I'm not sure that this is true - hasn't there been a lot of research that shows women often intiate and invite contact, through indirect means like eye contact, body language and flirting? They let men know that they are receptive to being approached? It could be many men are not very good at picking up on these signals.
In fairness Trout, you haven't tried to pick up chicks in 20 years
I think the reason that men cannot understand the situation is that in Society's view men can't be raped or sexually assulted. If a guys goes out and has an unwanted sexual encounter he got drunk and did something stupid. If a girl grabs a guys ass at the bar it is a compliment. If you were invited by a women in an elevator to her hotel room you would be flattered regardless of her appearance.
As a guy there just isn't a risk of these types of encounters being dangerous and we have been conditioned to believe that these types of behaviours are flattering or part of being a guy. I think a lot of it comes back to the Stud / Slut dicotomy and the whole view of male and female sexuality.
So in the end I don't understand the situation and for the most part I believe I will never truly understand but I also don't think the guy did anything wrong. It is also perfectly acceptable for the women to feel the way she does.
Yet . . . . . that's the same thing that happened in the Gretzky story I recited earlier.
He got into an elevator at the Westin, a woman got in after him, he then stepped out and waited for the next elevator. She went up alone. And then he went up alone.
This woman could have done the same.
Cowperson
That's what you call vision on and off the ice. Good on him.
What an outrageous situation. I am not a fan of Dawkins; I find him arrogant, obtuse, and condescending, but I must concede that he is right in this instance. Of course, he is not at all helped by his consistently abrasive response to everything with which he disagrees, but he is right to point out how trivial Spekchick's complaints are in the grand scheme of things.
This whole thing calls to mind a conversation I had this past weekend with a long-tome friend and his wife, about the issue of sexist "oppression" in the modern western world. Specifically, are women socially oppressed in our society, and in what ways does this inequity present itself? I'm not talking about isolated oppression in which women are still victims of violent acts, and isolated instances of disenfranchisement within smaller religious or cultural scenarios. I'm speaking of a more universal social condition. The best my friend could come up with was the inequity in the labour force that affects women who choose to have children. In the first place, women are free to take maternity leave, but in the process often times find it very difficult to re-enter the work force as a result, or must re-enter at the same point in which they left, and are thus a step behind their male counterparts on the corporate ladder. In the second place, women are also expected to accept a disproportionately high workload; in which they are pressured to be a great full-time employee as well as to effectively and efficiently maintain a household.
On the surface, there does appear to be an inequity in play, but the more I reflect on this, the more I am convinced by the failure of the feminist movement to grasp real and necessary biological differences that have always and will always distinguish the sexes. In my mind, it seems that Ms. Watson's own complaints also reflect this reality. The problem with the feminist movement is in large part due to their inability or refusal to recognize some of these differences. The most obvious and noticeable is that only women are able to bear children; by extension, women are also biologically predisposed to being the primary caregivers for their offspring. (The way this works out in my own marriage and family life is frustratingly telling: I try to do whatever I can to share in "household" duties that include caring for our kids, but just about at every turn I find that I am a poor replacement for my wife, despite my best efforts).
This hope that one day the sexes would be entirely "equal" is ridiculous. We are attempting to correct some things that are simply not correctable in this debate. Hundreds upon thousands of years of human history attest to the fact that our social groups have functioned along biologically defined lines in which women and men have always fulfilled some fairly well defined sexually specific roles. Societies have developed and thrived as a result of this. At this point I expect that I am beginning to sound like a chauvanist or even a "rich, white, old, etc." kind of man that becomes the brunt of Ms. Watson's most idiotic criticism. I assure you that I am not. I do not pine for the days of male social dominance or relish in thoughts of reversing the incredible progress that has been made to affirm an exceptionally high recognition of the equality of women. However, there are some things; there will ALWAYS BE some things that will separate men from women, and we are well served to recognize those unassailable limits. To Ms. Watson, I would suggest that the "sexualization" of women is part of being a man. It is something that responsible men—of whom I would like to think I am a representative—spend a great deal of time and energy controlling in a socially responsible manner. But what this does mean is that on occasion women will ALWAYS need to endure unwanted attention or advances, and that is apt never to change. Unfortunately, there are instances in which such intuitive advances rarely result in tragic outcomes—certainly in some cases far more severe than what Ms. Watson endured. It is a frustrating consequence of being, but life and survival in even our society is a dangerous business.
