Support NeoGAF

[tiff]

How do you approach a hardcore feminist girl anyway? Wouldn´t she always accuse you of being sexist, because, you know, you *are* approaching her to have sex with her, afterall. "Oh no, don´t objectizise me!" :/

I think the point is you don't approach her.

 

[Piecake]

That's exactly what she did. First you say you she should have shut up about the whole thing and taken the high road and let it die down, now you're saying she should do exactly what she did do by discussing the backlash! Pick one.

You should read what I wrote again since I said she could either take the high road or call those posters out.

Good thing she never claimed that. It's so telling that everyone has to keep mis-stating what she wrote that prompted such outrage as being so much more irrational than it really was.

If you're going to argue that "She should just ignore the irrational haters and get on with her life because the guy really wasn't that much of a threat" how does not apply to this ten-page GAF thread and the people hating on her?


The elevator issue prompted the backlash which gave her the ammo to keep talking about it. What is it about being asked not sexually proposition (yes, that's what it fucking was, the bar was still open) a stranger at 4 am in an elevator that makes us all feel so goddamn persecuted? Yeah, and it's the women who overreact.

Yea, she totally isnt trying to associate her experience with actual victims of sexual assaults and rape in this passage

[To] have my concerns—and more so the concerns of other women who have survived rape and sexual assault—dismissed thanks to a rich white man comparing them to the plight of women who are mutilated, is insulting to all of us. Feminists in the west have been staunch allies of the women being brutalized elsewhere, and they've done a hell of a lot more than Richard Dawkins when it comes to making a difference in their lives.

Maybe I should just give her the benefit of the doubt and call her a terrible writer with horrible reading comprehension as well? But hey, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt in instances like these.

 

[faceless007]

No. She has also called the man who asked her out misogynistic, that he sexuallized her and was sexually demeaning which is where much of the criticism is coming from.

No, that's what's bullshit. Is it seriously your contention that if she had posted her vlog exactly as she did but left out the phrase "when men sexualize me in that manner" there would have been no reponse? Well I can't prove a counter-factual but I find that line of thinking totally disingenuous. I would submit the main line that got everyone so hopping mad was "Don't do that" and "It makes me uncomfortable". It's the mere suggestion of not doing something because of being perceived as a threat that people were responding to.

This shit has been settled, she did claim that. Lying is pretty disgusting when we've already established her quotes earlier in the thread.

Funny, I don't see the phrase "sexually demeaning misogynistic rapist" anywhere in those quotes.

 

[thatbox]

The elevator issue prompted the backlash which gave her the ammo to keep talking about it. What is it about being asked not sexually proposition (yes, that's what it fucking was, the bar was still open) a stranger at 4 am in an elevator that makes us all feel so goddamn persecuted? Yeah, and it's the women who overreact.

I don't think anyone in here cares that she prefers not to be asked out after a night out. She can be uncomfortable about it all she wants, and advise future suitors to avoid such situations. But she was completely out of line in claiming that the guy was "sexualizing" her "in that way," and her further references to him being misogynistic and objectifying. Someone wanting to spend more time with you isn't unhealthy or sexist. Someone being sexually attracted to you is also neither unhealthy nor sexist.

 

[Mortrialus]

Funny, I don't see the phrase "sexually demeaning misogynistic rapist" anywhere in those quotes.

Now you're being disingenuous, in addition to being a liar.

 

[Sennorin]

I think the point is you don't approach her.

So feminists are gay?

I´d actually love to have a feminist gf (well, any gf, but that´s another matter lol), has to be fun having sex with her. Every time it would turn out like anime-rape.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I´d actually love to have a feminist gf (well, any gf, but that´s another matter lol), has to be fun having sex with her. Every time it would turn out like anime-rape.

From my experience, you are half right.

 

[Piecake]

: You don't get it, and it may seem unfair, but the more you act outraged and persecuted about being asked to respect her wishes, the more you confirm feminists' arguments about male privilege and guys who just don't think rape is a big deal. Why the fuck is it so aggrieving to you that she posted a goddamn vlog about the encounter?

