Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

I'll let you in on a secret, I said it just to get him to confront his own ideas of how women might have a range of feelings about sex with strangers. And then that other dude piped in that his mom was a whore, and another dude changed his mind real quick about which women are supposed to have sex with strangers, which was really elucidating.

Wow, haha. Man, you are delusional.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

What's wrong with asking politely?

It is weird that so many people do not know the answer to this.

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

"45% of those taking the survey reported having a one night stand."

From the 2003 Durex Sex Survey, checked their site, doesn't seem that they asked it during their most recent survey.

But I think we can all agree that 2003 is recent enough for us to say approx. 45% of people today have had a one night stand.

 

[Salazar]

Saying that women in the West shouldn't complain about any sexism they experience because their clits aren't being cut off isn't out of line?

Mind-boggling that the described scenario is being characterised as an instance of sexism. I think that's what Dawkins was polemically trying to express.

 

[Piecake]

It is weird that so many people do not know the answer to this.

I know. I find it odd as well

 

[Zaptruder]

skepchick riding Dawkin's coattails over a slip of social graces.

World keeps moving on.

 

[Always-honest]

Sounds like one of those over-sensitive gaf discussions.

 

[Always-honest]

It is weird that so many people do not know the answer to this.

So answer the poor guy instead of acting like a know it all.

 

[travisbickle]

The last page is showing the true sexists on GAF.


Nib 95, Matthew Gallant and a few other GAFers who agree with them need to read The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer, a very significant feminist voice.

 

[Salazar]

The last page is showing the true sexists on GAF.

Knew I shouldn't have posted.

 

[faceless007]

BTW, there's something a lot of people are getting wrong--I don't personally think it really affects the issue drastically, but it's important to get the facts straight: she had not spoken to the guy at all prior to him coming up to her in the elevator.

 

[greycolumbus]

I reeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaalllllly think you're being disingenuous by portraying the backlash against Watson as being restricted to that. Watch the first five minutes of this speech where she reads some of the e-mails she's gotten. True, I don't know precisely whether those e-mails were sent in response to her YouTube or in response to something she said after that. I also don't give a shit, because it doesn't matter.

I thankfully don't subscribe to backlash similar to any of those emails.

Saying that women in the West shouldn't complain about any sexism they experience because their clits aren't being cut off isn't out of line? I beg to differ. Dawkins hasn't been burned stoned to death as an infidel, therefore he shouldn't complain about Rick Perry, right? I don't know what you mean by "especially for him"; disingenuous and straw man points don't suddenly become not those things just because Richard Dawkins is making them.

His response was to be expected. Also, I believe your severely reducing his point.

The double standard here is mind-boggling. First off, I'm boggled as to, as you admit, a two-minute digression in the middle of an otherwise benign 8-minute vlog that she clearly didn't even think would erupt as it did could possibly be "opportunistic." Precisely what zeitgiest or phenomenon or anything was she cunningly planning to exploit with that cleverly constructed message, and to what end? Yes, she used it as an anecdote to make a larger point, because it was salient and relevant to the point. Is it the most misogynistic act ever committed by man? Of course not. But Dawkins argues Watson should stop her bitching because it isn't, and Watson is the reductionist one?

Yes, she used it as an anecdote to make a larger point, because it was salient and relevant to the point

I disagree.

Second, you vindicate Watson's behavior as being motivated by the effect it "caused in the online skeptic community," as if--and I admit I'm not terribly familiar with that community--that justifies what he wrote. I don't understand why an online community is somehow a worthy end that justifies the means, but putting that aside: Whose fault is it that it blew up? Hers, or the hundreds/thousands? of bloggers, youtubers, twitterrrs, emailers who decided to act like she had asked them cut their balls off?

Its part of the reason why I mostly only observe the community. This blog goes in depth. This quote encapsulates my stance:

What the fuck are we accomplishing? Chris Stedman and JT Eberhard spent a week bickering about who the hell knows what. We're rallying about having "under God" in our pledge. Rebecca-gate is now saturating the atheist blogosphere. Meanwhile, the secular movement collectively sat on its ass while New York tried to pass gay marriage. We sat on our asses while Iowa (and a host of other states) tried to end abortion for poor, raped women.

Since I haven't heard the podcast I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but unless the podcast was recorded in Saudi Arabia I have a hard time understanding the point that with her on as a guest there was any matter for which it was not the "time or place." They had her on, presumably to talk about whatever the fuck she wanted to talk about.

She's a regular on the show and that particular episode was essentially halted to discuss Watson's experience.

And of course, if a few minutes on a podcast are not the time or place, nor a personal YouTube blog, I'm very curious to know what you think the proper time and place is for a women to express aggrievement at feeling unwillingly sexually objectified. Can't have such complaints expressed where it isn't proper.

Just to be even clearer: I have nothing against Watson using her vlog as a platform.

 

[Spokker]

it's important to get the facts straight:

Facts? We don't even know if this really happened as described or whether it happened at all. We are arguing as if one woman's account of an event is true. We can't compare two versions of the same story. We don't have witness accounts. We don't have audio or video. We don't have independent statistics. And that's all fine. It doesn't stop us from discussing the issue and it shouldn't, but it's also strange to say we need to get the facts straight. What facts?

