Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How do we know she actually received this email?

[elipse]

Originally Posted by Baloney

I don't know about anyone else, but this is what pisses me off about the whole mess:

Aren’t you making it up? – Why women don’t report harassment (http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2...rt-harassment/)



<snip>



Rawrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Dammit, I just said I wouldn't post in this thread any more, but I hadn't heard of this and it makes me furious. Thank you for linking to it.



Can this PLEASE put to rest the claims that the awful response to RW was just because of how she handled it? If anyone ever says that again, can we just repost this link, please?

[squareone]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Huh; that's weird. Who're you?

Someone who doesn't care what your favorite color is.
Do you mind if I call you sis?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by elipse

Dammit, I just said I wouldn't post in this thread any more, but I hadn't heard of this and it makes me furious. Thank you for linking to it.

Can this PLEASE put to rest the claims that the awful response to RW was just because of how she handled it? If anyone ever says that again, can we just repost this link, please?

Yes, but I'm not sure it was ever "just because".

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by elipse

I want this to be looked at again. It doesn't matter if she was as shrill and hyperbolic as a person can be; the response to her was still terrible and unwarranted.

This post also point out what I think is the real point: whether or not you personally agree that X is "an incident" or worth bothering with, if you ask women a question about their comfort and they tend to say X makes them uncomfortable, trying to argue them into admitting X shouldn't make them uncomfortable is silly.

AND I don't even think most of the women here would find X worth mentioning, if it wasn't for the unwarranted response to someone mentioning X.

Add it all up and you have women uncomfortable with the thought of attending TAM.

I think we can all agree that that's a problem. We need more women and women's voices in skepticism, not fewer.

So instead of whining that their perceptions are wrong or unskeptical, how's about actually doing something to address it?

Which is where a comprehensive policy comes in. That would be official support for changing the status quo and a good first step. I also fail to see how it could hurt ANYTHING.

Finally, the heat in this thread has picked up a bit since yesterday with the appearance of some people who appear to really want to discuss EG in all its glory, so this will likely be my last post. I've given my opinion, and I don't want to read a rehash of everything everyone had to say about the subject last year. So if anyone is waiting for a specific response, I apologize. If you really want me to clarify something, you can pm me.

Thank you to everyone who talked with me/disagreed with me for being calm and polite. I really appreciate it. I thought I'd stepped in it when I posted in this thread, but it has actually been quite productive, I think.

Agreed. Good post. I understand the frustration that so much attention has been given to elvatorgate. But I think it would be wrong to fail to acknowledge the undercurrent that still permeates in the community.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by RemieV

I think it would be disingenuous in the extreme to claim she did not see the Plait blog or the Myers blog.

"Oh hai guise, thx for the support! But those dudes who are telling me that they want to rape me in an elevator so I know the difference are the ones I really want to reach!"

I try not to expect superhuman action of people.

[elipse]

Oh, lord, I just keep getting sucked back in.

RemieV and Bookitty-- you two have been so good in this thread. You have been on point and you have been fairly patient with people who appear to refuse to understand. (Given that from your posting history I think, Bookitty, that you might have a bit of a temper, I have been particularly impressed with you. You've held on to your temper pretty well, on the whole.)

I would hate to have this thread derailed into page after page of bickering about Rebecca. I think that thus far it has been really productive, and I know I can't keep people who just want to air old greivences out of it, but since you two have been so on point, it makes me sad to think you might end up leading the bickering.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by bookitty

"Oh hai guise, thx for the support! But those dudes who are telling me that they want to rape me in an elevator so I know the difference are the ones I really want to reach!"

I try not to expect superhuman action of people.

That made absolutely no sense.

Let me try again -

Rebecca said "Guys, don't do that," because she doesn't want to be sexualized two seconds after saying she doesn't want to be.

Then Phil Plait and PZ Myers pick up the story, and when they run with it, the reason (in their articles; their comments) that Rebecca didn't want guys to do that shifts from "don't sexualize me in a professional setting" to "don't hit on me in a place where you can rape me" which is a *********** stupid spin.

Rebecca never corrected Plait or Myers to say, "Guys - you are reading the wrong thing in my anecdote - it was not fear of rape that caused me to mention what happened."

