Another week, another furore surrounds Richard Dawkins. The latest one, swiftly dubbed ‘Elevator-gate’ by those incapable of feeling revulsion at someone’s actions unless the word ‘gate’ is included in a sentence, really struck a chord with me, and a lot of other women.
Here’s what happened. Rebecca Watson, who writes Skepchick, delivered a talk in Dublin about sexism in the skeptic and atheist communities. After the talk, she was in the lift going to her hotel room, and an attendee of the talk cornered her and tried to chat her up. Later, she uploaded a vlog, where she said
“Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.”
That’s all she said. She didn’t call for the bloke to be hung by the nether-regions or an end to all sexual activity between humans ever, she just asked for a little bit of common courtesy. Then Dick got involved.
Commenting on Pharyngula, his first comment was:
When he was called up by people asking whether he was arguing that because worse things happen in other areas of the world, we shouldn’t concern ourselves with bad things that happen, he replied with:
Then, he decided to make a third comment, saying:
Well, Dick, here’s what you don’t ‘get’.
You don’t get obscenities shouted at you in public because you dare to be out of the house while in possession of a vagina. You don’t get men refusing to move out of your way at work so you have to rub up against them to get somewhere you need to be immediately. You don’t get forced to not wear a top you like because it’s a bit low cut and the last time you did a customer literally stared at your tits for two hours solid. You don’t get patronised because your reproductive organs are on the inside. You don’t get seen as a being that is only good for sex one minute and reviled the next if you dare to reveal yourself as a sexual being. You don’t get forced into choosing between a career and a family. You don’t get told that you won’t succeed because of those pockets of fat and muscle on your chest. You don’t get treated as a member of a minority group when you in fact, form the majority of the population. You don’t get accused of being a hysterical, over-emotional, boring bitch when you don’t want to fuck someone and you don’t want to be propositioned for sex at 4 in the morning in a hotel after you JUST SPOKE about how uncomfortable this made you feel. You also, and I can not make this clear enough, do NOT FUCKING GET to tell people who this stuff actually happens to on a daily basis how to feel.
It really is as simple as that. Dick, when you get all these things, or even engage your humongous brain to, for once, empathise with someone who’s not a rich white straight cis-gender bloke, you might realise why the culture we’re brought up in means that if we’re cornered by men, it makes us uncomfortable.
The thing about this is that Dawkins is the one that turned this into a huge shit-storm. He took one woman saying that a man who ignored her personal feelings and did the very thing she’d just publicly spoken about feeling uncomfortable about so he could try get his dick wet was insensitive and rude and turned it into “Oh, these awful women are so fucking touchy that we can’t even chat them up! It’s so unfair!” And do you know what? I could have happily have denounced Dawkins for being the out-of touch old git that he so clearly is, and moved on. But then other commenters got involved and twisted Watson’s statement into something it clearly wasn’t intended as.
So for everyone who is whining “Well how are we supposed to chat women up if we can’t go near them?”, just put yourself in her shoes, and see if it could make her uncomfortable. If you even think that there’s a chance it might, don’t do it. If you can’t see any way to get a woman without creeping her out, I would prescribe a brief period of taking a good look at oneself to see why you think that’s the case.
I’ll tell you what I don’t get. Why do these men defending Dawkins think that their ‘right’ to tell us that they want a woman’s body trumps the woman’s right to feel safe or comfortable? Why do they think that ignoring women’s wishes will ever get them the shag they desire? Here’s the deal: Yes, you might not be a rapist, but we don’t know that. It’s like Russian Roulette. You might be the one that looks normal then feeds us to chinchillas from the feet up. This is how we are conditioned to feel by a society where rape and assault does happen, and they happen disproportionately to women. You can’t simply say that no western woman should ever feel uncomfortable because of what a man might do until he actually does it. I’m not saying all women are, or should, be scared when they’re in an enclosed space with a strange man who wants to fuck her, but some do, and saying “Well you shouldn’t be, and if you are, you’re a hysterical, overreacting bitch” is emphatically NOT a solution.
To end this, I’m going to quote PZ Meyers’ take on the whole thing, because he sums it up beautifully:
The thing about this is that Dawkins is the one that turned this into a huge shit-storm. He took one woman saying that a man who ignored her personal feelings and did the very thing she’d just publicly spoken about feeling uncomfortable about so he could try get his dick wet was insensitive and rude and turned it into “Oh, these awful women are so fucking touchy that we can’t even chat them up! It’s so unfair!” And do you know what? I could have happily have denounced Dawkins for being the out-of touch old git that he so clearly is, and moved on. But then other commenters got involved and twisted Watson’s statement into something it clearly wasn’t intended as.
So for everyone who is whining “Well how are we supposed to chat women up if we can’t go near them?”, just put yourself in her shoes, and see if it could make her uncomfortable. If you even think that there’s a chance it might, don’t do it. If you can’t see any way to get a woman without creeping her out, I would prescribe a brief period of taking a good look at oneself to see why you think that’s the case.
I’ll tell you what I don’t get. Why do these men defending Dawkins think that their ‘right’ to tell us that they want a woman’s body trumps the woman’s right to feel safe or comfortable? Why do they think that ignoring women’s wishes will ever get them the shag they desire? Here’s the deal: Yes, you might not be a rapist, but we don’t know that. It’s like Russian Roulette. You might be the one that looks normal then feeds us to chinchillas from the feet up. This is how we are conditioned to feel by a society where rape and assault does happen, and they happen disproportionately to women. You can’t simply say that no western woman should ever feel uncomfortable because of what a man might do until he actually does it. I’m not saying all women are, or should, be scared when they’re in an enclosed space with a strange man who wants to fuck her, but some do, and saying “Well you shouldn’t be, and if you are, you’re a hysterical, overreacting bitch” is emphatically NOT a solution.
To end this, I’m going to quote PZ Meyers’ take on the whole thing, because he sums it up beautifully:
"Imagine that Richard Dawkins meets a particularly persistent fan who insists on standing uncomfortably close to him, and Richard asks him to stand back a little bit; when he continues, he says to the rest of the crowd that that is rather rude behavior, and could everyone give him a little breathing space? Which then leads to many members of the crowd loudly defending the rudeness by declaring that since the guy wasn't assaulting him, he should be allowed to keep doing that, and hey, how dare Richard Dawkins accuse everyone present of trying to mug him! That's exactly analogous to Rebecca Watson's situation. She did not make these hysterical accusations everyone is claiming, she did not compare herself to the oppressed women of the third world, she did not demonize the clumsy sap in the elevator — she asked for some simple common courtesy, and for that she gets pilloried.
Sorry, people, but that sends a very clear signal to women that calm requests for respect will be met with jeers by a significant subset of the atheist community, and that's not right."
This has also been covered by Watson herself, Amanda Marcotte, Jen McCreight, Discover and Almost Diamonds, to name but a few, and all are well worth a read.(PROTIP: Do not go beneath the line)
Well put.
ReplyDeleteI don't like this argument. While I can see that a lot - if not a majority - WOULD be offended/intimidated by this kind of behaviour, it's not right to assume that ALL women would, neither is it right to assume that those women are wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf the man in this situation was AT Rebecca's talk, then he's a moron, but you can't ask all men to avoid talking to women in confined spaces because it might make them uncomfortable. Unless he imposed himself somehow, say, standing in front her when she was in the corner of the elevator, I don't see the problem.
To put my point into a situation you might be able to empathize with, Nat, picture a tall man with a rough voice and a lot of piercings and piercings getting into an elevator with me. This man's image has a lot of stigma attached, and the man talking to me in a confined space, alone, might make me uncomfortable or intimidated, but what can I do? Impose a dress code on the elevator.
And, before you say that having a lot of piercings/tattoos does not mean someone is a violent thug, I'd like to point out that having a penis and a set of testicles does not make someone misogynistic.
Before anyone replies, I'd like to reiterate, if the man in above situation was Rebecca's talk, and, thus, knew her feelings on this, he was wrong.
Well done for entirely missing the point, John Bullock.
ReplyDeleteThank you. If you can (politely) explain which point you feel I've missed, I'll explain why.
ReplyDeletewell said Nat.
ReplyDeleteJohn Bullock, if at least once a week someone sexually harasses you on the street, perhaps you'll understand why men's behaviour such as described by Watson can be intimidating and frustrating.
If you don't get it, you need to check your privilege, just like Dawkins does.
We're not objects who should just shut up and listen to men proposition us, or intimidate us, or insult us.
And your example is not analogous.