 

[Vagabundo]

Facts? We don't even know if this really happened as described or whether it happened at all. We are arguing as if one woman's account of an event is true. We can't compare two versions of the same story. We don't have witness accounts. We don't have audio or video. We don't have independent statistics. And that's all fine. It doesn't stop us from discussing the issue and it shouldn't, but it's also strange to say we need to get the facts straight. What facts?

The dirty woman hating stalker made sure of that...

He's probably a pedo too.

 

[nib95]

"45% of those taking the survey reported having a one night stand."

From the 2003 Durex Sex Survey, checked their site, doesn't seem that they asked it during their most recent survey.

But I think we can all agree that 2003 is recent enough for us to say approx. 45% of people today have had a one night stand.

I'm completely willing to accept that. And I appreciate you posting this (though a link would have been nice, but I believe you either way). I would say though, one night stands probably do not often start the way the guy in question tried to initiate it. Which was bold and awkward to say the least. Watch/prowl, follow to elevator, once closed, ask up to room for coffee and 'chat'(?). A bit forward and detached by any standards. And still, imo creepy.

 

[faceless007]

His response was to be expected.

I didn't know Dawkins could be expected to make disingenuous and bogus false dichotomy arguments, but that's good to know.

Also, I believe your severely reducing his point.

It was a letter to a fictional Muslim girl mocking Watson's complaint because the Muslim girl's ordeals are obviously far worse. What am I missing?

I disagree.

You also didn't answer the question.

What the fuck are we accomplishing? Chris Stedman and JT Eberhard spent a week bickering about who the hell knows what. We're rallying about having "under God" in our pledge. Rebecca-gate is now saturating the atheist blogosphere. Meanwhile, the secular movement collectively sat on its ass while New York tried to pass gay marriage. We sat on our asses while Iowa (and a host of other states) tried to end abortion for poor, raped women.

Then I ask, once again, who the fuck's fault is that? She certainly didn't ask for or expect the amount of attention her brief digression in a vlog received. There was absolutely nothing stopping every single blogger, writer, or skeptic activist from watching her vlog and thinking "Who gives a shit?" before continuing their apparently elaborate and well-organized plans that month to protest Iowa's abortion law and "under God" in the pledge and whatever else they were planning. The idea that Watson's anecdote was so powerfully in need of correction as to reduce the entire skeptic community to a mass of sputtering, gnashing, threatened guys who needed to defend that most important of all freedoms, the right to hit on complete strangers in elevators, bringing all other activity to a halt, and that that's somehow her fault is absurd.

Of course, I again think you're being disingenuous by claiming that Dawkins's juvenile retort was not actually meant to lampoon Watson specifically but rather the larger skeptic community and to shame them into going back to the real issues, though I can't prove that one way or the other.

She's a regular on the show and that particular episode was essentially halted to discuss Watson's experience.

Unless I'm mistaken, your dislike is based not on what she said or how she said it or what the value of what she said is, but based solely on where she said it?

 

[Piecake]

It was a letter to a fictional Muslim girl mocking Watson's complaint because the Muslim girl's ordeals are obviously far worse. What am I missing?

That you can't describe Watson's experience as an ordeal?

 

[Spokker]

I would say though, one night stands probably do not often start the way the guy in question tried to initiate it. Which was bold and awkward to say the least. Watch/prowl, follow to elevator, once closed, ask up to room for coffee and 'chat'(?).

She also said that he said he thinks she's interesting, according to her factual account.

He was actually part of the group in the bar, apparently. He also never talked to her while part of that group according to the factual facts. My speculation follows. He might have been enamored with her and her beliefs and so he was nervous because of that, maybe even more so because of those feminist views. Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy and he wasn't actually asking her up to his room to try to put the moves on her, but actually wanted to talk. Or maybe he wanted to get her up to his room and slit her throat.

But he encountered a situation in which he was immediately held suspect because of his gender. He was forced to represent all of the awful things men have done, while he may have been the sweetest guy on Earth.

And I'm okay with that, personally. I couldn't give less of a shit, actually. If a woman evacuates the sidewalk because I'm walking in the same direction as her, hey, more sidewalk for me. I'm not offended. A case can be made for statistical discrimination if that's what you truly believe.

The only thing that really troubles me about it is the hypocrisy of it all, that it's somehow okay to make individual men responsible for all of the evil deeds men have done but it's not okay to do the same for various ethnic groups or even women. Women, after all, are responsible for most of the domestic violence against children and mothers just love to kill their own children. We are reminded of this by incidents both high-profile (Casey Anthony) and low-profile (when a Hispanic woman does it).

I personally don't put much value in political correctness, and I definitely don't feel it has any worth at 4AM when you feel uncomfortable and just want to be safe than sorry. I simply feel that if it's okay to place the worst of intentions on a man in an elevator at 4AM, it should also be okay to decide not to visit the gas station where two young black men are hanging out with nary another car in sight at 4AM, and visit another gas station instead that has more people actually using it for its intended purpose. "Come on, black guys, you just don't do this. It's creepy."

If we really want to discriminate, let's shed all the pretenses and really discriminate our asses off.

 

[Vagabundo]

S

But he encountered a situation in which he was immediately held suspect because of his gender. He was forced to represent all of the awful things men have done, while he may have been the sweetest guy on Earth. .

Are you accusing her of being sexist?