That is why people are saying Watson made a huge deal of it. It's incorrect - in that it's the attribution of *other people's reasons* to her story. If she wanted to kill the huge ordeal before it got started, the way to do it would be to correct the two people who are way more famous/popular than she is who are putting words in her mouth.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by elipse

Oh, lord, I just keep getting sucked back in.

RemieV and Bookitty-- you two have been so good in this thread. You have been on point and you have been fairly patient with people who appear to refuse to understand. (Given that from your posting history I think, Bookitty, that you might have a bit of a temper, I have been particularly impressed with you. You've held on to your temper pretty well, on the whole.)

I would hate to have this thread derailed into page after page of bickering about Rebecca. I think that thus far it has been really productive, and I know I can't keep people who just want to air old greivences out of it, but since you two have been so on point, it makes me sad to think you might end up leading the bickering.

elipse, the reason that a lot of people aren't getting behind Rebecca on THIS particular matter is that they assume she's confabulating because she has a history of doing so. I think it's probably important that people who are "on her side" THIS time admit that fact.

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by RemieV

elipse, the reason that a lot of people aren't getting behind Rebecca on THIS particular matter is that they assume she's confabulating because she has a history of doing so. I think it's probably important that people who are "on her side" THIS time admit that fact.

Wins the thread.

Although I would phrase it a bit differently - Rebecca has a history of being very successful at self-promotion, and understands perfectly well the power of a good internet meme/feud/tussle. Some would say attention whore. I would say 'someone who really knows how to market her brand'. I'm sure that she is absolutely passionate about the issue(s) this whole incident touches upon, but she's not hesitating to make sure that she derives as much 'win' from the event as possible.

/end cynicism.

[LibraryLady]

I've been writing a post for this thread in my head all day, then discovered I wrote it already, in 2010.

[elipse]

Originally Posted by RemieV

elipse, the reason that a lot of people aren't getting behind Rebecca on THIS particular matter is that they assume she's confabulating because she has a history of doing so. I think it's probably important that people who are "on her side" THIS time admit that fact.

quit sucking me back in!

I would have no idea if that is true or not and my point is that I think it is NOT the point. Rebecca is one data point and to focus on her personality is (in my opinion) to sideline the real issue, which is that sexual objectification/harassment/occasional assault of women in the skeptic community is a thing that happens that needs to be addressed and dealt with.


That's all. I can't pick a side in this fight because I know very little about Rebecca Watson, and even if I did I still wouldn't pick a side because I think it distracts from what should be the focus.

Respectfully! I mean this respectfully and I respect both you and bookitty and how you have conducted yourselves thus far.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by RemieV

That made absolutely no sense.

Let me try again -

Rebecca said "Guys, don't do that," because she doesn't want to be sexualized two seconds after saying she doesn't want to be.

Then Phil Plait and PZ Myers pick up the story, and when they run with it, the reason (in their articles; their comments) that Rebecca didn't want guys to do that shifts from "don't sexualize me in a professional setting" to "don't hit on me in a place where you can rape me" which is a *********** stupid spin.

Rebecca never corrected Plait or Myers to say, "Guys - you are reading the wrong thing in my anecdote - it was not fear of rape that caused me to mention what happened."

That is why people are saying Watson made a huge deal of it. It's incorrect - in that it's the attribution of *other people's reasons* to her story. If she wanted to kill the huge ordeal before it got started, the way to do it would be to correct the two people who are way more famous/popular than she is who are putting words in her mouth.

It was my sarcastic (and obviously nonsensical) way of saying that Watson may not have wanted to take on her allies with everything else that was going on. And that I can't blame her for that. Would it have made a difference? Was there anything she could have said at that point? If she'd apologized and offered the entire community a beer, people would have called her out for promoting alcoholism.

ETA: For the record, I'm not an Watson's "side" in any of this. The skepchicks are hardly my demographic. I've met a few of them and they're terrific people but we haven't got much in common.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by elipse

quit sucking me back in!

I would have no idea if that is true or not and my point is that I think it is NOT the point. Rebecca is one data point and to focus on her personality is (in my opinion) to sideline the real issue, which is that sexual objectification/harassment/occasional assault of women in the skeptic community is a thing that happens that needs to be addressed and dealt with.