I am so sick and tired of the extremist feminist rhetoric for primarily this reason: Men are men and women are women, and no matter how much "progress" we think we might be able to make in the pursuit of a sexually equitable society, we will constantly come against the boundaries between the sexes. Wouldn't it simply be more effective to admit this and move on?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
This whole thing calls to mind a conversation I had this past weekend with a long-tome friend and his wife, about the issue of sexist "oppression" in the modern western world. Specifically, are women socially oppressed in our society, and in what ways does this inequity present itself? I'm not talking about isolated oppression in which women are still victims of violent acts, and isolated instances of disenfranchisement within smaller religious or cultural scenarios. I'm speaking of a more universal social condition. The best my friend could come up with was the inequity in the labour force that affects women who choose to have children. In the first place, women are free to take maternity leave, but in the process often times find it very difficult to re-enter the work force as a result, or must re-enter at the same point in which they left, and are thus a step behind their male counterparts on the corporate ladder. In the second place, women are also expected to accept a disproportionately high workload; in which they are pressured to be a great full-time employee as well as to effectively and efficiently maintain a household.
I don't even think this argument is valid. No inequality exists there. Women CHOOSE to take maternity leave. Men have the right to take up to 36 weeks of the leave. Assuming no complications having a baby really only requires about 2 weeks of recovery (this is based on Human Rights Commission rulings that require short term disability payments me made to women who can't return to work). A C-section about 6 weeks. So if a women chooses she could take 3 weeks off and be back at work without missing a beat while the Husband takes time of work.
Now a man who takes his 36 weeks of permitted leave would face all of the same problems re-integrating themselves into the work force that a women faces.
The fact his having children is a choice and taking a year off should put you a year or more behind on the corporate ladder. This is a choice made by a couple when they choose to have children. They also get to decide between themselves who will take the career hit. There is nothing discriminatory here. Only that in practice women generally CHOOSE to be the ones who take a year off.
...The fact his having children is a choice and taking a year off should put you a year or more behind on the corporate ladder. This is a choice made by a couple when they choose to have children. They also get to decide between themselves who will take the career hit. There is nothing discriminatory here. Only that in practice women generally CHOOSE to be the ones who take a year off.
I generally agree, although I do not think that practically speaking this amounts to an example of gender equality. Do women and men really have the same choice in this matter? Parental leave is an option for men, but at some point it is primarily a requirement for women. I would hold that women are biologically predisposed to interrupt their participation in the workforce, given that they alone can bear children. This fundamental and non-correctable difference between men and women is indeed a form of "inequity" that interferes with a woman's participation in the workforce. Furthermore, I also think that there are biological / social predispositions that contribute to the overwhelmingly high instances in which women "choose" to be the primary caregiver for their children. It amounts to maternal instinct, and is nearly impossible to quantify, but it is universal, and—I believe—also not correctable. This too presents itself as another gender inequity that will always interfere with the inane desire for "equal status" or "rights" that are demanded in our society.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I generally agree, although I do not think that practically speaking this amounts to an example of gender equality. Do women and men really have the same choice in this matter? Parental leave is an option for men, but at some point it is primarily a requirement for women. I would hold that women are biologically predisposed to interrupt their participation in the workforce, given that they alone can bear children. This fundamental and non-correctable difference between men and women is indeed a form of "inequity" that interferes with a woman's participation in the workforce. Furthermore, I also think that there are biological / social predispositions that contribute to the overwhelmingly high instances in which women "choose" to be the primary caregiver for their children. It amounts to maternal instinct, and is nearly impossible to quantify, but it is universal, and—I believe—also not correctable. This too presents itself as another gender inequity that will always interfere with the inane desire for "equal status" or "rights" that are demanded in our society.