 

[Spokker]

Are you accusing her of being sexist?

It's not an accusation when it's coming from me.

 

[Salazar]

And feeling lastingly "sexually objectified" by a stranger's conversational approach is, I would generally suggest, signing away an awful lot of your subjectivity.

 

[Vagabundo]

It's not an accusation when it's coming from me.

I believe you could be a philogynist. You dirty dirty philogynist.

And feeling lastingly "sexually objectified" by a stranger's conversational approach is, I would generally suggest, signing away an awful lot of your subjectivity.

It's a given that some women believe that all men have "that" on their mind all the time. That they are just walking gonads.

 

[Salazar]

Dawkins, as a young man in Oxford, probably had an awful lot of invitations back to rooms for coffee. Not all, perhaps not even most, from ladies.

 

[nib95]

Can you blame women for being so cautious though? With all the sexualisation (sex, women, sex) and fearmongering in US media, the stories of date raping, spiked drinks and rape, it's no wonder some women are a bit more hesitant to just follow some random guy up to his room after an elevator meet.

I guess it brings about a whole new debate. Is it wrong of me to be more cautious when I'm passing a bunch of young yobs at night, or am I discriminating? If some women comes up to me and tells me she wants coffee in my hotel room for a chat am I wrong in thinking she wants to come up for sex?

Honestly, I think Rebecca's post/point was perfectly valid and appreciable. Very easy for us as men to try and force opinions on how women should feel about guys trying it on them (especially in awkward situations like this), but unfortunately we simply cannot always relate. Since the experiences, challenges, fears, dangers etc are different to us than them. I don't think women are as aggressively sexually predatorily motivated as men either (usually, but not always lol). That's not being sexist either, just me trying to be understanding to the fact that men and women do face differences in these sorts of scenario's.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

This is what you get when you dress up highly intelligent apes in clothes and force them to deny their own sexuality. We are sexual animals and our primal desire to reproduce colours all of our actions... of course men are made to feel bad about being sexual creatures and so we learn to repress it. That is when it comes out in awkward and inappropriate moments.

 

[Vagabundo]

Dawkins, as a young man in Oxford, probably had an awful lot of invitations back to rooms for coffee. Not all, perhaps not even most, from ladies.

I'd guess it was probably for "Tea", not "Coffee"... nudge nudge..

 

[faceless007]

It's a given that some women believe that all men have "that" on their mind all the time. That they are just walking gonads.

Post a picture of a mildly attractive woman anywhere on GAF in any context, for any reason. What do you think will be the first word that gets posted after it?

 

[nib95]

Post a picture of a mildly attractive woman anywhere on GAF in any context, for any reason. What do you think will be the first word that gets posted after it?

Exactly, unfortunately we DO have that on our minds a vast majority of the time lol. And come on guys, like you guys don't sexually or physically judge every women you lay eyes on.

Bet one of the first things you think is, yea hot, no not, hmm average looking etc lol. I think it's almost instinctive. Not saying it will necessarily change how you are with someone, but I think most guys love to perve or at least have a quick gander...

 

[Spokker]

Can you blame women for being so cautious though?

Absolutely not. The NRA has been targeting women by feeding them statistics that aren't necessarily incorrect in an attempt to arm them. Throw a firearm into your purse and you'll have a fighting chance. Unfortunately they might end up using those guns on their kids once the postpartum depression kicks in. Whoops.

It's a great strategy if you wish to live your life in fear. The media certainly helps cultivate the justification for living your life in fear but all one has to do is look at the statistics. Look at who commits crimes and the types of crimes they commit. Play the numbers and you may appear insensitive to others, but you'll be statistically safer.

If it's going to be about individual comfort levels, then let's apply this philosophy equally. No one will ever have to feel uncomfortable again.

Post a picture of a mildly attractive woman anywhere on GAF in any context, for any reason. What do you think will be the first word that gets posted after it?

That's bannable now. See, we're making progress.

 

[Salazar]

Post a picture of a mildly attractive woman anywhere on GAF in any context, for any reason. What do you think will be the first word that gets posted after it?

You believe GAF is a remotely adequate representation of the male psyche ?

 

[MeBecomingI]

What the fuck?

(1) In an elevator, a guy politely asks a girl for coffee. She declines, end of conversation.

(2) Next day, the girl makes a video blog on how criminal it was for the guy to dare to politely ask her for coffee.

(3) Dawkins calls her out on it, juxtaposing this supposed "wrong" with some of the more serious and brutal wrongs in the world to show how absurd it is.

(4) Dawkins is called a racist, chauvanistic "bufoon" whose comments show he cares not for those that "live in fear of rape".

What a load of complete bullshit.

This is effectively the best summary of the story and the entire direction of the conversation. Essentially, I put together those exact four points in my head reading the (absolutely fucking abysmal) article.

"Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

I think it is perfectly understandable that after she had just expressed discomfiture at being treated in that manner at the hotel bar she was at and had just said to the group of people she had been talking to that she was leaving to go to bed that for him to follow her onto the elevator and ask her into his room might make her uncomfortable. That's all she said, and for that she had male chauvinists arguing that she deserved to be raped. She made a polite point that his behavior in that context made her uncomfortable and that it wasn't appreciated.

