric” and could well lead other women reading it to worry that the woman writing it might not have their back (this is not the same as saying she wouldn’t). It’s Dawkins lite.
This has all been discussed over thousands of posts, and the more times I read McGraw’s post, the more serious misrepresentations and cluelessness I find. Watson’s response, from what I’ve read of it, was correct, and she was right to see it as a problem to be discussed in that setting.
*trying to leave again*
Thanks for sharing. Um, no. I’ve discussed and linked to posts from Abbie over the past few years to show a pattern of behavior. I read her blog for quite a while, and have read her comments elsewhere. No similar pattern has remotely been established in Watson’s case to support the suggestion that she read McGraw’s post and then waited villianously (a whole several hours!) to spring her criticism in the keynote because she would have the power there and wanted to “get” McGraw in front of an audience of like a hundred people. It would be ludicrous even if she wasn’t on a very popular blog and podcast. It’s just silly. And look, I don’t care whether you find my argument about Abbie convincing. Her posts are badly wrong regardless of her motives in any event, and I neither know nor care who you are.
If – instead of writing a blog post – Greg Laden had used you in a keynote speech as an example of someone in the atheist movement “parroting anti-semitic rhetoric”, do you think you could have felt some additional shock and irritation from the choice of venue?
I don’t have much time to reply here, but I would add I’m firmly with SC on this; Stef’s blog was fundamentally naïve in considering the issues and basically attempted to second-guess (badly) what Watson’s experience had been like. There was also an obvious disconnect that Watson did not (in McGraw’s words) “demonize men” – after mentioning how wonderful all of the conference participants were with one exception, she recounted the creepy encounter with that ONE man, who she did not demonize by even naming him. (She may not have been able to read the guy’s conference name tag, since some people are prone to arranging their clothing to conceal them.)
In light of how much rubbish has circulated since I am not at all surprised the other party has not come forward to say that he was the man who did not speak to Watson at any point over many hours in the Glasgow hotel bar, until he stalked her to the elevator at 4 am and made the most transparently obvious move on her once they were alone in the elevator. Check out Rorschack’s blog if you wish to hear an independent account of how the small hours of the morning were spent in the bar.
Now I think it is possible that if Stef had known about Rorschack’s (or any other conference participant’s) account in addition to Rebecca’s, she may have written a completely different blog. But the polarisation has occurred and too many people have dug in their heels (or have other hatchets to bury) that they can’t or won’t admit they pre-judged the issue.
The YouTube by stclairose that has been linked around by many has many of the flaws of Stef’s blog: if anything it is even more superficial and naïve in addition to committing the same basic category errors.
Oh, and a warning, the comments made about the YouTube video are truly appalling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfA5AZutpCs
Rorschach’s blog
http://furiouspurpose.me/2011/07/02/a-storm-in-a-blog-teacup-or-how-stef-mcgraw-spectaculary-missed-the-point/
@Windy
Don’t mean to answer for SC but since. She’s trying to bow out…
I think anyone would be insulted. I know my pride would definitely be hurt. But, if what I had said was to the affect ‘Isreal is holding the Western world hostage with holocaust guilt trips’ (or anything else that was both controversial and very much related to the talk he was giving) then MR. Laden would be. Entirely justified in using me and my remarks in his talk.
[…] PZ noch zwei weitere Beiträge schrieb, dass sich die Blag Hag einmischte, Amanda Marcotte und auch Ophelia Benson und noch viele mehr, und dass die Skepchicks offene Briefe an Dawkins […]
Despite making Baby Grammar Jesus cry, my point is understandable.
Good morning.
If he’d been giving a keynote soon after that discussion and said that, I would have been as furious as I was. My anger was at the fact that it was a false accusation that I don’t think he ever really believed made on the basis of comments he later admitted he hadn’t even read. I was angry because it was a vicious, fabulated insinuation, wherever he made it. I would probably have found it odd in that case given that the discussion was taking place on his blog, but not if his accusation had been made in response to a post I’d made at mine. So, no – no additional shock or irritation beyond my already stratospheric levels.
Hitch: I’m not in Rebecca or Stef’s head to know what intent they had and I’m not going to try to extrapolate from some blog posts. I’ll let others debate that.
