The Elevatorgate scandal, which began when Rebecca Watson of SkepChick reported being sexually harassed by in an elevator by a man at an atheist conference, has been the talk of the web for nearly a month.
Celebrated skeptic Richard Dawkins weighed in and accused Watson of maligning a shy but harmless guy. A debate erupted about social awkwardness, harassment, and geek/atheist culture. See Greta Christine, Amanda Marcotte, and David Futrelle, all of whom deal with this issue of shyness and harassment in helpful ways.
Since I come so late to this discussion, I’ll just add this:
One of the myriad ways in which the myth of male weakness manifests itself in our culture is in the belief that women owe it to men to be able to discern the latter’s intent. Male social awkwardness is framed as something that lies so far beyond the capacity of men to address themselves that it becomes women’s responsibility to unerringly distinguish the sweet, shy, clumsy dude from the dude who’s a genuine threat.
The more we believe that women are more naturally intuitive than men (a “truism” peddled by pop psychologists and theologians alike), the more we outsource the job of interpreting and understanding male behavior to women. How often do we hear a man explode with rage at a woman, saying “But that’s not what I meant!” or “You’re blowing this way out of proportion”? Our myths about gender tell us that men are mysteries even to themselves, and that mothers and wives know the men they love “better than they know themselves.” That’s not just insulting to men, it’s letting them off the hook — and placing an impossible burden on to women.
It is not women’s job to understand us better than we understand ourselves. It’s not even their job to discern our intent. (Even if we’re shy and clumsy and socially inept.) It’s their job to do what all human beings have the right to do, which is assess threats and judge character based on what they perceive with their reason and their senses. And it’s our job to take responsibility for our words and our actions.
Social awkwardness can be a real affliction. I do not doubt that it can be hugely difficult for shy guys to meet women. But while they deserve our collective sympathy and perhaps our collective strategizing to offer these shy guys tools for greater success, it doesn’t mean that individual women should be expected to sympathize, understand, or look with greater forbearance upon them. Especially in an elevator at 4:00AM.
I wouldn’t be surprised that citing Roissy would be considered crimethink around here (just teasing a little), so I’ll hold off on a direct link, but he had a few interesting points to make on this story (yes, following a lot of unsparing things to say about women who see “potential rapists” around every corner, so FWOW to those who get “triggered”). Here’s the quote of interest:
Someday, I want to sit down with Roissy and do an interview. He gets some things right, some things terribly wrong, and he has clear and compelling appeal for a certain type of man who desperately wants to understand how to be more successful.
And look, if reading that last paragraph means that gameboys (what else do we call guys who practice this stuff? Gamers?) are less willing to corner women in elevators, then I’m grateful to M. Roissy for the tip.
By the same standard Hugo we expect men to judge women’s intent and purpose. If we take for example the shrodengers rapist posts from a while back a woman in a known place for picking up women may not in fact be interested. We expect both sexes to intuit the other and punish them if they are wrong.
From elevatorgate I don’t see the big issue we have given the guy didn’t push (from what I have read) her. He had no game but asking alone can be a lot easier. He asked, she rejected, he made no further mention. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? We respect people’s statements and clarify situations we want to address.
Yeah. My advice to all shy guys, free of charge: Do not hit on women in elevators at 4 am. In general, don’t strike up any meaningful conversations in elevators with total strangers regardless of gender on either end at 4 am–people who are on an elevator at 4 am are not looking for a relationship right then, be it friendship or something deeper.
I wish I could find the original SkepChick post to read, it’s just amazing to me that anyone would seriously hit on a woman in an elevator at 4 am and think somehow that that is a good idea.
Elevators are weird places generally, especially with only one other stranger in a hotel in a strange city at 4 am. Anyone who doesn’t realize that and figures this is the place and the time to “make your move” is situationally-unaware and socially inept. That does not, however, equate to being a sex offender.
Don’t hate, educate!
Don’t hate, educate!
Fine, but it’s not ever the job of the woman in the elevator to do that education. Women are not here to teach us how to behave with human dignity and common sense.
Why not Hugo?
I often have chats in elevators when it’s me plus one other. In larger groups the silence and awkwardness feel more natural however when alone it’s like waiting at a bus station, you make polite pleasantries about the slowness of the elevator, how it never seems to come etc. Other people do the same with me, it seems impolite to ignore people.
Again asking politely and respecting her response seems acceptable. If he closed her in (blocking the door etc) or didn’t respect her response then her complaints seem valid.
Yeah, it baffles me that this is so complicated. When you consider the frequency with which women are blamed for their own attacks, is it really so hard to understand why some of us tend to be on the defensive? (And really, if the worst had happened, if skepchick had accepted the man’s invitation and been assaulted, you can bet there would have been tons of MRA types berating her for her own stupidity, because duh, who accepts a coffee invitation at 4 am, right?) If your behavior is weird and makes people uncomfortable, it’s your job to correct it. Ultimately, intent doesn’t matter if the effect makes people feel cornered and threatened. That applies to everyone, of course, but I don’t think it’s too much to say that it’s worse in the case of women, who are at a higher not only for being assaulted, but for being blamed if an assault occurs.
I was fundamentally upset by this story.
To begin with: how did the woman even know the man who approached her in the elevator was heterosexual?
She assumed, right off the bat, that any man who approached her and said “I’m interested in your thoughts on atheism, would you like to join me for coffee?” was actually only interested in getting into her pants. That it is entirely possible he was actually interested in what she had to say did not even seem to cross her mind (nor did, presumably, the idea that men are not actually sexually attracted to every woman they try and begin a conversation with).
As a result, it’s hard to read this story as anything more than what Vicki Larson referred to as the ongoing “Scapegoating of Men,” in her piece at the Huffington Post that was also picked up by The Good Men Project this week (available here: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/are-men-societys-scapegoats/ ).
Now, is it possible that it was a terribly inept guy mistakenly thinking this was the time to ask a woman out? Sure. Would the world be a nicer place if fewer women walked around viewing every man out there as potential rapist? Definitely.