Well, in my opinion, the problem with this is the fact that she said "sexualize me in that manner." At no point did the guy make an obvious or outright attempt to "sexualize" her. She is making a possibly honest request for coffee to discuss the conference as an attempt to "sexualize her" in whatever way she understands that to be. Rebecca, in this instance, appears to be taking his comments and making it sexual for her own purpose of making an issue... Honestly, most of this entire "scandal" would be entirely moot and devoid of name calling and controversy had she refrained from bringing up the point of sexualizing. She made the entire interaction between them appear sexually aggressive... and even from her description, it wasn't.

Finally, people arguing that she deserved to be raped are pathetic and they have no place in discussing the actual issue if all they are going to do is advocate rape... utterly disgusting.

As for the reasons why Richard Dawkins was actually criticized, read this. It is a basic issue of differing perspectives. Women have to deal with this reality:

From her perspective, this was a strange man in a foreign country approaching her at four in the morning after following her away from the crowd and alone onto an elevator. She explained quite politely that regardless of what his intentions actually were, this made her uncomfortable. That's it. Dawkins' arguments amounted to "rape doesn't happen on elevators" and "she had no reason to feel uncomfortable" and "she had no reason to complain."

Reasonable for her to be uncomfortable? Absolutely, because she can feel whatever she felt at that point. Necessary to head to her blog and make it an attack on her? No. I don't think that (and I can't speak for him, but I will input my thoughts on the matter) Dawkin's arguments were amounting to "rape doesn't happen on elevators" or the like, because he was pointing out that she was making this a bigger issue that it really is; especially when many Muslim women are suffering the things that Dawkin's emphasizes in his comment and they may or may not have the ability to take those issues to a popular blog... So, Rebecca taking to her popular blog to denounce men in an elevator approaching her for coffee and saying that it was an attempt to sexualize her was where the issues I think stemmed for Dawkin's; hence saying she should stop whining. People saying Dawkin's is racist, sexist or whatever else they are slinging at him are not helping... and probably making it worse for everyone - not to mention completely ignorant and illogical.

I don't really see what is so complicated about this. For instance, I would think that if he had asked her at the bar around other people, before she left the bar and got onto the elevator, that she would have said (again) that she was tired and ready to go to bed, and that would've been the end of it. It was the following onto the elevator and waiting until they were alone part that made her uncomfortable, not the mere fact of being spoken to or being asked. And she framed this merely as an issue of etiquette and nothing more.

It feels like some of you are completely overreacting to what she said and substituting something it for more onerous.

I think the complication in this issue is that typically discussions regarding feminism, "male privilege," or much of the related stuff pointed out in the article can be misconstrued in every which way at any point in time under any scenario to fit any particular cause. Rebecca could have taken any situation that happened in that elevator or the bar and said the situation was uncomfortable. They could have been flirting back and forth and she was sending signals, and he takes the opportunity to ask her for some coffee to discuss the conference; despite her obvious flirting, she is immediately creeped out and makes a video on her blog about sexualizing her. Hell, they may not have even said anything, and she was immediately creeped out and expressed how creepy guys are in an elevator at 4:00 AM. Now, I'm not saying that she shouldn't be creeped out, but I can't be the one to make that decision for her and she has the right in the world to feel how she wants, but most certainly she could have made that an issue at any point in time no matter the circumstance. No different than it being a man in Rebecca's position and a woman in the guys position; nothing would be different had the gender's changed. Anyone can make anything... well, anything.

Don't get me wrong... I am not defending anyone. I'm also not calling you out, Mumei! You just had a really good post that worked for what I was trying to say. I am just trying to make sense of the scope of the conversation. Frankly, I think the entire thing is absolutely ridiculous. I think everyone is overreacting on all sides. Rebecca, Dawkin's and most of the people who made it an issue when it came around. If anyone disagrees with my view, than so be it. Bed time for me anyway! And for what it is worth... the guy was an idiot and probably should have asked before it was 4:00AM in the elevator. Doh!

 

[greycolumbus]

I didn't know Dawkins could be expected to make disingenuous and bogus false dichotomy arguments, but that's good to know.

No but he could be excepted to make crass comments. I don't believe his allegory was disingenuous or a bogus false dichotomy but I'm willing to hear your reasoning on the topic.

You also didn't answer the question.

See:

Precisely what zeitgiest or phenomenon or anything was she cunningly planning to exploit with that cleverly constructed message, and to what end? Yes, she used it as an anecdote to make a larger point, because it was salient and relevant to the point.

I apologize if I painted her motivations as sinister in any way. To me, as previously stated, it seemed like an offhanded comment albeit opportunistic in support of her views.

Of course not. But Dawkins argues Watson should stop her bitching because it isn't, and Watson is the reductionist one?

I understood Dawkins complaint with Watson's rant as a mockery of the energy put forth regarding the matter, not necessarily a plea for her to "stop her bitching".

Then I ask, once again, who the fuck's fault is that? She certainly didn't ask for or expect the amount of attention her brief digression in a vlog received. There was absolutely nothing stopping every single blogger, writer, or skeptic activist from watching her vlog and thinking "Who gives a shit?" before continuing their apparently elaborate and well-organized plans that month to protest Iowa's abortion law and "under God" in the pledge and whatever else they were planning. The idea that Watson's anecdote was so powerfully in need of correction as to reduce the entire skeptic community to a mass of sputtering, gnashing, threatened guys who needed to defend that most important of all freedoms, the right to hit on complete strangers in elevators, bringing all other activity to a halt, and that that's somehow her fault is absurd.