That's all. I can't pick a side in this fight because I know very little about Rebecca Watson, and even if I did I still wouldn't pick a side because I think it distracts from what should be the focus.

Respectfully! I mean this respectfully and I respect both you and bookitty and how you have conducted yourselves thus far.

Yes, what I mean is people are coming out swinging because they mistakenly believe that just because Rebecca says something, every woman agrees. Just pointing out that ain't the case.

Boo, she let a couple of men speak for her, and mischaracterize what she was saying. Not exactly a great stand for women, is it?

[truethat]

You know what some people in this thread don't seem to get? And others for that matter. When discussing elevatorgate?

That GUYS didn't do this. ONE GUY did this. It's sexist to say "Guys don't do this."

If someone talked about a woman dancing on a bar at TAM and published a blog or video that talked about it and said "Women, don't do this, don't sexualize a professional situation" the napalm of rage would be felt from one end of the earth to another. It would be declared sexist and demeaning to women to generalize women by the actions of one woman.

But it's ok if we do it to guys, cause yah know. they're guys....

[blobru]

Originally Posted by bookitty

It was my sarcastic (and obviously nonsensical) way of saying that Watson may not have wanted to take on her allies with everything else that was going on. And that I can't blame her for that. Would it have made a difference? Was there anything she could have said at that point?

What RemieV said would've helped a lot, I think (or might've -- who knows).

Quote:

If she'd apologized and offered the entire community a beer, people would have called her out for promoting alcoholism.

Well, I would have, but I'm an idiot, and can safely be ignored.

Quote:

ETA: For the record, I'm not an Watson's "side" in any of this. The skepchicks are hardly my demographic. I've met a few of them and they're terrific people but we haven't got much in common.

Is your avatar a Surlyramic? It's a gorgeous piece of work (foks: I have to confess her to a terminal case of puppy love for bookitty's exquisite Botticelli-ish avatar, which torments me at every encounter with its enigmatic "I love you / I hate you" pout/sneer; not to mention the passion with which she argues her causes and eschews her cupcakes not to mention her being a professional bookdealer -- a professional book lover - sigh - thumpa thumpa - sigh -- besides ... melodramatic pause ... : O, bookitty, why must you torment me. Why must the gods who created you perfect be so perfectly petty and cruel to him who sings your perfection? Ever were I to find myself alone on an elevator with her, fiery feminist with the bodacious avatar and bad case of bibliophilia which I share, however much I might long to invite her please don't take this the wrong way for coffee – would room service be okay? Or we could order in: can you do that with coffee, have it delivered? -- to discuss our common affliction, I would not. No, I wouldn't. I would just stand there, quietly, fiddling with my collar buttons, pretending to watch the numbers, just stand there, and smolder, and suffer, the pain of being alone at last with the hot-blooded flesh and bones and cupcake-sated being behind the avatar whose ambivalent expressionless expression mocks me daily until, a mass of confusion and frustration, I collapse onto the bed still unmade from the previous night's feverish dreams, bury my face in my tear-sodden pillow and once more cry myself to exhaustion and unconsciousness. To sleep; perchance, to dream...

The dream. Always the same. From a crowded bookshelf of nondescript potboilers, farmer's almanacs, and Complete Dummy's Guides to HTML 3, her volume – hardback with gilt-edging and “Venus on the Half-shell” festooned garishly abreast its glossly dustjacket – beckons to me. I feel suddenly as spineless as a fifteen-cent Ace paperback, unable to fight the second hand bookish spell binding us together. And why would I? Even waking, how I have dreamed of this, being between her covers. Of turning her pages, slowly, gently, licking my fingertips before moving on from one page to the next. Dogearing certain pages to return to later; careful to bookmark so we know where we left off (I wonder: does she prefer stiffened cardboard, leather, or string?). Pausing to underline key passages in her favorite color highliter which is, don't tell me – yellow? No, blue; no, no, pink! No wait... orange? Oh, oh, of course, green. Yes, it's so obvious now, I should've guessed green right off (unless of course it's red?). Oh, what does it matter: yellow, green (that's it, isn't it), orange, purple... they're only colors. It's the words, dear lady! And the spaces between, white-spaces of endless possibility – O, to scribble in her margins. To pencil epiphanies. To fill in her blanks with those crabby little difficult-to-read inspired thoughts which are known to drive bookdealers out of their minds. And then, occasionally, we'd stray off the printed page entirely, and write our own novel, jampacked with desperate longing and dangerous lounging and hazardous lollygagging and cupcake comas and more feathered serpents than the Popol Vuh, for starters. We'd fly Verne's rocket to the moon, take Well's time machine to TAM MMXII – where the debate is whether thawing out the Central Scrutinizer would be de facto sexual harassment, a crime against humanity, or both – and maybe pop in on Tolkien's Middle Earth, just long enough to round up and feed a family of hobbits to the local orc orphanage, because we care, dammit! (and for teh lulz. dammit.)