To clarify my position: some are saying that Rebecca committed a foul by even discussing an excerpt of a student’s blog post and saying said student’s name. It’s this specific principle that I disagree with.
Whoops, sorry. Didn’t realize there was prior history. Thought it. Was just a thought experiment.
*fades to black*
SC,
“Thanks for sharing”
You’re welcome. Just thought you’d want to know when you’re being questionably hypocritical.
“I’ve discussed and linked to posts from Abbie over the past few years to show a pattern of behavior.”
From which you are imputing motives that you can’t possibly really know, unless she has come right out and stated them.
“And look, I don’t care whether you find my argument about Abbie convincing. ”
I wouldn’t call it an argument, I’d call it an opinion. If you have any posts that provide evidence and reasons why she ‘turns on women to get in with men’, or that she takes ‘stances of convenience’, I’ll definitely read them. I’ll admit that I’m skeptical that that evidence exists, as I don’t see how you can possibly tell the difference between these motives that you are imputing on her (which is a no-no when done to RW), and that she, ya know, honestly believes the arguments she’s making. If you’ve so thoroughly demolished her ‘badly wrong’ arguments, then what’s the point of even venturing off into her state of mind that you can’t possibly know. It’s petty bullshit, which would be fine if you wouldn’t wag your finger at people who dare do that to people you happen to agree with.
“Her posts are badly wrong regardless of her motives in any event, and I neither know nor care who you are.”
Huh? What does who I am and whether you know me have to with anything? I neither know or care who you are either; so? What made you think otherwise? That line was way out of left field; weird.
Simon, that’s fine by me.
SC:
Really? See that is the point. that difference you make between the parenthetical statement and the presumed impression is not really relevant.
So does Stef really create a legitimate worry that she won’t help other women in duress? I think that’s a rather dubious thing to put out there and yes it just serves to create a kind of impliciation that perhaps she wouldn’t.
So yeah, you can honestly say that Rebecca didn’t outright state that Stef wouldn’t help women in duress. But she also hasn’t actually attempted to articulate what Stef’s actual position is or if worries of that type or in order or questionable.
It’s a netenovela. :) Thanks for jumping in.
I think this is one point where my personal assessment of why Stef McGraw’s initial post was problematic differs from Watson’s. I wouldn’t be concerned that she specifically wouldn’t help me (or another friend) specifically if in distress, but that she’s so naive that she would be helping to create/perpetuate an environment that I find tedious at best, and potentially dangerous at worst. That is particularly so as a newcomer to an established group — it makes it seem unwelcoming, and likely that I’ll have to deal with a lot of crap in order to get to any potential benefit out of the group.
(Although I just went back to Watson’s post, and she says “stand up for me”, not “help me if I was in duress”. So I might not actually disagree with Watson at all.)
Except that I’m not, as I’ve explained to you.
If you don’t think motives can be inferred from behavior you must lead a very confused life.
I posted it here and at her blog, as I’ve pointed out above.
I don’t have time to address the ignorant remarks of every fool with an internet connection. I don’t recognize your ‘nym, and your purpose seems to be trolling me. This is my last response to you.
***
It is, because she’s talking about the statements and the impression they give. I algree with that impression, and it’s one I got from reading her comments IIRC before I read Watson’s remarks.
Yes. In fact it goes beyond that. Watson says it negatively affects “the women who are nervous about being in similar situations.” Like her. She talked about having been nervous in a potentially dangerous situation, and McGraw dismissed and questioned her experience and the validity of her response (to the point of almost willful denseness). Someone who does this and additionally equates what Watson said with “demonizing men” and sees her call for respect as denying men their inherent right to express their desires and proposition women anywhere and at any time, even ignoring twomen’s explicitly stated intentions* does make me worry about her support. Those are the attitudes she’s expressing.
Let’s say, though, purely for the sake of argument that there was some degree of misrepresentation in Watson’s remarks. It happens, even when people are trying to present things fairly. There’s a good deal of misrepresentation in both of McGraw’s posts, and you don’t seem at all concerned about that. The way to address misinterpretations and misrepresentations is to clarify, discuss, and argue, which is what this business about “don’t respond in a keynote!” has distracted from.
