Just catching up with this and I'm a bit surprised that Dawkins wrote such a nasty piece about her but more surprised that he refuses to "get it", even after PZ spelt it out for him.

I don't blame her for feeling angry about Dawkins' reaction and it's good to see that most people aren't as incapable of understanding this situation as Dawkins clearly is.

It's that he came marching back to Pharyngula to reestablish his rightness that suprised me. I would have thought he'd not waste his time talking at people he knows are wrong. He sure is determined to demonstrate what a silly girl Watson is and how nothing he said was insensitive though.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:It's the same. What's bizarre is in some regards the atheist community is far more enlightened, often pertaining to social issues but is completely unaware of how their heteronormativity is affecting women. I agree with nunnington that the limitations imposed on women are the product of our most unconscious and inaccessible fears and predjudices. They're much harder to examine and challenge because people are so unaware of them. Meanwhile, the very people who make individuals like myself feel uncomfortable are challenging the limitations and championing the rights of other minorities and historically oppressed groups. It's frustrating as hell and extremely hurtful.

Yes, human beings are not uniformly conscious or enlightened. Again, at the risk of being boring, these ideas broke into the left like an unwelcome guest at a party. We congratulated ourselves on our enlightened views on racism, colonialism, imperialism, and so on, but then some women began to complain that they were treated cavalierly and in fact, in those days, were often asked to make the tea. Some left-wing men became very pompous over this, and argued that feminism was a bourgeois concern, not related to the genuine struggle, comrade. In other words, please don't challenge my hidden prejudices, as I find it quite uncomfortable.

Yes, relations between men and women contain so many hidden fears, prejudices, hatreds, degrees of envy, and it is the devil's own job to exhume them and examine them, but of course, it can be done, and must be done. The reference to the devil is intended purely figuratively.

HughMcB wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

HughMcB wrote:Intimidate? I've been psychically assaulted for literally doing fuck all.

Are you really sure you mean that, Hugh?

Actually yes, if being hit in the face counts as physical assault (which I'm pretty sure it does) and if politely saying "sorry I'm not interested" is counted as doing fuck all. In that case my statement is wholly correct. On more than one occasion.

Poof read!

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:It's that he came marching back to Pharyngula to reestablish his rightness that suprised me. I would have thought he'd not waste his time talking at people he knows are wrong. He sure is determined to demonstrate what a silly girl Watson is and how nothing he said was insensitive though.

Yes he is and while he continues to dismiss the incident as just an American feminist complaining about a man at a conference inviting her to coffee, he can probably get others (who don't know the full facts) to support him. I hope he contacts her personally and starts a discussion in order to try and better understand the problem. That's what he ought to, having just tried to ridicule her publicly.

Valden wrote:Unfortunately, I couldn't find an exact definition on what casual sexism is. But here's a few articles relating to it, if that helps any. Casual sexism is nothing but misogyny and It's time to challenge casual sexism

thanks. Will comment later if I have any questions/remarks.

In the blog linked to in this thread, there's a talk about the man crossing the street when walking at each other. I don't understand this. Is it not sexist to expect the man to be weary about every contact he has with a woman because it might be perceived as threatening?

I don't expect men to be "weary about every contact." I do however expect them to know that we women don't all appreciate what may be perceived as sexist remarks and objectification. (Cat-calling is an example of what not to do. Ever.) How is wanting to be treated with respect and dignity sexist?

Err... where did I say I condoned that?
I specifically referred to the situation in the blog posted earlier where there was stated that while walking towards a woman at night, as a man, you should cross the street to somehow not irk her.
I'm sorry, but that is being 'weary about every contact' in my book. If a woman cannot be in the same public street as a man without feeling comfortable enough to expect the man to cross the street, she is the one with the problem and sexism isn't it.

edit for clarity

If RD really wrote that then it seems a bit cloddish simply for claiming her feelings are invalid and its simply not nice to attack someone personally like that without a good reason. Not sure the point he was trying to make at all, this it isn't really related to 'atheism'. I'm sure similar amorous passes happen at religious events, best to keep your powder dry for things that matter.

Now IF you wished to intelligently comment on the dynamics of male/female interaction and suggest she shouldn't feel the way she claims too - then I'm sure there are many more intelligent ways of making your point, that demonstrate better sensitivity and insight.

On the other hand I hope it isn't too forward to wonder that if this woman had been attracted to the 'coffee' guy then would the feelings be completely different. Would the 'affront' and threat be replaced by a more receptive set of emotions?

Charlou wrote:

A few thoughts ...

A woman may feel trapped within the confines of an elevator simply because the man is bigger/stronger and physically capable of preventing her from pressing a button and getting off.

The assumption that the man may have ill intentions simply because he's male is perhaps an insult to men, particularly to an innocent man with only friendly intentions.

Some men do have ill intentions and do overpower women to carry their ill intentions out.

Many women are very aware of this, either through anecdote or personal experience, or both. Many women are wary because of this.