Youre nuts. Rape is a huge fucking deal. The issue is that she was not sexually assaulted, raped, demeaned or objectified in any way. She has no point because her elevator incident was a complete socially awkward non-issue

 

[nib95]

Now you're being disingenuous, in addition to being a liar.

I'm also a little bit confused.

Just a word to the wise here, guys. Don't do that. I don't know how else to explain how this makes me very uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out: I was a single women in foreign country in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I—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.

Can someone quote the bits where she mentions he was sexist etc? Guessing more was said from her on the matter, and I'd like to see it.

 

[Piecake]

I'm also a little bit confused.



Can someone quote the bits where she mentions he was sexist etc? Guessing more was said from her on the matter, and I'd like to see it.

Well, he posted all of the relevant quotes by her on the last page...

Ill be nice and post them again for you though

makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

This is here claiming that elevator guy sexualized her

Quote:
Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified

This is her claiming that elevator guy sexually objectified her, which is horrible wrong since asking someone in for coffee is just evil, and that Dawkins just doesnt understand, probably due to male privelage

Quote:
Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought

This is her claiming that elevator guy was a misogynist and objectified her

 

[faceless007]

Youre nuts. Rape is a huge fucking deal. The issue is that she was not sexually assaulted, raped, demeaned or objectified in any way. She has no point because her elevator incident was a complete socially awkward non-issue

Such a non-issue that talking about it caused hundreds of men to threaten to sexually assault and molest her. Why would they do that if it was such a non-issue?

Honestly, what the fuck is your argument? You've already conceded that she had the right to feel the way she did, and yet you don't think she had the right to put it on a personal blog? So she can feel whatever she wants, but God forbid she talks about it in a personal forum? Yeah, it's her talking about it that's the big crime here.

 

[nib95]

Well, he posted all of the relevant quotes by her on the last page...

What wait, where, I'm not seeing it. Care to link me or post the quotes please?

 

[faceless007]

I don't understand all the emphasis on the fact that she said he was sexualizing her. Is the contention really that if she had said she was uncomfortable physically but not sexually--she thought the guy would rob her or stab her or something--no one would have reacted the way they did? I find that hard to believe.

 

[thatbox]

I'm also a little bit confused.



Can someone quote the bits where she mentions he was sexist etc? Guessing more was said from her on the matter, and I'd like to see it.

I've already done this for you, but sure.

it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

She's basically saying that someone being attracted to her is "sexualizing" her in "in that manner" (definitely a negative connotation to this phrase).

Then: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified

Again, she's referring to the elevator incident and saying she was "sexually objectified."

Then,

Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought

She calls the elevator incident a "possible issue of misogyny or objectification."

It isn't.

 

[nib95]

Such a non-issue that talking about it caused hundreds of men to threaten to sexually assault and molest her. Why would they do that if it was such a non-issue?

Honestly, what the fuck is your argument? You've already conceded that she had the right to feel the way she did, and yet you don't think she had the right to put it on a personal blog? So she can feel whatever she wants, but God forbid she talks about it in a personal forum? Yeah, it's her talking about it that's the big crime here.

This is just it. I think it's mainly a backlash from insensitive or themselves socially awkward men who might want to use this ordeal as a means to cement their abilities to make such tactless moves with women in future and get away with it.

I am not the least bit surprised by the backlash or the insensitivity and irresponsibility shown by Dawkins. He's basically just a twat under the guise of intelligence and/or false reason.

 

[Piecake]

Such a non-issue that talking about it caused hundreds of men to threaten to sexually assault and molest her. Why would they do that if it was such a non-issue?

Honestly, what the fuck is your argument? You've already conceded that she had the right to feel the way she did, and yet you don't think she had the right to put it on a personal blog? So she can feel whatever she wants, but God forbid she talks about it in a personal forum? Yeah, it's her talking about it that's the big crime here.

The error that she made was claiming that her encounter with the elevator dude was anything more than an uncomfortable socially award situation. She claimed that the dude sexually objectified her and was a misogynist - just because he asked her in for coffee.