But isn't this still a choice they have?
Like I said, as handicapped person, there are things I have to deal with and decide to do or not do. And you know what? Same with men. We can make things as fair as possible for women leaving or coming back from the workforce, but it will never ever be the same, just because men and women will never ever be the same.
Would a skinny guy expect the same treatment in a labour job? Would an uneducated person expect the same treatment in an intellectual job? Would a handicapped person expect the same treatment in pretty much any job?
So why would a women leaving expect that when coming back? At a point in time we are all just people dealing with our own things. If she wanted to be CEO, don't have kids.
Yes and no. If women en masse suddenly choose to stop having children, then our species is doomed to extinction. Of course women individually have and exercise this choice, but it is a choice that falls within specific gender-defined processes and limits that situate her choice in a broader context in which the social reality has an almost irresistible impact upon that choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
So why would a women leaving expect that when coming back? At a point in time we are all just people dealing with our own things. If she wanted to be CEO, don't have kids.
As I siad earlier, here is where the disconnect occurs. My whole argument is that despite our best efforts and intentions there will ALWAYS be unavoidable gender inequities, and we are silly to attempt to overcome them. I completely agree with you. Instead of working towards correcting those persistent elements of "gender inequity", we are much better served to celebrate them. It all goes back to the most important life lesson I have learned: that life is not fair.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
With all the other trouble in the world, why should we care about this? It’s because those climate issues chase many women out of the hard sciences — and indeed, out of any male-dominated community.
I almost didn’t go this year [TAM]. Why? One word: “Elevatorgate.”
Here is the message being sent to the women skeptics and atheists say they want to join their ranks: “If an atheist/skeptic man behaves boorishly toward you, or refuses to respect your boundaries, whether social or sexual, and you have the gall to state firmly that this is not okay, you will be publicly pilloried, ridiculed for being hysterical, called a man-hating feminazi (or worse), and have your concerns belittled and dismissed.”
Why should I, or any woman, want to be part of that community?
So believe me when I tell you that the skeptic/atheist community has a serious problem when it comes to creating a welcoming environment for women.
The next time you see a guy acting like a jerk around a woman at a skeptic/atheist gathering, call him out: “Dude. Not cool. She’s not the hot girl in the comic shop, you know.” Feel free to quote The Social Network: “You’re going to go through life thinking girls don’t like you cuz you’re a nerd, when really it’s because you’re an #######.”
Lastly, I want to address the recent online debates regarding sexism in the skeptics movement in general, and the divide surfacing around statements involving Rebecca Watson, Richard Dawkins and others in particular. I believe that this controversy gives us the opportunity to make this issue about more than online conflicts and blog wars, about more than "Team Rebecca" versus "Team Richard." I hope we can use this conflict to improve and strengthen our community, to reaffirm our intention to take diversity seriously, and to make the skeptics movement a welcoming place for all people, regardless of gender or sex or race or sexual orientation or where they stand on any given issue. We are all subject to confirmation bias, to taking a position and not budging; we all have more to learn about applying skepticism to our own views. But being unwilling to discuss these topics without recourse to personal attack or threats is counter to our goals as a skeptical movement.
The JREF takes sexual harassment seriously and we take women’s voices seriously, because we know that we are more effective as a movement when half of humanity's talent, knowledge, and experience is not ignored. That’s why we have worked to make sure that at The Amazing Meeting this year, more than half of our main program talks are by women. We’ve printed a statement in the front of this year’s conference program that makes it clear that sexual harassment and other forms of harassment are not acceptable at TAM. When we drafted the statement back in May, we did so because we want everyone to have a fun and welcoming experience at TAM, including the more than half of attendees who are coming for the first time.
