Richard Dawkins in the elevator

I am a feminist, but I don't share some of Dawkins' views about feminism or about some women. To dismiss some of the argument as feminist crap, or to be asked to focus on meaning not words, doesn't cut it for me. I have been to enough conferences and other events in far away venues to know that innocent get-togethers in hotel rooms are the norm, as are drunken propositions that neither party regret next morning, but I and other women have also met with unwanted attention, and sensed a hostile atmosphere from men who have suggested 'coffee in my/your room' and received a polite refusal. I've lost count of the number of women who have commented 'don't leave me alone with him - he gives me the creeps.'

That's not to say that the majority of men at conferences are on the make, but distinguishing which man, that you don't know, is perfectly innocent in his intentions is not a decision that a woman should need to make in the circumstances aready described on here.

I don't think Dawkins or Watson have helped the argument with their polarised views. Dawkins doesn't acknowledge the prevalence of violence to women, worldwide, that is the backdrop to so many women feeling ther vulnerability in such circumstances. This article expresses how I see it:

blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/

But in the OP Dawkins did acknowledge the prevalence of violence against women, when! That's exactly what he was highlighting.

I can understand anyone not liking his way of expressing himself. That's a personal thing. But what he said, if you disregard how he said it for a moment, is definitely acknowledging what you say he doesn't acknowledge. That's why I said listen to the meaning.

Don't you think there is a lot of feminist crap in the world? I do. I also think there's a lot of important feminism going on and arguing against belief structures that perpetuate violence against women, and even make it legal, is what Dawkins does.

I'll now go and read your link.

You would think from this thread that we were attacking Bags's God! Heaven forefend!

I should have been more precise, Bags. He didn't acknowledge that this would inform how many women would experience a superficially innocent proposition, and feel vulnerable about what had happened. He dismissed how experience of misogyny and sexism that pervades many women's lives might have coloured her view, and that of so many women.

I know this debate has been running for some time. I only learned about it yesterday. I wonder how Dawkins would now respond, following the growth of the One Billion Rising campaign, and whether it has added to his understanding in the way it has for millions of other people, me included.

You're not getting away with that, Jingle. She presents good arguments and makes a great debating participant. What's more, she can give as good as she gets. Much respect, Bags*!

Yes, Bags there is some feminist crap, but I didn't see it rear its ugly head here.

I think we have discovered who her God actually is. That's all I'm saying.

Apart from that, I think this thread is a load of old codswallop.

Not sure why it was ever started tbh.

OK, when, I think I understand where you and others are coming from: you and others regard the situation in the elevator (one man, one woman, enclosed space, words that can be interpreted as having sexual implications) as, in PZ Myers words, "a potential sexual assault".

That is one interpretation. But I and others, including plenty of women, have not read that into the story. That's where the disagreement arises.

This doesn't mean I would never feel uneasy in a lift with a man I didn't know. I might even feel uneasy if he said nothing at all. But it would not be that particular man's fault that I felt uneasy. It would be because I know some men abuse women.

Seems to me Dawkins is tackling that problem head on.

It also seems to me, from watching Watson's video that she was tackling that problem too.

I think what Dawkins was saying when the whole thing blew out of control is that generic suspicion of men, even when they have been civilised and polite, is not healthy. The situation Watson describes did not show sexism; it showed an interest is sex. She rejected the interest. The man accepted the rejection like a civilised human being. What Dawkins is saying is that women need to recognise when they are not being threatened. The fact that Watson felt uneasy is not necessarily the fault of the man in the lift.

For all we know she always feels uneasy when alone with a man.

when, I'd be interested to know if Dawkins would respond differently now too. That's a good point to raise.

Can't understand it, but so often when jingle chucks her tuppenceworth into a thread with her jibes at me, I just want to tell her to bugger off. So strange!

I never (well, almost never) would, of course.

I'm happy to settle for that difference in our perspectives, Bags. Some feel like that, some don't. I still favour Dawkins on atheism and think the silly riposte from Watson about never reading his stuff again undermined her argument.

Bags

Bags just one more thing......