Dawkins error was being a douche

The internet's error was the worst (shocking, i know), but whats the point of calling out random internet posters when everyon already knows that its a gigantic pile of filth?

 

[nib95]

I've already done this for you, but sure.


She's basically saying that someone being attracted to her is "sexualizing" her in "in that manner" (definitely a negative connotation to this phrase).

Then: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/


Again, she's referring to the elevator incident and saying she was "sexually objectified."

Then,

She calls the elevator incident a "possible issue of misogyny or objectification."

It isn't.

Wait what? You guys are seriously reaching here. To me she was completely justified in her response. This other guy clearly (or should I say likely) was sexually objectifying her, and based on his idiotic approach, she's well within her rights to think so (even if by chance he wasn't). Secondly, Dawkins response was clearly quite misogynistic (essentially telling her to deal with it and shut up about it and trying to justify that by somehow trying to spur in worse issues faced by (unrelated) Muslim women in other countries).

She is completely justified in her responses on all fronts.

 

[faceless007]

I've already done this for you, but sure.


She's basically saying that someone being attracted to her is "sexualizing" her in "in that manner" (definitely a negative connotation to this phrase).

Then: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/


Again, she's referring to the elevator incident and saying she was "sexually objectified."

Then,

She calls the elevator incident a "possible issue of misogyny or objectification."

It isn't.

None of these are "sexually demeaning misogynistic rapist." She says "sexual" and "sexually objectified" which, and I can't believe this is really the point of contention, but yes it fucking was, because the bar was still open and he broke away from the group to ask her to his room. She also says the encounter was a "possible issue of misogny" which is not the same thing as accusing him of being an actual rapist; but of course, it's no surprise that so many guys don't know the difference between "potential rapist" and "rapist." And of course, she never accused the guy specifically of being misogynist.

 

[devilhawk]

Wait what? You guys are seriously reaching here. To me she was completely justified in her response. This other guy clearly (or should I say likely) was sexually objectifying her, and based on his idiotic approach, she's well within her rights to think so (even if by chance he wasn't). Secondly, Dawkins response was clearly quite misogynistic (essentially telling her to deal with it and shut up about it and trying to justify that by somehow trying to spur in worse issues faced by (unrelated) Muslim women in other countries).

She is completely justified in her responses on all fronts.

You missed the point. She labels the elevator guy as misogynistic. Dawkins isn't the subject.

 

[Mortrialus]

None of these are "sexually demeaning misogynistic rapist." She says "sexual" and "sexually objectified" which, and I can't believe this is really the point of contention, but yes it fucking was, because the bar was still open and he broke away from the group to ask her to his room. She also says the encounter was a "possible issue of misogny" which is not the same thing as accusing him of being an actual rapist; but of course, it's no surprise that so many guys don't know the difference between "potential rapist" and "rapist." And of course, she never accused the guy specifically of being misogynist.

Wrong.

Wait what? You guys are seriously reaching here. To me she was completely justified in her response. This other guy clearly (or should I say likely) was sexually objectifying her, and based on his idiotic approach, she's well within her rights to think so (even if by chance he wasn't). Secondly, Dawkins response was clearly quite misogynistic (essentially telling her to deal with it and shut up about it and trying to justify that by somehow trying to spur in worse issues faced by (unrelated) Muslim women in other countries).

She is completely justified in her responses on all fronts.

Except she is holding up the guy she asked out as possible misogyny, not Dawkins in that passage. Look at her words carefully:

So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists. I believe that day has nearly arrived.

She was holding up the guy who asked her out as an example of possibly misogyny and the reaction she got from Dawkins and the internet at large confirms it or her. That is what her passage states.

 

[nib95]

Basically, GAF misogynists are falsely libeling her by the looks of it. I still don't see where she directly called this elevator dude sexist or a misogynist.

Some of you guys are letting personal prejudices cloud your judgement and reading comprehension if you ask me. I'm still waiting for the links where she's calling this elevator guy sexist (though it could be argued that Dawkins is sexist based on his response, so if she's calling Dawkins sexist, fair play to her).