*From what I’ve read since, I don’t think her leaving out the part where Watson said she was tired and going to bed was intentional, but it’s worse in a way: she left it out because she didn’t regard Watson’s expressed plans and the guy’s ignoring them as salient. It’s a concern, not least because in addition to being a problem itself, that would contribute to unease in the elevator: someone who’s already ignored your stated wishes might be less likely to accept a refusal. Fortunately that didn’t happen here, but in the moment it’s another fear-inducing element.
MyaR, you have a point, yet notice that Stef is a kind of newcomer to the group, so I think what you say is very pertinent. There has plenty of things being said that create an unwelcoming atmosphere. Certainly it’s fair to say that Stef wasn’t exactly invited to a chat over a cup of tea, and eased into an explanation how her position is perhaps naive. There are plenty of people who hold Stef’s position and what they see is that if they have a different perspective they are being called anti-woman, and uncaring. If that’s not the intent, then there certainly are ways to tackle the same content and the same issue, and not create what you actually rightly say we don’t want to create and that’s being unwelcome to newcomers, and I might add, even if they are naive and/or have a diverging view.
Yes, that’s right.
SC, I think we really have to have that difficult dialogue about potentially dangerous situations and situations that turn out to not have been dangerous after the fact. That is the difference that seems to be at the core here, and I recognize the difficulty. Because absolutely are the worries and the realities that create the worries important. My take is that we need to change the realities. But at the same time there is the reality that some situations that create fear turn out fine, and we can talk about how to best cope with those situations, given that they do occur. Rebecca actually handled it excellently. And I have argued elsewhere, we really should be looking a the gender roles that leads to the fact that it is the guys doing the approaching, the schemas and all that. I think that difficult discussion is what we should be having.
And color me naive, but I actually think that Stef, Dawkins and a bunch of other people are very conducive to that debate if we don’t start if off with making them the devil, anti-women, and giving the impression of not standing up for others, and making it all about them defending their self-image.
SC,
Yes, everyone should try to be fair in their interpretations, but it’s even more critical in situations where you couldn’t say “Correct me if I’m wrong” and expect to be corrected if you’re wrong. In books and speeches and the like, you need to bend over backwards to be fair, and so going with a gut reaction is generally not a good idea. Not so for blogs and face to face speech.
Also, roles change. Again, in competing blog posts, they’re equals, but the speech was clearly in the mentor role, and dragging a debate from one role to another is not a good idea. It’d be like discussing whether baseball is better than hockey with my manager and then having him put that on my performance review.
Simon,
Welcome to social interactions, where there actually are no hard and fast rules. This is one reason why people with certain social disorders like autism have such problems with them; there are no rules that you can follow that just work. It’s not an indication of anything that it’s hard to describe in detail what the rules are for those sorts of interactions.
Oh, please. She posted about Watson’s video (which wasn’t directed to anyone in particular) on the web site of an organization in which she has a leadership position.
It would have been fine had she been, but Watson’s public response to her public post was fine, too. I find it very hard to believe you would be saying things like this if the people involved were men. If you post something critical online, you have no reasonable expectation that the response will be to take you to friggin’ tea. If McGraw had wanted that sort of exchange, she could have approached Watson at the conference; I’m sure Watson would’ve have been kind and patient. Seriously. This is condescending.
They’re being anti-woman and uncaring. That was part of the point, and McGraw is free to try to contest it.
SC,
“They’re being anti-woman and uncaring. That was part of the point, and McGraw is free to try to contest it.”
Why is McGraw required to context that point in any detail? Shouldn’t you and Rebecca Watson have to prove it?
That’s a really good point, which I hadn’t thought of before. I would see it (in the abstract, not having been there, not knowing how otherwise fear-inducing his presentation may have been) as another irritation- or repulsion-inducing element, but it comes to the same thing. That is at the core of the whole thing, I think – the narcissistic indifference to the woman herself and the laser-like focus on what he wanted. RW has just been in the bar socializing for several hours; it’s infantile to go after her and demand “more socializing just for me.”
I don’t think I want to know what this is supposed to mean.
No, it really isn’t, and there’s no difficulty. There’s something you’re fundamentally missing here. I don’t have the energy to figure out what it is or correct the problem. Maybe read the threads at Pharyngula.
