quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is a big difference between preparing yourself to be able to handle assault and to be aware of dangerous situations and treating all men as rapists who have not struck yet. The difference between preparedness and paranoia.
Is this a response to me? I'm not perceiving it as such.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In that case, it sounds like you disagree with Watson on that point.
For practical purposes, I don't think so. The guy in the elevator was clearly out of his comfort zone. I think people in their comfort zone will generally have a decent idea of the social rules governing zone. (Maybe I'm being naive here)
But her view isn't just that the guy who approached her on the elevator was being a creep -- that I agree with. Her view is that it "sexualizes" her in an undesirable way to hit on her at a conference. This is what she was presenting about at the panel before the elevator incident.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm not sure how to answer Icarus' question. It's an interesting point. But in general I agree with Stone Wolf here - there's a difference between preparedness and paranoia.
I've recently moved to the Bronx and have been pondering the line between being legitimately prepared and offensively paranoid. I have absolutely no experience living in an inner city, but I know there are definitely things you need to be aware of (which people of all colors take into account).
I do essentially profile people, but it's not based on skin color so much as age, muscle mass, stance and other cues (some of which, say, tattoos, might not actually be significant, but for some reason scare me. Am I being racist against tattoos? Yeah, probably)
It seems fairly obvious to me where the line between treating a man as if he's a decent person and treating him as "potentially a rapist" is - if he touches you without your permission, doesn't take no for an answer, demands sexual favors, calls you dirty names, won't leave when you ask him, or in general acts with an intent to intimidate or coerce you, then by all means treat him as if he's a potential rapist. Until then, treat him like a decent human being.
I think the same goes for living in the inner city - I don't think race has much to do with criminal behavior anymore, though. There might be proportionally more black thugs out there than white, but I'd react the exact same way to a dirty 220 lb guy in a wife beater with lots of tattoos, black or white. I think behavior has a lot to do with that, too... is he the next aisle shopping? is he painting your church? Is he casually walking down the street not looking at anyone in particular? Is he standing in an alley entrance glaring at you with 4 of his boys hanging around him?
If he asks me "hey buddy can you spare a couple bucks?" in the store I wouldn't be bothered at all. If it's on the street, but in a polite tone with a genuine smile and open body language, I'd be a little wary, but not too bothered. If he says it in a mocking voice with his shoulders back, arms out, looking like he might do something violent, I'd start running.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So then you reject the notion of Schrodinger's rapist--as I understand it, that it's reasonable for a woman to view a random man with trepidation until he somehow passes her personal not-a-rapist test, and, further, than men have a responsibility to be sensitive to this fear and not place themselves in situations where they might possibly cause instinctual trepidation in a woman they don't know?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: There is a big difference between preparing yourself to be able to handle assault and to be aware of dangerous situations and treating all men as rapists who have not struck yet. The difference between preparedness and paranoia.
Is this a response to me? I'm not perceiving it as such.
You are perceiving correctly...it was a response to the quote that DB put up...and the whole Schroedinger’s Rapist idea...
Your thought exercise, if designed to show that treating an entire group of people as the worst elements within is wrong...is valid in my opinion.
If you are (and I seriously doubt it) genuinely suggesting that all black people should be treated like criminals, then I disagree.
As to should men show sensitivity to the idea that women genuinely have something to fear from us, then yes, they should. But to take it so far that each and every man is a threat is too far, by far.
posted
Dogbreath...just out of curiosity...that last example...you said "I'd start running." Do you mean that as advice, or what -you- would do?
The role of a warrior is one that has always appealed to me, and you modern day warriors, you grunts, leather necks...would you run, or kick some bad guy butt?
Do you carry a blade? Or a tactical pen? Or is that just what you do for a living and when at home are all about the peace and harmony?
quote: I thought the overwhelming point was just that men should be more aware of how they come across, and when they are making other people uncomfortable, which is perfectly fine
When we're talking about watson herself, as opposed to some comment made by someone else somewhere on skepchick or whatever, that's it. You have it.
