Skepchick vs. Dawkins

[troutman]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ale-privilege/

Over the weekend, a full-blown scandal erupted in the skeptical movement atheist and skeptical communities* over sexism and attitudes about sexual harassment. It started with a fairly straightforward story about a clueless man putting a woman in an uncomfortable situation. The conversation about it was interesting, to say the least. An important point that came up multiple times is that many men do not truly understand what women go through in such situations.

This point was driven home when Richard Dawkins spoke up about it. Through his own words, he proved quite clearly that a lot of men just don’t get it.

Here’s what happened, boiled down from a video post Skepchick Rebecca Watson made about this (she tells this story starting at 4m30s into the video at that link). Rebecca was a speaker at a conference recently. After her talk and a late evening of socializing with attendees at the bar, she got on an elevator to go to her room. She found herself alone on the elevator with a man presumably also an attendee. He said he "found her very interesting", and would she like to get some coffee in his hotel room? Rebecca turned him down, and in her video talks about how uncomfortable that made her feel.

PZ Myers wrote a blog post about this, and Richard Dawkins — yes, the Richard Dawkins, PZ has confirmed this — left a comment in that post. And what he said… well. Read it for yourself:

It is a big deal. If Dawkins — a leader in the critical thinking movement and a man known for defending women against religious oppression — can take such a dismissive stance, it’s clear that we have a long way to go. I don’t know if it was sexism on Dawkins’ part or just plain obtuseness, but this attitude is shared by far too many men. It trivializes the justifiable fear women have to live with as well as their point of view, and that’s just plain wrong.

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

[Shades]

No surprise that Dawkins is obtuse. Have you read his books?

But I have doubts that he really posted this. There's no way he's that much of an idiot.

Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

[Daradon]

Oh boy.

Don't even know where to start with this one and am not sure it's worth it. I guess I'll just say I see both sides of the argument and see how both people may have taken things a little too far or out of context. Course it's such a sensitive issue that people are going to take it personally and/or blow things out of proportion.

[kermitology]

Not commenting on the rather inflammatory comments outside of the "Skepchick" part of that quote from Dawkins, but

A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her

I find it hard to find a problem with this.

Guy asks girl if she's interested in spending some time with him. She says no. He doesn't push the issue. So.. what's wrong with that? OK, it's 4 AM in a hotel elevator, but how is that much different than trolling the cowboys tent looking for a girl to have some fun with?

[burn_this_city]

He's just saying she should gain some perspective. Theres definitely bigger injustices in the world.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

He's just saying she should gain some perspective. Theres definitely bigger injustices in the world.

Should we only complain about bigger wrongs?

[burn_this_city]

Was she actually wronged? A guy asked her to come for coffee in his room. Who knows what his intentions were?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Was she actually wronged? A guy asked her to come for coffee in his room. Who knows what his intentions were?

Even if he wanted to nail her - bfd.

[TorqueDog]

Various social situations make people uncomfortable. I don't disagree with that, and I'm sure being somewhat attractive (as she is) certainly brings with it a higher occurrance of being flirted with, propositioned, whatever.

What I do find idiotic is that there is this much being made of it. The only thing the guy is guilty of here is being socially inept when it comes to dealing with women. But sexism? Give me a break. The guy found you attractive, is useless at conveying this information effectively, and delivered an awful line - that's it.

Hell, if awkward and inept sexual advances towards members of the opposite sex didn't happen (and sometimes succeed), there's a significant chance many of us wouldn't have been born or our parents' may never have gotten together.

I can agree with some of the ideals put forward by feminism, but some of it is just trying to change human nature at its very core.


I really want to sympathise, but this is nothing more than a textbook case of making mountains out of mole hills for a discussion-provoking video blog. That's it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Was she actually wronged? A guy asked her to come for coffee in his room. Who knows what his intentions were?

I don't see it as a big deal. I can see how it would make her feel uncomforatable having some loser sniffing around her for sex (it sounds like a proposition, although I agree, you can't know for sure). Sexism is biological and there are a lot of biological things that make people uncomfortable.

Dawkins' response makes him sounds like an arsehole, but what else is new.

[Daradon]

A bit long, coulda been a lot longer... and I may have missed a few points. Take the time to read it, not sure if I'll be able to get to any replies in a timely fashion though. I'm on my way out. I'm not ducking them, I swear, I'll check in when I can. Obviously I did feel it was worth it after all

First, about the elevator incident. Although it may seem obvious, we can't know what the mans intentions were. They could have been completely innocent or noble, if not misguided.