(I hate that faux-“we.”) I’m not responsible for people participating in the discussions or working to fix the problem. I’m not responsible for educating everyone on the internet in the tone they prefer and at their convenience. This is actually something I get paid (not enough) to teach, but I’m not Internet Professor and these people are adults. (Though I have helped people who do honestly ask, and see my blog as in large part educational.) I’ve been trying to get Dawkins to join the discussion for literally years. So far he’s done what he just did at Pharyngula – leaves sexist, ignorant comments and then takes off. I hold out hope for him, but it’s his responsibility. Of course I think McGraw is an asset to the discussion – that doesn’t change because she wrote a couple of clueless and anti-woman things. I’m sure Watson thinks so, too. If she can get past her shock about the keynote the discussion can take place. Abbie, I’m not sure about.
And you might want to apply this line of thinking to gnu atheists and see how that goes.
The devil? Seriously? Their statements and actions are what creates their public image. Those are within their control. Talking about people’s statements is what public discussion is about.
***
I don’t see this in situational or platform-dependent degrees.
Going with a gut reaction is never a good idea (unless you’re clear that that’s what you’re doing). In any case, you can always be corrected, just not (usually) while you’re speaking or in your book.
I’ve discussed this mentor business above.
Except the one about not talking about posts in a conference talk. Or a keynote. Or ones by students…forthrightly. Or anything online in real life. Or in a plane. Or in the rain….
Wait, what? Is everything we’ve written invisible to you? WTF?
SC, I agree with you that McGraw’s first post was trivializing & discounting RW’s experience.
I don’t get why McGraw mentioned her stuff about “sexual beings” at all. Completely unrelated to me and I don’t understand her train of thought there.
So yeah, that was a mischaracterization of RW’s position (people should try to avoid making others uncomfortable).
Here you lose me. McGraw’s post was trivializing and dismissive. I don’t quite understand how you get to ancient anti-woman rhetoric here.
McGraw wrote – and I don’t get why she did in relation to RW’s video:
This is totally misplaced, because RW doesn’t even say “don’t flirt” or anything like that.
OK, this would be anti-woman. I guess I understand why you classify McGraw’s post as such.
I guess I don’t see McGraw implying that, though:
To me she accepts RW’s experience (until “Fair enough.”) and then misguidedly trivializes/dismisses her by falsely saying RW has issues with sexual interest. Which I doubt RW would have, given that she said elsewhere it’s fine to flirt etc.
I guess I give McGraw a little more leeway based on my own interpretation. To me, a disconnect happens to what RW actually said and a broken train of thought on McGraw’s part leading to talking about the “sexual beings” stuff.
I may be wrong here, and you might just be better used to spot what you see as being implied by McGraw.
I still would feel slightly uneasy to classify it as anti-woman, and rather would ask “how do get from my vid” to the stuff about “sexual beings”.
I hope this doesn’t get too long, I at least understand now how SC & others arrive at “anti-woman”.
Fuck. Thank you, SC, for spelling that out. I’m slightly embarrased I misread that. *facepalm* Yep, it was about impressions readers might get, not about McGraw itself. Maybe it could have been stated clearer for someone like me. (It still implies readers think that women like that [McGraw] wouldn’t stand up for them – why should they think that, McGraw never said she wouldn’t – but that now drifts into hypothetical of hypothetical, let’s not derail that far.)
I guess that shows how easy it is to misread someone? I really appreciate your patience. Thank you again, SC (& others).
Like I said, I’ll wait for the video to judge about the impressions McGraw got from Watson’s speech.
FWIW, this whole thing made me sign Stephanie Zvan’s letter. I’m not sure if my post is showing up yet (I guess first-time comments will be held for moderation.)
(Darn, I’m way too slow to properly keep up – I hope I’m not adding anything redundant.)
No. You don’t call people stuff and have it stick if it doesn’t get properly contested. Not if you want to have a fair argument. And no not everybody who holds those views is anti-woman at all. Philip further up used the word naive. I think that’s more descriptive of quite a few people. But why not use harsh brandings and let people fend against it rather than try to actually understand them and describe them for what they are? Geez.
And the idea that it is condescending to say that more inviting dialogue is possible is ridiculous.
SC said,
“If you don’t think motives can be inferred from behavior you must lead a very confused life.”