One of the best parts of male privilege is not having to deal with the creepy weirdness that guys tend to foist on girls all the time! Sometimes innocently! Sometimes not so innocently! It's easy to be completely ignorant of it, to the extent that you can naively wonder what Watson must be going on about over such an 'innocent comment' — or, alternately, you could go full-bore deluded misogynist pseudopsych like the OP and conclude that watson has been stripped of her capacity to empathize with men by militant feminism and probably is only reacting this way due to 'envy of male desire' or whatever. (ironically, a perfect way of giving an example of yet another slice into the pie of what women have to deal with in terms of ignorant male attitudes).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dogbreath...just out of curiosity...that last example...you said "I'd start running." Do you mean that as advice, or what -you- would do?
The role of a warrior is one that has always appealed to me, and you modern day warriors, you grunts, leather necks...would you run, or kick some bad guy butt?
Do you carry a blade? Or a tactical pen? Or is that just what you do for a living and when at home are all about the peace and harmony?
Just wondering.
"Running" is hyperbole, I'd probably walk away and ignore them. Caution being the better part of valor, I generally avoid vigilantism when possible. Sorry to disappoint.
If you're interested in stories of me acting heroically, though, once in Waikiki about 1:30 in the morning, I was walking back to my buddy's car (he'd parked it in the military lot) when I saw a drunk guy beating up his girlfriend. (he was dressed to shabbily to be a pimp) I yelled at him and ran over and fought him. Well, "fought" makes it sound more grandiose than it was, I punched him on the side of the head, elbowed him a few times and put him in a choke hold. He passed out, and remained pretty docile after that. I stayed with her until the cops came, which was less the hero comforting the damsel in distress and more a hysterical old black woman alternating between crying and hollering.
When I was 19 I got mugged by 3 dudes outside my house, and tried to fight them. I got my ass kicked. They did end up leaving me alone, though, and with my wallet untouched. I had like $14 in it.
I have known of some guys (not very bright ones) who've attempted to go about getting in fights with lowlifes. They generally end up stabbed or shot.
No, I don't carry any weapons on me stateside. I don't walk around in my dress uniform or say moto things either, that's more of a national guard thing. I just act like a normal person.
I hope that doesn't disappoint you. I've fast roped out of helicopters, swam in full combat gear, and walked through jungles in the Philippines full of guerrillas and IEDs, and done other really nifty stuff I can't talk about, but can assure you is really cool and courageous.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE] One of the best parts of male privilege is not having to deal with the creepy weirdness that guys tend to foist on girls all the time! Sometimes innocently! Sometimes not so innocently! It's easy to be completely ignorant of it
I assume this is directed at me, in which case I think you've sadly misunderstood, or perhaps misread my posts. I apologize for any lack of clarity in my writing. I'm well aware of the creepiness of the situation, and have said on more than one occasion that I'd have done the same thing she did in the same situation. In no way do I think the guy should've approached her like he did, whatever his motivation.
Likewise, I have no issue with RW asking men not to approach her, or saying she finds it creepy.
The two things I took issue with were: A) She's using a specific example and embarrassing a guy who did her no harm. B) Her later comments calling him threatening. I contend he was in no way threatening her.
I hope this clarifies what my actual position is.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the same size and strength disparity that exists between men and women also existed between whites and blacks, and if blacks were responsible for most violent crime against whites, then it would in fact be reasonable to view them as potential muggers.
I don't live in constant fear, and in general, I don't think of men as potential rapists. However, I am cognizant of the fact that most men are physically capable of overpowering me. If I am isolated or otherwise vulnerable, I am going to be cautious. When walking by myself at night, I generally like to keep my distance from other people; approaching a woman you don't know in circumstances where she would be in grave danger if you were intending to harm her is evidence (not proof, just evidence) that you may not be a decent individual.