John, the thing is, Dawkins is saying she has no right to be uncomfortable. None at all. That no western woman should ever feel uncomfortable because of what a man does if it's not an actual assault. Watson wasn't saying that she thought he was a rapist, or that she thought he might get violent, just that she thought he was rude and it's something that's happened a lot before. I'm not saying all women are scared of being in an enclosed space with strange men, but some are, and I'm sorry, just saying 'Well you shouldn't be' isn't the solution.
ReplyDeleteHere's hoping you get less of an idiot-shitstorm in this comment thread than on most of the blogs I've seen covering it.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing new to say on the matter, having attempted to explain things to persistent and stubbornly clueless people at Blaghag a fair amount, I'm all patient-explanation'ed out.
Ok, Nat, I realise your point was about Dawkins reaction, and if it will make everyone feel better, I'll address that specifically.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Dawkins was guilty of anything more than trolling. Similar to someone posting that they'd just been served an under cooked chicken fillet and getting a response about the famine in 3rd world countries.
I didn't address that, however, because had I said that, you would all point me to the part of the post where Nat tells him why he's wrong, so I addressed that specifically.
Which brings me to sianandcrooke.
At least once DAY I have abuse thrown at me by some pillock in a van who thinks the lines on Keighley roundabout don't apply to him, and is pissed of that I won't let him cut in front of me, do I assume all can drivers are dicks?
Correct if you (somehow think) I'm wrong, but there's a big difference between saying women should just shut up and listen when men proposition them, which is what you seem to be implying I mean, and saying that men shouldn't feel like they can't proposition women in case they're offended.
Anyone, male or female, is entitled to turn their chatter upper down as soon as it becomes clear that that's what they're doing. It should only be seen as a problem if three chatter upper doesn't stop once turned down.
No analogy is perfect, but I feel this one is close enough for my point.
I apologise for any bad spelling or missing words, I'm on my phone here.
ReplyDeleteJohn, i appreciate that drivers shouting at you is pretty annoying and offensive, but it is not the same as sexual harassment. it is not motivated by the same reasons. it is not happening because you happen to be a woman, and because he lives in culture that sees women as objects to be consumed.
ReplyDeleteit simply is not the same.
All Watson said was that the man's behaviour was intimidating. I can empathise, when you are alone in a lift a 4am, and a random man invites you back to his room, it can feel intimidating. Especially when it has happened in unpleasant ways before.
Yesterday some guys harassed me on the street. They didn't say anything too bad, but what they did say triggered a very painful memory in me of a previous harassment incident. it left me feeling almost tearful and shook up. Some people wouldn't have been offended but i was because of the way it made me feel. we don't know what Watson felt or how this guy made her feel, or what it triggered in her.
But the key thing is, as nat says, is that we are allowed to be upset my incidents of hassle and harassment, and Dawkins basically said that we shouldn't feel this way, BECAUSE worse things happen. He said this because he does not understand what it feels like to be treated like an object rather than a full human being. He said that because we live in patriarchy and he has heaps of privilege (as do you, as do i) so cannot understand why it made Watson feel like it did, and instead told her she shouldn't feel like she did.
What he should have done, is listen to her truth.
Thanks Nat. I spent a sleepless couple of days watching the mess at Pharyngula unfurl, and shoving my oar in occasionally.
ReplyDeleteFor those that don't get it, try reading Schrödinger's Rapist.
Hi John.
Dawkins is on record as saying—many times—that the atheist community should "take a leaf from the feminists' policy of raising awareness". Then he comes along and makes sarcastic remarks which both sidestep and belittle what many of those feminists are saying. And Rebecca Watson's use of the elevator incident was a classic example of consciousness-raising.
So yes,he was being a troll. A misogynist troll to boot, and a tone-troll. Bloke's a dick, on this subject at least, and his very prominence means that he needs calling on it.
sianandcrookedrib (if I respond to you again, it may just be "sian," that's a hard name to type)
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for your sexual harassment incident, and I am no way implying, or justifying someone else's implication, that you should not be allowed to feel whatever you feel because of that incident.
Two points, however. Firstly, Dawkins pointed out that he was not trying to belittle a small wrong by pointing out that there are bigger wrongs, he was saying that her incident wasn't a wrong at all.
Secondly, I agree that it shouldn't have been considered an incident. I haven't had time to fully research the story (I will, if I have to) but, assuming the guy didn't try to be any more physically intimidating than he came across just standing in an elevator, and assuming he stopped his advance when she made it clear she wasn't interested, why should this be treat any differently?
I realise that women have to put up with more sexual harassment than men, and that it's been going on for longer, and that some women will have mental scars from particularly bad incidents, but how do we know that without talking to someone? Are we to either assume that all women are scarred by a bad case of sexual harassment, and won't want a man to try to chat them up?
You're key point is that Dawkins cannot understand why this situation made her feel like it did, and that's my point, no one can, unless they've had it happen to them. So how do we adjust our approach to women (whether to chat them up, ask them an innocent question, tell them their hair is on fire) to compensate for all potential problems? What if she is claustrophobic, and the lift is making her uneasy? What if she is agoraphobic, and the thought of getting out of the lift is making her uneasy.
What if she was raped as a teenager by a man in the same shirt that a man who wants to talk to her is wearing, and seeing the shirt brings up the memory of that horrendous event? How could the man possibly know not to wear that shirt.
Dawkins was being a troll, true enough, and his statement didn't need making. He's a controversial figure, this is the kind of thing he does (and you all blogging/commenting about is exactly why he does it), but his comment that this is a zero event is accurate. You're all looking from Watson's side, but how could the man have known what she felt?
Daz, are you not bored of arguing with me yet :D
ReplyDeleteI don't really have any overall disagreement with your comment (I think). I cleared up my views in the last (rather long) comment to sian.
He's guilty of being a troll, of being pointlessly confrontational (which, let's face it, he's made a career out of) and of belittling ONE WOMAN'S predicament. My point was that this one woman's predicament shouldn't be used as a template for all interactions of men with women, as it felt like Nat (and commenter's) were implying.
"My point was that this one woman's predicament shouldn't be used as a template for all interactions of men with women"
ReplyDeleteTotally agree there John. Dawkins seems to be out for a fight and just picked up on this one womans words (which actually, she was saying it made her feel uncomfortable not every woman) and HE went and then tried to make it generalisable and was generally being as you say, pointlessly confrontational.
However, if we do generalise this one womans experience, she has a huge point. I just discussed this on a friends FB status and someone made the point that she was just making a comment that perhaps it's not a very good idea to approach someone at 4am, in a lift, after a talk on sexism... it would make a lot of people uncomfortable, and that's all she's really saying. She didn't say he was a rapist, misgynist, or anything else... she simply made the comment that it made her uncomfortable and perhaps people who think it's a good idea to approach someone at 4am like that should rethink.
It's sad that someone can't make a simple comment like that without someone like Dawkins picking up on it and making it bigger than it is, because we really need more healthy discussions around how to approach people and "sexual manners" so to speak, rather than Dawkins belittling someone's experiences.
John, I really don't understand what you can't see here. One person made one comment about one incident and it's Dawkins and his supporters that have blown this up. Really. She'd just been talking about how it made her uncomfortable. He heard this and did it anyway. What I genuinely, GENUINELY do not understand is how these men who are supporting him to not fucking see that their right to chat women up does not trump women's rights to feel safe and comfortable. You mighy think it's a 'zero issue', but you know what? The human being it actually happened to didn't. The people who see it all the time don't. What is a 'zero issue' is Dawkins et al taking offence when someone calls someone's inappropriate behaviour inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteNat, I'm only saying it's a zero issue because then man (presuming he didn't attend her talk) had no way of knowing it would be uncomfortable to HER. It would become an issue quickly if, as the post Daz linked to puts it, he "ignored the signals."
ReplyDeleteJohn.
ReplyDeleteHey, like I said before, you engage, which is better than I get from fundies.
Pointlessly confrontational? In the context of the religious, his normal target, 'confrontational' means 'daring to criticise on iota of their beliefs.' Hard for anyone not to look strident, in their case.
"Dawkins pointed out that he was not trying to belittle a small wrong by pointing out that there are bigger wrongs,"
Except that's exactly what he did do.
"he was saying that her incident wasn't a wrong at all."
Except it was. See my link to Schrödinger's Rapist, above.
Put simply, if the majority of women—or any other section of society—say "x-behaviour makes us wary, scared for our well-being, feel objectified or unwarrantedly stigmatised," then that's a fact of life and should be allowed for, when dealing with them. A man's intent has no bearing on a woman's perception. She can't read minds; all she knows is that women get raped—a lot—and that rapists don't have a large capital-R tattooed on their foreheads.