No, just a rational one. And despite all of what you wrote, replete with name-calling and more imputing of motives, you dodged the question: How can you possibly tell the difference between these motives that you are imputing on ERV, as opposed to the alternative that she honestly believes the arguments she’s making? I don’t disagree that the motives you want to assign to her aren’t possibilities, I just don’t see how you can conclude rationally that they are true. And I’m not just picking on you; lots of bloggers/commenters who champion rationality do it, but wouldn’t such conclusions rationally require some demonstration that you can determine motives and other people’s state of mind from blog posts/comments? Seriously, do you have psychological training that gives you insight into people’s motivations? You may, I don’t know.
” I don’t recognize your ‘nym, and your purpose seems to be trolling me. ”
You don’t recognize my ‘nym, and I disagree with you on one point, so you conclude that I’m trolling you. Talk about confused…
I agree with you that it might deter women (people?) from joining because of certain impressions readers of McGraw’s 1st post might get. (I don’t read McGraw as defending “men’s right to express their desires […]” but that’s a irrelevant difference in interpretation again? But yeah, the “demonizing men” part was stupid.)
I think part of the reason for the contentiousness between those of good will (and there are some that I think, at least, are not of good will, not so much at B&W as elsewhere) is that this really does exist along the lines of responsibility in social interactions and discourse — who is responsible for which parts of the situation? As a participant, I can’t be held entirely accountable for the other person’s interpretation of what I say, but I am still responsible for how I present my arguments and myself. Now, some people are trying to shift that line to a ridiculous extent, mostly to allow men a vast open social plane and women a circumscribed corner where we must be careful not to hurt the menz sexual chances. [bolding mine – Ed.]
lost control,
Watson in at least her summary of what she said included this:
” … 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…”
It should be quite easy to see how to get McGraw’s interpretation from that. What else could “sexualize” mean other than “think of as only a sexual object and not as a complete person?
SC,
This is the closest I could find to you calling it out:
“That sort of trivialization and dismissing of women’s reasonable fears and concerns (with the added suggestion that asking men to listen to you and think about the effects of their actions on you is somehow denying people’s sexuality or banning flirting, which assumes men can’t and shouldn’t have to control their expressions of sexual interest) is “ancient anti-woman rhetoric” and could well lead other women reading it to worry that the woman writing it might not have their back (this is not the same as saying she wouldn’t). ”
This is not proof of anything anti-woman about McGraw. It’s simply leaping to assert what McGraw really meant and then calling that anti-woman, as opposed to being a simply disagreement. I am not convinced that McGraw said anything like that, and at least there you did not link it to a direct quote. At best, we are interpreting her differently.
And I am aware that you addressed the mentor point above. I was replying to that since I think you’re wrong.
I also never claimed that there were hard and fast rules about these cases either, so I’d rather you didn’t try to oppose my arguments with things aimed at others when you’re quoting me.
MyaR,
“Now, some people are trying to shift that line to a ridiculous extent, mostly to allow men a vast open social plane and women a circumscribed corner where we must be careful not to hurt the menz sexual chances.”
And who do you think is actually saying that? McGraw isn’t, at least in my opinion. Dawkins didn’t. Russell didn’t. I didn’t. Hitch didn’t (I don’t think). Abbie didn’t, as far as I can tell. Who, exactly, is actually doing that?
This is why things go askew, when rhetoric is tossed out as fact.
I’m sure nobody will see this after all the extensive comments, but…
One thing that I think Dawkins in particular, and others as well, are missing is that even if what the guy did was “zero bad” (which it definitely wasn’t, but let’s just say), it’s still okay and entirely understandable for Watson to feel deeply uncomfortable about it and to share her feelings about it, and us men would be well-served to listen to that and think about what it means.
When I first heard this story, I skimmed and misread — I thought the guy was asking her out for coffee at some later time, and I also didn’t catch that it was 4AM. So what I thought was not that he was propositioning her for sex, but just that he was asking her out — and that the objection was just to doing so in an elevator. When I thought that, I was confused by some of the condemnations of the guy (understandably!) but I also thought there was a good case that asking out a stranger in an elevator is not okay anyway, and moreover, I thought it was pretty lousy that everybody was criticizing Watson for feeling uncomfortable about it. Sexual assault of women is a very real, very serious problem, affecting a shocking number of women. It’s not crazy to be concerned about it, even if the situation had been the more innocuous one I had initially understood it to be.