Asking me to assume you are not dangerous is fine if we're in public with plenty of other people around. But violent criminals do take advantage of the societal expectation that women should be friendly and agreeable. I'm assuming that when you say that I should treat everyone as if they were decent people until proven otherwise, you are talking about situations where violent crime is unlikely. My guess is that you do not mean that I should not be wary until I am actually assaulted or threatened. I'm certainly not trying to accuse any of you. I just want to ask everyone, if criticizing someone for being unfriendly in response to unsolicited attention, to take care that they do not contribute to an atmosphere where people don't take appropriate precautions because they are afraid of being rude.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I'm assuming that when you say that I should treat everyone as if they were decent people until proven otherwise, you are talking about situations where violent crime is unlikely.
Yes, definitely. If you're ever in a situation where you think violent crime *is* likely, you should leave immediately. I mean treat as in "act towards them in such a manner" not "consider them to be such." I can't emphasize how important the distinction is.
quote:My guess is that you do not mean that I should not be wary until I am actually assaulted or threatened.
There's the rub. I'm an incredibly wary person, it comes with my job. You'd be amazed how much more information you can quickly process when you've been trained to do so. I see a person and think "where are his hands?" "is he positioning himself to attack me?" "does he have a weapon under his shirt, tucked into his pants" "what are the possible escape routes" "what would be the fasted way to incapacitate him and avoid injury to myself". Etc. Heck, for a while, I'd find myself subconsciously scanning streets for possible sniper placements, good alleys for people to jump out of, possible angles of fire. I'm not nearly that dorky anymore, but I'm still possessed of a very high level of situational awareness - I think it's one of the reason I'm a good conversationalist, I've pretty astute at reading body language.
Just because I'm wary of the young black man walking towards me and I've sized him up and taken whatever precautions I need to protect my safety, it doesn't mean I should be rude or offensive to him. Or get angry at him because he obviously didn't respect my feelings enough to avoid walking in a way that made me uncomfortable. So long as he's not actively threatening me, my discomfort is my problem, not his.
It's not rude to tell a man "I feel really uncomfortable right now, and I want to leave." It's not rude to say "I'd rather not talk, thanks." It's not even rude to avoid taking the same elevator, if such situations make you uncomfortable. Everyone is different, everyone has their own comfort zones.
It definitely is rude to be angry at a well meaning man for not intuitively recognizing what your comfort zone is. I know men, many of them are dumb as bricks, and can't really pick up on a woman's subtle clues. And there are women who have very confusing body language. Berating a man who doesn't know you for not understanding you implicitly will either drive him to frustration, or make him try even *harder* to read your body language, which will probably mean him staring at you looking very confused for a while, which is even more creepy.
Thankfully, there's an easy solution to this! It's called spoken language! Simply tell the guy "sorry, I don't want to talk" or "sorry, I have to leave", and don't act angry or condescending when you say it either. I know it may be frustrating, but it's only 5 seconds of your day.
To recap: Should these awkward men understand how to act in these situations? Yes! Do they? No! You can either A) become very angry at them for not taking the time to think it through, and belittle them or B) briefly express your feelings in neutral language and carry on with whatever you're doing. Choice A often leads to frustration and despair, Choice B at worst causes no harm, at best makes the man a little wiser and less creepy.
I'm just seeing lots of comments by frustrated women on these blogs, "ugh, men are so stupid!" And perhaps that anger is justified, but anger only breeds anger, patience breeds wisdom.
quote:You can either A) become very angry at them for not taking the time to think it through, and belittle them or B) briefly express your feelings in neutral language and carry on with whatever you're doing.
See, here's the thing. Watson did B. She said, in as straightforward, neutral terminology as she could, "don't do that."
And the internet went into an uproar over that.
If men are allowed to continuously make awkward passes at women at these conferences, then women are allowed to occasionally post video blogs saying "hey, guys, please don't do that."
That's all she did in response to this particular guy. She was absolutely entitled to that. Since then, in response to a lot of incredibly misogynistic comments, I think she has shown incredible restraint.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: See, here's the thing. Watson did B. She said, in as straightforward, neutral terminology as she could, "don't do that."
And the internet went into an uproar over that.
If men are allowed to continuously make awkward passes at women at these conferences, then women are allowed to occasionally post video blogs saying "hey, guys, please don't do that."
