"If she felt his behaviour was creepy, that was her privilege, just as it was the Catholics' privilege to feel offended and hurt when PZ nailed the cracker. PZ didn't physically strike any Catholics. All he did was nail a wafer, and he was absolutely right to do so because the heightened value of the wafer was a fantasy in the minds of the offended Catholics. Similarly, Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me."
> Also, I don't know if y'all are familiar with conferences, but it's a pretty standard view that one of their main reasons for existing is that they give awkward people with highly-specific interests (e.g. academics) a way to drunkenly hook up without too many consequences.I've been to about eight academic conferences (computational biology and genetics) and never cottoned to any such opportunity. Maybe I'm just not attractive or perceptive enough, or we're too nerdy a group, or the male/female ratio is skewed against me. But I'm dubious of this view. Sounds like a fantasy arising out of comedies like Small World.
>...can someone please give me clear instructions on when, where, and how it is acceptable for a man to express romantic interest in a woman?Internet dating sites seem to work pretty well. Anywhere with an explicit sexual/romantic context should be pretty safe.
blah blah blah blahhow would you cut and paste it into italics and completely misrepresent it?
Women: Hey, this makes me feel uncomfortable!I sympathise, but I don't think the uncomfortable feeling is what people are reacting to. Instead, I think the appropriate sarcastic exchange would go like this:
Men: No, it doesn't!! You're wrong and you're too sensitive. Dumb girl.
Woman: Hey, this makes me feel uncomfortable!The fight is not so much over the woman's right to feel uncomfortable, as it is the culpability of the man for her feelings.
Man: Oops, sorry. Read the situation wrong there.
Woman: Unacceptable. You are responsible for my unease.
Man: ....
For me, this is a question of respect: I have enough respect for the person I am criticizing to not make them guess that I am talking about them or guess at what they said that needs to be defended, and I have enough respect for my audience to allow them the opportunity to double check my work. If I hide the person and the exact words that I am criticizing, how does anyone know whether or not I’m creating a strawman? How can the person in question respond?So she attacks someone by name at the keynote of at a national conference because she's just being honest, someone whom she is there to teach leadership skills to. Well done, her. Good asymmetric use of authority.
Astro Zombie: The parallel you just attempted is not even remotely analogous. Could we instead stick to the actual story, rather than swap out the participants for somebody else in order to make our case? It's very easy to try to prove a point by parallel, and that generally deteriorates into people attempting to come up with the most strained comparison they can that fits their viewpoint.Wait, what the fuck? Yes, of course it's easy to prove a point by parallel, people do it all the time as part of logical and reasoned arguments! Do you just dislike the conclusion, and thus declare the act of "proving a point by parallel" to be null and void today?
Poet_Lariat: wtf? The very definition of a straw man argument.That is a stupendous mis-read of the original comment. And also, that is very much not the "definition" of a straw man argument, it was an explicitly stated "analogy" (you clearly don't know what a straw man argument is). The reason being that if you suggested because some small percentage __ of black men do something, we should safely assume 95-100% of black men are likely ___ers, and that all black men should then kowtow by doing ____ so that no one is uncomfortable. Because if you make the class "dark skinned people" you know well enough not to make that argument or be labeled rightly a bigot. But if you make that case about "men" as some Borg-like menace... this is okay?
Black men aren't committing 95%+ of sexual assaults in the world.
Men are doing that. Not black men. Just men.
Poet_Lariat:And what part of the one in SIX women have been rape or have had attempted rape by a man are you refusing to understand? Those are the officially reported stats. Imagine what the numbers would really be like if all the women too afraid to be stigmatized by rape were also included in those figures.Is it 1 in 6, or 1 in 3, or 50%, or 75%?
A one in six chance of getting very,very badly hurt by something in your lifetime is not a phobia. It's a reality. You're trivializing it into a phobia makes you not part of the solution
Men: "Oh, you are just being too sensitive and you are wrong and no right-thinking person would feel that way!'Except it was a WOMAN and in fact a YOUNG WOMAN who was publicly, berated, by name, for daring to question whether or not she was being oversensitive. She was accused of being brainwashed by the patriarchy. Did you miss that part? Do you think that young woman is going to have a good opinion of feminism going forward?
is a really IDIOTIC thing to be happening.
Short story: You guys ASKED!!! We're telling you!! So LISTEN!!
Yeah, I'm from Iowa and it wouldn't surprise me to see a girl running a gas station herself in the middle of the night.On a road trip through Denmark, I was astounded at the fact that a gas station a hour or two outside of Copenhagen, at 4 AM, was being run by a sixteen year old girl, alone. It was inconceivable, and, yet, there it was.This is a common occurrence in the vast majority of rural America too.