An analogy: For arguments sake, take it as a given that only 0.01% of the handguns in the world are loaded.
You're in a lift, with a man. He pulls out a pistol, cocks it, and aims it at your head.
Do you decide it's statistically okay, and that no harm will come to you, or do you worry, at least a little bit, that you might be about to have your head blown off.
The pistol is analogous to a cheesy pick-up line from a stranger in a cramped place, with no exits.
An unloaded pistol is a line from a man who doesn't intend to take things further if a woman says no.
A loaded pistol is a line from a man who intends rape.
Question: How do you tell the difference and if you can't, why would the perceived possible-threat from the unloaded-gun man be non-zero?
Sorry, double-posting again. I just now spotted John's reply @10:49
ReplyDelete"had no way of knowing it would be uncomfortable to HER."
The point is though, that it should be pretty damn obvious to any man looking at it from a woman's perspective, that a woman will feel uncomfortable/frightened after an approach in such circumstances.
Alone with strange man, cramped space, no exits = x amount of potential danger.
Alone with strange man who has just made a very strong indication that he desires her sexually, cramped space, no exits = x+y amount of potential danger.
Alone with strange man who has just made a very strong indication that he desires her sexually, after attending a conference in which she, as a speaker, had made it clear that such advances were unwelcome, cramped space, no exits = x+y+z amount of potential danger.
Been asking various ladies about this since the brouhaha began, and all agreed that that's something like the thought process, though mostly it's ingrained so much as to be unconscious. Thing is, it should be equally unconscious for any man with empathy to reproduce that process, and think "nope, this would be bad timing," at the very least. Not to mention that a cold-proposition of a woman he's never conversed with is basically a way of saying 'Hey, nice body. Can I shag it'.
Daz,
ReplyDelete"Hey, like I said before, you engage, which is better than I get from fundies."
Feelings mutual.
"Pointlessly confrontational? In the context of the religious, his normal target, 'confrontational' means 'daring to criticise on iota of their beliefs.' Hard for anyone not to look strident, in their case."
In the context of religion, I'm fine with it. I fully support Dawkins to be as bullish and trollish as he likes when it comes to religion. My remark was more directed at some of the arguments, like this one, that he didn't need to get into.
""Dawkins pointed out that he was not trying to belittle a small wrong by pointing out that there are bigger wrongs,"
Except that's exactly what he did do."
True, but he clarified his position later.
""he was saying that her incident wasn't a wrong at all."
Except it was. See my link to Schrödinger's Rapist, above."
I have a read through that post, it was very good, and I agree with it.
Before I say why I'm debating this, let me point out that I was under the impression that the man in this situation had NOT attended her talk. The fact that he HAD removes any doubt he might have had about whether the timing of his advance might have been appropriate. In this particular situation, the guy was a moron.
In the Schrödinger's Rapist post, the writer makes it clear that a would-be suitor should gauge their surroundings and situation before making a pass at a woman. In the case of a busy hotels elevator at 4am (presumably with a panic button in the elevator) I would argue that it's not a black and white inappropriate situation (were this a man who hadn't just listened to the woman talk about how she didn't like this kind of thing). It may fall to the side of inappropriate or unsafe, but it's hardly approaching a lady in a dark alley.
Like I said earlier, no analogy is perfect, but I have a quite major problem with yours. If a woman (my gun wielding aggressor is female, because everyone I talk to on these sort of comments seems to assume the male will always be the baddie) walks into my elevator and points a gun at my head, yes, I worry, as a woman might worry if it were a man making a pass at her.
The thing is, if someone points a gun at me, loaded or not, they're pointing a gun at me. It's safe to assume they're mentally unbalanced in some way. This analogy implies that, in the eyes of the woman, any man that makes a pass at her is a rapist, it's just a matter of whether he's going to try and rape HER or not, and, while caution is a good thing, because rape does happen, presuming any man who attempts to engage you is a rapist is as bad as men presuming that any woman in a short skirt is "asking for it."
My overall problem with this mentality is that, while I agree with you, I have a problem with women potentially treating/thinking of any man who dare talk to her as a likely sex offender because of a subjective line of appropriateness of situation.
OT: I hope like hell my relationship stays intact. If it ever broke down, after reading this, I don't think I'd dare approach another woman.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(deleted and reposted because of a rather crucial spelling error)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think it's worth pointing out; I liked the wording Miss LonelyHearts used regarding men ignoring clear signals that a woman is not interested.
"And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights."
This is exactly right, but, just as a man might innocently make a bad judgement call regarding the situation, he might also be bad at reading body language or taking subtle hints.
In public situations, like the train car mentioned in Miss LonelyHearts post, I think women should be a little more forgiving if someone doesn't take the hint straight away. I don't mean they should humour the man, or "put up with him," but they shouldn't start to mentally label him racist until it's clear that his lack of hint taking is on purpose, rather than misunderstanding.
Wow, John. Everything you need to read to understand the point of the 'check your privilege' line in this context, is either here or in the blogposts that Nat links to. Really.
ReplyDeleteYou say: "I haven't had time to fully research the story (I will, if I have to) but, assuming the guy didn't try to be any more physically intimidating than he came across just standing in an elevator, and assuming he stopped his advance when she made it clear she wasn't interested, why should this be treat any differently?"
Nat answered this point in her post. Just keep re-reading it until you understand. I'd also advise you to talk to the women in your life (and make sure to talk to plenty of them), and ask them about their experiences of harassment, and about their views on this situation: if they understand Rebecca's feelings, if they've had similar experiences, etc. You'll be surprised at the kinds of casual sexism many women experience, and how often.
You know, like the examples *Nat gave in the post that you're commenting on.*
John, as you say no analogy is perfect. I went for an obvious 'weighing up of possibilities' at the expense of hyping up the scariness aspect. Now that you've seen what the possible-outcomes are, scale the threat back a bit, and you'll see what I meant. It's really very simple if you put yourself in the woman's shoes, and only 'know' what she knows about the bloke that's just hit on her. See him and the situation through her eyes, and run a risk-assessment.
ReplyDeleteNo woman I've spoken to professes to "potentially treating/thinking of any man who dare talk to her as a likely sex offender." What they do stress is that they spend a lot of their time analysing any given situation for potential violence and molestation, and for ways of minimising that potential. (I can empathise a bit. I've spent most of my life looking 'weird'. It's made me a target in some situations, though I'd not try to claim it as equal to the threat of rape.)
Male, well 'politeness', in such situations simply consists of analysing the situation and attempting to minimise those potentials. In a lift, for instance, don't open conversations with strange women (we do this without thinking, with men, in what's known as urinal etiquette), and stand to the side, leaving the woman the space nearest the door and control-buttons. In a dark street, otherwise empty, move well toward one side of the pavement or the other, well in advance of the point you'll pass her at. Mostly it's little things like that. Just trying to appear non-threatening, as far as possible. Put her mind at ease.
Yes, innocent mistakes happen, but this whole furore began merely because Ms Watson pointed one out and said, 'Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that.' And it should have ended there, except she got accused of calling Elevator Guy all sorts of stuff that she never even implied, then the usual MRA idiots piled on. Even that would've been roughly par for the course, at Pharyngula at least, but then Dawkins jumps in with a highly sarcastic, belittling comment... etc.
Never mind that there are panic buttons in elevators. It only takes a second to grope, punch or similarly abuse someone. And if a man did decide he wanted to abuse/rape a woman in an elevator, do you really think that he would allow her to push the panic button? I would have thought that these things were blindingly obvious.
ReplyDeleteDaz, if you carry on saying exactly what I mean, we may end up in this situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmk4PfuiPVY#t=2m20s (should link in at 2.20):D
ReplyDeleteNat, you want me to have your baby?? Twould be a novel experience, to be sure...
ReplyDeleteBTW, I just realised you're a barmaid. Any connection to Jesus & Mo? :-)
It's all part of smashing binary gender theory :)
ReplyDeleteYes, I am a barmaid. Started 5 years ago to pay my way through college and uni. But I just got a new job which *gasp* actually is connected to my degree (only a yearafter graduation!) which I start in three weeks. Very much looking forward to not actually *expecting* sexual harrassment every day!