It's a pragmatic position to be defensive. Pragmatic. Not morally right or wrong, just a practical response to what one knows about reality.

Absolutely!!

Way too cavalierly dismissed by Dawkins. His insensitivity is showing, I'm afraid.

I think RD's comments show a remarkable lack of emotional intelligence. He first surprised me when he was so clueless about why his forum was so important to the members. Anytime someone invalidates another person's feelings by bringing up why they shouldn't feel that way because others have it worse, I wonder why they feel so threatened or lack empathy. It is a way of telling someone else that they don't matter and to try to mock and minimize their experience. If he had a problem with the woman's experience and reaction, then why not discuss that instead of the invalidation of comparing her situation to the severe abuse of women?

rJD wrote:Dawkins dropped a bollock here, another example of his tendency to be "tone deaf". Watson was perfectly justified to say that being approached by a stranger in a lift at 4am was unsettling, and asking people to be a bit more sensitive, which is all she did. For Dawkins to mock her the way he did was totally unnecessary and out of proportion to what she'd actually said, and I don't blame Watson for being pissed off with it, and with him, and reacting to it.

Yes, context matters. 4 am. In an elevator. Strange man. Not something most women are going to welcome, not at all.

Just a quick question, how would it reflect the women if she didn't find it weird and agreed to go with him?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

MattHunX wrote:As if the viewpoint of a majority, automatically makes it valid/right. Please...

Where did I say that?

How do you know you lack empathy, Matt?

Here's another man's take on this, for those who still don't get it. Women in Elevators: A Man To Man Talk For The Menz

Wow, DD! Great blog and post!

Valden wrote:And all she did was make a video about it, explaining to guys all around how it's not a very good idea to do what he did. And touching on the subject that as atheists, we all need to be more aware of casual sexism.

Honestly, is this a case of casual sexism? And on who's part exactly?

rJD wrote:
Yep, done the same myself. I'm a big softy and people who know me would find the idea of me being threatening as laughable, but, to people who don't know me... well, I'm hefty enough and I have a 'skinhead' cut. I did once catch up to a female colleague walking in the street from work and she practically had kittens as I overtook her before she realised it wasn't a dangerous stranger - and that was in the middle of a city centre full of people.

Given that women (and men, too, for that matter) do have reasonable cause to be apprehensive of men they don't know, it's just a question of good manners to not unnecessarily spook people.

Another thumbs up

Valden wrote:

babel wrote:

Valden wrote:And all she did was make a video about it, explaining to guys all around how it's not a very good idea to do what he did. And touching on the subject that as atheists, we all need to be more aware of casual sexism.

Casual sexism?
Care to elaborate on that?

Unfortunately, I couldn't find an exact definition on what casual sexism is. But here's a few articles relating to it, if that helps any. Casual sexism is nothing but misogyny and It's time to challenge casual sexism

No that's not helpful, would you care to elaborate how what this man did was casual sexism? Which you stated was the case.

Dawn wrote:I think RD's comments show a remarkable lack of emotional intelligence.

Maybe he was pie-eyed. What he wrote seems to me to have a certain alcoholic flavor.

As for a lack of emotional intelligence, well, we already knew that, didn't we? The whole thing with Josh Timonen, the destruction of the RDF, and the treatment of the moderators did not speak of a high degree of social skills. The battle between Dawkins and Myers reeks to me of macho posturing, on both sides.

As far as I can tell, Watson has been rather amazingly cool about the whole matter. Still, this story has had legs far beyond the initial incident and early followups.

Dawn wrote:I think RD's comments show a remarkable lack of emotional intelligence.

That's unsurprising I guess. Don't men in general usually score much lower on average for this type of thing? I would imagine that an older generation may score even less.

talkietoaster wrote:Just a quick question, how would it reflect the women if she didn't find it weird and agreed to go with him?

In the same vein, I'm wondering if women here find this man's behaviour to be creepy and sexist (I'd certainly agree it has the creep factor). Then continue on to say that having experienced similar things themselves that men are, in general, inconsiderate of latent sexism in society. Then what can be said of my documented five (or six) cases of being physically assaulted (not psychically!), at least three cases of having drinks thrown on me, and about a dozen cases of severe verbal abuse, for merely saying "no thanks"? And given this, what does that imply about women in general?

I'm just wondering if this thing works both ways.

HughMcB wrote:I wouldn't exactly call that a relationship. More being hit on, followed by being hit on.

Damn! In my day, I did ask men out--rarely--and only when I was pretty sure the answer would be yes.

virphen wrote:

MattHunX wrote:
On the other-hand, he also mentioned inviting her up to his room for coffee. Now, I'm not sure how popular this whole "coffee=sex" substitution is, but surely she suspected as much, otherwise, if they guy really just wanted a coffee with her (doubtful) she really had nothing to be concerned about, not immediately, anyway.

"Will you walk into my parlour?"
Said the spider to the fly

I have to say, reading this thread up to this point--very good discussion here! Bravo to us