Oh, seriously. “Would the world be a nicer place if fewer women walked around viewing every man out there as a potential rapist?” Sure–and that will happen when sexual assault stops happening with such depressing regularity. I think it’s also important for people to realize this: that they are not, generally speaking, entitled to anyone’s time. The man who approached Skepchick in the elevator did not deserve her attention, and when he put himself out there like that, he was accepting the possibility of rejection. That’s how the whole sex and dating thing typically works. She didn’t physically hurt him, accuse of him of being a rapist, or splash his name all over the internet; she just rejected him, then recounted the experience on her blog, understandably interpreting it as weird. I would have had the same reaction.
Here’s the part everyone seems to be missing: He invited her to HIS ROOM. At 4am. He didn’t invite her to Starbucks or the hotel bar or to meet up at the continental breakfast the next day. He invited her to his hotel room at four o’clock in the morning when they were in an elevator, alone.
And here I pause to tell you a story. My very first week of college, I was required to attend a bunch of little classes called Responsibilities 101. One of those classes was about how to avoid date rape. You know the number one thing they told us, over and over again, to the point it became a meme?
“Don’t go to a stranger’s room alone, especially if you’ve been drinking.”
Do I even have to go further than that? Women are taught that this is a really bad idea, and for good reason. Most responsible men should know this, and NOT ASK.
I’ve been hearing this story everywhere too, and the point I didn’t catch until just recently was that he invited her to his room, which for me, sounds all kinds of alarm bells. Especially at 4am, which in my experience is pretty much a witching hour.
Hugo, please don’t call all guys who are trying to use PUA/seduction techniques “gameboys”. The last time you got called on this, I believe by Clarisse Thorne, you admitted that you didn’t fully understand the pain of guys who didn’t have success with women naturally. You were born with game, even if you were never the best looking man in town, you’ve always had women eating out of your hand. (Believe me. I’ve seen it and you know I have. It still happens, except now you don’t fuck them!)
So you knock guys who pursue through the PUA community what comes to you naturally. That’s like being 7 feet tall and able to dunk easily and wondering why it is so hard for shorter men.
You are rarely wrong about women. (Though sometimes, you are off base there too. Still, you get us better than any man I know). You are rarely wrong about men. The difference is that with women you find the most charitable interpretation of what we do, while with guys you pick the harshest take. That is a blind spot for you.
But as for the original post: don’t hit on me in an elevator late at night. Ever. Creepy place, creepy setting, bad for bizness.
No doubt the “Pickup Artist Community” will be shaking their heads over this as yet more proof of how good loving men get rejected and misunderstood.
If Richard Dawkins really came out on the man’s side, my respect for him just went down considerably. God should strike all these guys down, but the sad truth is, He probably won’t.
I think it’s fine to elevator chat in general. Like, some cliche thing, like “Late night, huh?” that lets the other person know you’re open to conversation, okay. Hitting on, different story.
Problem is from what I have read he didn’t technically hit on her, he expressed interest in her work and asked to discuss it over coffee. It really might just be elevator conversation or a badly thought out idea about talking about her work. How often have we thought of an idea after an event and thought gosh I wish I had asked that. Hindsight is wonderful.
I don’t understand why this gets turned around to, “Well then how am I supposed to get sex?” I don’t know! It’s not my problem! Ms. Watson was unimpressed and felt a little threatened in this scenario. The reasons for that have been explained over and over. It doesn’t follow that she and other women who sympathize with her need to brainstorm different way to approach women. It’s an interesting problem to discuss, but only tangentially connected.
Sara,
Thank you. I too wonder why the “how am I supposed to get sex?” keeps coming up.
I’m still curious about why the woman in the elevator even assumed the man was heterosexual to begin with, and then went one further to assume he must be interested in her.
In this thread I could not help but notice that Paprika responded to my initial comment by just continuing to assume that the man wanted a date. As Paprika did not claim to be there, and is not likely to be a mind reader, I am confused as to how why she makes this particular assertion.
Because, Mike, he probably did. Maybe he didn’t, but the behavior Rebecca describes makes it sound like a come on. I’m enjoying all of the people who keep shouting about how she didn’t KNOW that he was hitting on her, utterly discounting Rebecca’s ability to interpret something she presumably encounters on a regular basis. Most women can tell if someone’s hitting on them, and even if that’s not what this particular man was trying to do, his behavior makes it seem otherwise. Approaching someone–anyone–in an enclosed space at 4 am and inviting her to your hotel room is weird and presumptuous. I have had similar experiences, and it was always clearly a come on. So even if he wasn’t trying to get a “date” (insofar as late night coffee in someone’s hotel room counts as a date), his behavior was weird, and I don’t see how you can blame her for being creeped out by it. Sure, maybe he’s just an awkward dude, and if so then that sucks, but the onus is on him to improve his social skills. It has nothing to do with her.
I also find it interesting that throughout this kerfluffle, the man who approached her has yet to respond. Since I doubt he could be ignorant of her post by this point, my hope is that he read it and learned a valuable lesson about acceptable social behavior.
@Mike: “I’m still curious about why the woman in the elevator even assumed the man was heterosexual to begin with, and then went one further to assume he must be interested in her.”
Easy. She made that assumption because his invitation to have coffee with him was an invitation to have coffee with him at 4am in his hotel room.
General rule of thumb number 1: If you don’t want an invitation to coffee to be interpreted as hitting on a woman, make that first invitation, to a woman you don’t know, one to have coffee together in a public place at some time other than the wee hours of the morning. Invitations to head straightaway to your hotel room will be understood by most women as sexual.
(And general rule of thumb number 2 of course is the originally stated one about how, if you do give an invitation that’s likely to be perceived as hitting on a woman, you don’t do it in a confined space.)
“I’m still curious about why the woman in the elevator even assumed the man was heterosexual to begin with”
Statistical likelihood.
“and then went one further to assume he must be interested in her.”
I know this one too well. Considering how clueless this guy was, I’m guessing he had the stammer, had a hard time looking her in the eye, or just had the “I know she will say no, but…” demeanor.