Except she is holding up the guy she asked out as possible misogyny, not Dawkins in that passage. Look at her words carefully:

She was holding up the guy who asked her out as an example of possibly misogyny and the reaction she got from Dawkins and the internet at large confirms it or her.

She is quite clearly referring to the response from Dawkins and the community at large. Imo (though I could always be wrong about her context, only she could confirm it) you guys are seriously reaching.

.

 

[thatbox]

None of these are "sexually demeaning misogynistic rapist." She says "sexual" and "sexually objectified" which, and I can't believe this is really the point of contention, but yes it fucking was, because the bar was still open and he broke away from the group to ask her to his room. She also says the encounter was a "possible issue of misogny" which is not the same thing as accusing him of being an actual rapist; but of course, it's no surprise that so many guys don't know the difference between "potential rapist" and "rapist." And of course, she never accused the guy specifically of being misogynist.

You're right, she just says he's a sexualizer, and a sexual objectifier, but just possibly a misogynist.

 

[nib95]

You're right, she just says he's a sexualizer, and a sexual objectifier, but just possibly a misogynist.

So her calling the elevator dude sexist was just made up bullshit by you guys then?

 

[faceless007]

She was holding up the guy who asked her out as an example of possibly misogyny and the reaction she got from Dawkins and the internet at large confirms it or her.

"Possible issue of misogny" != "That dude is a misogynistic rapist." Just like "potential rapist" != "rapist. Not that I'm surprised people in this thread don't get that.

 

[Always-honest]

Did she forget we are just primates that have the weirdest and most divers mating rituals/ ways to achieve the passing of genes/ reproduction? She could have just said: sorry stranger, my ovaries say no, but good luck in future attempts.

 

[msv]

She is quite clearly referring to the response from Dawkins and the community at large. You guys are seriously reaching.

You're saying this:

Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community,

Is directed at something she mentioned about Dawkins' comment? Mind showing us what exactly she mentioned then?

 

[thatbox]

"Possible issue of misogny" != "That dude is a misogynistic rapist." Just like "potential rapist" != "rapist. Not that I'm surprised people in this thread don't get that.

Except it is not a possible issue of misogyny, nor is it any kind of unhealthy sexualization or objectification.

 

[Piecake]

Basically, GAF misogynists are falsely libeling her by the looks of it. I still don't see where she directly called this elevator dude sexist or a misogynist.

Then you dont know how to read

Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought

The first part is her clearly referring to the elevator situation, which she describes as misogynistic and objectifying - which sounds pretty sexist and misgoynistic to me. The second part is her saying that the response she got after she posted her story about this dude, confirms that the problem of misogyny and sexism is more widespread than she thought.

 

[tiff]

You're right, she just says he's a sexualizer, and a sexual objectifier, but just possibly a misogynist.

And?

You're reading that last one wrong anyway. She doesn't necessarily say that the elevator issue is an issue of misogyny.

The first part is her clearly referring to the elevator situation, which she describes as misogynistic and objectifying - which sounds pretty sexist and misgoynistic to me.

Wait, what?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

I want to have sex with you and then that's it, you go back to your city and I go back to mine.

The sum total of our interaction will be a sexual encounter plus a cup of coffee.

But I'm not sexualizing you. I'm not regarding you only as a source of anonymous sex. Oh no. There is potentially a cup of coffee involved also, remember. Coffee means I have a high regard for women as at least one thing more than something to have sex with, therefore even though I really obviously don't care about you enough to strike up a conversation before getting you alone in an elevator and asking you to my room, there is no misogyny or objectification here. And don't forget I did ask, and I did take no for an answer! That's because I always respect the person I don't actually even know and never intend to know. The asking part of asking for anonymous sex is all about respect.

 

[nib95]

You're saying this:

Is directed at something she mentioned about Dawkins' comment? Mind showing us what exactly she mentioned then?

Yes, with reference to him in her words believing should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified. Which she likely was.