That's all she did in response to this particular guy. She was absolutely entitled to that. Since then, in response to a lot of incredibly misogynistic comments, I think she has shown incredible restraint.
It's definitely true that she's a wronged party in all of this. But it seems to me that some of the backlash against results from what might be either a reasonable misunderstanding or a correct understanding of what she said.
When she says "don't do that," does she mean don't be creepy (as you suggest) or don't approach women for romance (as her critics construed)? Well, her main complaint about EG in the original video was that he "sexualized" her. I don't think it's crazy for her audience to conclude that "don't do that" is therefore an injunction against any guy who "sexualizes" a woman at one of these events. It does sound like she's saying, don't approach women with anything sexual in mind, period.
Now, does his dismissive response make Dawins a shitheel, or reveal his bad character? I doubt it, for a few reasons. If you're an academic, especially a scientist, the word "feminism" becomes loaded with all kinds of connotations having to do with feminist scholarship -- some of which is great, and some of which is really crazy. I've seen prestigious scholars claim that First Amendment protections for porn harm women's free speech, or that in our present culture it's impossible for sex to be consensual. There are also prestigious feminist scholars who think large swaths of known science have succeeded only because they help feed the patriarchy.
I strongly doubt Watson goes in for this stuff, since she's an avowed "skeptic." But when one hears self-identifying "feminists" saying batshit crazy stuff that attacks your own work for years in the academy, it becomes very natural (not justified, but understandable and perhaps blameless) to withhold from avowed feminists the benefit of the doubt.
I try very hard not to do this myself -- not to slide into the trap Dawkins fell into in this case -- but it is really difficult.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add that I think part of the problem is the format of video-blogging. People tend to ramble in a video and not put their point in the best, most diplomatic way. I suspect that's probably what happened with Watson's initial video. If she'd written it down, she probably wouldn't have created the ambiguity that led her critics to interpret her as a prude.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If she did mean "don't approach women sexually at a Con, period", I do somewhat disagree with her, but I'd understand perfectly and still wouldn't consider her a prude.
My interpretation of it is:
"Don't make creepy awkward passes at girls, in general,
"And,
"Don't make passes at me at cons, period, because I'm sick of people making passes at me at cons. Especially don't do this when I've previously established that I don't want to have passes made at me."
[ July 18, 2011, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're probably right that that's what she meant. It's the most reasonable interpretation of what she actually says in the video.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you may very well be right, Destineer, but I'm pretty sure that some folks are going to cast her as a prude (or some other variation on female misbehavior) almost no matter *what* she said, once she said, "Please don't do that."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My experience as a woman is that it's a bit of a no-win situation. If you don't interpret typical come-ons as a come-on and instead ignore your instincts, then you should've known better. If you do interpret it as a come-on and clearly reject it, then you are in Bella-Bee's situation above, or in RW's.
I think the expectation is that you recognize the come-on for a come-on but pretend convincingly that you do not -- so, you act in a way that protects you but still doesn't hurt the guy's feelings. But now comes Part II!
Part II is when you are at fault for not having given clear signals. The guy -- having made the come-on (which you deftly recognized but adroitly ignored so as to spare his feelings of being rejected) -- continues to pursue you because he has no idea you got the message and rejected him, so now he figures he has to push harder to get the point across. Because you haven't rejected him! Or if you had, how on earth was he supposed to know?
It doesn't always happen this way, of course, but it does make those Murphy's Oil Soap commercials from the 80s with little old nuns cleaning the church pews under a vow of silence so darn appealling.
Being a woman of any typical attractiveness means you are eventually going to hurt someone's feelings/piss them off/both or end up in a longterm relationship with someone you cannot stand. Them's the breaks. It isn't FGM, heaven knows, but it is a quandry that means one has to get used to being disliked sometimes. That's okay. I wish it were different, but we'll all have manage to cope and find a way to muddle through it.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once worked with a woman from Russia, who told me that in Russia, the women are the ones who seek out the men instead of the other way around.