I never meant to imply that the community's senseless behavior was her fault. I simply disagree that its a point of contention in that specific community.

Of course, I again think you're being disingenuous by claiming that Dawkins's juvenile retort was not actually meant to lampoon Watson specifically but rather the larger skeptic community and to shame them into going back to the real issues, though I can't prove that one way or the other.

I can assure you I'm not being disingenuous. At least you seem to understand my stance on Dawkin's retort, while obviously disagreeing with it. Though I'm not sure if you're implying taking the aforementioned stance is necessarily a "wrong" one, or if I'm--for some reason--justifying being misogynistic in probably the most convoluted fashion possible.

Unless I'm mistaken, your dislike is based not on what she said or how she said it or what the value of what she said is, but based solely on where she said it?

Not solely no.

 

[Vagabundo]

Can you blame women for being so cautious though? With all the sexualisation (sex, women, sex) and fearmongering in US media, the stories of date raping, spiked drinks and rape, it's no wonder some women are a bit more hesitant to just follow some random guy up to his room after an elevator meet.

I guess it brings about a whole new debate. Is it wrong of me to be more cautious when I'm passing a bunch of young yobs at night, or am I discriminating? If some women comes up to me and tells me she wants coffee in my hotel room for a chat am I wrong in thinking she wants to come up for sex?

Honestly, I think Rebecca's post/point was perfectly valid and appreciable. Very easy for us as men to try and force opinions on how women should feel about guys trying it on them (especially in awkward situations like this), but unfortunately we simply cannot relate. Since the experiences, challenges, fears, dangers etc are different to us than them. I don't think women are as aggressively sexually predatorily motivated as men either (usually, but not always lol). That's not being sexist either, just me trying to be understanding to the fact that men and women do face differences in these sorts of scenario's.

I don't think she had a point at all. She made it clear from subsequent posting that she views what he did a misogyny and sexist. Totally disagree, it might have made her feel uncomfortable, it might have been a silly thing to say or do given the circumstance. She was perfectly right to turn him down, but using him as an example "guys don't do that", no. How about we have a rule that people are polite and respectful of each other and keep it at that. Laying on extra layers of "rules" to social interactions is bad for gender equality, and living quality IMO. I say this while watching my 1 year old daughter snooze in her pram.

No, I don't think you are being discriminating by crossing the road or feeling that way. Feelings are fine, got to trust those instincts, you'll be wrong most of the time, but that one time might save you life. She was fine to trust her instincts with him being "creepy" - he probably wasn't, it was probably an innocent invitation - but laying all that crap on his invite is just stupid.

 

[nib95]

You lost me a bit above Spokker, but I haven't slept in donkeys and am wearing down.

My take is that instead of Dawkins telling Rebecca to essentially put a cork in it, it's him or us that should. If we made a poor attempt at a chat up, fumbled and resulted in a women feeling awkward or uncomfortable, boo bloody hoo. Let her rant on and instead up your game, because you clearly have work to do. She felt uncomfortable for a reason, and outside of a few extreme cases, I think given one's approach, you don't have to come off as sexually motivated or creepy.

This guy basically...had no game. And that's his fault not hers. His attempt was, in all honesty, quite laughable. I am not surprised some women would have felt the way Rebecca did. That's part of the risk of chatting ANY girl up. You win some, you lose some. Move on.



P.S Dawkins is still a twat for getting in that un-related and unnecessary two pence on females in Islam thing. Any excuse to show the inner anti-islamic sentiment I guess. Why did she call her self Muslima anyway?

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Exactly, unfortunately we DO have that on our minds a vast majority of the time lol. And come on guys, like you guys don't sexually or physically judge every women you lay eyes on.

Bet one of the first things you think is, yea hot, no not, hmm average looking etc lol. I think it's almost instinctive. Not saying it will necessarily change how you are with someone, but I think most guys love to perve or at least have a quick gander...

You don't think all humans do this very thing to which ever sex they are attracted to?

 

[faceless007]

Exactly, unfortunately we DO have that on our minds a vast majority of the time lol. And come on guys, like you guys don't sexually or physically judge every women you lay eyes on.

You misunderstand, I wasn't defending that behavior.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Post a picture of a mildly attractive woman anywhere on GAF in any context, for any reason. What do you think will be the first word that gets posted after it?

If you don't think women judge men in the same way then you're living in a fantasy world.

In the modern world we are taught that to be a man and to think of women in a sexual way is a bad thing but yet paradoxically we're still expected to be the social instigators when it comes to interactions with the opposite sex.

There seems to be a direct conflict between modern societal expectations of heterosexual interactions and the primal desires that underpin said society. When you have that you have socially confused men who believe they should do one thing when in actual fact they actually want to do something else entirely.

 

[nib95]

If you don't think women judge men in the same way then you're living in a fantasy world.

Of course in the modern world we are taught that to be a man and to think of women in a sexual way is a bad thing but yet paradoxically we're still expected to be the social instigators when it comes to interactions with the opposite sex.