And then, always, I wake up. Log onto the JREF. Stumble upon her avatar. And pine away, inappropriately, inappropriately. (Yes, yes, she'll be fine. But how can I be... without her?)

I kid, I kid. Guys: back off, give the ladies some space. Gals: don't worry, most guys are perfect gentlemen if you let them know that's what you expect. Don't let the odd jerk convince you otherwise. (And LGBTQs: the combinations and permutations are a bit too complicated to work out right now, but, y' know... be nice.)

[sgtbaker]

I don't see how a recommendation to not do something, in either case, can possibly be sexist. Maybe if "men can't be trusted in elevators" or "women can't contain their inner stripper in professional setting," then maybe we are navigating into sexist territory. A general word of advice to a sex is not sexist without some implication that a problem exists solely because of the sex.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I don't see how a recommendation to not do something, in either case, can possibly be sexist. Maybe if "men can't be trusted in elevators" or "women can't contain their inner stripper in professional setting," then maybe we are navigating into sexist territory. A general word of advice to a sex is not sexist without some implication that a problem exists solely because of the sex.

Well to be fair I don't think women should do that either. She was probably only referring to guys because it was a guy who did it. Although if you replace 'guy' with 'blond', it still sounds kind of bad. In fact, replace guy with anything and it sounds kind of bad. But she started talking specifically about males behavior. Is that just hetoronormative thinking she's guilty of?

Stop making me think.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Baloney

I don't know about anyone else, but this is what pisses me off about the whole mess:

Aren’t you making it up? – Why women don’t report harassment (http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2...rt-harassment/)

I completely sympathize with this person. It wouldn't be accurate to say I know exactly how she feels; but I believe I know kind of how she feels.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

I've been writing a post for this thread in my head all day, then discovered I wrote it already, in 2010.

I just finished the thread.

My take. Perhaps someday we can get beyond the patriarchy and the fight for equal rights. Perhaps someday we will let each person be free to do and be whatever they want. I just don't understand why other people must live according to other people's views of morality or taste.

I very much respect you LL but I don't see how sexual freedom threatens the women's movement. So long as women are free to choose for themselves then I say let them. I sure as hell don't want others to decide for me what it means to be a man. If I want to stay home and take care of the kids or dress in drag and ride in the gay pride parade then that should be my choice. It's not anyone else's business. The only thing I owe to those who secured my rights is to be a moral citizen, to educate myself so as to make informed choices and to participate in democracy. Beyond that I'm free to choose. And I damn sure hope women always have the right to choose to be president or CEO, Doctor, lawyer, mother, housewife, beauty queen, fashion model or adult film star.

I want for my daughter more than anything to be happy. I don't want anyone telling her how she must live her life to be a feminist. I will support her, whatever she choose.

By all means, of course propagate your views. I champion that but I just disagree. I'm a freedom of choice kinda guy.

[DarthFishy]

Originally Posted by RemieV

HIGH FIVE. I was wondering if anyone would realize.

And highly appropriate for a thread of women in skepticism, IMO

[Moss]

Originally Posted by RemieV

That made absolutely no sense.

Let me try again -

Rebecca said "Guys, don't do that," because she doesn't want to be sexualized two seconds after saying she doesn't want to be.

Then Phil Plait and PZ Myers pick up the story, and when they run with it, the reason (in their articles; their comments) that Rebecca didn't want guys to do that shifts from "don't sexualize me in a professional setting" to "don't hit on me in a place where you can rape me" which is a *********** stupid spin.