I have no idea if she was blowing smoke up my skirt or not, but it makes me wonder how much of the "sexually aggressive male persona" is factual and how much is simply cultural.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: "Don't make passes at me at cons, period, because I'm sick of people making passes at me at cons. Especially don't do this when I've previously established that I don't want to have passes made at me."
I think it's worth pointing out that for her, being at the convention is work--she's there in a professional capacity, as a presenter. So there's also an angle of "Don't make passes at me while I'm working."
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf_, I don't know much about Russian culture. But I bet men both there and here are in a no-win situation, just as women are.
It's life. It's messy -- human life is messy! It is complicated and messy, and it is decomposing as soon as it begins, and it is fragrant and rich and organic and riotuously splendid. And it falls apart in our hands, and every plan fails to survive the first encounter, and we keep going.
I'd rather not beat anyone else up for not being able to figure it out. I'm not going to beat up Elevator Guy, or Destineer, or Dogbreath, or Rebecca Watson. Or Richard Dawkins, for that manner. I am going to say that what Elevator Guy did was an uncool move and try to help explain why. That's not out of line -- it's about the best things we can do under these messy circumstances.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, in this case, I think it's okay to (metaphorically) beat up Richard Dawkins - he should know better.
But I agree that both Elevator Guy and Rebecca were reasonable people reacting reasonably to life's complexities.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, you may very well be right, Destineer, but I'm pretty sure that some folks are going to cast her as a prude (or some other variation on female misbehavior) almost no matter *what* she said, once she said, "Please don't do that."
Right. But wording things more clearly might have spared her this multimedia extravaganza, and instead just netted her the usual half-dozen emailed rape threats from internet psychos.
Although when I put it that way, perhaps this is the better outcome after all.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For clarification, this is what RW said in the video:
quote: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.
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: I think it's worth pointing out that for her, being at the convention is work--she's there in a professional capacity, as a presenter. So there's also an angle of "Don't make passes at me while I'm working."
She seriously gets paid to be an atheist blogger/speaker? Damn, I thought my job was cushy.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of a half a dozen emailed rape threats from internet psychos, I'd bet even money it's more like dozens of dozens now that the media circus is dun dunt duna nuna nunt na na na (circus music).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It seems fairly obvious to me where the line between treating a man as if he's a decent person and treating him as "potentially a rapist" is - if he touches you without your permission, doesn't take no for an answer, demands sexual favors, calls you dirty names, won't leave when you ask him, or in general acts with an intent to intimidate or coerce you, then by all means treat him as if he's a potential rapist. Until then, treat him like a decent human being.
I think there might be some differences in what people mean when they talk about treating someone (or some situation) as a potential rapist. Going way, way back to when I was a pre-teen and young teen babysitter and the dads of the kids I sat for often picked me up or drove me home, when I got in the car I always made sure I looked to see where the door locks and handles were, and kept my purse/backpack on the seat beside me so I didn't have to fumble around on the floor for it if I needed to exit the car quickly. As I got older the same habits carried over into dating life. I think that's the sort of thing women mean when they say they are/should be aware that every man is a potential rapist. It doesn't mean being rude or not treating the guy like a decent human being or not wanting to get to know him . . . it just means being aware of your situation and - especially with people you don't know very well - your exit strategies. Just like always having taxi money on a date (if the guy is driving). It doesn't mean you assume he's going to be a jerk, but it does mean you have a safe way home, just in case. (And in the taxi, you check where the door locks and handles are.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It's not "she should've accepted his offer" it's "his offer and behavior aren't actually in any way threatening."
This is actually pretty much not true. Generally, men are larger, stronger animals than women, and on a basic, biological level, being approached or "appreciated" by men does ping a female's hindbrain with the whiff of threat.
A man and a woman are out running (separately) and someone shouts something appreciative at them. Chances are, the man will not feel threatened. The woman most likely would, with the echoes of news reports and shallow graves in wooded areas dancing around in her subconscious. A lot of women are slightly intimidated by being alone with, or invited to be alone with, a man they don't know well.
Imagine that a man stepped into an elevator and was followed by two gay body builders who asked him to come up to their hotel room for coffee and a chat.