Come on, Mike. Are you het? If so, when you ask a woman out, do you think to yourself “I hope she’s not a lesbian?” If you aren’t het and have never tried to pick up women, then I guess I could understand your confusion.
Gee, Richard Dawkins and Amanda Marcotte are having a food-fight. What fun. I have very little ideological sympathy for either one of them, and my opinion on this kerfluffle is, in the words of Ivan Karamazov, “let the reptiles devour each other.”
I hope they both come out of this looking like fools, and discrediting their ideological comrades all the more.
Lynn Gazis Sax,
I’ve got to be honest, the combination of asking someone
1) straightaway to your room
2) in an elevator
3) at 4 AM
4) after never having spoken to them before,
is almost impossible for me to imagine why someone would think they would be a good idea. I can’t really imagine myself doing any of the four, let alone all four of them together.
If the choice is between being “luckless loser without a date” and “sh*thead who freaks women out in elevators at 4 AM”, I’d much rather be the luckless loser.
If the choice is between being “luckless loser without a date” and “sh*thead who freaks women out in elevators at 4 AM”, I’d much rather be the luckless loser.
My worldview and Hector’s are utterly incommensurable, and share virtually nothing. I can’t imagine I’ll ever agree with Hector quite as wholeheartedly and enthusiastically as I do with this statement.
I was all ready to see both sides of the story here, but then I went to the original source, listened, and concluded: there’s nothing to consider here. She didn’t name and shame him, she didn’t accuse him of being a rapist, she didn’t in fact malign him in any way, but only said “you appear to have missed the point of my talk” and “your behaviour was incredibly foolish”.
This is good advice, and should be taken in such a spirit.
I’m a self-identified geek; I’m shy, intellectual, rational. I know where a lot of these people are coming from. Geeks pride themselves in their logical thinking; some even wear their lack of emotional intuition as a badge of pride. But at the same time there’s a huge blind spot with regards to our own emotional reactions.
I’m seeing a lot of people saying things like “all he did was ask her out in an elevator. Why did she get so distraught?”. I put it to you: that’s projection. She did not get distraught, irrational, hysterical, or anything else. The emotions you are encountering here are your own, your fears of rejection and low self-esteem bubbling up and pressed down again, because you don’t get emotional, no, you’re rational, you’re logical, you’re a veritable Mr. Spock.
I recognise that. I’ve done that in the past. A lot. I’m still prone to it, in fact, but I’d like to think I’m a lot faster to recognise it these days. And the solution to that is to put your natural introspection to good use, and reason about your own emotions logically. Not to wallow in self-pity, or boil up in indignation, but to know your emotions, own them, and not try to offload them onto other people.
Wow, this Elevator Guy incident is like Nately’s Whore from Catch-22. It just keeps coming up, and up, and up. After what must have been thousands of blogs and hundreds of thousands of comments, you really thought it was still a good idea to publish an ill-informed entry to add to the whole mess? You’re missing 99% of the story here, which I don’t blame you as an outsider who only heard about it from the likes of Marcotte.
Also, you’re saying this was sexual harassment? Really? It was creepy to be sure, and creeping out women doesn’t help anyone’s cause, but sexual harassment? Really? Okay, but I smell a dead horse here so I’ll leave it…
The real reason why this thing blew up so badly in the atheist and skeptic community is because there has been a very large number of women who disagreed with Rebecca Watson et al. After seeing some reactions from feminist women to her video blog, Watson used her invitation to be the keynote speaker at a convention to put up a slide with the name of a female student in in her audience that grouped her and any other woman who disagreed with Watson as a “rape apologist”.
Watson, mind you, has never been raped or sexually assaulted by her own admission. And she met her ex husband when he hit on her at an atheist convention. The fact is, a few of the women who disagreed with her WERE IN FACT victims of sexual assault. This, Hugo, this is it, that is what sat so badly with a lot of men AND women, with Rebecca using her bully pulpit and then a bunch of idiotic feminist apologists defending her against her critics no matter what the facts were.
But wait, there’s more. Since you’re probably not at all familiar with the atheist movement, you probably don’t know that Richard Dawkins has been incredibly vocal on women’s rights and the plight of women around the world at the hands of religious extremists. It’s an issue that he is deeply passionate about. You probably also have no idea that Richard Dawkins is himself a victim of sexual molestation. And whenever someone once made a comparison between Dawkin’s advocacy on behalf of victims of sexual assault and what happened to him, Dawkins responded by saying that what happened to him wasn’t nearly as bad as what happens to other kids around the world.
This, and Dawkins knows Rebecca Watson personally and they spoke side by side at conventions where she used her podium as a bully pulpit to settle personal matters. Speaking of context, you know?
Put everything together and imagine what YOUR reaction would be to Rebecca Watson if you were Richard Dawkins, victim of sexual molestation and advocate for victims of sexual assault? What would a guy whose not afraid to say it like it is say to a rich white woman who is blathering about the shockingly inappropriate nature of being asked for coffee in an elevator while telling women who were victims of sexual assault to shut the hell up?
And what’s with the bit about theologians knowing something? Is that a passive-aggressive stab at atheist men?
A bit of context – I attended Catholic school in the 80s. I was also deeply closeted. Weirdly, that means that my friend were always the girls. One of the boys saw me talking and laughing and getting along well with the girls and one girl in particular. And he liked her, had kind of painful adolescent crush on her and was also bizarre and socially awkward in so very many ways. So he thought he’d ask me for advice on talking to girls. Here’s my thing: I’ve never understood the fear of talking with women. Women are easy. Seriously. Well, I gave him the best advice I could – talk to her, say hello, maybe ask to sit next to her at lunch. Well this was a fiasco. Somehow in his fucked up brain, he decided it was a compliment to describe tell her he thought she had a crunchy-chewy body. I kid you not. Now, yes, she was very athletic and fit. But seriously, crunchy-chewy body. Dear Jesus Mary Joseph and all the Saints save us from the painfully earnest morons. As you can imagine despite me saying “Never ever say that to her,” he of course did. She actually didn’t slap him, she avoided him after that. She did at one point have to say “Stop calling me, I have a boyfriend. He goes to another school.” The boyfriend part was a lie but it was a kind lie.