However, even if they were impure I would suggest it's still not that big a crime. Yes, I'm trying to put myself in her shoes and I do see how she could feel uncomfortable, or even scared. But is she trying to put herself in his shoes, or just writing him off as some single minded male creep?

I guess if she truly honestly felt scared, that's one thing. However, if she was just uncomfortable, or grossed out, I guess I'd have to say, that's life. We all have to put up with people and situations we don't like, or feel are fair.

As for putting her in his shoes, lets look at why he acted like this.

1. Guys have to make the first move. If you don't, you get nowhere in life. And that's not just in dating, but in pretty much everything we have to do, from competing for a job, to talking to the ladies. Men are supposed to be naturally aggressive (not in a bad way) and yet many have a hard time acting like this anyway. One has to learn it, and use it, and now, not screw up and offend someone (and I don't mean just feminists) along the way.

2. Plenty of females would not feel threatened by this action. Some even like it. With mixed signals like this, what is a guy supposed to do?

I think the fact that a lot of women would fall in column 2 is why feminism has stalled for a long time. Like any movement, especially civil rights movements, there is an extreme position where it starts to become radical. I've had many women talk to me about this (as I dated a woman much like the one in the video years ago and was looking for perspective) as a reason why they just can't get into the movement anymore. Yes, they want better treatment for women in poor countries, yes they want better pay, but they really disagree with stuff like this. Men and women will always have subtle and important differences.

In fact, many women take it a step further with issues like childbirth and career, citing yes a woman should have an option, but it doesn't entitle her to both. Or at least doing both to the best of her ability. I can't even say to this day just where I fall on the spectrum of this, but it's not just men who fall in this range, there are a LOT of women too.

People don't get it both ways, and this applies to a lot of groups, not just women. People need to make choices and have to expect they are going to be in situations which don't fit with what they are born with, or what they were given with in life.

As an example, I am handicapped. Now, I know there are sports and leagues for people with conditions, though mine is a bit rare. And that is good enough for me, and all the handicapped people I know. But some of the things these radical feminists ask for or expect would be the equivalent of a handicapped person not only demanding their specific condition gets a sport, but that the get paid the same as the non handicapped to do it. It just isn't realistic, and at the end of the day, it isn't fair to ask that either.

Yes we need to try and make sure we make it as equal as possible, and yes we need to make sure anger, malice, disrespect, and taking advantage of situations doesn't enter into equations when we have the upper hand. We need to make sure all people get a chance to feel fulfilled and chance to chase a dream of some kind. But there comes a time when we're all just people, we all have our disadvantages, and complaining about the small things is just silly.

This is why I have believed that this is the time for gender studies and not just feminism. Because if we are encouraged to put ourselves in her shoes and how society shaped her and why she might react the way she did, we need to put ourselves in his shoes and look at how society (and women for their part) made him act the way he did too.

Further to that there are lots of reasons why gender studies are needed to even things out. Men have a much high rate of suicide, a higher rate of accident, etc. Men are prone to more addictions, and have lots of medical problems women don't. Even just to share viewpoints there are things in a mans world a women could never understand just as there are things in a womans world a man could never understand. As well there are things men have had to overcome that could teach women things just as there are things men could learn (and I have... my best role models have been women) from the things women have had to live with and overcome.

I do believe the video provided to be one side of an argument, and not a point by itself. Other than, maybe the guy wasn't so smart in approaching a feminist in the way he did.



Now, about the Dawkins quote. As burn said, he is obviously being sarcastic and flippant because he feels she needs perspective. And that's a valid point. The fate of women truly in need can be (and I believe is) damaged by extreme viewpoints. Even if her viewpoint is 100% fair, which I'm not sure it is, sometimes you just gotta pick your battles, and not ruin it for others, some of which may truly need it. Especially if your are taking on the responsibility of being a voice for your cause.

That said, I do think Dawkins may have crossed a line. But as I mentioned in my first post, I think both ramped up the rhetoric a little and it's gotten a bit silly.

[photon]

I didn't get it when I first read it and I don't get it now, maybe someone can help explain it to me.

I don't understand what was wrong with the whole situation.

Adults getting together to have sex with one another is normal behviour yes? If so, then I don't understand how such things can occur without some form of communication between the two people, and in any communication one party is going to be the one that initiated.

The problem, if I understand it, was that Watson was alone with a man in an elevator, and that situation made her (and would most women, am I understanding?) uncomfortable because of a risk of sexual assault?