Of course, the real story makes it even more bizarre that people are condemning Watson. I could almost see someone mounting a defense of the guy — loneliness will make people do some pretty fucked up things after all — but I just can’t fathom someone going after Watson for feeling skeeved out by what happened. It was a skeevy, scary situation, and even if it wasn’t, if a woman feels uncomfortable about something it’s pretty tasteless for a man to say that she’s wrong to feel that way…
But “anti-woman” and “naive” are describing two different things, one the rhetoric, and the other the seeming reason for the rhetoric. The whole point of Watson’s first bringing up Elevator Guy was an assumption that people (in that case, men at secular/atheist social gatherings) didn’t realize how they came across.
Similarly, I don’t think anyone thinks that McGraw was being deliberately anti-woman, but that her naive interpretation of Watson’s video exposes a naivete about how male privilege, sexism, patriarchy, what-have-you works, how anti-woman actions are created and perpetuated culturally. Which is the heart of my disagreement with your statement — I do not care what views McGraw or anyone else (outside those actually part of my social circle) holds, I care what actions they take.
McGraw was trying to shift all responsibility for the interaction between Watson and Elevator Guy to Watson — people are sexual beings! They have a right to proposition anyone, regardless of the boundaries the other party has already established! A man’s potential chance to get laid trumped Watson’s explicitly stated desire to be left alone. And, as SC pointed out above, the leaving out of the explicitly stated desire to be left alone because it wasn’t considered relevant is really problematic.
Many of the people mounting this defense, however, are assuming that the guy was lonely, but there is absolutely no reason to think that. Nobody who was in that elevator said he was lonely, and nobody else is in a position to know (that we know of), and it’s not just lonely guys who hit on women. These people are thinking in the wrong direction. “RW is persecuting some poor guy. He must have been lonely. He was lonely. It’s an outrage!”
I saw a classic example of that yesterday, but this thread is long enough, I’ll keep it for a post.
Hmm, did something disappear? Please feel free to edit the above to make more conversational sense. I also just realized that I’m not entirely clear in my transition to the second paragraph. I will be happy to clarify later (out of time just now) if anyone would like.
Verbose Stoic, yeah, well doesn’t “that matter” refer to the actual incident in the elevator?
I don’t really see why you would extrapolate to “always” from a single incident.
Especially not when “that matter” was the first interaction between them.
And even if RW said “don’t ever hit on me”, that would only apply to RW herself and not on the community. If she says that then I hope every fucking last idiot would respect that wish.
MyaR,
Can you please explain to me how and where McGraw did that?
No, I get that point. Really it’s not even specific. The moment you concede that someone can just approach and request at their complete discretion, you do put the burden to resolve the interaction on the person who responds. It’s up to them then to resolve the situation (or hope it resolves that way) through the response.
Stef didn’t explicitly state that Rebecca was responsible, but by defending the guy’s role to approach she does defend his side, leaving as the remaining responsibility that of Rebecca to respond.
I would just argue that this is for all approcher/approchee situations. One of the reasons why I was hoping that there was actual dialogue about the core dynamics and the gender roles around it.
Agree completely, and note that I’m not going to attempt to make an attempt to defend the guy on that basis — I’m just saying, I probably wouldn’t be scandalized if someone did, the way I am scandalize by the “RW is persecuting some poor guy angle.”
He may not have been lonely, but I can tell you that when I was single I did some unacceptable things — not quite rising to that level, but pretty close a couple of times — out of sheer loneliness. Was it also simultaneously predatory? Perhaps, it is hard to say. But the things I did were first and foremost motivated out of desperation and loneliness. Which is not to excuse it in the slightest!! Explaining is not the same as excusing.
I do think there is some value in understanding the perspective of a lonely single heterosexual male in America, but most certainly not with the angle being “Oh those poor undersexed guys, let’s all feel sorry for them,” but rather from the angle of “Here is why this happens sometimes, and what strategies can we use to combat it and help people not to be like that.” Of course, it’s nigh impossible to talk about how it feels to be a lonely single heterosexual male and how that sometimes led to me making some bad choices, without making it sound like the former rather than the latter. I’ve actually been kicking around an idea for a blog post for about a year now to try and tackle this very difficult topic, but I still haven’t come up with the right way to approach it.