Nope, sorry, but this Schrödinger’s Rapist inspired response (largely from women) is so chock-full of misandry that it's shocking. While Rebecca Watson's statement was innocuous and Dawkins' utterly idiotic, lots of those who have jumped to defend Waston had also been terribly silly. Feminists need to examine the misandry that is so deeply and unquestioningly ingrained in some of the movement rather than just assuming that because women are subject to misogyny they are immune to perpetuating misandry.
ReplyDelete@Donsie
ReplyDeleteThere are not enough palms, or faces in the world that could adequately respond to your statement. Where is this hateful misandry you speak of then? No, really. Please show the class*.
(*sorry if this seems a bit dismissive, but I HATE wasting my time on the wilfully ignorant)
"Defend Watson" against allegations of what? Aggravated friendly advice to single men who ride lifts?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, try not to take the misandry personally. 40SG is only a misandrist because there's not a word for someone who hates situations where you're alone in a sealed, confined space with a stranger who seems to want to penetrate you.
So... you're angry because someone came onto you and then you completely blew it out of proportion and Dawkins said 'things could be worse'.
ReplyDelete...Wow. We have all had scary things like that happen to us (which is why it is always a good idea to take a self defence class). But seriously, you have wasted way too much energy on this.
Nat, congratulations! Hope it goes well.
ReplyDeletedonsie:
"chock-full of misandry that it's shocking"
Oh, really? Citations please. Show or go. I've been having this conversation almost non-stop since Saturday, and I've seen no evidence yet, to back your claim.
Acidfairyy
ReplyDelete"...because someone came onto you ... wasted way too much energy on this."
Unlike you, who couldn't be bothered to 'waste' the time needed to read who it actually happened to.
@AcidFairyy
ReplyDeleteWOW! This is a whole new level of bat-shit ignorance. 1) I'm not the original complainer. 2) Before you're overcome by the fumes of your misguided bile, do try and read the post. There's a love.
Daz. Seriously man, I love you :)
ReplyDelete@AcidFairyy
ReplyDeleteExcept that's not quite what happened, is it.
blush
ReplyDeleteNat, I'm used to Pharyngula-style nastiness. Just how ape are we allowed to go on your board if this goes pear-shaped?
Daz, I believe I may have set a precedent. Don't be afraid to call an idiot an idiot :)
ReplyDeleteOh, I can call 'em worse than that when I get going...
ReplyDeletePlease do. Constructively, of course ;) By the way, this post will be going on the Pod Delusion podcast alongside an "opposing view" on Friday. Might need you to assist below the line there too, if you can.
ReplyDelete"The gun is good, the penis is bad."
ReplyDeleteCan do. What time, Friday? (Glad to see I'm not the only night-owl round here, btw.)
ReplyDeleteWhy do trolls always have such piss-poor reading comprehension skills?
ReplyDeleteAlex, it generally compliments their piss-poor typing and spelling skills. Possibly there's a correspondence course. Based in Alabama somewhere, I suspect.
ReplyDeleteJon: "Wow, John. Everything you need to read to understand the point of the 'check your privilege' line in this context, is either here or in the blogposts that Nat links to. Really."
ReplyDeleteI get the feeling you read one or two of my comments, and then replied without getting to the bottom of the page.
somewhatirascible: "Never mind that there are panic buttons in elevators. It only takes a second to grope, punch or similarly abuse someone."
I was merely saying that the appropriateness of the situation is subjective, and the fact that the man can misjudge it doesn't make him (at best) a moron or (at worst) a rapist. Hotel elevators usually have cameras in them. They pass a floor every few seconds. It would take a special kind of moron to try and attack someone in one. I don't think this setting is automatically inappropriate.
Daz: ...all the stuff you said.
I agree with you on the principle, by the end I was pretty much arguing over the subjective side of this. ie, what a women deems inappropriate/threatening vs. what a man considers inappropriate/threatening.
Anecdotally, I HAVE spoke to some of the women in my life about this sort of thing. To be honest, I didn't want to mention my findings because of a fear it would make me seem trollish. Generally speaking, while the women I know make a concious decision to avoid dark alleyways and being alone at night and the like, they don't weigh up every man who approaches them as a potential assault risk.
The trollish part is that they also don't seem to experience harassment (wolf whistling, being shouted at across the street, etc) anywhere near as much as the people I experience on these forums, and that made me wonder;
Do my friends not experience sexism as much as, say, Nat, or sianandcrooke, because they're not as concerned by the issue, and aren't looking for it? Or, conversely, do feminists experience sexism more because they ARE looking for it? Or a bit of both?
To sum up, for the next person who wants to jump to Nat's defence; I agree with the Schrödinger’s Cat... uh, I mean Rapist, post, and I agree that Dawkins was sticking his ore into an innocuous situation.
Incidentally, Daz, I've had long drunken conversation with Nat in the past, in which she has expressed her view on children. While she might be a great person, I wouldn't recommend her for motherhood :p
Daz, only go below the line if the opposing view start first. I really want to avoid doing it if I can.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think my views on children can be summed up like this: If they came with 'sit down, shut the fuck up and read a book' buttons, I'd like them a lot more.
"John, I think my views on children can be summed up like this: If they came with 'sit down, shut the fuck up and read a book' buttons, I'd like them a lot more."
ReplyDeleteMy point exactly :D I'm loving fatherhood, by the way.
It seems one cannot make a polite request for common decency without people getting offending and making all manor of accusations. The angry response proves her original point of a call for common decency to be much needed.
ReplyDeleteJust about sums up my view of kids too! Mind you, in this case, Nat would be the father, not the mother. So, while we're arranging miracles, can't we just skip the baby/toddler bit, and go straight to age 7 or so, when they're old enough to start asking good questions?
ReplyDeleteThat said, congratulations John. Hope parenthood continues smoothly!
Nat, I have to admit, I've never used the Pod Delusion site, and I'm having trouble with the awful google-calendar format. Do you what time the episode will be posted?
John, no question is trollish if the asker is actually seeking information. I'm guessing 'a bit of both' Also a good 33% or so of the women I asked are of the American persuasion. Figures I've seen bandied about over the last few days would seem to show that 1 in 6 US women have experienced rape 'or heavy molestation verging on rape' (which looks an awful lot like nitpicking to me, along the lines of Clinton's 'I did not have sex with that woman. She had sex with me*'.). UK figures seem to be a lot—by orders of magnitude—lower, though I can't seem to find (on an admittedly hasty google search) any two results that are consistent. One says 5%, wikipedia says 1 in 200... etc.
I suspect a lot of that has to be differences in the reporting, what 'kinds' of rape are being counted, etc. Have to wonder, though, if maybe American women are simply more aware, and hence more wary, of possible dangers.
I might get a blog post up looking at that angle, if I can get more reliable figures. Not right now, though. This and the NOTW scandal are on every site I look at. My little site would be an unseen drop in the ocean, on either subject.
*Incidentally, does this argument mean that Clinton has sex with his saxophone, but his sax doesn't have sex with him?
Due to a technical fuck-up (not mine for once!) this won't be on Pod Delusion this week. The 'opposing' view is here: http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/07/08/episode-92-8th-july-2011/#comments
ReplyDeleteGoing to do a response for next week when I can look at it without throwing my computer through the window.
Just listened to the relevant part. Ugh! I'll go through it again later, notepad in hand.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction is that Hague's (deliberately?) twisting meanings and contexts all over the place. The guy argues like a young earth creationist.
The phone hacking bit was spot-on, though, specially Jack Of Kent.
kind of off topic, kind of on. Interesting video about veiled invitations and such.
ReplyDelete(Yes, it's 2:30 Sunday morning, and yes I'm bored. Ho hum.)
I haven't read the comments. But you say that women 'in possession of a vagina' get harassed because of that.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous and transphobic. Trans women get just as much if not more harassment than cis women regardless of their genitalia, because of their gender presentation.
And many people get harassed/assaulted on the grounds of gender/ethnicity/disability/sexuality.
Vaginas are not THE oppressed group in society. It's fucking stupid.
Hi Elly! Lovely to see you again, hopefully I'll write a blogpost soon and you can drop by! :-)
ReplyDeleteHere's a quiz! See if you can guess which blogger said the following things:
"It's cisnormative. This means that it only takes into account people who identify with their birth gender, and fails to take trans people of any type into account. Again, you can't just ignore them and pretend they don't exist, because they do."