"Possible issue of misogny" != "That dude is a misogynistic rapist." Just like "potential rapist" != "rapist. Not that I'm surprised people in this thread don't get that.

Don't forget sexist! Sexist too!

I want to have sex with you and then that's it, you go back to your city and I go back to mine.

The sum total of our interaction will be a sexual encounter plus a cup of coffee.

But I'm not sexualizing you. I'm not regarding you only as a source of anonymous sex. Oh no. There is potentially a cup of coffee involved also, remember. Coffee means I have a high regard for women as at least one thing more than something to have sex with, therefore even though I really obviously don't care about you enough to strike up a conversation before getting you alone in an elevator and asking you to my room, there is no misogyny or objectification here. And don't forget I did ask, and I did take no for an answer! That's because I always respect the person I don't actually even know and never intend to know. The asking part of asking for anonymous sex is all about respect.

Lol.

 

[Piecake]

Except it is not a possible issue of misogyny, nor is it any kind of unhealthy sexualization or objectification.

nor is he a potential rapist. Well, I guess he can be, but what a stupid term since pretty much everyone you'd meet would be a potential rapist, potential murderer, potential thief, etc

 

[Mumei]

You're saying this:

Is directed at something she mentioned about Dawkins' comment? Mind showing us what exactly she mentioned then?

No, that's a statement about the man in question - and it was a question of possibly misogyny or objectification, so there's no issue there. I am not disputing that she said that there was a possible issue of misogyny. I am disputing the claims that she called him a rapist, that he was a misogynist, that he was sexually demeaning, etc. Those are different things.

We are agreed that she said that it was a potential issue of misogyny or objectification, as that sentence clearly says that and I was not disputing that in the first place. If you believe she's calling him a misogynistic rapist, however, you need to point out where she said that in a different sentence, because she does not say it there.

And MeBecomingI, I was working on a response to you (since you're still wrong, sadly), but I wanted to run it past someone. I feel like your post exemplifies a problem with a sort of dichotomy I've been noticing in these topics and I wanted to phrase the point well. It might be a bit!

 

[Igo]

I want to have sex with you and then that's it, you go back to your city and I go back to mine.

The sum total of our interaction will be a sexual encounter plus a cup of coffee.

But I'm not sexualizing you. I'm not regarding you only as a source of anonymous sex. Oh no. There is potentially a cup of coffee involved also, remember. Coffee means I have a high regard for women as at least one thing more than something to have sex with, therefore even though I really obviously don't care about you enough to strike up a conversation before getting you alone in an elevator and asking you to my room, there is no misogyny or objectification here. And don't forget I did ask, and I did take no for an answer! That's because I always respect the person I don't actually even know and never intend to know. The asking part of asking for anonymous sex is all about respect.

Hold on, surely you can hold women in high regard whilst also enjoying and pursuing recreational sex. Why would this be considered misogynic?

 

[Arrowgigantic]

what a stupid term since pretty much everyone you'd meet would be a potential rapist, potential murderer, potential thief, etc

If the median value of rape potential was x, he was around 3x right up until she got out of the elevator and the doors closed, and you know this.

 

[faceless007]

Except it is not a possible issue of misogyny, nor is it any kind of unhealthy sexualization or objectification.

Yeah, it's easy for guys used to sexualizing and objectifying women to think that.

OK, non-smart-ass reply: even if I accepted your premise that she's wrong about it being a sexual proposition--why the fuck is the fact that she posted a two-minute vlog saying it was such a big deal? How does that justify this ten-page thread and the outrage it caused? Once again, if you're going to argue that "She should just ignore the irrational haters and get on with her life because the guy really wasn't that much of a threat" how does not apply to this ten-page GAF thread and the people hating on her?

And once again, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that if she had posted the exact same vlog minus the phrase "when men sexualize me in that way" the reaction would have been substantially different.

 

[Mortrialus]

Don't forget sexist! Sexist too!

Accusing him of being a misogynist is, by definition, accusing him of being sexist.