If I ever do make such an attempt, my reason for doing so will be this: It is all fine and good on an individual level to say, “Just don’t be an asshole, mmm’kay?” But on a societal level, that doesn’t work. (In fact, it rather reminds me of the conservative position that welfare and public health insurance are unnecessary, because poor people should just get a damn job… an individual level, yeah, maybe the solution to your problem is to get a damn job. On a societal level, that’s just stupid and naive.) On a societal level, we need to understand what drives people to be assholes, and that try and find a way to mitigate that. We should also tell people “don’t be an asshole,” but the optimal solution may involve more than that. I’m not sure what, but the first step is an understanding of the causes. And the causes are not so simple as that every guy who engages in unacceptable sexually aggressive behavior is just a scheming amoral predator. Either that or I’m also a scheming amoral predator (an unsuccessful one at that!) who somehow magically became opposed to that sort of behavior as soon as I got married…
Let me just reiterate, though, I’m on Watson’s side here. What happened was skeevy as hell; and even if it hadn’t been skeevy, given the reality of what it’s like to be a woman in this time and place, us men don’t get to criticize women for feeling skeeved out by a sexual advance.
Lest it sound from my previous posts that I have more sympathy for the guy than I do, let me just requote what Ophelia quotes from Plait:
Yeah, that. There might be some legitimate debate over what motivates a guy to do something like that, and men might have a useful perspective on that. But we do not have a useful perspective of how it feels like to be on the receiving end of behavior like that. Particularly us white heterosexual males — we just have no idea what it feels like not to be in a position of absurd unconscious privilege.
I might at times venture to open my yapper about what was going through the guy’s head — although even then I venture into dangerous territory and am very wary that I might be doing some distasteful “mansplaining” — but I am certainly NOT going to say jack shit about what Watson may have been (or “should” have been?) feeling. I am so unqualified to comment on that it’s not even funny.
James, I know, I almost included a parenthetical “I don’t mean you’re saying” but it was too boring. I was just pointing it out because I’ve seen it, and it’s so pathetic. “The guy was lonely, dammit!”
MyaR,
I see McGraw’s statement as more being “Expressing sexual interest is not automatically sexualizing”. Maybe ignoring the stated desire to go to sleep was, but even that’s quite debatable. So, do you have a specific section that you want to focus on?
James Sweet,
I agree that it’s completely reasonable for Watson to have felt creeped out by it. My concern is all about the link to sexualization that seems a bit strong.
I think maybe. I had a technical blip here, and meanwhile several people have said what I wanted to, so I won’t beat that horse. But I did want to touch on a couple of aspects of McGraw’s post that are elements of the rhetoric I picked up on and so did Watson presumably. Watson tells this story, leaves the guy anonymous, and says, “This is a problem. Don’t do it.” That this is bad behavior that understandably would make someone uncomfortable and that the only decent response is “OK” and/or “That must’ve sucked” is so blindingly obvious that I can’t imagine anyone could fail to see it unless they worked at it.
Then another woman comes along, pulls out this section of the video, and proceeds to challenge and trivialize Watson’s experience every step of the way. It’s incredible. She quotes Watson, leaving out a relevant aspect about her express wishes ignored by the guy. Then she starts with: “It’s possible the man actually just wanted to talk and do nothing more, but I’ll even give that point to her; I obviously wasn’t there, and don’t know what sort of vibes he was giving off. Fair enough.” She’ll give her that point? Fair enough? No. Just no. A woman should be able to recount her experience without this sort of interrogation. A few sentences later: “Let’s review,…” No, let’s not “review.” Let’s listen to what she actually said about the situation. “[I]t’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”” The part about an unsolicited sexual comment is wrong, but this is the sort of trivialization that makes women feel like no matter what happens to them people will always dismiss it because it could have been worse, even if their response is perfectly proportional to the harm done.