Now you might be closer to understanding the power imbalance of the situation, and how it could be seen to be threatening without anything "overtly" threatening being said or done.
I lift weights and have studied martial arts, etc. But I am still a smaller animal. My cat is a mean little SOB and weighs almost 17 pounds. I guarantee you he will feel threatened if a medium-sized dog walks into a closed space with him, even if the dog only wants to be friends. It's just biology.
(I'd also like to be clear that I don't mean to pick on you. I only point this out because I thought that perhaps, as a Marine and an a man of good intent, it might not have occurred to you that not being overtly threatening does not equal absence of perceived threat. And of course, IMMV.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: My cat is a mean little SOB and weighs almost 17 pounds. I guarantee you he will feel threatened if a medium-sized dog walks into a closed space with him, even if the dog only wants to be friends.
i mean, honestly, if we just drop the pretense and greet women in elevators by vocalizing the dog mentality
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, are you channeling the big monster from Warner Bros. (I wanna hug him, and squeeze him, and...), or rather the "OMIGOD IT'S YIU BUDDY HI HI HI!" of many (all?) dogs everywhere? Just tryin' to vocalize it right when I say it myself;)
---- Olivet hits the nail on the head for me, but that's no surprise-we've agreed on similar subjects before. It's difficult to put in terms dudes will readily get, I think, because it's such a foreign point of view for us-to have, hm, the 'potential for wariness' perhaps, ready at hand for anyone of an entire gender, and actually have good, *rational* reasons for feeling that way. Even if you haven't been victimized yourself, because chances are quite good you know someone who has, *or* you know how easily it can happen to you.
There aren't many dudes I know who wouldn't be at least a *little*...concerned with the example given, a person or persons in an enclosed space so late at night expressing clear sexual interest, with the knowledge that *if* they chose to, they could act on it.
It's always seemed strange to me, the way society asks women to just *turn off* or weaken that sense of awareness. I mean, I know why it happens, or some of the reasons, that encouragement, but it's one of the stranger twists we make.
Neither women nor men have an obligation, morally, to receive an invitation to sex gladly or even neutrally. Absent anything else (the convention, the elevator, the time), you're allowed to be emphatic. This is one subject where it is OK to hurt someone's feelings, since rejection often *does* hurt one's feelings. The onus shouldn't be on women not to hurt male feelings, but rather for guys to not have thei feelings hurt so badly when they're rejected.
*I use the phrase 'invitation to sex' because that's what 'come back to my place for coffee and conversation' generally means. That's what most people think when they hear it or say it-that 'just coffee and conversation' is not the *only* hoped for outcome. Thus it's not unreasonable that she'd view it that way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can either A) become very angry at them for not taking the time to think it through, and belittle them or B) briefly express your feelings in neutral language and carry on with whatever you're doing.
See, here's the thing. Watson did B. She said, in as straightforward, neutral terminology as she could, "don't do that."
And the internet went into an uproar over that.
I admit I haven't visited many sites discussing the topic, but so far the only uproar I've seen is the anger directed at Richard Dawkins for his rather rude comment. As well as a couple misogynists like the OP being annoying. On her blog, the only comments there are either supporting her position, or very politely disagreeing with her for one reason or another.
I hope you can, if not agree with, appreciate my position, that is, having no problem with her or her desire to tell guys not to approach her, but disagreeing with some of the things she said while doing so, and especially later comments.
I think on issues like these which can hit close to home, it's easy to get pretty emotional, and it's also easy to polarize... lumping people into one of two extremes, i.e, you either agree with RW completely on the issue, or you're a misogynistic jerk, regardless of what you actually said. I feel it's important to mention, not because you're actually doing it, but because I sense the conversation starting to head that direction and I'm in a somewhat precarious position.
quote:This is actually pretty much not true. Generally, men are larger, stronger animals than women, and on a basic, biological level, being approached or "appreciated" by men does ping a female's hindbrain with the whiff of threat.