How is that at all reasonable? Most men do not and never would commit assaults, if just the simple act of being in an elevator with a man makes the woman feel like an assault is a real possibility, that's insulting to ME, implying all men have the potential to commit sexual assaults in elevators.

Or should it always be the woman who initiates? How is that fair?

If I'm in an elevator with a black man, should I be uncomfortable because I've seen black men beat up white men?

Women aren't sex objects, they're people who have sex and people with whom other people would like to have sex with.

Someone help me, I'm honestly struggling to comprehend Watson's side of the argument here.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Now, about the Dawkins quote. As burn said, he is obviously being sarcastic and flippant because he feels she needs perspective. And that's a valid point. The fate of women truly in need can be (and I believe is) damaged by extreme viewpoints. Even if her viewpoint is 100%, which I'm not sure it is, sometimes you just gotta pick your battles, and not ruin it for others, some of which may truly need it. Especially if your are taking on the responsibility of being a voice for your cause.

That said, I do think Dawkins may have crossed a line. But as I mentioned in my first post, I think both ramped up the rhetoric a little and it's gotten a bit silly.

That's what Dawkins does... it's his MO. It's why he sells so many books. He's flippant, arrogant and sarcastic about every issue in order to get his points across. The only difference this time is that he pissed off some non-religious people and I guess that makes it a bigger deal to some people.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't get it when I first read it and I don't get it now, maybe someone can help explain it to me.

I don't understand what was wrong with the whole situation.

Adults getting together to have sex with one another is normal behviour yes? If so, then I don't understand how such things can occur without some form of communication between the two people, and in any communication one party is going to be the one that initiated.

The problem, if I understand it, was that Watson was alone with a man in an elevator, and that situation made her (and would most women, am I understanding?) uncomfortable because of a risk of sexual assault?

How is that at all reasonable? Most men do not and never would commit assaults, if just the simple act of being in an elevator with a man makes the woman feel like an assault is a real possibility, that's insulting to ME, implying all men have the potential to commit sexual assaults in elevators.

Or should it always be the woman who initiates? How is that fair?

If I'm in an elevator with a black man, should I be uncomfortable because I've seen black men beat up white men?

Women aren't sex objects, they're people who have sex and people with whom other people would like to have sex with.

Someone help me, I'm honestly struggling to comprehend Watson's side of the argument here.

I know I get my favorite way of communicating that idea from A Beaufiful Mind. Movies area always providing such great pick up lines.

Nash: I don't exactly know what I am required to say in order for you to have intercourse with me. But could we assume that I said all that. I mean essentially we are talking about fluid exchange right? So could we go just straight to the sex.

[photon]

Which isn't a very charming way to ask but neither is it assault IMO.

[TorqueDog]

Agreed 110% on your post, photon.

Originally Posted by photon

Someone help me, I'm honestly struggling to comprehend Watson's side of the argument here.

I think a reasonable point for her to make was "Don't hit on chicks at 4 AM alone in an elevator with an awful pick-up line and expect to get anywhere".

The fact that she turned it into a diatribe about sexist behavior really makes the whole thing look - as I said - like something intended to drive discussion and, ultimately, site traffic.

And to correct my own post... don't call a feminist a 'chick', that really pisses them off... or do call them a chick, because it really pisses them off, and sometimes these people need some grounding.

[SeeBass]

I would be curious to see what a world would be like if suddenly all men stopped being the first to interact and left it up to women.

Would good looking guys and rich men be the only ones to get any?

Whatever happened to women thinking confidence is the number one turn on.

[Daradon]

Re: Photon,

She feels like she was objectified or sexualized. Now, I've obviously stated my opinion on why even if that was the case, it may not be as horrible or morally wrong as she believes it was, but it is a common viewpoint among some women.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, she alludes that a proposition like that within the confines of the situation (IE late at night, strange city, alone in an enclosed space) made her feel scared. I'm not sure how much of this is true and how much is to make her point, but it can be very hard for us guys to understand the fear a woman can have in situations like this.

Still, I'm not exactly sure how you could get around this. Even if the guy said nothing, perhaps an attitude like hers would still cause her to be afraid? In which case, that's more telling about her than his actions are to him.

[SeeBass]

Isnt the rule of no means no good enough.

The guy took a shot, I agree it was a poorly timed hail mary but big deal.

[Kefka]

It's sad that Dawkins is taking any heat for this. What a powder puff society we live in of people who feel self entitled and wronged at every turn