 

[devilhawk]

This really blew up months ago and for many reasons beyond Dawkins or even her initial Youtube video. Watson has made many enemies and become particularity divisive towards many in the community. Here is a blog from a female skeptic that was called out unfairly by Watson. Watson has no problem self-admittedly sexualizing and objectifying men and other women. She also has no problem hijacking unrelated conferences and podcasts to complain about it when it happens (debatable) to her.

 

[Mumei]

nor is he a potential rapist. Well, I guess he can be, but what a stupid term since pretty much everyone you'd meet would be a potential rapist, potential murderer, potential thief, etc

It is not stupid. One in six American women is sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That means that there are a lot of rapists out there (about one-in-sixty if every rapist has 10 victims, for instance). The prudent thing for a woman to do is to assume that every man is a potential sexual predator.

The woman in question had no way of knowing that this man was not a rapist. Suppose she had gone up to his room for coffee and been sexually assaulted. I would be willing to bet that if she said she had been sexually assaulted, the same GAFfers who were calling her an uptight bitch earlier in the topic would be saying that there's no way she would go to his room at 4:00 in the morning if it weren't for sex, that they probably had consensual sex and she regretted it after the fact and cried rape, and would be making up scenarios in which she led him on, flirted with him, etc.

Yes, it is true that he probably was not going to do anything of the sort, and that even if he were interested in her that he would take no for an answer. But she does not know that, and putting her in that situation was not the appropriate thing for him to do. She was explaining that it made her uncomfortable as a single woman alone in an elevator with just him; I don't see what the difficulty is with understanding that in that scenario a woman might feel unsafe.

I might be being a bit too speculative, but I have been getting the feeling that there are some people who are sympathetic to the guy in question and would themselves have preferred to wait until she was alone and asked her privately if she wanted to have coffee in their room for conversation - and would have meant that and nothing more - and feel offended by the idea that she would have found them to be uncomfortable and potentially threatening in that scenario. Am I completely off-base here or is that the case?

 

[Piecake]

If the median value of rape potential was x, he was around 3x right up until she got out of the elevator and the doors closed, and you know this.

That's just idiotic. Nothing happened and he calmly left after being rejected. There was no possibility of rape because nothing happened. I'm sorry, but I live in the real world where stuff actually needs to happen to matter.

Would it be a smart idea for her to go up to his room without thinking that sex would likely take place? No, but that still doesnt make him a potential rapist. Well, again, I guess it does since everyone could be considered a potential whatever.

It is not stupid. One in six American women is sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That means that there are a lot of rapists out there (about one-in-sixty if every rapist has 10 victims, for instance). The prudent thing for a woman to do is to assume that every man is a potential sexual predator.

I find that a sad and depressing world view. I'm sorry, but I am not going to live my life in fear. Should I be afraid of every young, black man since they are statistically more likely to commit a violent crime? Should I carry around a gun everywhere so that I can feel 'safe'?

Screw that. I'm not going to be a fucking idiot about it by putting myself in dangerous situations, but I'm not going to be constantly wary about someone trying to kill or mug me.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I would like to note that she does not like being sexualized "in that manner." I don't think she is as joyless as some would suggest.

 

[thatbox]

Yeah, it's easy for guys used to sexualizing and objectifying women to think that.

Way to keep it classy.

OK, non-smart-ass reply: even if I accepted your premise that she's wrong about it being a sexual proposition--why the fuck is the fact that she posted a two-minute vlog saying it was such a big deal? How does that justify this ten-page thread and the outrage it caused? Once again, if you're going to argue that "She should just ignore the irrational haters and get on with her life because the guy really wasn't that much of a threat" how does not apply to this ten-page GAF thread and the people hating on her?

I don't care what she does beyond falsely categorizing this interaction - this is, incidentally, the same thing that Dawkins seized on. He feels that calling things like this sexist/misogynistic/etc. is harmful to the cause of fighting actual sexism/misogyny/etc. His response was absolutely overly caustic, but that's Dawkins.

And once again, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that if she had posted the exact same vlog minus the phrase "when men sexualize me in that way" the reaction would have been substantially different.