"It promotes binary gender differences and biological determinism. This is essentially saying that men and women are wired differently. You know, that men are pre-programmed to go out shagging and killing things, and women are pre-programmed to stay at home cleaning and baking ickle cakes. My first problem with this is that it's bullshit. If there were hard-wired differences between men and women, there would be an inter-gender consensus on at least one thing, and there's not. There would also be no homosexuals or trans people (a point I will return to later)"
"(This being Mail-land, then, as per usual, trans people don't exist)"
"from a feminist point of view (and when I use the word 'feminist' here, I use it to mean 'in a way that ensures women, men and trans people are treated fairly in law, and without predjudice')"
Did you guess? That's right! They were all written by the writer of this very blog! On this blog. Some of these comments are from entries you yourself have commented on.
This is why people get frustrated with you and call you a troll, Elly. Do you honestly believe that Nat here is one of the enemies of trans people? That she's actually transphobic? I suspect you don't. You're not an actual idiot. You know that Nat has frequently railed against gender binaries and discrimination against non-cis people. You know that Nat is pretty strongly aware of the nature of privilege and the importance of inclusion. And even if you don't, the little rhetorical flourish she used in mentioning vaginas is hardly sufficient to mount a balls-out/vagina-out/other-genital-configuration-out accusation that she has been 'transphobic'.
People think you're a troll because you HAVE to start an argument over stuff like this, pedantically pulling apart people who are obviously broadly on your side when it comes to trans equality. It alienates, frustrates and annoys people who already have some understanding of these issues.
Frankly, if you think Nat is seriously deserving of your scorn when it comes to attitudes towards such minorities, then I honestly don't know what to say to you, but you might want to be a little more careful about who you pick tedious fights with on the internet.
Thanks Jonathan
ReplyDeleteI love nothing better than a lecture you know that.
My issue is that regardless of someone's actual beliefs and politics,if they use the Binary - in this case Nat has used the 'Dick Privilege' versus 'Vagina' binary, then they are contributing to reinforcing the cisnormative gender binary.
That is what I saw in this post and what made me respond.
Thanks again for the kind lecture. I hope you enjoyed giving it.
It wasn't really intended as a lecture. Think of it like an intervention. I'm rooting for you, I believe you have the capacity in you to become MORE than just a below-the-line irritant! I can help you through this.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so, sarcasm out of the way...Nat was writing in the context of a specific incident that happened between a straight, non-trans man and a straight, non-trans woman. The actual quote was addressed to Dawkins and read "You don’t get obscenities shouted at you in public because you dare to be out of the house while in possession of a vagina", because she was writing specifically about how a woman would feel in that situation and encouraging Dawkins to think outside his own perspective. In the same post, Nat calls on Dawkins to try and "empathise with someone who’s not a rich white straight cis-gender bloke", demonstrating some awareness of the fact that there are people outside the binary. Just because she didn't happen to mention trans people in that one sentence doesn't mean she was excluding them entirely.
I appreciate that hammering on about the binary is one of your most precious rhetorical devices when you can't find anything else to kick off a ruckus about, I just think in this case it was misplaced. I also think that if you do have some genuine concern about someone perhaps inadvertently perpetuating the gender binary, then you phrase it politely and helpfully, instead of saying the post/argument is "ridiculous and transphobic" when you know full well that Nat is far from a transphobe.
Similarly, there was really no need for the deeply patronising inclusion of "And many people get harassed/assaulted on the grounds of gender/ethnicity/disability/sexuality". You know that those harassments and assaults had nothing to do with this particular topic, and that by writing about this topic Nat did not intend to diminish or ignore racism, disablism or sexual discrimination, all of which she is clearly opposed to and has mentioned on many occasions.
I'm not writing this labouring under any kind of illusion that you're going to concede any ground, all I'm saying is that you often complain that people dismiss you as a troll, and I'm trying to explain what it is about your tone and the aspects of an argument you focus on that leads people to that conclusion.
I read the first paragraph and then stopped, because it is full of shit. You don't have to read anything I write but you know full well I am 'more than a below the line irritant'.
ReplyDeleteSEE YA!
That's a shame, because that was just a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun and the actual points started in the second paragraph. I will learn my lesson and keep the playfulness to the last paragraph next time.
ReplyDelete"I read the first paragraph and then stopped, because it is full of shit."
ReplyDeleteInstant. Troll. Alert.
If you can't be bothered to read it, you shouldn't comment on it. That's not just common sense, it's good manners.
Oh, and you do know 'Dick' is also a nickname for 'Richard', right? Kind of explains the choice of headline, wouldn't you say?
Elly, I think you're missing the point. As a white, middle-class senior manager in The City who drives a BMW, my role is naturally that of oppressor of minorities. Whereas women comprise half the population, the 'T' element of LBGT is so small that there aren't enough of them to go round, so they're not really on our radar.
ReplyDeleteWomen, on the other hand, are readily available for oppression in offices, bars (as staff or customers) and even elevators. What's more, they can't pretend to be anything other than what they are, so it makes our job so much easier.
Still, I like your style in trying to impose your agenda on a topic where it's largely irrelevant, while at the same time asserting your superiority by using intimidating, pseudo-intellectual language like "the cisnormative gender binary". That sounds so like the kind of bullshit I hear from management consultants that I wonder whether you're really one of us.
Patrick if you don't like the term 'cisnormative' take it up with Nat - she used it in this quote that Jonathan posted:
ReplyDelete"It's cisnormative. This means that it only takes into account people who identify with their birth gender, and fails to take trans people of any type into account. Again, you can't just ignore them and pretend they don't exist, because they do'
"Again, you can't just ignore them and pretend they don't exist, because they do"
ReplyDelete...But their problems aren't pertinent in discussion of a specific incident, wherein all of the people involved; Watson, Dawkins, Myers and McGraw are cisnormative.
Nor does one isolated discussion of cisnormative gender-relations imply that Nat 'ignores' trans people's problems. Just like the discussion of bricklaying, within the context of a course on how to build a house, doesn't imply an ignorance of plastering.
It's really quite simple. Do try to keep up please.
Damnit, double posting again
ReplyDeleteElly, you're doing precisely what Dawkins did in his first post at Pharyngula. (If you'd bothered to read it, that is.)
You're saying that because x-problem exists and is possibly worse, we shouldn't address y-problem.
In the spirit of Pharyngula, I'd therefore like to present you with this dead porcupine.
No Daz I am not. What I am doing is critiquing the *language* Nat is using. She is suggesting Dawkins has 'Dick Privilege' over Watson who is 'in possession of a vagina'. And, from the blogpost, she is saying that about men (who have dicks) in general over women (who have vaginas).
ReplyDeleteThis is reinforcing the notion that men and women are in a binary based on their biological make up. That is all about sexual difference to do with genitalia.
That's what I object to. I don't think Dickie Dawkins said that.
I'm going to have to side with Elly here I'm afraid. Just because Nat has a long and glorious history of trans-allying, doesn't mean she didn't mildly and inadvertently fuck up with her "in possession of a vagina" line. ("Dick privilege" is excusable for puns, and it's not exactly a privilege particularly accessible to transpeople anyway).
ReplyDeleteYes, the point of the post is about harassment, not vaginas, but Elly was bang on pointing out that women and men also suffer identical or comparable harassment and violence for failing to have a vagina or to have had one from birth.
Let's not get all fucking sarky at her for pointing out a disadvantaged group we overlooked, wave our sexism-fighting credentials in her face and accuse her of derailing the debate away from the Very Important Issues we were discussing before she poked her nose in. We're not Richard fucking Dawkins after all.
Oh, for pity's sake.
ReplyDeleteIf you stretch much further to make a 'point' out of a play on words that any rational person would recognise straight off as a mere pun or by picking out obviously hyperbolic phrases and blowing them out of all proportion, you'll be in danger of popping a vertebra.
Please read Dawkins' first post again. If you can't see the sarcasm with which he dismisses Ms Watson's very mild complaint, then I heartily suggest you get yourself enrolled on a reading comprehension course.
He directly compares the episode in the lift with female genital mutilation and other abuses (a comparison which Ms Watson never made herself) , and makes the 'point' that we shouldn't be addressing the former because the latter exists. Which is exactly what you're doing by trying to introduce other aspects of gender inequality, and saying that because we're not dealing with them, we shouldn't deal with this.
Please enjoy your porcupine. You truly deserve it.
I'd say the opposite actually. Elly comes along and says "wait, what about the threat of violence to transwomen, which you may have missed and may be an interesting way to get to the bottom of this power structure?"
ReplyDeleteYou all say "shut up little girl, there are bigger issues at stake, it's NOT ABOUT your pet issue now STOP CALLING US NAMES". I'm afraid she's the Rebecca Watson in this exchange.