That may be the most snidely condescending remark I have ever seen on MeFi, and that's saying something. Do you really think that the only reason some guys don't get affection from women is because they're dicks, AZ? Really? You can't envisage other possible scenarios? Wow.Yeah that was pretty mind boggling. Do you honestly think that if a woman doesn't act like a giggly school girl around you she's not interested? Some women don't act like that even when they are interested in having sex.
What's the lesson in all this? Upon first talking to a woman you're interested in, do no ask her to come back to your hotel room, apartment or house, no matter what time of day it is.That just seems ridiculous. It's one thing to say, don't cat call, don't say rude things, etc. But it's a completely different thing to say various innocuous statements should be verboten just because you might freak some random woman out. It's especially problematic when there are women who would be interested in hanging out with you (whether just to chat or to have sex)
Anyway, this launched Round Two of Silence the Feminist. This time, the theme was, "Sure, you may be right that this dude was a creep but shut up, since you're making people uncomfortable and can't we get back to talking about how religious people are sexists?" This was greased by a political strategy known as Calvinball---one that the right is really good at, by the way---where you make up brand new rules of discourse that were previously unknown and then chastise the target for breaking the rule that didn't exist before because you just made it up. In this particular case, Rebecca broke the previously unknown rule wherein you can't actually quote someone's public words and the name they publish under when disagreeing with them, at least if your blog has more traffic than theirs does. It may also be true that there are exceptions on every other Sunday, but I'm not sure.Thought people on the thread might find this interesting.
I would like to see men hold off on being insulted that someone might mistake their motives for something evil, and instead accept that, okay, this shit really does happen, the ladies are spooked for a reason, and maybe something should be done about it.This kind of reaction by women to this kind of issue has been useful feedback for me in the past, because I can be a bit insensitive to people's anxieties and sometimes without realizing it trigger them in very counter-productive ways. I must admit, though, I feel some sympathy for the reactions pla, etc. have regarding the expression of broad anxiety about a general male propensity to sexual violence. If someone wants nothing to do with me in certain contexts purely because I belong to a risk group, that is a deeply alienating and fundamentally unjust experience, no matter how practical the policy is. This analogy of owing everybody a dollar brings it into slightly sharper focus for me. Sometimes, I have literally felt as though I'm surrounded by people who think I owe them money, because I follow a policy of engaging everyone I meet, at least cursorily, and in the past this has meant a lot of conversations with pan handlers. It seems to me that most people in the US just don't respond at all when solicited by a pan handler, so when I acknowledge a request for money, even if it's just with "Sorry, I can't help," it signals a heightened opportunity, which tends to escalate the demand a bit. And for structural socioeconomic and demographic reasons having nothing to do with intrinsic racial characteristics, most pan handlers I encounter are African Americans. I never give pan handlers money, but I ask them what they want the money for and offer to buy it for them. This is unacceptable to some of them, and their responses have been quite loud and acrimonious, at times. One guy even made a grab for my wallet, and when that failed, followed me down the street yelling that he was going to kill me and my family. He only stopped because I walked to a populous area, flagged a car down, and asked them to call the police. (I'd forgotten my own cell phone that night. BTW, it was a woman in the car, and partly because of feedback like in this thread I did all the right things during the interaction to put her at her ease, such as talking to her from the opposite side of the car from where she was seated, etc. [By this time, my would-be murderer had apparently already fled, which simplified matters.])
There is no way a straight human male can avoid seeing (potentially) any human female as a sexual object, and (in practice) most human females as such. That is the male brain, and if you don't like it, start building a spaceship or move into a convent.If you also hold that men have a "unique cognitive ability to choose how we act on our instincts," and -- if I don't misunderstand you -- you also imply that men have a responsibility to choose to act on those instincts in a responsible manner, then I'm not sure where the admonition that "if you don't like it that guys think this way, move into a convent" enters the conversation. Because if you do hold that men are responsible for trying to act on those instincts responsibly, then why would it matter how women feel about "the male brain"?
>...simply isn't hearing what's being said...Is that really how I came across? This confuses me, partly because Empress stipulated almost exactly the portion of my comment that you're responding to here, and partly because I said very explicitly that I accept women's right to feel this way, even if I feel confused and disturbed by it.
> Suck it up, you privileged male baby. It isn't always about you.Oh, I do. Didn't the initial text "This kind of reaction by women to this kind of issue has been useful feedback for me in the past..." make that clear? Or is it that I'm pissing you off just by talking about how confusing and alienating I find this anxiety about my gender, despite making it clear that I accept the practical basis for the anxiety?