Your comment......' What Dawkins is saying is that women need to recognise when they are not being threatened. The fact that Watson felt uneasy is not necessarily the fault of the man in the lift.'

It could take decades to reach this ideal state. I think, in comparison, of how the racism discussion we had last week (Martin and Zimmerman) had similar overtones. A black youth perhaps perceiving he was at risk.

Yes, I understand that, when, and accept that it will take a while for things to change more generally for the better as far as sexism and racism are concerned. I'm glad people are trying to make it happen.

I looked at the other blog post by Watson, in which she says she was sexually objectified. I don't think she was, and I wouldn't think I was if I had been in the same position as her (actually, I have been in very similar positions). A man expressing sexual attraction to a woman is only objectifying her if he doesn't accept her negative answer. The same would apply the other way round – if a woman expressed sexual attraction that a man rejected. If the rejected person behaves in a civilised way, they are not sexually objectifying, but treating the person to whom they were sexually attracted as an equal. This is what Watson doesn't seem to understand.

There is nothing in what I've read of this story to suggest that the man was offering her sex anyway. She was wise to turn down his offer of coffee in his room, but I think it's wrong to simply assume he was after sex. He may have been but we don't know for sure.

One of the many comments (didn't realise how very much had been blogged on this affair) appealed to me. Via the Bad Astronomy link, thanks when :
'I strongly suspect that people are being disingenuous in their denial that “come back to my room for coffee” is a sexual proposition, but if you do honestly deny this, well, I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.'

The thing is, though, lily, that it didn't matter in this instance because he accepted her refusal.

Even if it did matter (i.e. matter that it was a sexual offer, which I think we've all accepted it might well have been), what mattered when the story was told is that he didn't force her. He behaved well. It's not wrong to ask for or to offer someone sex. What's wrong is forcing someone to have sex. That didn't happen.

Or asking them repeatedly once they have said no thanks, bags.
One of the problems with workplace harassment is that "it is in the eye of the beholder". One person thinks he/she is being friendly The other person feels they are being "creepy" or over friendly. Yet a perfectly legitimate claim of harassment can be made.
I agree with you when to an extent, but we cannot know about this particular instance - maybe she had been chatting in a friendly way that had been misread. Maybe one or both were a little drunk.
How's a chap to know whether he is being creepy - unless he gets honest feedback e.g. "Fred, you stand to close for me to be comfortable. I'd like you to take a step back now and respect my personal space a bit more in future." Not an easy skill for a woman to learn giving feedback in that way.
I was not criticising RD for using provocative language - just saying that he very much chose his controversial style in this piece. It did not just flow from his fingers without him thinking it through first.

"It did not just flow from his fingers without him thinking it through first."

Really? I thought it was a tweet...

Far too long for a tweet...

I get what you're saying, jess, about him choosing to be controversial when he was pissed off up to the eyeballs with her bloody whining about nothing (I've chosen my words carefully there too). But so what? Why shouldn't he be controversial? Gets people talking if nothing else.

Besides, lots of academics and scientists are controversial, partly because there's plenty in academia and science to be controversial about.

I was thinking earlier that in fifty years time no-one will know who the hell Rebecca Watson was. But they'll still know about Dawkins precisely because he chose to be controversial about religion and sexism. His evolution stuff is not controversial. You know what they say: all publicity is good publicity. He gets plenty of all kinds .

jingle, don't even think it!!

BTW, I agree about the asking again thing once someone has said no, and your bit about creepy versus friendly is spot on.

Rebecca wasn't whining, and it wasn't about nothing - surely asking people not to hit on women just because they are in the same enclosed space is a reasonable request.

There's something about conferences and conventions that brings out the worst in a lot of blokes... in the eighties I remember attending HP 3000 User Group conferences, and being amazed at the way these corporate types underwent a Jekyll and Hyde metamorphosis once away from their computer rooms - and presumably their wives. The lift doors would open and there would a couple on the floor in there... "I'll get the next one..."

"why did dawkins have to stick his oar in at all?"

its dawkins, he knows the mind of god doesnt he? also carries a handy, travel-sized oar on the go. i wont tell you where he hides it

Yawn