Where did anyone say 'bigger issues' please? Other, separate yet connected issues, yes, but they aren't pertinent to this discussion, just as a discussion of the best types of readymixed plaster wouldn't be pertinent in my bricklaying-lesson analogy.
ReplyDeleteHere's a thought. We'll include Elly's pet peeve because its, well, related. Oh, men do have some gender-inequality issues too, so let's include them. Oh, if we're talking about inequalities, we'd best mention racism. Oh, but all this is part of the wide spectrum of human-rights issues, so let's bring in LGBT rights, political prisoners, Muslim-bashing in the Daily Mail and so on. Oh, but this is political, so let's discuss liberal and conservative value-systems. Ooh, economics! Hell, let's just all sit down with an encyclopaedia and discuss the entire human experience.
Or we could tackle little bits at a time, ignoring for the moment, issues that aren't pertinent to the discussion in hand.
It is extremely fucking pertinent Daz. The issue is why a woman might feel uncomfortable or vulnerable in a lift with a strange man, and why a privileged white cisperson might not quite "get" that. Why she might worry that the man could treat her as a lesser person because of her gender.
ReplyDeleteThis, I imagine, is exactly the issue that a penis-bearing transwoman would have, except that the attacker might sexually assault her because he found her gender repulsive rather than alluring.
It's also downright fucking informative. The idea of a woman feeling at risk of rape by someone who considers her inherently unattractive, precisely because he considers her inherently unattractive helps us get to the bottom of how exactly rape and the threat of it works. I like that and want to do it, because it's interesting and it might help stop it happening so much.
Are you seriously telling me you think a woman who has a cock or a man who hasn't always would never feel threatened in exactly the same way in that situation? Or the fact that transpeople might experience something comparable is not "pertinent"?
"It is extremely fucking pertinent Daz."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's analogous. I have a slight fear of larger men than me, stemming from violence-abuse by my father. If they look angry, or physically resemble my father, that fear is heightened. Therefore my fear is also analogous, but not pertinent.
So which of these people's concern was insulted and belittled by Dawkins responding to a woman who had been talking about problems of getting more women—generalised (but not confined) to hetero and lesbian women (which is a useful generalisation, in context)—to attend atheist conferences, especially in the U.S.?
I might add that there's a further level of discrimination here, in that atheists in the U.S. are already a marginalised group. So how far do we take this all-inclusion of smaller and smaller groups of marginalised people, before it becomes impossible to have a discussion without getting bogged down in 'oh we'd better mention such and such group' minutiae. Sometimes, generalisation is useful.
"Are you seriously telling me you think a woman who has a cock or a man who hasn't always would never feel threatened..."
Of course not. I'm just saying that in the context of trying to get more women to attend atheist conferences it's not pertinent to the discussion, and wasn't what Dawkins was talking about. "What Dawkins was talking about" being the whole point of the post.
My point is that when people discuss gender, from whatever point of view, in relation to whatever incident/issue, they often reinforce the gender inequality they are trying to oppose, through their use of language.
ReplyDeleteJust because people are feminists or trans allies does not mean they do not use language in such a way that strengthens our prejudiced concepts of gender.
I was pointing out how Nat does that in this post, via her focus on the 'dick v vagina' words, with dick = powerful, vagina = oppressed idea.
That is relevant to this post and to gender and power and discourse. Which is relevant to everything.
I am sorry I was a bit OTT in my first comment. I should have been more calm and 'well-mannered'.
Daz:
ReplyDelete"No, it's analogous. I have a slight fear of larger men than me, stemming from violence-abuse by my father. If they look angry, or physically resemble my father, that fear is heightened. Therefore my fear is also analogous, but not pertinent."
The situation Watson was in generates fear of rape. It would generate fear of rape in any woman, or anyone who felt they could be wrongly considered a woman by a rapist, regardless if she had a vagina or not. It's not analogous, it's the exact same fear, which you categorically do not need a vagina to experience.
"So which of these people's concern was insulted and belittled by Dawkins responding to a woman who had been talking about problems of getting more women—generalised (but not confined) to hetero and lesbian women (which is a useful generalisation, in context)—to attend atheist conferences, especially in the U.S.?"
Any skeptic woman or transman who's ever felt belittled, objectified or threatened by other skeptics in relation to her (perceived) gender, but does not possess a vagina. Anyone who the exact same issue pertains to, but was inadvertently excluded from Nat's vagina category.
"I might add that there's a further level of discrimination here, in that atheists in the U.S. are already a marginalised group. So how far do we take this all-inclusion of smaller and smaller groups of marginalised people, before it becomes impossible to have a discussion without getting bogged down in 'oh we'd better mention such and such group' minutiae. Sometimes, generalisation is useful."
Sounds familiar. Tell you what, why don't we sort things out for Muslim women before we worry about all you poor oppressed atheists?
"Of course not. I'm just saying that in the context of trying to get more women to attend atheist conferences it's not pertinent to the discussion"
Do you mean "women" or "people with vaginas"?
Elly:
"Just because people are feminists or trans allies does not mean they do not use language in such a way that strengthens our prejudiced concepts of gender."
Exactly. We use language unconsciously. The fact that Nat accidentally used transphobic language doesn't mean she's a transphobe, it means she's an English speaker.
Also like the penis/vagina power thing, but is the power in question here, or at least the privilege, not largely allocated by ownership of a legitimate XY dick?
"Dick" was an obvious pun on professor Dawkins' given name. It is also possibly, though you'd have to ask Nat, a play on the 'don't be a dick' meme, which is quite current in atheist circles.
ReplyDelete"In possession of a vagina" is an obvious ironic simile for "being female,"
Hence my statement that you appear to be stretching hard to manufacture your point. You might want to look up the term 'poetic licesne'.
"I am sorry I was a bit OTT in my first comment. I should have been more calm and 'well-mannered'."
You might have noticed that I don't do 'tone.' It's the content that matters, and your content is sadly lacking.
General point:
Whenever any kind of human rights issue is being discussed, some quite possibly well-meaning idiot will come along and say "What about the*hellip;", and attempt to claim that the discussion in question is invalid, because it didn't include x-group of people. This never helps.
If you feel that Dawkins' comments can be used as a springboard for a wider discussion, rather than the one Nat decided to focus on, why not start that discussion on your own space, rather than derailing this one? This one was about Professor Dawkins and the people he aimed his comments at, not other groups to which the same insults could be made by analogy.
"Being female" =/= being a woman.
ReplyDeleteDid you really just bring up "derailing"? Jesus...
Oops. For *hellip; read '…' which is produced by …
ReplyDeleteWhy do I use it? Habit, and it's one symbol rather than three dots, so the line can't break half way through it. :-)
Jesus H Christ on a three-wheeled pogo stick. When you two are done nitpicking and making manufactured contentious self-congratulatory points, let me know.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, I'm gone.
If you think distinctions between woman, female and vagina count as "nitpicking" Daz, do you not think you might be a tad ill-equipped for a discussion on transphobic language?
ReplyDelete"I'd say the opposite actually. Elly comes along and says "wait, what about the threat of violence to transwomen, which you may have missed and may be an interesting way to get to the bottom of this power structure?"
ReplyDeleteYou all say "shut up little girl, there are bigger issues at stake, it's NOT ABOUT your pet issue now STOP CALLING US NAMES". I'm afraid she's the Rebecca Watson in this exchange."
If either of those were remotely accurate representations of what was said, I'd agree with you entirely.
Oh, gawd. Why can I not just walk away?
ReplyDeleteA female (adjective) human being is a woman (noun). The correct adjective is 'female'. Would you rather I said 'womanly'? I did not say "being a female (noun)." Don't you think that learning the language would leave you better equipped for criticising others' use of it?
We can also take it as read that Ms Watson would also be against objectifying or threatening trans people. (Indeed, most large atheist groups have a very healthy representation of LGBT people—they tend to be better received there than by, say, their local church.) However the discussion in hand was the matter of encouraging women to attend atheist conferences. If sexual and/or violent mistreatment of LGBTs a were problem within the atheist community, I am quite certain that Ms Watson, along with many others including myself, would be speaking about that problem as well.
I'll stress this: The discussion was as concerns sexism within the atheist community, not the general population. There is, as far as I know, little-or-no discrimination or mistreatment of LGBTs within that community.
I've already stated that the 'being in possession of a vagina' quote was an obvious use of irony, and a simile for 'being female' or, if you prefer, 'being a woman'.
"Sounds familiar. Tell you what, why don't we sort things out for Muslim women before we worry about all you poor oppressed atheists?"