Now I recount this story of free range adolescent stupidity for a simple reason. Lots of socially awkward people blurt out stupid things in the moment. They get tongue-tied, they get all caught up in the emotional drama in their heads which may or may not (usually not) have anything to do with the real world. Suddenly, they’re in an elevator at 4 a.m. inviting a near total stranger to their hotel room for coffee. It’s not what they mean. It’s not what they meant to say but there it is.
Ultimately, what happened was at 4 a.m. – they were both tired, they were both probably a bit on the tipsy side and a stupid social interaction happened. I don’t think it was anything more than that.
I was all ready to see both sides of the story here, but then I went to the original source, listened, and concluded: there’s nothing to consider here. She didn’t name and shame him, she didn’t accuse him of being a rapist, she didn’t in fact malign him in any way, but only said “you appear to have missed the point of my talk” and “your behaviour was incredibly foolish”.
This has been my perspective. She just said “Guys, don’t do that.” (if not verbatim, then close to it) and that’s about it.
All of this talk putting the whole burden on women to understand he might be socially awkward and you’re a horrible person if you don’t allow for that? Not so much. All of this talk putting the whole burden on men and you’re a horrible person if you don’t realize how something is going to appear to a woman? Not so much.
Allsaintsday, please do yourself a favor and read my comment above… because that’s part of the problemm with this mess. It was not the original video but her actions in the following days where she accused women who disagreed with her of being rape apologists that started this big fight.
In the video itself, she frammes the encounter as a feminist issue and even though she does not explixitl say it, she leaves it hanging for the audience to discern why exactly she is so scared. She relates this as a case in point of what she was talking about in her speech on sexism in the atheist movement. Many people who do not deny that sexismm exists and work to eradicate it nevertheless thought that this was just a matter of Watson settling personal scores and that it was a disservice to people who experience actual sexism that is of some real consequence. This was not a video of friendly advice to men about making women more comfortable, as she did not offer any alternative except to say that if u cross this chick the wrong way, she will bring the full wrath of the feminist movement down on your ass. This is what people reacted to..
Also, the only reason she didn’t out who the guy was is probably because she doesn’t even know. Something that is a huge shame, too, because one of the best ways to prevent assaults by a stranger is to engage them in light conversation, memorize their face, find out their name, and otherwise convey to them that they are no longer anonimous. Rebecca Watson could have been more safe and confident, had she not used her rape fears to freak herself out and shut down. A little less fear and she would have been safer as a result.
OK, last comment of the night and possibly for a long time on this particular blog.
Paprika said:
“And really, if the worst had happened, if skepchick had accepted the man’s invitation and been assaulted, you can bet there would have been tons of MRA types berating her for her own stupidity, because duh, who accepts a coffee invitation at 4 am, right?)”
MRAs (98.84% I’d guess) are not upset because Watson rejected the awkward elevator guy. There were other possible acceptable outcomes besides “accept and immediately go to his room for sex”. They are upset because he hit on her in a mild way and accepted her rejection gracefully, but people in her circle, but not necessarily her, talked about it as though she had been assaulted. It reinforces the beliefs of a lot of MRAs who study Game. They believe that all women see it as an assault when a boring, introverted, awkward guy attempts to hit on them. I chuckled at a post that said somewhere a woman is complaining that a man made her feel uncomfortable by getting into an elevator and not saying anything to her.
dungone said:
“she leaves it hanging for the audience to discern why exactly she is so scared.” I got this feeling too and could only guess that she thought he was going to rape her right there in the elevator. It seems more likely that the Game MRAs (Gamemen?) are right about why she loathed the interaction.
A bit off-topic, I don’t like that Watson refers to the incident as being objectified. It appears (I studied the story for my own blog and 2ndnin seems to agree with this version) that she and elevator guy were together in a group all night and his line was something about finding her or her thoughts “interesting”. I gather that he had sexual intentions, but was thinking about more than just her body. It occurs to me that he could have been lying, but they probably had some mutual interests and beliefs given the situation.
Back on topic, why does “how am I supposed to get sex” come up? Because a guy can either never hit on women because it might make some women feel uncomfortable, or he can ignore mainstream feminist dating advice because it’s half-truths that will likely sabotage his chances with potential romantic partners. This discussion is about elevators, so a guy crosses elevators off his list. The next discussion is about not hitting on women who are walking their dogs in parks. The discussion after that is about how approaching women at concerts may make them feel uncomfortable because they’d have to miss the show to get away. Then there’s a discussion about how approaching a woman at a house party is creepy because she can’t leave the house. Don’t approach women at the grocery store! They are just trying to buy some fruit gosh darnit! How long before guys get frustrated and stop listening? At least some of these guys are asking for specific and effective “do” advice on approaching women before they end up ignoring the long list of “don’ts” and using a different guide.
Hugo, I have no dog in the athiest fight. And I too rarely agree with Hector. So let me say that in this case, I think he has it absolutely right. The individual Rebecca Watson described violated at least two straightforward, common sense social rules: don’t corner people, because it puts them in a vulnerable situation, and don’t invite them into a more vulnerable situation, like a stranger’s hotel room at 4am.
I would go farther here. I believe what you call “intuition” has virtually nothing to do with this situation, and indeed that referring to intuition simply raises two problems. Members of a cultural and neurologically diverse society simply cannot rely on so-called nonverbal signals to justify ignoring common sense. Our intuitions only work with people coming from cultures we understand. How many times can you get on an elevator at 4am with someone you don’t know and really have confidence their cultural background and neurological configuration will allow your “intuition” to work? Because if you make that assumption, you put their peace of mind at risk.
Second, the belief that “intuition” can excuse imprudence assumes that people who have “it” can get away with breaking the rules of common prudence in their social relations. The idea of one rule for the geeks and one for the “intuitive” would contains a noxious element of privilege. I can’t speak for woman, so I don’t know what they think of the idea that the sufficiently intuitive need no rules, but I can speak as a “geek”, and I can tell you I certainly don’t need your sympathy. I may have no idea what goes through the mind of a woman in an elevator at 4am, but I do know enough not to invite her to my hotel room.