A man and a woman are out running (separately) and someone shouts something appreciative at them. Chances are, the man will not feel threatened. The woman most likely would, with the echoes of news reports and shallow graves in wooded areas dancing around in her subconscious. A lot of women are slightly intimidated by being alone with, or invited to be alone with, a man they don't know well.
Imagine that a man stepped into an elevator and was followed by two gay body builders who asked him to come up to their hotel room for coffee and a chat.
Now you might be closer to understanding the power imbalance of the situation, and how it could be seen to be threatening without anything "overtly" threatening being said or done.
I think the problem here is a choice of words.
Threatening someone is generally a felony. "He threatened the clerk with a gun", "he threatened to kill me", "he threatened to rape me." It implies a conscious decision to do perform an act that will cause a person fear for their safety and extreme emotional duress, to put a person emotionally under your control. It's illegal, and immoral.
From her description of his words and actions, he was plainly *not* threatening her. She may have felt threatened or uncomfortable just being near him, but his expressed intentions (and I'll go ahead and assume he was hoping for sex), his words, and his actions show no attempt to threaten her.
So say "he was being creepy", I have no problem with that. But don't accuse him of threatening you, of deliberately trying to cause you emotional duress, when by your own account he wasn't.
I think that was what Richard Dawkins was getting at too, though he worded it badly. He was addressing all the actual crimes committed against women in the Middle East, and then compared it to the guy in question, who neither committed any kind of crime against RW, nor deliberately threatened her in any way. I don't think the man committed a crime by asking her out.
Or, in other words, you're responsible for your own feelings. Other people ought to be courteous towards you do what they can to avoid making you uncomfortable. If they inadvertently do make you uncomfortable, though, they're not committing a crime or threatening you, the most they're guilty of is stupidity.
As far as the gay bodybuilder thing, as luck would have it, I've been hit on by a gay man before in an inclosed space (a bedroom). It felt uncomfortable, and I made my discomfort known. He backed off instantly, and left the area when I got the chance. I thought the guy was a bit weird, but otherwise it didn't bother me.
If he had been persistent and didn't back off after I said no, that would have been an entirely different issue. And I think it's something that really should be bashed over the heads of ignorant men: no means no.
Anyway, I won't be able to get online for the next week or so, so my part in this discussion has come to an end. (unless it's still going next week) I want to express my gratitude for how civil and understanding people generally are on this board, there are other message boards I've posted on where within 5 posts people would be screaming at each other calling people rapists and feminazis and such, I'm glad Hatrack isn't like that.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Threatening someone is generally a felony. "He threatened the clerk with a gun", "he threatened to kill me", "he threatened to rape me." It implies a conscious decision to do perform an act that will cause a person fear for their safety and extreme emotional duress, to put a person emotionally under your control. It's illegal, and immoral.
Okay, if that's what you interpreted "threaten" to me then I understand where you were coming from. I had no idea "threaten" had an actual legal definition.
It's not a word she used though. For easy reference:
quote: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'm sure that in the ensuing uproar that things got said that were more controversial, but really, that initial statement seems as innocuous as it was possible to make the statement. And the ensuing uproar was a meta-discussion that ended up being about more than the initial encounter.
quote:As far as the gay bodybuilder thing, as luck would have it, I've been hit on by a gay man before in an inclosed space (a bedroom). It felt uncomfortable, and I made my discomfort known.
Imagine if that happened all the time? No, the giant gay bodybuilders would not be committing crimes. Nobody is saying that. Rebecca was not saying that. Something can be impolite and annoying and warrant an occasional complaint on the internet without being a crime.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the problem here is a choice of words.
Yes indeed. You're defining 'threatened' in a very precise, overt way. "I'll hit you with this bat if you don't give me your wallet!" Threat. In this case 'threatened' is very low-grade, a sort of 'I was uncomfortable to the point of wariness' perhaps.
But receiving an overt threat is not the only legitimate way to feel threatened. One *can* threaten unintentionally, unless you start out by defining that word as 'only with intent'. She felt threatened because of something he was saying or doing, but he did not (I agree) intend to threaten. Nonetheless, she was threatened by him-a pretty low grade of threatening, thankfully.