There seems to be a direct conflict between modern societal expectations of heterosexual interactions and the primal desires that underpin said society. When you have that you have socially confused men who believe they should do one thing when in actual fact they actually want to do something else entirely.

Not at all really. I think it's apparent most humans think like this (instinctively sexually analysing others), or at least we're led to believe women do less of it than men, but who really knows. Point is, the notion is there, it's just that most often we're just expected to be more tactful about how we act on those instincts.

I mean, someone above mentioned biology. Biology doesn't mean you throw caution to the wind on morality and decent ethics or practise (obviously opinions on what constitutes those things are variable and a whole different matter). But you can control these things even if biology emphasises it.

I've watched documentaries and read articles that suggest even pedophilia and cannibalism (as examples) could have biological or gene based links. Point is, due to morality and ethics, those pedo's and cannibals would essentially be required to abstain from their desires. Not comparing those outrageous things to men sexualising women, just highlighting the fact that biology does not have to strictly correlate with morality or ethics.

As an example, just because men are biologically very sexually motivated, doesn't mean we should excuse all overly forward or tactless attempts towards women and justify them (especially the failed one's) on biology. Thankfully we have brains, common sense, an entire system of rules, ethics, laws, codes of sensible practise etc to adhere to, to keep things balanced or civil.

.

 

[travisbickle]

The point she made in her talk wasn't that she was disgusted that the man had sexual thoughts and was trying it on with her!

The point was that she made clear her desires: wanting to go to sleep, did not want to talk anymore, she had an early morning start. And the elevator man did not listen to her desires, or ignored them because he wanted to fulfil his own desires.

Most of you are falling into the misogynist trap that she would not desire to have sex with a stranger, who knows? I am not going to speculate or judge, but at that point she wanted to sleep and the elevator man ignored this.

 

[Walshicus]

If you don't think women judge men in the same way then you're living in a fantasy world.

In the modern world we are taught that to be a man and to think of women in a sexual way is a bad thing but yet paradoxically we're still expected to be the social instigators when it comes to interactions with the opposite sex.

There seems to be a direct conflict between modern societal expectations of heterosexual interactions and the primal desires that underpin said society. When you have that you have socially confused men who believe they should do one thing when in actual fact they actually want to do something else entirely.

That's a pretty interesting way of looking at it.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Not at all really. I think it's apparent most humans think like this (instinctively sexually analysing others), or at least we're led to believe women do less of it than men, but who really knows. Point is, the notion is there, it's just that most often we're just expected to be more tactful about how we act on those instincts.

I mean, someone above mentioned biology. Biology doesn't mean you throw caution to the wind on morality and decent ethics or practise (obviously opinions on what constitutes those things are variable and a whole different matter). But you can control these things even if biology emphasises it.

I've watched documentaries and read articles that suggest even pedophilia and cannibalism (as examples) could have biological or gene based links. Point is, due to morality and ethics, those pedo's and cannibals would essentially be required to abstain from their desires. Not comparing those outrageous things to men sexualising women, just highlighting the fact that biology does not have to strictly correlate with morality or ethics.

As an example, just because men are biologically very sexually motivated, doesn't mean we should excuse all overly forward or tactless attempts towards women and justify the them (especially the failed one's) on biology. Thankfully we have brains, common sense and an entire system of rules, ethics, laws, practise etc to adhere to, to keep things balanced.

You need a balance between the biological imperative to reproduce and intellectualism.

The people that have the most trouble with women (or men) tend to be very intellectual, so when they are influenced by their biology they don't know how to act upon it because they are so used to denying it. That's why you get awkward and uncomfortable moments... and sexual frustration.

 

[Mumei]

Well, in my opinion, the problem with this is the fact that she said "sexualize me in that manner." At no point did the guy make an obvious or outright attempt to "sexualize" her. She is making a possibly reasonable and honest request for coffee to discuss the conference as an attempt to "sexualize her" in whatever way she understands that to be. Rebecca, in this instance, appears to be taking his comments and making it sexual for her own purpose of making an issue... Honestly, most of this entire "scandal" would be entirely moot and devoid of name calling and controversy had she refrained from bringing up the point of sexualizing. She made the entire interaction between them appear sexually aggressive... and even from her description, it wasn't.

It is perhaps true that from a reading of the dialogue presented that you might get the impression that there was nothing overtly sexualizing about the encounter. However, she was under the impression that it was (and can hardly be blamed for thinking so, given the circumstances, location, and his behavior prior to speaking to her). I think that the reasonable thing to do in this situation is to take her at her word that she was being sexualized as opposed to changing the facts to suit the narrative you are trying to produce.

Reasonable for her to be uncomfortable? Absolutely, because she can feel whatever she felt at that point. Necessary to head to her blog and make it an attack on her? No. I don't think that (and I can't speak for him, but I will input my thoughts on the matter) Dawkin's arguments were amounting to "rape doesn't happen on elevators" or the like, because he was pointing out that she was making this a bigger issue that it really is; especially when many Muslim women are suffering the things that Dawkin's emphasizes in his comment and they may or may not have the ability to take those issues to a popular blog... So, Rebecca taking to her popular blog to denounce men in an elevator approaching her for coffee and saying that it was an attempt to sexualize her was where the issues I think stemmed for Dawkin's; hence saying she should stop whining. People saying Dawkin's is racist, sexist or whatever else they are slinging at him are not helping... and probably making it worse for everyone - not to mention completely ignorant and illogical.