I hate that my male sex and male sexuality carries the taint of innumerable male assholes who don't know how to behave decently in public.Yeah, I hate it too. That was kind of my point.
"Wow, first a spirited debate about Hegel, and now this! [sips] You weren't kidding, this is good joe!"posted by Rhaomi at 8:46 PM on July 5, 2011 [10 favorites]
"Did you know you're the first person to accept one of my creepy 4 a.m. elevator invitations?"
Marzano was taken into custody after violating a restraining order filed against him by Kellie Hamilton, 25, an attractive, unmarried kindergarten teacher who is new to the L.A. area. According to Hamilton, Marzano has stalked her for the past two months, spying on her, tapping her phone, serenading her with The Carpenters' "Close To You" at her place of employment, and tricking her into boarding Caribbean-bound jets.posted by Rhaomi at 10:56 PM on July 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
Hamilton made the call to police at approximately 7:30 p.m., when she discovered that the bearded cable repairman she had let into her apartment was actually Marzano in disguise.
"Thank God he's in custody, and this nightmarish ordeal is finally over," said Hamilton, a single mother struggling to raise an adorable, towheaded boy all alone in the big city. "I repeatedly told him I wasn't interested, but he just kept resorting to crazier and crazier schemes to make me fall in love with him."
Marzano, who broke his leg last week falling off a ladder leaning against Hamilton's second-story bedroom window, said he was "extremely surprised" that his plan to woo Hamilton had failed.
"She was supposed to hate me at first but gradually be won over by my incredible persistence, telling me that no one has ever gone to such wild lengths to win her love," Marzano said. "But for some reason, her irritation never turned to affection."
First off: Women aren't telepathic. If someone's hitting on us in a way that totally disregards the kind of social conventions built up around the need for safety, personal space, respect, etc., then we don't know what's going on in his head.Well, I think at the same time you have to appreciate that men aren't telepathic. As others said, in lots of places in the world the pervasive fear of rape isn't as common. We don't know if this guy was an American, or what. The woman who was called out goes to the University of Northern Iowa and probably grew up in a rural/small town setting. She might not have any intuitive idea what it's like to be afraid of strangers.
I think this is misguided. Rebecca didn't name this guy so that everyone could point and shame him. She's trying to start a conversation about social norms. She's saying, "If you want more women to participate in these events, the norms of what is socially acceptable should be changed to make women feel more comfortable. Here's an example of behavior that should be considered outside the social norm." -- straightBut if she wanted to "start a conversation" why did she flip out on the girl who disagreed with her? That, in my mind is the real problem here. I realize "professional atheists" tend to be pretty shrill all the time, but if you just jump into a conversation and spout vitriolic stuff it does *not* change anyone's opinion. This is especially a problem when the person you're attacking is another women If women need to stick together in order to change male behavior, attacking other women isn't going to help.
And this just occurred to me. Dawkins is missing the correct rationalist counterargument. It is important for atheists to *breed* if they want to prevail. -- EmpressCallipygosOkay I do not think that the average person who attends Atheist conventions is very similar to the average person who doesn't believe in god. There are lots of non-religious women out there. There may not be as many women who are "hard core" atheists who want to proselytize disbelief
I keep on coming back to the fact that she had just given a lecture on how women are sexualized at conferences, and how she had just mentioned to the people she was speaking with that she was tired and going to go to sleep.We don't know if this guy had heard her lecture, or just the conversation she'd been in which might not have been about the topic of her lecture.
It was my impression that people were definetly saying thatI cannot see how people objectively can say that his actions were definitely threatening.Is anyone here saying that? -- jessamyn
All along I've simply been saying that an underlying tragedy is that what otherwise could be called rude, poor timing, inappropriate, takes on a far more sinister tone in light of other events. Her experiences have given her a heightened response to such situations -- karmiolzExcept for the fact that she never said anything like that that That's something that people just metastasized thread and it has completely dominated the discussion!
And I got messages from women who told me about how they had trouble attending pub gatherings and other events because they felt uncomfortable in a room full of men. They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door. Maybe they could wait for her to make the first move, just in case.I agree with Rebecca and echo what she is saying. Guys should not make the first move. Guys, wait for women to make the first move, just in case.
And then, for the past few years as the audience for Skepchick and SGU grew, I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences.
There seems to be a broad assumption here that if someone hits on you, they must see you as having literally no value save as something to fuck, and that assumption seems entirely baseless.If a person I have not previously met asks me to go off and sleep with him as the opener of our first conversation ever I don't think it's out of line to come away with the impression that his primary interest in me is my fuckability.
posted by Bovine Love at 9:48 AM on July 4, 2011 [23 favorites]