Rebecca never corrected Plait or Myers to say, "Guys - you are reading the wrong thing in my anecdote - it was not fear of rape that caused me to mention what happened."

That is why people are saying Watson made a huge deal of it. It's incorrect - in that it's the attribution of *other people's reasons* to her story. If she wanted to kill the huge ordeal before it got started, the way to do it would be to correct the two people who are way more famous/popular than she is who are putting words in her mouth.

I think my irony meter just exploded. Because I finally realized that that is a case of men explaining what a woman REALLY wanted to say. Err...

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Phlebas

No, it's all about the guy in the elevator.

No. If only for him, it wouldn't have become what it has.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by bookitty

FYI - I read this as "so therefore, as long as people accept a "no" they can do whatever they want to their fellow attendees."

Then, stop reading into what people write.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by truethat

You know what some people in this thread don't seem to get? And others for that matter. When discussing elevatorgate?

That GUYS didn't do this. ONE GUY did this. It's sexist to say "Guys don't do this."....

Not really. It would have been sexist to say "ALL guys do this," thus generalizing the behavior of one to apply to all. It's no more sexist to point out the antics of EG as a negative example of what men should not do, than it would be to advise men not to pick their noses on the first date.

So I guess in a way you're right, I don't seem to "get it" in the way you apparently do. But from my perspective, you're stretching the meaning of the word "sexist" well past its breaking point.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by truethat

You know what some people in this thread don't seem to get? And others for that matter. When discussing elevatorgate?

That GUYS didn't do this. ONE GUY did this. It's sexist to say "Guys don't do this."

As a guy, my response to Watson's side note (and that's all it really was) was not to get offended. I'm not the sort of person to trail women into elevators and then proposition them without introducing myself, so I never even considered the idea that her admonishment was aimed at me. My feeling was "yeah, guys, don't act like creeps".

And of course, I can't help but notice that people ignore the fact that she clearly stated that most people at the conference, male and female, acted perfectly.

And in any event, what does her quick side note have to do with women being warned away from TAM?

[whatthebutlersaw]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

As a guy, my response to Watson's side note (and that's all it really was) was not to get offended. I'm not the sort of person to trail women into elevators and then proposition them without introducing myself, so I never even considered the idea that her admonishment was aimed at me. My feeling was "yeah, guys, don't act like creeps".

And of course, I can't help but notice that people ignore the fact that she clearly stated that most people at the conference, male and female, acted perfectly.

And in any event, what does her quick side note have to do with women being warned away from TAM?

In my case? Nothing. Particularly since she wasn't talking about TAM at all.

The reaction she got for that side note only from people on these boards, some of whom I can assume WILL be at TAM, though. - Yeah, now I REALLY wanna hang with these people. Sounds like a fun bunch. And should something happen to me or anyone else, I can feel secure that it will be properly handwaved away or blamed on Rebecca Watson.

(No guys were harmed in the making of this post.)

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Boo, she let a couple of men speak for her, and mischaracterize what she was saying. Not exactly a great stand for women, is it?

What Watson says and does, never is.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Enlighten me on the difference, then.

I did. Right in the post you quoted and replied to.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Yeah, that's me. Mister marketer and self-promotion. I mean really, reading and responding to a handful of 400+ posts in a thread in the TAM subforum of JREF forum, made over three-and-a-half days (when I was off-line) during the middle of the night in the U.S. is completely analagous to retweeting every tweet I receive to my many followers.

Perhaps my only error was not repeating the context. By retweeting every @Rebecca tweet regarding the bruhaha, she's clearly engaged in promotion and marketing. There's nothing wrong with that per se and my comment about her personality cult was just what it was. It was a separate issue from Twitter and in fact I applaud her marketing and self-promotion skills and Net savvy in that regard.

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Is discussing things on a forum ok, but not on Twitter?

And the massacre of straw men continues. Can you show me where I said anything even vaguely resembles what you're asking of me?

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Is there a number of Twitter followers at which someone loses the right to discuss things on Twitter

Since that has nothing to do with what I said originally or in the response above, why are you even asking me this?