All of our speakers this year at TAM have made important contributions to science or skepticism, and we appreciate the knowledge they will bring to TAM. We’re discouraged to see the depth of division in our movement that has been brought to the surface by recent statements by various leaders, but we are optimistic that the conversation and debate will generate more light than heat. We believe that an open discussion of sexism and harassment will ultimately strengthen the skeptical movement.
Here is the TAM Code of Conduct that has been printed in the front of this year's conference program:
We want TAM Las Vegas 2011 to be a welcoming experience for everyone who attends . . .
Please respect your fellow attendees by not disparaging them based on unfair grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability; and by not making uninvited sexual comments toward others.
If someone asks you to leave them alone or to otherwise stop a behavior that is directed toward them, please do so. Continued unwanted behavior directed toward another person is harassment. People who harass others or cause multiple complaints of disrespectful behavior may be required to leave without a refund.
Problems can be reported to TAM staff or volunteers who will bring it to the attention of JREF management. A warning will be given when appropriate, but there will be zero tolerance for violence, physical intimidation, and unwanted intentional physical contact.
and by not making uninvited sexual comments toward others.
I assume some kind of advanced, error-proof signalling program will be implemented whereupon men can know when sexual comments are, in fact, invited, and when they are not.
I assume some kind of advanced, error-proof signalling program will be implemented whereupon men can know when sexual comments are, in fact, invited, and when they are not.
Err on the side of them being not invited, particularly in small spaces, when women are by themselves or are in unfamiliar settings.
"we take women’s voices seriously, because we know that we are more effective as a movement when half of humanity's talent, knowledge, and experience is not ignored"
LOL..........
This broad is so out of touch with reality. I predict many cats for her in the future.
Skepchick supporters have a very warped view of sexism, and I'm probably the biggest male feminist I know. Their whole argument is absurd. This is actually making me angry. It seems to me skepchick supporters are the ones treating women as inferior by saying they cannot take a minor sexual advance. If men and women are equal and nonviolence is assumed (which it should be), then there is no problem with his advance.
Everyone is made uncomfortable when they are hit on by someone they find unattractive, but it's not sexual harassment. This whole thing reeks of false feminism. Feminists who want to be seen as equals but have several exceptions where men should be endlessly deferential. It reminds me of a friend of mine who got mad when I used the term "##### (cat) out." Then talked about how my roommate (male) was a "girl" for using a lot of hair products. There's some cognitive dissonance with her and with skepchick and friends.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
Any woman(?) who has "chik" in their handle must be sexualizing themselves somewhat. Wanting the world to see them as a grrrl. I picture Tank Girl myself, in her short cotton pants. At 4 AM and drunk, finding myself alone in an elevator with Tank Girl, oh crap I'm drunk...
"I find you interesting. Wanna come up to my place for a coffee?" Why did I say that? I should have offered her a drink. But my mini-bar is empty. I don't have coffee either. Oh fu..
"No thank you. I'm getting off here."
"Oh are you? That's too bad." Did I just I just pull out my package? Oh, thank the universe I didn't. "You have a good night now, hic."
"You too," strangely stiffly she leaves the elevator, thinking at last she has something to blog about.
Last edited by FanningTheFlames; 07-21-2011 at 01:58 AM.
My interest in this debate is not so much about whether Watson or Dawkins is right. Why are there so few women in the scientific/skeptic/atheist communities? Is it because of any real or perceived sexisim? Are the male members of these communities more socially inept than other men?
My interest in this debate is not so much about whether Watson or Dawkins is right. Why are there so few women in the scientific/skeptic/atheist communities? Is it because of any real or preceived sexisim? Are the male members of these communities more socially inept than other men?
Some random theories:
- women don't like hanging around with nerds
- there are not very many nerd women
- why were there 8 girls out of 175 people in my 1st year Engineering Science class back in 1986? These people are now in their 40's and presumably the bulk of this community, so the same ratios would presumably hold as 25 years ago...