@JGS: I disagree that demanding consideration of ourselves as “geeks” constitutes privilege. We are a minority, we are discriminated against, and society is often not a friendly place for us. It’s important that we stick up for each other.
But, there’s a big default assumption here that geeks are necessarily male. For that matter, there’s an assumption here that Elevator Guy is necessarily a geek, just because he’s a man, and he acted in a socially awkward way. The “girls don’t understand geeks/geeks don’t understand girls” meme is poisonous and should be discarded.
From all I see, Rebecca understands geeky guys very well, and this came across in the fact that she explained logically why the guy’s behaviour was foolish. If we male geeks truly value logical thought, then we should respect her, listen to her, and take her words to heart. Otherwise, we’re being both sexist and childish, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.
I am sending this post to a close friend of mine. I have known her since she was a shy adolescent and, as her friend, have helped her over the years to navigate the world of awkward, geeky, men (she’s a committed gamer girl and usually travels in geeky social circles).
My friend grew up in a world where she was often told that the awkwardness and the inappropriateness she so often encountered ‘wasn’t the guy’s fault’. He’s just shy, he just likes you, he’s just this and he’s just that. I was even part of helping her through a dilemma at a job she held where a geeky, young, man was being intensely inappropriate around her (inappropriate comments and requests) and a manager told her she should ‘be nice to him’ and ‘spend time with him’ so that she could ‘help him be better’.
To this day she still struggles with saying no to men. She allows herself to feel guilty when she turns someone down and will sometimes cave when they pout or push. She even worked at a job where she was, essentially, told she should ‘fix’ some of the men who came in to hit on her.
Cultural context and past experience has a lot to do with why women react negatively to men who cannot, for whatever reason, conduct themselves in a socially appropriate manner.
@Spud tater: sorry, I obviously didn’t make my point clearly. The noxious assumption of privilege I see lies in the assumption that emotionally attuned/intuitive people need not follow the basic common sense social rules the rest of us do. Not approaching strangers in elevators at 4am to ask them to come to your hotel room, for example. Behaviour like that does not indicate a lack of intuition; it indicates a lack of common sense. T put it plainly, the issue here concerns a code of conduct which should apply equally to everyone, however intuitive they consider themselves.
@Holly: I disagree with any conflation of awkwardness and inappropriateness. Awkwardness happens, inevitably, in culturally and neurologically diverse environments. I believe that people who find situations awkward should welcome the opportunity to grow by accepting new and different modes of thought and different cultural expressions. Inappropriate behaviour, on the other hand, involves a very different challenge: informing people of social rules and in some cases negotiating these rules.
@Metro: Uh, right. God forbid a woman set her own boundaries, and how DARE other women judge the behavior as creepy. But hey, guess what? Approaching an accompanied woman in an enclosed space, at 4 am, and making an overture that you acknowledge is inappropriate (did everyone forget the part where the man opened with “I know this is kind of inappropriate, but…”?) is creepy. His intent? DOES NOT MATTER. The effect was creepy, and nobody–NOBODY–has the right to dictate someone else’s boundaries. You’ve decided he hit on her “in a mild way”; she said it made her uncomfortable. I don’t recall anyone saying she’d been “assaulted”; the most I remember is some calling it “harassment,” and you know–that’s not a stretch.
In other words, your argument is ridiculous.
@JGS: Yes and no… but I think we’re pretty much on the same page here. A social code of conduct is important, and geeks can’t claim special exception. They do, however, sometimes need to have that code specifically explained to them. (And for their part, need to listen.)
@SpudTater: I did not intend to conflate awkwardness with appropriateness. Not all those who are awkward behave inappropriately. That said, however, it is not uncommon for socially awkward men to engage in inappropriate behavior with women, either intentionally or not. My point was meant to illustrate that even when a man is just awkward, women are sometimes called upon to be ‘helpful and sympathetic’ to them. My friend was an example of this.
@Holly: I think you meant that for JGS, not me. Nonetheless, my take on your comment is that it illustrates how people are confusing “be helpful and sympathetic” with “put up with their shit and don’t question it”.
The most helpful thing a woman can do for a man behaving inappropriately is to say “dude, that’s not okay“. Funnily enough, that’s exactly what Rebecca did… and got her hand bitten off for it. Bad internet, bad.
Sadly, this illustrates why some women no longer feel the need to give geeky men even the time of day. If their best efforts to be helpful are thrown back in their faces, why bother? 8^(
But now I sound defeatist, and I did not mean to. Echoing what I said earlier, the way out is for men — geeky men in particular — to learn to take advice gracefully, and not to project their own frustrations onto women. Or, as somebody put it to me earlier, “don’t shoot the messenger”.
“Allsaintsday, please do yourself a favor and read my comment above… because that’s part of the problemm with this mess. It was not the original video but her actions in the following days where she accused women who disagreed with her of being rape apologists that started this big fight.”
Sorry. Should have been more specific that I find her original video to be the appropriate response.
“Funnily enough, that’s exactly what Rebecca did… and got her hand bitten off for it.”
As posted above, the accusation is that that isn’t *exactly* what she did, but rather a part of what she did. And certainly only a part of the general reaction to this.
“Uh, right. God forbid a woman set her own boundaries,”
I have a friend who had an awesome time when she was on an elevator late at night after going out with friends, and he asked her if she wanted to come to his apartment and she did and she had an awesome night. (An awesome time that I kind of got sick of hearing about, in fact.) Is she allowed to set her boundaries where guys can do that, or are boundaries going to be set for her?