I disagree. If she hadn't attempted to turn the incident into a feminist issue, nobody else would be arguing that it isn't. People relate socially awkward situations on their blogs all the time without trying to escalate normal, trivial social interactions into massive social commentary. Someone politely hitting on someone else is not inherently wrong, regardless of the sexes and genders involved.

 

[msv]

OK, non-smart-ass reply: even if I accepted your premise that she's wrong about it being a sexual proposition--why the fuck is the fact that she posted a two-minute vlog saying it was such a big deal? How does that justify this ten-page thread and the outrage it caused? Once again, if you're going to argue that "She should just ignore the irrational haters and get on with her life because the guy really wasn't that much of a threat" how does not apply to this ten-page GAF thread and the people hating on her?

It's NOT a big deal that she vlogged about it. It's NOT a big deal that Dawkins commented on her (with a sound argument, though flamey/trollingly). It IS a big deal that she's gunning for boycotting Dawkins' books, it IS a big deal that there's this incredibly stupid and misguided article in the OP, it IS a big deal that she's mentioning her paranoia and actual sexual assault in the same breadth. All around it's ridiculous.

 

[electroshockwave]

It is not stupid. One in six American women is sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That means that there are a lot of rapists out there (about one-in-sixty if every rapist has 10 victims, for instance). The prudent thing for a woman to do is to assume that every man is a potential sexual predator.

Assuming that your 1 in 6 figure is correct I'd say it was including all forms of sexual assault not just full-blown rape.

 

[Zabka]

This guy must have been seriously ugly

 

[thatbox]

It is not stupid. One in six American women is sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That means that there are a lot of rapists out there (about one-in-sixty if every rapist has 10 victims, for instance). The prudent thing for a woman to do is to assume that every man is a potential sexual predator.

The woman in question had no way of knowing that this man was not a rapist. Suppose she had gone up to his room for coffee and been sexually assaulted. I would be willing to bet that if she said she had been sexually assaulted, the same GAFfers who were calling her an uptight bitch earlier in the topic would be saying that there's no way she would go to his room at 4:00 in the morning if it weren't for sex, that they probably had consensual sex and she regretted it after the fact and cried rape, and would be making up scenarios in which she led him on, flirted with him, etc.

Yes, it is true that he probably was not going to do anything of the sort, and that even if he were interested in her that he would take no for an answer. But she does not know that, and putting her in that situation was not the appropriate thing for him to do. She was explaining that it made her uncomfortable as a single woman alone in an elevator with just him; I don't see what the difficulty is with understanding that in that scenario a woman might feel unsafe.

I might be being a bit too speculative, but I have been getting the feeling that there are some people who are sympathetic to the guy in question and would themselves have preferred to wait until she was alone and asked her privately if she wanted to have coffee in their room for conversation - and would have meant that and nothing more - and feel offended by the idea that she would have found them to be uncomfortable and potentially threatening in that scenario. Am I completely off-base here or is that the case?

I don't take issue with anyone feeling uncomfortable in her situation. I take issue with claiming that this event has anything to do with harmful sexual objectification or misogyny.

 

[nib95]

Accusing him of being a misogynist is, by definition, accusing him of being sexist.

Firstly, I still stand by my belief that her "possible issue of misogyny" comment was directed at Dawkins and the community at large, but in any case, you guys fabricating "possibly misogynistic issue" to her calling him sexist is just laughable, ironic and a little bit pathetic to tell the truth. As is turning potential rapist (obviously still potentially, though not likely true) to her calling someone an outright rapist

I don't take issue with anyone feeling uncomfortable in her situation. I take issue with claiming that this event has anything to do with harmful sexual objectification or misogyny.

Out of curiosity did she use the word 'harmful' or is this something else made up? In any case, sexual objectification and its impacts is a mainly subjective matter.

 

[Mumei]

I find that a sad and depressing world view. I'm sorry, but I am not going to live my life in fear. Should I be afraid of every young, black man since they are statistically more likely to commit a violent crime? Should I carry around a gun everywhere so that I can feel 'safe'?