Originally Posted by Dunstan

(unless they want to be accused of marketing and self-promotion)?

If the Tweets have a hashtag...

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Strange that someone should be expected to shut up because there are a lot of people who show an interest in what she says.

Even stranger because I never suggested such a thing so I have no idea what elicited this comment.

I realize you don't like positions I've taken and opinions I've expressed and have personalized it, but don't let your dislike for me cause you to read things into my comments that I'm not saying.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Not really. It would have been sexist to say "ALL guys do this," thus generalizing the behavior of one to apply to all. It's no more sexist to point out the antics of EG as a negative example of what men should not do, than it would be to advise men not to pick their noses on the first date.

So I guess in a way you're right, I don't seem to "get it" in the way you apparently do. But from my perspective, you're stretching the meaning of the word "sexist" well past its breaking point.

Of course I am. Because sexist only seems to register if we do it to women. If men are treated in a sexist way or a degrading way they are either supposed to suck it up as a compliment or be chivalrous and defend the women.

For example everyone just assumes that the guy was after sex. He asked her to come for conversation and coffee.


If a woman did the same thing and invited the guy back to her room for coffee and people assumed that girl was inviting him for sex it would be called a sexist assumption.

There is nothing to indicate that the guy was asking her for sex. *He asked her to come for coffee and conversation.


This is what I mean by "blind spots."






Also to DJ Grothe's comment to Ashley. He did not say she was making it up. He said he removed the guy because he heard he didn't belong there and was causing a problem. He said he was never told the guy was sexually harassing women. He said if he had been told this he would have reacted differently.

Meaning not only would he have kicked the guy out but he would have handled the sexual harassment as well.

That doesn't stop women from ignoring what he said and painting DJ Grothe as accusing Ashley of lying. He never did that. He simply stated that he was unaware of the whole dynamic.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by truethat

There is nothing to indicate that the guy was asking her for sex. He asked her to come for coffee and conversation.

Now you're stretching credulity well past the breaking point.

[truethat]

Why? Haven't you ever had an "all nighter" conversation with a member of the opposite sex? I have. Many times over the years.

I'm not saying the guy wasn't asking her for sex. I'm just pointing out the knee jerk reaction.

[ANTPogo]

Is inviting someone to drink coffee alone with you in your hotel room at 4 AM actually a thing that people do?

I mean, a guy literally saying to a girl, "hey, I know we've been up for 20 hours straight and it's still three hours away from the sun even coming up, so let's go into my private room with a bed, just the two of us, and drink a caffeinated beverage together," and then doing exactly that?

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Well to be fair I don't think women should do that either. She was probably only referring to guys because it was a guy who did it. Although if you replace 'guy' with 'blond', it still sounds kind of bad. In fact, replace guy with anything and it sounds kind of bad. But she started talking specifically about males behavior. Is that just hetoronormative thinking she's guilty of?

Stop making me think.

Of course if you replace guys with anything more specific, it will sound more discriminatory, that's the point. It wasn't more directed. It's still, whether you agree with it or not, a general word of advice. It was not disparaging to guys, it wasn't blaming his behavior on his maleness. Her experience was with a male so she made a general suggestion to men.

[truethat]

I've had it happen many many times, especially when discussing interesting topics. I've sat up all night with guys drinking coffee smoking cigarettes and philosophizing.

Maybe that's just my experience but I could totally see this happening.

Now I don't recall the entire conversation, maybe someone else does. If he had said, "I think you're hot, and I'd like to spend more time with you how about coffee in my room" Then ok he probably was after sex.


But again, total blind spot here. Men are perpetrators women are victims. So no one even paused for a second to consider that maybe the guy would just want coffee and talk.

The blowing off of this very real possibility is just one more indicator of sexism aimed at men.

Like I said, if the woman in this case was doing the asking and people said to her

"Of course he thought you wanted to have sex with him, it was four in the morning, why else would you invite him back to your room?"

People would jump on that for being hideously sexist.

But it's always OK to do it to guys.


Also ANT POGO that's not what the guy said to her. So you are using the word "literally" wrong.

[Stellafane]

Coupla points:

Originally Posted by truethat

...If a woman did the same thing and invited the guy back to her room for coffee and people assumed that girl was inviting him for sex it would be called a sexist assumption.