The thing is, a woman can’t set her own boundaries and immediately expect that guys won’t cross, because Y chromosomes do not have a “psychic” gene on them. Saying “don’t hit on women in elevators” is pretty reasonable, but isn’t “a woman setting her own boundaries”; it’s some women setting boundaries for all women. It is completely and utterly reasonable to expect that a man, having found that he has crossed a particular woman’s boundaries, should stop; it’s just not reasonable to expect him to know that particular woman’s boundaries from the get-go, and it’s not reasonable to expect him to avoid every situation any woman has ever considered boundary-crossing, because, as Metro pointed out, then there are no situations left. (There’s also the bit where if being reasonable doesn’t work, people won’t be reasonable, but that’s a different conversation.)
@SpudTater, that’s assuming that the messenger isn’t just out to smear everyone she can to draw attention to herself.
Did you watch the video from the convention where Rebecca spoke about sexism? She used that speech to smear Paula Kirby as an anti-woman sexism apologist. Watson used examples of sexism in hate mail she personally received from anti-feminist people and “fan” mail from guys who wanted to have sex with her. Okay, granted, to varying degrees those things can be sexist sexist. The only problem is that her speech completely misrepresented Kirby in a rather sleazy and completely pointless way. Kirby is a leader in the community with lots of organizing experience and she spoke about the great lengths that atheist organizations go to invite female speakers and how in her experience there is a huge interest in hearing from more women. This was in response to yet another group of feminists claiming that there is rampant sexism by convention organizers because there weren’t enough women speakers.
How can people miss the irony of a third-rate female blogger on a panel with Richard Dawkins who uses her allotted time to smear a female leader who works hard to ensure women are well represented in the atheist community? That’s what her “sexism speech” was really about.
She says nothing specifically about men making advances at atheist conventions, an venue where she met her husband. So if it’s between anti-feminism and profane sexual language, the guy on the elevator did neither of those things. He was just a nervous screw-up but he was trying to be polite about it and took no for an answer. For her to insinuate that he could have raped her and say that there’s something he should have heard in her speech earlier that day is just another disingenuous smear. And she was a hell of a lot more impolite about it than he was about inviting her for coffee.
And when numerous women criticize her actions and ask her to refrain from trying to speak for all women, she doesn’t like it. She goes on to use her keynote speech to smear them, as well, yet again based on things they didn’t say (she called them rape apologists).
So I’ll disagree with you that her intent was ever about saying “dude, that’s not okay.” Her actions were more reflective of a self-promoter who finds it convenient to twist facts to make herself sound righteous at the expense of her peers.
All kinds of mix-ups for me today. Sorry about that @SpudTater. Thank you for the response, though.
I think the irritation for many women, I know often times myself included, is that I encounter so many awkward and/or geeky men on a daily basis who make repeated social mistakes (some inappropriate, some just inept). After awhile, women feel frustrated that they seem to be called upon to help every one of them. They feel put upon with a responsibility they aren’t sure why they have when, for the fifth time that day, they have to say “Dude, that’s not okay”.
The debate seems to stem from two equally frustrated sides. One side is asking for women to be helpful, patient, and sympathetic to socially inexperienced men who do not generally mean harm and the other is asking for socially inexperienced men to deal with it on their own and not expect help.
What bothers me about what she said, “Guys, don’t do this.” is that she was speaking for all women. Maybe every woman on the planet would have had the same reaction under the circumstances, but I doubt it. What she should have said is “Guys, don’t do this to ME.” And I would be fine with that. She is conceited and sanctimonious about the assumption that every interaction is an attempt to bed her. Every guy who has ever had any contact with women has felt this in terms of body language, verbiage, whatever. Immediate assumption that the only thing we want is sex. It’s conceited, tedious and dishonest. And the excuse that so many men abuse so many women so default to that motive arbitrarily just shows a lack of critical thinking. Men are assumed to understand women and to know while just the opposite isn’t the case. I was given zero instruction from either parent about dating, trying to find a mate and start a family. Nothing. And women were all exceedingly patient and kind in helping me to figure things out. Uh, sarcasm alert. Every year I go to Vegas to play in the WSOP. Every year I am propositioned, sometimes quite aggressively, by pros. Once, while I was waiting for an elevator. When I told her my wife was upstairs in my room she said “Wife? Who brings sand to the beach?” I’m usually polite and make light, sometimes if I’m tired and it’s late I’m curt or more terse than necessary in declining. But the one thing I’m never, is offended. I don’t have any right to be. The best drug in the world is the drug of Self Righteousness and self righteousness is what Rebecca Watson has in spades about being asked for coffee.
4am in an elevator? That signals social ineptness to me. However no one has mentioned the possibility (or in this case probability) that the guy in question was on the autism spectrum. In that case his social skills and “intuition” weren’t there to begin with. That’s what pisses me off about this “nice guy” TM nonsense. You’re stigmatizing men who, through no fault of their own, CANNOT develop social skills like you or me. You’re condemning them as potential rapists when they simply aren’t neurotypical.
Now I don’t have the greatest sympathy for most of the “nice” guys out there. I used to be as socially inept as a WoW adept. But eventually I learned those skills. These guys can and should learn social skills, but this wholesale attack via the Nice Guys TM bullshit really harms those non neurotypical “nice guys” who CANT learn social skills like I did. Who look at human social cues as some esoteric mystical ritual, you know, like that Kaballa silliness. To them asking a girl out is like asking one of us to raise a freakin golem, it leaves them perplexed.
Also Hugo, stop it with the “Men can read social cues just as well as females.” They can’t. In the future they could, but currently men are socialized to differently than women. They’re trained to be direct and gruff, to push through opposition rather than trying to understand it. There’s a reason why girls tend towards ostracism and gossip while boys opt for physical bullying and fights. Both are gendered socializations, but they’re real nonetheless.
@All Saints Day: Nice try, but no. Rebecca never tried to define other women’s boundaries, she just restated a pretty basic, standard rule of appropriate social behavior. This doesn’t mean it can’t ever be violated, especially if there are signals going back and forth between the parties involved, and it doesn’t mean that this man’s particular approach has never worked. Maybe it has.