Pardon? Did you really just quote my own words as meaning the exact opposite of what I meant by them?
Ropes:
ReplyDeleteBoys meet girl. Girl points out trans angle of feminist issue to boys. Boys patronise fuck out of girl and call trans angle irrelevant to feminist issues. Does that seem a fair summary?
Also if you want polite, I suggest you don't read the original post as you wouldn't appreciate its beauty.
Daz
"A female (adjective) human being is a woman (noun). The correct adjective is 'female'"
Maybe if you ask Nat nicely she'll sit down and explain "sex" and "gender" to you. They're not quite the same, even though you might think they are! As for "correct", who died and made you Samuel Johnson? It is categorically not the "correct" adjective for "woman" and I'm not sure how you ended up on a feminist blog if you think that.
"There is, as far as I know, little-or-no discrimination or mistreatment of LGBTs within that community."
Considering that "as far as you know" doesn't extend to the distinction between "female" and "woman", one of the basic fucking distinctions of feminism, your radar might not be particularly tuned, especially not to the Ts.
"Did you really just quote my own words as meaning the exact opposite of what I meant by them?"
Sarcasm kitten. It happens sometimes in both speech and writing. Perhaps if you learned the language...
"Ropes:
ReplyDeleteBoys meet girl. Girl points out trans angle of feminist issue to boys. Boys patronise fuck out of girl and call trans angle irrelevant to feminist issues. Does that seem a fair summary?"
No, it doesn't. The stuff I actually said is a fair summary of what I said, and it certainly didn't include anything about Elly being a "silly little girl". I resent the implication that my reaction to Elly was anything to do with her being a woman.
But you've got to admit, it was a little bit patronising and dismissive though, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteDismissive, no. Patronising, heck yes. I use an amount of ridicule in my responses to Elly in particular because of the tone she takes with people she argues with. I like to prick (if you'll excuse such a heavily loaded word) her pomposity a little.
ReplyDeleteI simply don't think Elly comes across very well as being someone concerned with helping people. I'd explain how to correctly go about constructive criticism on someone's blog, but I fear I may end up patronising again. Suffice to say it doesn't involve calling people's arguments "ridiculous" and "fucking stupid".
Sorry, of course, Elly didn't actually say "ridiculous" or "fucking stupid", did she? Apparently she just came in and politely said "wait, what about the threat of violence to transwomen, which you may have missed and may be an interesting way to get to the bottom of this power structure?". Perhaps you could make her sound even better in your next attempt at paraphrasing? You could imply she offered everyone drinks first, and we all called her a whore.
I know the difference between sex and gender thank you. I could have said something along the lines of "A female human being is a woman, as long as we take the normal usage, as applied to ninety-whatever-point-whatever percent of the human race. This is in no way meant to alienate the few exceptions to that rule. I am merely using everyday language." Instead I assumed that you would take most of that sentence as read.
ReplyDeleteMy radar works fine, in that I see comments by, and talk to, many atheist LGBT people (who, by the way, in normal conversation, also use the words 'man' and 'woman' in their normal, everyday usage, without feeling the need to add a string of qualifiers), and discriminatory conduct that they speak of is almost exclusively from people outside the atheist community. I'll admit that Ts are a small minority of that group, yes, but given the nature of the community, instances of discrimination and abuse would be discussed widely.
I got the sarcasm. What I didn't get was how you could apply that sarcasm to the words you quoted.
I mentioned what we could call the chilling of debate by having to list every group and sub-group that it applies to, rather than taking a generalised definition, and assuming that everybody will take it as read that other groups and sub-groups with similar problems are implicitly included, before we even get started on the debate.
You then seem to have me saying that because a problem exists for the generalised group, we shouldn't address the problems involving the implicitly included groups.
Either your sarcasm misfired or you misread my meaning.
Ropes:
ReplyDelete"Pedantically", "pick fights", "one of your most precious rhetorical devices when you can't find anything else to kick off a ruckus about, I just think in this case it was misplaced" - these are all a bit dismissive, don't you think?
As for the rudeness - it's not exactly the politest blog in the first place, and you're just focusing on her extremely poor grasp of etiquette to - again - dismiss the actual content of her post.
Daz:
"A female human being is a woman, as long as we take the normal usage, as applied to ninety-whatever-point-whatever percent of the human race. This is in no way meant to alienate the few exceptions to that rule. I am merely using everyday language."
I took the liberty of highlighting all the cis- and heteronormative words in your ideal trans-friendly quote. You also said "normal", straight-faced, twice in the next paragraph, to refer to conversations not with or about transpeople.
Perhaps being "implicitly included" isn't enough. Perhaps they're worried people will skip over the implication and, I dunno, use "female human being" and "woman" as synonyms.
Perhaps those uppity T's would like awareness of their issues to be an essential and integrated part of "normal" conversations too?
I used the word 'normal' referring to words: 'normal usage'. I was not referring to 'normal people'. Context, ain't it grand?
ReplyDeleteAnd again, we're drifting off the subject, which involves a sexual approach by a cisnormative male human being to a cisnormative female human being at an inappropriate time and place.
The particular community within which this happened would apply this context to any subgroups to whom it would also apply. Many of the commenters who spent three fucking days (I got something like 4 hours sleep over the period. I'm not alone in this.) arguing with MRA trolls during the discussion Dawkins tried to derail, are in fact LGB (I can't guarantee T). None of them felt the need to discuss it in any but general, cis-normative terms. It's widely accepted by such communities that women's rights, LGBT rights, race-related rights etc are all part and parcel of the same thing: human rights. If discrimination based on A is the same as discrimination based on B, the discussion of one is implicitly discussion of the other, and will generally—especially during train-wrecks such as the one in question—focus on the most generalised aspect. The fine-detail, if you will, comes later.
""Pedantically", "pick fights", "one of your most precious rhetorical devices when you can't find anything else to kick off a ruckus about, I just think in this case it was misplaced" - these are all a bit dismissive, don't you think?"
ReplyDeleteBut I was talking about a widely held perception of Elly's method of online engagement. Elly regularly complains of being dismissed as a troll online. Things like this are why. For what it's worth, I explained why I didn't agree with what she was actually saying in my second reply to her, but that wasn't really my point.
Just as you're concerned about people using allegedly transphobic language, I'm concerned about debates not ending up in these kind of tedious slanging matches where everyone gets defensive of their positions. I'm now arguing with you, a person I like, because you implied an element of misogyny in my posts that I find personally insulting. I'm happy for people to have a mature, adult debate about the use of language. But one isn't going to happen when it starts off with antagonistic critiques about how "ridiculous" and "fucking stupid" someone's language is. I'm absolutely as guilty as anyone else of allowing myself to be riled into posting things that are unhelpful and argumentative, but it was the way the argument was conducted that drew me into this argument in the first place, and it's that that's turned the thread into...this mess.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
ReplyDeleteRight. Yay, comments, discussion blah blah fucking blah. I tell you what I fucking love, coming home at 1.30 to find thirty-pissing-three comments debating what I meant when I said one sentence without one cunt waiting to actually hear what I meant. This has descended into a farcical and facile debate about the use of language and has... OH WOW LOOK. BEEN COMPLETELY FUCKING DERAILED.
NO ONE on this thread is a fucking transphobe. No one on this thread is dismissing people because of their gender. No one on this bastarding thread is thinking whether any of this matters a shit. I will tell you now, it doesn't, because I could just delete the whole fucking thing so you wouldn't have a way of picking out individual words and phrases from each other's posts and critiquing them for how bloody inclusive they are and twisting their meaning.
SO.
As everyone who has been involved in this discussion knows, I was asked to write this piece for the Pod Delusion. I was told that Pete Hague would be writing a pro-Dawkins piece, and could I please provide a five minute piece to rebut his. Due to a technical fuck-up on my friend's part, this post didn't go out this week. Instead, there will be a different rebuttal next week from me.
(Just to say, if anyone starts discussing Pete's piece here - I will delete your comments so fast you might not have even finished typing them when I do. I KNOW that NSTB, Daz & Alex oppose it and Elly supports it. Her reasons are on the PD comments, go argue with her there if you absolutely must.)
OK, so five minutes isn't a lot of time to say things. It's certainly not enough time to explain the relative fears that any or all minorities have in relation to men, proximities, rape and assault. So I stuck to the specific incident. By this, I mean that I talk about Watson, Watson's feelings, Dawkins, Dawkins' feelings and what commenters have been saying. And the piece still ran to 8 minutes. Also, if I've been asked to write something, I find it polite to stick to the topic asked about and not use it as a platform for other things I vocally support (like... uhm... trans* rights, for instance).