Yes, actually. There are women who happen to find the sort of behavior that that man engaged in to be offputting, creepy, or even vaguely threatening. It seems rather clear from the response to this topic that there are many men who sympathize with the way this man approached her, do not view it as an issue, and would try to do it themselves. Therefore I would think that her pointing out that, "Hey, this makes me really uncomfortable and you probably shouldn't do it if you care about how I feel," would be taken as good advice for the future. She did not name him or humiliate him; they are the only two people who know who he was at this point.

Dawkins' argument did (partially) boil down to "rape doesn't happen in elevators." He argued that a person is not trapped on an elevator because one can simply press a button, be brought to the appropriate floor and the doors will open. This was in response to arguments that she had reason to feel somewhat unsafe in that situation. It clearly shows a degree of privilege of someone who does not have to worry about rape and ignorance about the reality of sexual assault and rape on elevators. And he said quite clearly that his point was that the situation was not, in his view, a "slightly bad thing" but a "zero bad" thing. This is not for him to determine. If a woman feels uncomfortable with the way another person approaches her, she should say so. If that person has an interest in whether she is comfortable, he should change his behavior. And naturally this sort of behavior should work in both directions.

I think the complication in this issue is that typically discussions regarding feminism, "male privilege," or much of the related stuff pointed out in the article can be misconstrued in every which way at any point in time under any scenario to fit any particular cause. Rebecca could have taken any situation that happened in that elevator or the bar and said the situation was uncomfortable. They could have been flirting back and forth and she was sending signals, and he takes the opportunity to ask her for some coffee to discuss the conference; despite her obvious flirting, she is immediately creeped out and makes a video on her blog about sexualizing her. Hell, they may not have even said anything, and she was immediately creeped out and expressed how creepy guys are in an elevator at 4:00 AM. Now, I'm not saying that she shouldn't be creeped out, but I can't be the one to make that decision for her and she has the right in the world to feel how she wants, but most certainly she could have made that an issue at any point in time no matter the circumstance. No different than it being a man in Rebecca's position and a woman in the guys position; nothing would be different had the gender's changed. Anyone can make anything... well, anything.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this paragraph was; you seem to be making up various scenarios in which she was flirting with him and therefore shouldn't have been surprised that he hit on her. I don't see what the point of these scenarios are given that we have no reason to presume that she has lied in her how presentation of what took place.

Don't get me wrong... I am not defending anyone. I'm also not calling you out, Mumei! You just had a really good post that worked for what I was trying to say. I am just trying to make sense of the scope of the conversation. Frankly, I think the entire thing is absolutely ridiculous. I think everyone is overreacting on all sides. Rebecca, Dawkin's and most of the people who made it an issue when it came around. If anyone disagrees with my view, than so be it. Bed time for me anyway!

I think you need to rewatch her initial video - in which she calmly and politely stated that his behavior made her uncomfortable and that, for future reference, she would appreciate it if other men did not do the same thing. What Richard Dawkins said in response was an overreaction to that mild comment.

And thank you, I rather liked my post, too!

 

[nib95]

You need a balance between the biological imperative to reproduce and intellectualism.

The people that have the most trouble with women (or men) tend to be very intellectual, so when they are influenced by their biology they don't know how to act upon it because they are so used to denying it. That's why you get awkward and uncomfortable moments... and sexual frustration.

I think you're giving these people way too much leeway and credit. Some people are just socially awkward. Often they stay in-doors too often instead of socialising, other times they just lack the confidence either because of parenting, peers, priorities in hobbies or interests, events that have happened in life, their physical appearance etc, but I think you're analysing it too strongly within the context of this particular subject.

I'm not sure it has to do with them being forced to surpress or deny their sexual desires. Others manage just fine (the confident more social one's). I personally think confidence comes best with practise and/or a degree of arrogance/apathy (within reason). Some people are a bit cowardly by nature, and the fear of being turned down often dictates their confidence when it comes to talking with or approaching women.

.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I think you're giving these people way too much leeway and credit. Some people are just socially awkward. Often they stay in-doors too often instead of socialising, other times they just lack the confidence either because of parenting, peers, events that have happened in life, their physical appearance etc, but I think you're analysing it too strongly within the context of this particular subject.

I'm not sure it has to do with them being forced to surpress or deny their sexual desires. Others manage just fine (the confident more social one's). I personally think confidence comes best with practise and/or a degree of arrogance/apathy (within reason). Some people are a bit cowardly by nature, and the fear of being turned down often dictates their confidence when it comes to talking with or approaching women.

I disagree with the line of thought that says people are inherently cowardly or confident. People are the result of their upbringing but that can be changed with enough self-awareness and effort.

Every geeky nerd that can't talk to girls comes from hundreds of thousands of years worth of ancestors who successfully reproduced and protected their offspring against whatever horrible things wanted to eat them. But after all these generations of success why do so many men have difficulty talking to women?

Why would men be insecure and cowardly in a society that provides everything for them? It makes no sense unless you factor in the denial of their own inner primal nature. It is a classic conflict between "nature vs nurture".

EDIT:

It is worthing noting at this point that we have a society that prizes intellectualism and rationality but yet the father of the Socratic method - Socrates - was in his younger days a warrior in the Athenian army.