The problem is that, yknow, we live in society, and certain generalizations regarding social behavior need to be made. The man who spoke to Rebecca knew he was being inappropriate, even acknowledged it, but went for it anyway. He approached her in an enclosed space with no other people around and invited her to. his. room. If he had even changed a few parts of his approach–waited until they had both stepped out of the elevator; spoken to her like a normal person before issuing his invitation; perhaps invited her to talk somewhere the following day, in a public space–Rebecca’s story probably wouldn’t have gotten its widespread reaction of “ew, creepy.” But he didn’t do that.
Look: humans are social creatures, and generally speaking, we can pick up on social cues. I have stood in plenty of elevators, and even had conversations with other passengers–but only when it was clear that they felt like chatting. Whether we chose to read social cues or not is up to us, and it sounds like this guy was just refusing to, given that he acknowledged how inappropriate he was being.
But then again, maybe he was just awkward. Well, ok, but he bears the responsibility for getting it together. Who else is going to do it for him? It’s certainly not Rebecca’s job.
You never get to ask someone to potentially put themselves at a risk to make someone else feel less awkward. You don’t have the right.
I can’t believe I even had to type that, but there you are.
@Dobb, the feminist ablism hasn’t been pointed out here but it has been brought up in numerous comments on other blogs. Not every atheist guy is autistic – far from it – but many autistics do become atheists because it’s easier to break through religious indoctrination if you don’t pick up on the social cues that religious groups use to keep their members from thinking outside the box. I personally welcome those atheists who happen to be autistic and I feel that their contributions to the community are no less valuable than those of a small group of women who seem to have a problem with every little thing. There have always been more men than women atheists and if it wasn’t for the pioneering work of these “creepy potential rapists” there might not be a podium for the likes of Rebecca Watson to speak from.
@Paprika, that said, “your privilege is showing.” You’re making blanket statements about awkward men, blaming them for being the way they are, and claiming that your personal comfort as a woman is supreme. You’re reading a hell of a lot into Elevator Guy, who you know absolutely nothing about. Maybe you should stop reading between the lines and making assumptions? It’s a reason why autistic forms of communication are considered the next step in human evolution, because they are superior in an advanced society to the “intuitive” form of reading between the lines and picking up on body language that the feminist side of this issue is peddling. You have no reason and no right to suggest that you know exactly what Elevator Guy was thinking based on things he never said or tried to do in a situation that you hadn’t even witnessed in person. You have no reason to even trust that Rebecca Watson’s account was even accurate and in fact you give her credit that she probably does not deserve (read my other comments). This entire episode shows that she has a penchant for misconstruing what other people say to her and then attacking them with “straw-person” arguments.
Dobb,
I respect what you’re saying about the guy in the elevator being on the autism spectrum. I even support the point you are trying to make.
But this isn’t about being rational.
As I pointed out above, it was entirely possible the guy wasn’t even hetero, to which I got the enlightened reply “Come on, you know he was…” Great argument there, I liked the cited sources.
The fact of the matter is that I took issue with this because I have previously been (3 times that I know of) in the situation of having someone convinced I was hitting on them, when I truly was not. Was it ever in an elevator, or at 4am? No.
Did I genuinely ask someone to coffee to study for an upcoming exam because what I wanted was to study for the upcoming exam? Yes. Did the coffee meeting become awkward when I mentioned that I was interested in someone else entirely and that I was not interested in joining her for dinner that evening? Yes.
Indeed, I do not have any male friends who DO NOT have similar stories about women being convinced they were hitting on them when the only goal was genuine informative conversation (indeed, in one extreme case I have a friend who asked a young woman at at a bus stop for the time and simply got the reply “I am not interested in you,”).
In short, it becomes clear that women are often little better at knowing when they are being hit on than men are at knowing when women want to be hit on.
The difference is that if a man mistakenly hits on a woman he is called a creep, told he is clueless and insensitive, and anyone who defends him is referred to as a rape apologist (at least by the likes of Ms. Watson). When a woman mistakenly believes she is being hit on, she suffers no similar consequences, and indeed, is free to turn around and call the man a creep, clueless, and insensitive.
@Dungone: Not to get all Scott Adamsy here, but uh, reading comprehension?
I never made any definitive statements about Elevator Guy’s intent. I said that the behavior was inappropriate because, yknow, it was, but I allowed that he might just be awkward. And yes, he could be autistic, although I kinda doubt it. The fact that he admitted to being “inappropriate,” but blustered on anyway, suggests that he understands social conventions but doesn’t care. Still, again, maybe his intent was fine.
But as I wrote in a previous comment, intent doesn’t matter.
It would matter if Rebecca had started screaming at him, then outed him by name on her blog and accused him of being a rapist. Then, yes, you could justifiably criticize her for being kind of insane. But that’s not what happened, right? (Oh, and by the way, I’m taking Rebecca’s story as true because it is literally the only side of the story available. If Elevator Guy wants his side to be heard, he can write a rebuttal; the fact that he hasn’t is, as I wrote earlier, telling.) All that actually happened was she turned him down and blogged the experience.
My, how terrible.
As I said before, it doesn’t matter why Elevator Guy acted the way he did, and Rebecca can’t have been expected to magically intuit his intentions. Furthermore, she didn’t owe him her time. You seem to be under the impression that I’m only extending the right to have one’s space respected to women, but I’m not. Nobody owes a stranger anything beyond cordiality.
Nice that you accuse me of making “blanket statements” while completely misconstruing everything I said. Oh, and thanks for assuming that I’m neurotypical and therefore privileged. I have plenty of privilege, and I own it, but not the kind of privilege you apparently think.
@Paprika,
“The fact that he admitted to being “inappropriate,” but blustered on anyway, suggests that he understands social conventions but doesn’t care. “
You obviously know nothing about high-functioning autism. These people learn to blend in to society through sheer willpower, often acquiring compensating habits and communication styles for situations where they’re not sure. You totally contradicted yourself and read malice into a very minor and meaningless phrase right after you claimed that you never made such claims about his intentions and that you “get” what autism is. You’re still guilty of ablism, so I will just ignore the rest of your comment which flows directly from these ablist standards.