Richard Dawkins is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered man. Rebecca Watson is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered woman. So if Dawkins didn't understand Watson's feelings on a certain issue that he had no experience of, it's going to be because of the fact that she's a woman and he's a man. So in relation to this specific incident, all the other things do not need to be addressed in a five minute piece about the issue.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Secondly, in my opinion, this whole "he could have been a rapist" thing is also derailing. Watson called him rude and said he made her uncomfortable. That was it. I mentioned that women are made uncomfortable by being harrassed because they're women in the post. Again, see above paragraph for why I didn't discuss other people who are abused and made to feel uncomfortable publicly for who they are.
ReplyDeleteCalling me a 'transphobe' for this makes about as much sense as calling me a fundy for failing to point out that social conservatism is a major cause of bigotry in society. Or something like that. It's now 2.00 and I can't even quite believe I'm still having to write this, so it's a bit of a shit analogy, but you see what I'm getting at.
The thing is, Elly accused me of transphobia on Friday on Twitter after I was doing a 'Feminist ABC' (don't ask) and I said "Y: Y-chromosome. Having a Y-chromosome should not mean you are treated specially". Elly then said "But some women have Y-chromosomes. Are you saying they are privileged?". Well, of course I fucking wasn't, because otherwise I'd have said "Everyone with a Y-chromosome is treated specially and this is wrong". Note the subtle fucking difference. If you need further proof, about 3 minutes earlier I'd said "T: Trans* people should be welcomed by EVERYONE in the feminist community, because we're fighting the same battles". Yes, there are utter fucking idiots like Bindel who don't support trans* rights, but they're idiots with loud voices, you find them in every movement. 99.9% of feminists support them. I AM PART OF THIS 99.9%. I actually take an active part in supporting trans* rights, and am as disgusted by transphobia as I am sexism.
However, judging by her comments on the PD page, if Elly wasn't here making accusations about transphobia, she'd be calling me a misandrist like she usually does, because trolls gotta troll.
Now can you all just stop being so fucking ridiculous? No one is going to 'win' this debate. You've descended into just quoting words and arguing definitions. GO TO BED.
Sorry for anger and sweariness, but really now...
*hangs head, looks ashamed, and apologises*
ReplyDeleteSorry Nat.
Also, Alex, If I appeared to get personal, well I'm sure we'd agree on many other issues…
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedeleted previous comment as Ropes kinds said what i saying so no need to repeat!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, back to the debate. I think one of the shockers here is that, just like when Pilger and Helena Kennedy sided with the Assange defenders, Dawkins has always spoken so well on sexism and religion. The bits about abortion are for me some of the best bits of The God Delusion. To then fall so quickly into a male privilege position of deciding and defining a woman's experience for her is therefore disappointing.
It is always important to look at intersectionality and where gender inequality overlaps with other inequalities. But as Nat says, this is a story about a cis straight white middle class able bodied woman and a cis staight white middle class able bodied man. the experience he has privilege over, the experience he cannot empathise with and doesn't understand is her experience as a cis woman. he is trying to silence and deny her experience as a woman, and trying to deny the harassment that women are subject to because they are women.
Alex - as an aside, and i am fairly confident this isn't what you meant, but when you say that someone might want to sexually assault a trans woman because they find her 'repulsive' rather than 'alluring' we need to be careful about language here so that it isn't confused with sexual assault being about desire rather than power.
It is just like when someone tells you that 'street harassment isn't that bad' because they have never harassed a woman on the street. Or that any kind of harassment or hate doesn't happen because they've never seen it. It isn't good enough and Dawkins should have known better than to ridicule and minimise someone else's lived experience.
Sorry Miss.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, there's a world of difference between using transphobic language and being a transphobe. I'm not some sad little prescriptivist who wants to judge what words are right and wrong. Language is instinctual and it's a perilous journey from brain to mouth, besides that, English grammar is just not compatible with the existence of trans-ANYTHING, so you can be forgiven if you accidentally miss a point. But it's the unnoticed, accidental, innocent slips that entrench things, so Elly was right to draw attention to it, even though her methods are as, er, problematic as ever.
'Richard Dawkins is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered man. Rebecca Watson is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered woman. So if Dawkins didn't understand Watson's feelings on a certain issue that he had no experience of, it's going to be because of the fact that she's a woman and he's a man. '
ReplyDeleteI don't agree. I think there are many reasons why Dawkins might not understand Watson's feelings or vice versa. I don't understand Watson's feelings and I AM a woman. But that's the thing, my status as 'woman' gets put into question all the time by feminists. It even got stolen from twitter by a feminist. Because the concept of 'woman' is very loaded, especially within feminist discourse.
Elly. The general consensus is that Dawkins doesn't understand Watson for the reason I said. Note, however, I never said that all women will understand Watson, and no men understand Watson. Just Dawkins specifically didn't understand Watson specifically because of it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Elly - I've never called your gender identity into question, nor would I ever do so. 'A feminist' =/= 'All feminists'. Or, to put it another way, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
My data on feminists is mounting up way way beyond the 'anecdotal' and you know that.
ReplyDeleteI was not saying all feminists call my gender identity into question, but that when I have challenged feminism, one of the common results has been to have my gender identity called into question by feminists.
As for Dawkins/Watson I still don't agree. I think his problem with her was her 'analysis'of what happened in that now infamous elevator and her response to it. Which is not because she is a woman. Might be because she is a feminist though!
P.s. nat- calling someone a 'troll' puts their humanity into question, never mind their gender identity. Why don't you just consider not using that insulting term to describe someone who argues with you about issues she is passionate about?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
P.p.s. OK JOnathan I am being called a troll and am accused of derailing discussion, because you called me a 'below the line irritant' and I then refused to read the rest of what you said.
ReplyDeleteHow about we quit the name-calling? (I said a statement was 'transphobic' by the way I have not labelled a person as anything on this thread).
"Alex - as an aside, and i am fairly confident this isn't what you meant, but when you say that someone might want to sexually assault a trans woman because they find her 'repulsive' rather than 'alluring' we need to be careful about language here so that it isn't confused with sexual assault being about desire rather than power. "
ReplyDeleteNo no no, that was exactly what I meant [waves hands excitedly] - sexual assault being about power, and actually being motivated by hatred rather than attraction. This is why I think the transphobia issues are so important anyway - they reveal that the intimidating aspect of the situation is not necessarily motivated by finding the person sexy.
er... I am not sure about that Alex. Because sometimes what people find 'repulsive' is to do with what they really find very very sexually alluring.
ReplyDeleteeg. Homo-anxiety that men act out, sometimes using violence. Is actually to do with desire.
I believe sex and power are intertwined and so to separate them is foolhardy.
I'm fairly new to "geek feminism" blogs, and I am still learning the lingo. One term I see is "silencing", which is a list of techniques used by jerks to dismiss valid arguments or points. What alarms me is that though feminists are being nothing but reasonible in complaining about being dismissed out of hand, I often see instances where they are just as quick to dismiss arguments themselves. In this case, "Dick" was making the perfectly valid (if acerbic) argument that there is such a thing as an over reaction and that Chick was over-reacting.
ReplyDeleteThis article responds by vociferously telling him that as he has always had the privilidge of being a man, he shouldn't ever make such argument. Accusing someone of being "over-sensitive" is a common and cruel method of derailing, but there is another, equally common (yet more sophisticated) derailing tactic that works in a similar way. This form of "silencing" is to pre-emtively call out anyone who dares suggest that it is ever possible to be "over-sensitive" about something. Rather than actually examine the specific case of whether "Chick" might have been over reacting, Dick gets quickly shot down. Apparently the answer is a resounding no: it is impossible for a person to over-react. It is not permitted for anyone (let alone a privelidged person) to suggest that it can happen.
The feminism blogs are rife with these sophisticated acts of hypocrisy, and I think posters should be more aware of it. On one hand, we have a guy getting a barracking for having the gall to "tell women how they should feel", whilst defending "Chick's" original message in which she explicitly tells men what they can't say or do. I'll admit that this isn't a level playing field, and that women have had to put up with a lifetime of unsympathetic comments from the likes of Dick, but that in no way grants them the right to do the same thing in reverse.
I might offended that a woman should tell me that I can't talk to her in certain circumstances. Or perhaps I am over reacting. One thing I know for certain is that it is against the rules of debating to point this out to me.
Please pardon the spelling and gramatical errors I made in the above post. I'm tired.
ReplyDelete