It's rather like when someone describes an event that happens and explains their certainty of their observation. If someone comes along and disagrees, they're not necessarily calling the first person a liar, they're just saying they were wrong. Elevator Guy threatened her because she (not unreasonably) felt threatened. But he was not a threatener.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But a guy being approached sexually by another guy of approximately the same size really isn't the same thing as I was talking about.
A person can be threatened without anyone committing a felony. When I was fourteen, my family made ride share arrangements with a girl down the street who was going to be taking her two brothers to the same school I was attending, between ten and fifteen miles away. On the first day, I was in teh back seat with one brother and the other was in teh passenger seat when the elder sister stopped by her house because she had forgotten something. While she was out of the car, the boy in front turned to his brother and said, "What d'ya say we lay 'er?" Both of them started laughing.
That was a threat, but not a felony. It wasn't a threat they had any hope of carrying out in the minute and a half their sister was out of the car -- it was just something they did to 'put me in my place,' to intimidate me.
Nothing worse than that has ever happened to me, for which I am grateful, but you can't say it wasn't threatening.
The reason I used two gay body builders as an example is that, for there to be an implicit level of threat there has to be a physical possibility of being overpowered. Your gay man (even in a bedroom) did not pose the kind of physical threat even an average male would pose to an average female.
It may be unpleasant to be asked to be aware of this size/threat disparity and not corner a woman before making sexual overtures, but it is more a plea for understanding and consideration rather than man-bashing, I think.
That is the nature of privilege, though -- all teh things you *don't* have to think about. I don't often consider or appreciate all the instances in which I don't have to think about being white, having the benefits of an expensive private education, or being reasonably attractive. All these things give me an advantage in some situations, and being reminded of it is painful. But I believe it is only through the awareness of the privileged people that various "isms" can be conquered.
And you're absolutely right about Hatrack. It is a place that helped me change my views about some very heavy topics, simply because of the people here, and how willing they are to explain the logic behind their positions. (I tend to respond very negatively to emotional arguments, but respectful, rational discourse is something I enjoy more than food. So I've loved me some Hatrack off and on for YEARS.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, oddly enough, I agree with Rakeesh. Go figger. (BTW, Rakeesh - I just watched the FotR extended edition with my sons, who are reading LotR for the first time, and my goodness if I didn't start having WenchCon flashbacks part way through. I hope we can do that again for the Hobbit movie.)
*scratches Samprimary behind the ears*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I really angered a good male friend by refusing to back down on this issue. I have lots of male friends and do not spend my life cowering in the corner thinking a man is going to rape me whenever I'm alone with one. However, that doesn't mean I'm not aware of the possibility that I will be propositioned, sexualised, followed, approached and--if worst comes to worst--attacked.
Maybe because when men are with women the women don't tend to get yelled at on the street so the men aren't actually aware how often this kind of thing occurs. They're also perhaps not sure that women usually find being yelled at, whistled at or propositioned a little bit creepy. At night alone, this kicks up a notch into threatening.
So I take precautions. Part of those precautions are simply being alert. And yes, part of them are regarding people out on the street as a potential threat and paying attention to them as such. And I suggest that my friends do the same.
And if that offends you, as a man, then fine. Because I'd rather I offended you now than stopped taking the mild precautions that I do.
In Rebecca Watson's specific case, she had *just* finished saying she didn't want to be hit on. If someone did this right after I'd said 'don't', and they did it in an elevator alone, I would immediately read it as a deliberate threat. Someone who could be so idiotic to go against exactly what I've just said could be deliberately trying to make a point. And the last thing I would want, alone at 4 in the morning, is a pissed off, drunk man trying to make a point that hitting on me is-- in his mind--okay.
That is even more threatening than simply being prepositioned.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's how to talk to women. In a public place, come up and and say, "hi."
This doesn't mean you will get invited to have a chat or a dance or whatever you want just because you weren't creepy. A woman may still reject you, often not because you're ugly or creepy but simply because she's busy doing something else or is not in the same mode as you at the moment.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So I've loved me some Hatrack off and on for YEARS.)