Denying your own primal physicality in favour of pure intellectualism is like feeding yourself nice sugary treats. Eventually your body will become fat unless you feed it what it requires.

If you have a society full of lazy hungry people then don't be surprised if they act on those feelings.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

On se noie dans un verre d'eau.

Ahahahaha. I love it, and it fits the description of the guy correctly.

 

[MeBecomingI]

It is perhaps true that from a reading of the dialogue presented that you might get the impression that there was nothing overtly sexualizing about the encounter. However, she was under the impression that it was (and can hardly be blamed for thinking so, given the circumstances, location, and his behavior prior to speaking to her). I think that the reasonable thing to do in this situation is to take her at her word that she was being sexualized as opposed to changing the facts to suit the narrative you are trying to produce.

There is no changing of the facts going on at all. I also have no reason not to believe her word and at no point did I say I didn't believe her. However, I think you are ignoring my point of her possibly sensationalizing the encounter into something much more aggressive. I'm simply pointing out the idea that I think she is taking her encounter to mean much more than it might have been. By all means she has every right to think whatever she wants, but personally, I think she could have easily gotten the point across to her viewers without having to approach the topic of sexualizing, because in this case, it appears that she is making that a sexual issue when he might not have. Granted, he may have absolutely meant something more out of it, and in that situation, she is absolutely right, however we don't know. All I see though is someone who is taking their stances on feminism and using it... aggressively.

Yes, actually. There are women who happen to find the sort of behavior that that man engaged in to be offputting, creepy, or even vaguely threatening. It seems rather clear from the response to this topic that there are many men who sympathize with the way this man approached her, do not view it as an issue, and would try to do it themselves. Therefore I would think that her pointing out that, "Hey, this makes me really uncomfortable and you probably shouldn't do it if you care about how I feel," would be taken as good advice for the future. She did not name him or humiliate him; they are the only two people who know who he was at this point.

I'm not saying that there are not any women to find that behavior off-putting, creepy or threatening... I am in no position to say what a person believes in or if they are right or wrong... I just have my reservations about the necessity of making a big public flair up about an offer for coffee. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dawkins' argument did (partially) boil down to "rape doesn't happen in elevators." He argued that a person is not trapped on an elevator because one can simply press a button, be brought to the appropriate floor and the doors will open. This was in response to arguments that she had reason to feel somewhat unsafe in that situation. It clearly shows a degree of privilege of someone who does not have to worry about rape and ignorance about the reality of sexual assault and rape on elevators. And he said quite clearly that his point was that the situation was not, in his view, a "slightly bad thing" but a "zero bad" thing. This is not for him to determine. If a woman feels uncomfortable with the way another person approaches her, she should say so. If that person has an interest in whether she is comfortable, he should change his behavior. And naturally this sort of behavior should work in both directions.

I honestly think people are taking the elevator thing a bit too seriously and neglecting to reference his additional discussions, such as his second reply where is discusses the issues of religious misogyny amongst Muslim women in both physical and emotional form even during legalized beatings and the issue of people understanding what is creepy might be different among different people in different contexts, forms and situations. I'm not saying one way or another if I agree with him or not, but his arguments certainly don't just fall too "rape doesn't happen in elevators." Granted, partially is a proper word to use, yes. But even so, you are undermining his rebuttal by linking him to three specific, simplified generalizations. He is not making her choice up for her or telling her what to think, but trying to understand (like me) the choice she made to refer and make it the issue she is making it out to be.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this paragraph was; you seem to be making up various scenarios in which she was flirting with him and therefore shouldn't have been surprised that he hit on her. I don't see what the point of these scenarios are given that we have no reason to presume that she has lied in her how presentation of what took place.

Well, yes, I am making up scenarios in which she was casually flirting, because I am trying to show that no matter the circumstance of a discussion, the topic of "sexual harassment" or "sexual assault" or anything remotely sex related can be breached and become an issue if someone isn't comfortable. People can take almost any situation and immediately assume that someone might have the intention of sexual assault or something. I'm simply saying that in any case, this can happen and for this specific case, it could have even happen when they were in the bar. Hypotheticals... that is all it is.

I think you need to rewatch her initial video - in which she calmly and politely stated that his behavior made her uncomfortable and that, for future reference, she would appreciate it if other men did not do the same thing. What Richard Dawkins said in response was an overreaction to that mild comment.

Yes, it was polite and calm. I didn't debate that. I even agree with her comment... until she started making it sexual. I think Dawkin's comments would lean towards that... just understanding her presumption that his outright intention for coffee was immediately sexual in nature. I don't question her integrity or anything. I have no reason to. I trust her word. I just try to approach things with questions.

 

[Taiser]

 

[vordhosbn]

Attention-seeking whiners gonna whine.

 

[tiff]

.

You have a pretty bad definition of sexism.

You believe GAF is a remotely adequate representation of the male psyche ?

Are you saying GAF is more desperate and pathetic than the average male population?

 

[Sennorin]

The last page is showing the true sexists on GAF.


Nib 95, Matthew Gallant and a few other GAFers who agree with them need to read The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer, a very significant feminist voice.

I read the whole last page to find out what´s so sexist about it. Couldn´t find anything. Care to point it out?