Uh-huh. *shrug* I already granted that awkwardness, or even autism, is a distinct possibility; I just said that it didn’t matter in this context, because Rebecca’s response wasn’t inappropriate and everyone is entitled to their space and safety. Even bringing up his intent is derailing, and kinda misses the point of the OP. And no, I’m pretty sure you’re ignoring the rest of my comment because you have no response, but wev.
Also (sorry for the double post), but when did I ever say I “got” autism? Don’t put words in my comments, please. I’ve conceded in nearly all my comments that Elevator Guy’s intent may have been perfectly fine (my skepticism is mostly the result of how many similar experiences I’ve had); my main point has been that it’s irrelevant. And I do love how, now that pretty much every argument has been exhausted, I’m being accused of ablism. I never denied the possibility of a disability, and I wouldn’t be unsympathetic if I learned that Elevator Guy had one, but it’s beside the point. This “controversy” is unbelievably contrived; the only person who conducted themselves inappropriately, near as I can tell, is Elevator Guy.
@Paprika, you’re back-peddling. too much You clearly stated your belief that Elevator Guy was fully aware that his behavior was (according to you) inappropriate. And if his intent does not matter, which is an incredibly dubious claim, then you definitely shouldn’t be trying to read tea leaves in his choice of words instead of taking them at face value and leaving it at that.
The rest of your comment was rather ignorant. It does not matter if Rebecca was screaming or merely condescending. She’s wrong, and in the greater context as I’ve written about it above, she’s doubly wrong. Her own behavior before and after the elevator incident has been inappropriate. And you are seriously, seriously misrepresenting her position if you’re really claiming that all she ever did was say that some guy hit on her and she turned him down. Being cordial with him is exactly what she had a personal problem with and did not want to do.
Furthermore, you said “Rebecca can’t have been expected to magically intuit his intentions.” Is that so? Well in that case, how the hell does she know that he was propositioning her for sex? How does she know he was really hitting on him? If she can’t be expected to intuit his intentions, then why the hell is she doing just that? Read Mike’s very excellent comment.
@Mike, that was excellent. I couldn’t have said it better.
“In short, it becomes clear that women are often little better at knowing when they are being hit on than men are at knowing when women want to be hit on.”
It seems that a subset of women want it both ways. On the one hand, they are perfectly comfortable intuiting men’s intentions when they claim that they definitely know for a fact that some guy was hitting on them and nobody better question it. On the other hand, when they’re off calling someone a creepy potential rapist, in their defense they say that they have no clue and no way of inferring what a guy’s intentions actually are.
Dude. I’m starting to wonder if I wrote the key parts of my comments in wingdings or something.
How many times do I have to remind you that I never said Elevator Guy was definitely a creepy guy trying to hit on her? The most I said was that his behavior was inappropriate, that it would be reasonable to believe he was hitting on her, but–and I said this in every comment–that he might have just been awkward. It’s not back-pedaling to point out that every last one of my comments has acknowledged the possibility that his intent might not have been understood.
If Rebecca engaged in some kind of heinous behavior I’m not aware of, by all means enlighten me. But as I understand it, she merely turned him down, left, and blogged about it later; her post described the encounter as weird and inappropriate, and in her post she made the (apparently outlandish) suggestion that men try to avoid following Elevator Guy’s example. Remind me why this is a problem?
I never said anyone could discern EG’s intent for sure, and I never made any definitive claims about it myself. That’s kind of the point. Just like Rebecca couldn’t have known if EG was an awkward guy trying to make conversation, she also couldn’t have known if he was a predator. I’ve been in similar situations, and have generally erred on the side of caution, because, yknow, I didn’t want to put myself at risk for an attack (and also because I didn’t feel like talking, which is not actually a crime). When EG approached her in his, quite frankly, weird and presumptuous way, he shouldn’t have been surprised that she turned him down. Self-protective instincts, people have them. And with sexual assault happening as frequently as it does, can you really blame her?
I mean, what is it you think she should have done, anyway? Chatted with him? Gone up to his room and indulged him in his awkwardness? Because if you really think you have the right to dictate how someone uses their time and energy, well, that’s kind of awful.
(Seriously, I’ve written the same thing so many times now, I’m starting to feel like a spambot. No hard feelings if Hugo blocks my IP entirely.)
I don’t understand where this is coming from: “I mean, what is it you think she should have done, anyway? Chatted with him? Gone up to his room and indulged him in his awkwardness?”
and earlier “You never get to ask someone to potentially put themselves at a risk to make someone else feel less awkward.”
I quoted from Paprika, but I’m guessing others feel this way too. I don’t know who is criticizing what Watson did IN THE ELEVATOR. If someone seems like a potential predator then decline their offer and head for safety as soon as possible (if you find that everyone of a particular color, gender or religion makes you head for safety then seek professional help.) If someone is awkward and uninteresting then decline their offer and go on with your life. The backlash is about what Watson and her supporters said before and after the elevator incident. It’s not my focus, but I assume people who brought up social disorders are fine with people taking precautions against awkward people who could be potential predators. How is anything else from the Watson side related to physical safety? For example, calling someone creepy when they didn’t actually do anything is going above and beyond protecting yourself.
How did we get to a point where people are thinking the backlash is because Watson didn’t go up to his room? I’m more interested in the never ending debate about whether or not men are creepy for approaching women despite the possibility that women might become uncomfortable. I wonder if this is one of the reasons why women are less likely to approach potential dates/hook-ups than men. Women always know the perfect moment to approach someone. They are very conscious of the fact that they can’t approach a man at just any time because their smaller frames might threaten the average man.
You obviously don’t understand the concept of contradicting yourself and how it detracts from your argument, plus you’re coming off as dishonest by denying things that you yourself have said and by pleading ignorance about things that have been pointed out to you (once again, read my earlier comments in this thread). Keep holding onto your sensationalist views, though, it’s obvious that in your world, a guy talking to a girl in an elevator is a crime against humanity that surpasses any other consideration.
/eyeroll
Dude, you’re not even worth it. You’re not really reading my comments, or if you are you’re deliberately misrepresenting them. You haven’t made a single cogent point in response to anything I’ve written, either. I give up.