Then apparently I'm considerably more sexist than I thought, because if I were under the precise same conditions -- elevator, 4:00 AM, and all that -- and for some unfathomable reason a previously unknown EW invited me to her room for coffee and convo, I'd at an absolute minimum wonder if the possibility of sex might be factored into her invite. (That doesn't mean I'd have a right to sex once I got there of course, but it would certainly cross my mind as a possibility.)

Originally Posted by truethat

...There is nothing to indicate that the guy was asking her for sex. *He asked her to come for coffee and conversation.


This is what I mean by "blind spots."

Sorry, but I think this is just a bit disingenuous. OK, maybe "asking for sex" is too strong, but "opening up the possibility for sex" was certainly part of EG's motive, were I to hazard a guess. And although it is just a guess -- neither of us will ever know precisely what was going through EG's mind at the time, and for that matter neither will RW -- I don't think it's at all an unreasonable one.

And in any case, this is all beside the point. The relevant issue here is not what EG might or might not have intended, it's the irrefutable fact that RW was made uncomfortable by it. And in my view, she had every right to be uncomfortable. I certainly would have been, had I been in her situation. The fact that she didn't like it, and chose to offer a bit of advice to others based on those feelings, has nothing to do with sexism, irrespective or how pure (or not) EG's intentions may have been in that now-infamous elevator.

[truethat]

I do not deny at all RW's experiences. In fact I posted earlier that having experience with the transgender community and also the gender queer community I've learned not to view things in binary gender roles. I think it is important to consider all the possibilities of people's experiences. I've also stated that it's caused me to be more mindful of ways in which my comfortableness in being sexualized may contribute to other women being uncomfortable.

The point is, that the backlash of RW's post and the comments that have arisen have created not just two sides.

It's not "those that believe her and those who are vicious sexists threatening her with rape"

It's also "women who are upset at reading the dismissive comments by men and women"

and

Men who are upset about being generalized as sexists.

In fact I thought it was amusing that I saw elipse's comment above commending bookitty and Remie V for their patience and shock at the inability for some of us to see a simple concept.

I've received several PMs from men on here who have commented similarly from the other perspective. They aren't willing to jump in the fray but it's interesting that no one seems to see it from a male perspective who is offended by the generalization.

Lest I be accuse of lying about the PMs again, I'll post the comments below WITHOUT THE NAME. But there are many men on here who are afraid to speak up for fear of being labeled a sexist.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by truethat

Also ANT POGO that's not what the guy said to her. So you are using the word "literally" wrong.

So tell me how these innocuous 4 AM elevator cold-invitations to return to someone's hotel room for a private cup of coffee are usually worded in your experience, then.

[truethat]

Generally it would be after a whole night out with a group of friends. Perhaps me and another guy got into a heated discussion. Years ago this would be related to atheism and theology. We wound up broken off the group and having our own debate that pretty much annoyed others in our party.

I've gone up to guys apartments and sat around with a bottle of wine and played youtube videos hunched over together talking about Rumi and the Dali Lama.

I've talked politics. I've just gone up and hung out and the conversation winded down into something more mundane.

I've also gone to apartments alone with a group of men and hung out and talked Ken Wilber and Free will. It does happen.

In the first few cases I didn't really know the guy, in later cases I did.


If she hadn't spent the night talking to the guy then perhaps I would see it differently.


As promised some of the PMs

Quote:

Thanks!
I just wanted to say thank you, and mention my support for what you're doing in the "Sexism at TAM" thread. It's nice to see there are some ladies who understand that not all of us are lecherous thugs.

Quote:

I am aghast....
......at the lack of logical, critical thinking that you have to reply to in the TAM harassment thread.

Your posts are excellent - objective and critical and well thought out.

So just a quick note to say thank you for speaking up on my behalf, even though you didn't know you were.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Of course if you replace guys with anything more specific, it will sound more discriminatory, that's the point. It wasn't more directed. It's still, whether you agree with it or not, a general word of advice. It was not disparaging to guys, it wasn't blaming his behavior on his maleness. Her experience was with a male so she made a general suggestion to men.

Why yes, yes it was. And you dismissing the possibility doesn't make it any less disparaging.