Yet Another Commentary on Elevatorgate

A minor exchange in an elevator is causing quite a fiasco in the skeptic/atheist community. It is very confusing and distressing, but we can learn from this. 

 

First, let me emphasize that Rebecca Watson was doing a service by reminding people that women often don't like to be hit on at conferences. It deserves to be repeated. So guys, be really sure she's interested before you proposition a woman. Fair enough. As humanists we strive to cause as little discomfort in others as possible. It is also helpful to bring up the topic of subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) sexism in the atheist community. We need to address the issue. 

 

She used a specific example of a man asking her if she wanted to return to his room for coffee. This polite request was after drinking at the bar with a group of people. It was also at 4:00 am, in an elevator. She complained that it made her feel uncomfortable and "sexualized" her.  

 

It could have ended there, but...

 

Richard Dawkins posted a scathing sarcastic comment on PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog. Dawkins essentially said that it is inexcusable to complain about a triviality, something he called "zero bad," when there is a lot of horrible misogyny in the world. A valid point, but rather brutally expressed. His sarcasm was very intense. 

 

That was just the start. Watson and her supporters came back with outrageous anger toward Dawkins, called him a misogynist, sexist, old white man. I trust you can't ignore the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of condemning one of the greatest minds of our era by referring to his sex, age, and race. The hate seemed way out of line and out of proportion. Watson called for a boycott of Dawkins' books! One of her SkeptiChick colleagues said: "I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn.

Wow! Somebody please call a truce! 

 

Maybe Dawkins could have been less negative, but to understand why he posted his comments you need some context. Watson, Dawkins, and two others were on a panel together at an atheist convention. The topic was "Communicating Atheism." Watson, instead of talking about the topic, focused on her perception of sexism in the atheist community. She also made some personal jabs at another woman atheist blogger, that some feel were unfair. Instead of talking about atheism she went off on a rant about gender politics, filled with very personal examples. It was later in a blog that she gave the petty example of the guy in the elevator. It is true that she brought up the elevator guy (often abbreviated EG in the blogosphere) example as an instance of irony, but the superficiality of the complaint itself cannot be ignored. 

 

You can see the original panel discussion here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik&feature=related

 

This context helps to understand Dawkins' reamrks. In my opinion it is bad form and unfair to change the topic without the consent of the other participants on the panel. They didn't agree to be on a panel discussing that topic. If I had planned to discuss "Communicating Atheism," then I might be offended that she chose instead to talk about an unrelated issue. Further, she and made it very much about herself, and what bothered her about sexism in the atheist community, yet ignored truly awful sexism and misogyny that are orders of magnitude more extreme.

Part of it the problem could be the difference in content standards for bloggers and academics. It is common to make a blog about yourself and what bothers you. Nonetheless, even if you go off topic and decide to discuss sexism rather than atheism, you could at least cover that topic well. But she did not, it was very anecdotal and personal. She did a poor job of addressing her chosen topic, and didn't cover the agreed upon topic at all.

I think that is why Dawkins posted the sarcastic remarks comparing the "zero bad" of Elevator Guy with the misogynist atrocities that women in Islam endure. At the very least, her rant about sexism could have covered these more agregious examples. Really he was criticizing her for lacking perspective and not covering the topic well. Note that Dawkins did not criticize her as a woman, he did not criticize her for discussing sexism, he didn't complain that she brought up the issue of sexism in the atheist community. He criticized how she addressed the issue, and his point is a valid one.

I can understand being hurt by such sharp witted sarcastic criticism. Nonetheless, rather than accept the criticism, with grace and humility, she turned it into a gender war. That was a mistake. She dismissed his remarks as being the product of "privilege" rather than examining their possible validity. As is so often the case with identity politics, it became a name calling slug fest. I hope Rebecca Watson has the largess to admit that there is some validity to Dawkins complaint, and that her friends will apologize for their extreme statements.

 

I hope this goes away soon.

Views: 80

Tags: Dawkins, Elevator, Guy, Watson, misogyny, sexism

Comment by Kairan Nierde on July 12, 2011 at 11:44pm
I haven't been following this scandal but I clicked on your link just for the hell of it.  There was no mention of an elevator or a guy inviting her for coffee in that link.  It was a 13 minute sample of her presentation, which actually made her look rather rational and professional.  Perhaps the elevator quarrel was in a post panel discussion?
Comment by Gold Guy on July 13, 2011 at 12:26am
Yes, I mention that the EG comment came later in one of her video blogs. It was after that blog that Dawkins made his sarcastic comments. 

I glad you found her part of the panel professional, but I think it was off topic, anecdotal, and ignored far more serious examples of sexism and misogyny, which is Dawkins' point. I feel Dawkins did nothing wrong by criticizing her, and the SkeptiChicks need to mend fences, and stop slandering Dawkins.
Comment by Dustin on July 13, 2011 at 12:28am

"women often don't like to be hit on at conferences."

 

So what?  I don't like having such a strong sex drive nor do I like when females may turn me down.  

Comment by Gold Guy on July 13, 2011 at 12:40am
I think we can be sensitive to their feelings, to the extent possible. I think it is good to be reminded that women often feel uncomfortable when it on. I don't like making people uncomfortable.

To me the problem is that such complaints implicitly make you responsible for the subjective emotional reaction of someone else. That is not a reasonable expectation, because as we know from extensive research, human judgments are frequently perceptual errors and subject to bias. Often such feelings are unfounded and just a misunderstanding. Skeptics should not encourage using unreliable criteria for assigning social condemnation. That is why many say that nothing happened. It was a non-event.

I don't think anyone else can do anything about you being unhappy with your own sex drive. ;-)
Comment by Dustin on July 13, 2011 at 12:54am

That's what women DO.  They implicitly make you responsible for their own subjective emotional reactions.  And if you don't understand that they say 'You just don't get it'.  

 

Maybe what THEY don't understand is that the vast majority of females will not , under any circumstances , make the first move.  And those that DO , they are so obscure that there is no possible way an average male would pick up on it.  

 

So their inability to make the first move turns them into a number.  I consider it a number game.  I've approached many women in my life and some get creeped out , some reject me but are still quite flattered and some slip me their phone number to hang out sometime.  

 

Women just 'don't get it' either.  

Comment by Gold Guy on July 13, 2011 at 1:14am
Of course you meant SOME women do that, so do some men.

The problem is that a particular gender political perspective promotes that error. There are differences in male and female sexuality. I don't expect women to hit on men. They don't need to, and if they did it would usually be interpreted as more than it is, then there is the double standard.. blah blah blah, but these are real. So don't hold your breath waiting to be hit upon.
Interestingly, once your old enough that you don't care (past reproductive age) that changes.
I refuse to think of women as numbers. I really feel hurt if I know I have "creeped out" anyone. I suspect your approach has more success than mine, but that is how I am. An unfortunate thing is that "feminists" drastically stereotype men, and assume all men take the approach you have described. 

In fact, in this exchange I argue with a feminist woman who makes precisely that sexist assumption:  
http://www.facebook.com/pnrjulius/posts/10100774505247093
(I'm astroboy).

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 14 minutes ago. 21 Replies

The Shinto Flower among the Weeds of Religion

Started by Cato Rigas in Advice. Last reply by Ward Cressin 4 hours ago. 7 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 6 hours ago. 46 Replies

Blog Posts

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 1 Comment

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service