Screw that. I'm not going to be a fucking idiot about it by putting myself in dangerous situations, but I'm not going to be constantly wary about someone trying to kill or mug me.

This is not about how you live your life or convincing you that you need to be afraid of X or Y. It's about your apparent inability to empathize with the way that someone else experiences a scenario in a different way from the way you do, and that because your circumstances are different, a situation that you find nonthreatening might be one that someone else finds threatening.

And I think the more appropriate comparison for you to make would be to say that you don't live your life in fear of rape or sexual assault. Why don't you? I would imagine that it is because you are a man and outside of certain contexts (mostly involving incarceration) you are not likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. This is precisely the point I am trying to make - a situation you find non-threatening (man approaching you in an elevator for coffee) is one that a woman might find threatening (man who has been watching you in a bar follows you alone into an elevator and asks you to coffee; is he potentially dangerous?). It is the same scenario, but because you are different genders with different perceptions of risk of sexual assault, you view it differently.

I think that what you should do is try to understand and respect that difference in perspective as opposed to what you are doing.

I don't take issue with anyone feeling uncomfortable in her situation. I take issue with claiming that this event has anything to do with harmful sexual objectification or misogyny.

I take the position that it has something to do with sexual objectification or misogyny, myself. If nothing else, the fact that he was probably sexualizing her (and let's be honest - if she had gone to his room and been sexually assaulted, there would be GAFfers claiming that the only reason you'd go to someone's hotel room in a new city who you didn't know at 4:00 AM would be for casual sex) and did so in a manner that made her uncomfortable suggests a lack of concern about her feelings. I'd argue that there was some element of objectification going on in that scenario.

I do not think that sort of objectification is something done maliciously; I think that he was probably genuinely unaware of how he might be coming across and that what she did - an attempt at consciousness-raising - was the appropriate response for bringing that issue to the wider attention of people within the community.

 

[nib95]

This is not about how you live your life or convincing you that you need to be afraid of X or Y. It's about your apparent inability to empathize with the way that someone else experiences a scenario in a different way from the way you do, and that because your circumstances are different, a situation that you find nonthreatening might be one that someone else finds threatening.

And I think the more appropriate comparison for you to make would be to say that you don't live your life in fear of rape or sexual assault. Why don't you? I would imagine that it is because you are a man and outside of certain contexts (mostly involving incarceration) you are not likely to be raped or sexually assaulted. This is precisely the point I am trying to make - a situation you find non-threatening (man approaching you in an elevator for coffee) is one that a woman might find threatening (man who has been watching you in a bar follows you alone into an elevator and asks you to coffee; is he potentially dangerous?). It is the same scenario, but because you are different genders with different perceptions of risk of sexual assault, you view it differently.

I think that what you should do is try to understand and respect that difference in perspective as opposed to what you are doing.

Fantastic post. Well said.

 

[Mortrialus]

Firstly, I still stand by my belief that her "possible issue of misogyny" comment was directed at Dawkins and the community at large, but in any case, you guys fabricating "possibly misogynistic issue" to her calling him sexist is just laughable, ironic and a little bit pathetic to tell the truth. As is turning potential rapist (obviously still potentially, though not likely true) to her calling someone an outright rapist




Out of curiosity did she use the word 'harmful' or is this something else made up? In any case, sexual objectification and its impacts is a mainly subjective matter.

This:

And when you ask if Dawkins or Christina have engaged in the same behaviour, do you mean criticising someone in a talk who has a smaller audience than themselves? Because if that's the case, then the answer is unequivocally yes. Regardless, it's irrelevant. Dawkins or Christina have never to my knowledge dismissed misogynist thinking, but I do not use that as the reason to argue that your post was in the wrong.

Update:

Sorry, a bit late in the evening and mistyped: should say, "dismissed feminist thinking," or "propagated misogynist thinking" if you prefer.

Was in response to this:

My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’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.”

She attacked Stef McGraw for "dismissing misogynistic attitudes." Who was she defending? The man who asked Watson out. Watson clearly feels the man who asked her out has misogynistic attitudes.