A woman describes her uncomfortable experience and uses it to illustrate a problem, issuing a call for a change in behavior. That’s it. She’s not making any specific accusations against a person. She wasn’t saying he was a rapist or that all men are; FFS, she wouldn’t address “Guys, don’t do that” to rapists, as rapists wouldn’t care. And even in a case this obvious and nonconfrontational, the response from people who weren’t there is to immediately trivialize it (“it’s not as if he…” “he merely…”) and start talking about it from the guy’s alleged point of view, questioning or ignoring elements provided by the woman. This is so common and so disrespectful of women. It doesn’t matter what the guy was or wasn’t thinking, though it’s clear that he ignored her explicit statements about her plans. What matters is that the behavior is bad, makes people uncomfortable, and should stop; men can control their sexual approaches and should do so. Then she finishes with: “Someone who truly abides by feminist principles would, in my view, have to react in the same manner were the situation reversed; if a woman were to engage a man in the same way, she would probably be creeping him out and making him uncomfortable and unfairly sexualizing him, right? But of course no one ever makes that claim, which is why I see Watson’s comment as so hypocritical.” People should see the stupidity of this after like a second’s thought. It’s anti-woman attitudes that lead people to dismiss women’s very reasonable fears and the objectification of women in this way.
This approach is just seriously anti-woman, and it’s what leads some of us to worry that women who say things like this don’t have our backs. “I wasn’t there, but I’ll concede that may have been the case, it could have been worse, he probably didn’t mean anything by it, you had no reason to be afraid, it was probably a misunderstanding, he didn’t do anything wrong, don’t make such a big deal of it.” Women face this constantly.
[…] “begged” me yesterday to focus on something other than what I had been focusing on, so here is a slightly different focus. To put it another way, […]
Let’s move this to the newer post now. I’ll leave comments open for now in case a comment really needs to go here and not there, but if possible, let’s move.
Ooh, me, me, me.
Alternative and potentially useful synonym for “threatening”: I was going to suggest “ominous”, but how about: “minatory”.
I’d like to see “minatory” or “minacious” getting more of a look-in in the blogosphere.
“Comminatory” is pretty good too. Or “loury”.
Dan
@James Sweet #217
You’ve hit on another thing that’s bugging me about this thing. Everybody is talking about the poor, undersexed heterosexual male. But since when is it only straight men who don’t get as much sex as they’d like??? I’m a straight woman and I’m not getting as much as I’d like. I have known plenty of other straight women who have been in that situation as well. Lesbians, Gay Men, transsexual people, and people of other genders all feel the same way sometimes. Straight men aren’t special it that regard.
Also, I’m curious as to what you think the answer to that would be? Because it seems like it would be that everyone should be getting a lot more sex. But that ignores the whole thing about consent and choice and the fact that everyone has the right to choose who their sexual partner(s) will be. Oh, and straight men aren’t the only people who can’t always be with the people they want to be with. I’ve been rejected/ignored by plenty of men in my lifetime. Men I would have loved to be with. Again, I’m a straight woman.
I know you’re not trying to advocate forced sex (aka rape), but it’s a very tricky subject.
I also want to add that I realize there are certain social pressures for (straight) men to have lots of sex and be able to have any woman they want and that if they can’t get a woman they aren’t a real man, but that just goes back to the whole issue of controlling women’s sexuality/pretending women don’t have any sexual desires of their own and are only there to fulfill men’s desires. Which is not true. So, it’s a complex web.
“It’s not actually primarily about fear, for me (which perhaps puts me right back in “it’s no big deal” territory – except that I don’t think so). It’s primarily about not wanting things to be divided up as: men do thinking and talking and women do looks and sex.”
I’d say they are linked. Women are put into the looks/sex department and are expected to be available, or amenable to men who want sex – that’s how we’re seen. And when we are not available, and not amenable, then the uncertainty and sometimes fear kick in, because then is when we don’t know how this man will respond. Is he a klutz who’ll wander off? Is he a sleaze who’ll take pleasure in making us uncomfortable because we haven’t played along? Is he going to get violent? The division you aptly describe is very much part of, indeed the source of, the fear women live with. It may be subliminal; it may be very conscious, but it’s there.
This is why I never talk to women under 25.
Hitch: There are fair and not so fair arguments. And I am sorry if that draws displeasure, but claiming that a different view is “anti-woman” and that that view as voiced makes people think that the person will stand by idly to bad things happening, is not a fair argument. It serves to frame the other, and make them out to be anti-empathic.
That particular bit in RW’s calling-out of Stef hadn’t actually registered with me. (But it resonates with a similarly unpleasant comment by Josh Slocum on another thread here.) You are right that this is explicit, unequivocal othering. And it is not just unfair, it is outrageous.
[…] not true. julian said “die in a fire” once that I know of at B&W1. I told him not to do that as soon as I was aware of it, and I drew a […]