I’m addressing you directly, here, because I feel that’s what is appropriate. It always feels awkward to read about yourself and not have people directly talking to you about whatever it is they think is going on with you. Also, I think some of the conflicts going on that are related to you in the blogosphere are mostly because of you misunderstanding some elements of what is transpiring and I think that people trying to explain these things to you are missing important elements that might help you. Thus, I’m egotistical enough to think I can help.
In the United States, and in many other places around the world, some of the most terrifying crimes are crimes of opportunity. They don’t happen often for each individual, but they happen often enough that most of us are aware of at least someone who has experienced such a thing. Because of this, many of us are well aware of when we are vulnerable.
When you commented on Rebecca Watson’s experience, you pointed out that Rebecca was unharmed. You were not right, but you weren’t wrong, either. Instead, your response was rooted in a lack of understanding of the problem. No, she wasn’t hurt. She didn’t obtain a single physical injury from the encounter. Instead, she came away creeped out and a little afraid. The person who asked her for coffee may not have meant any harm. They probably had no idea that their desire to have coffee with her meant anything to anyone at all. That doesn’t mean, though, that Rebecca’s complaint was invalid. Her complaint is rooted in the fact that she was vulnerable and she was painfully aware of it. While it may not seem like it is the responsibility of this man to be aware of how uncomfortable he made someone, if he wants to have positive social interactions with women, in general, he should try to be aware of that kind of thing.
Rebecca’s complaint is not invalid because she thinks she should have some say over someone’s independent actions, her complaint is valid because in this context, in one where people are aware of what happens to others, even if it isn’t common, she was afraid and it is rational for her to have been afraid.
As for elevators, individuals don’t always have control over them. Just as alleyways can hide people from the view of onlookers, elevators can as well. And while there are buttons for an individual’s use, that pretty much assumes that in the event of someone being in danger, those buttons will be reachable and workable by her. That’s a pretty unfair assumption, isn’t it? Rebecca’s fear is based on what could possibly happen because she has reference points to similar things happening. In our society, people have been attacked in elevators; people do get harmed in situations that seem innocent. It may be rare, per capita, but it happens all the time. To make matters worse, there is no way to measure which person is well-intentioned and which is not. We simply don’t know. Not knowing is another reason why, even though she was safe, it is actually reasonable for Rebecca to be concerned.
In reality, everyone should be aware of things like this. There is an abundance of men who take inappropriate action when they feel attracted to women. If they want to get to know someone better, their best chances are when they can be comfortable knowing they haven’t made the person they’re interested in uncomfortable. If she’s uncomfortable, she’s not going to be receptive to anything he has to offer.
It isn’t men, alone, who have to be aware of this problem, women might cross the same boundaries as well and that isn’t OK either. Being aware of the needs of others, including respecting personal boundaries is important to our social well being. A part of that includes being aware of if we could be perceived as dangerous.
As another example, imagine people who are out playing baseball. While it isn’t terribly likely that someone might be hit by a ball when they’re spectating from behind a fence, we don’t think they are worthy of ridicule when they move away as a ball hits the fence. We are aware that is a reflex and that it is there because accidents can happen and a ball flying at your face is a rational thing to be concerned about. Rebecca’s experience may have been extremely safe, but that doesn’t make her irrational for flinching, nor does it make her worthy of your ridicule.
I see in this article: Proper tone. Considered context. Respectful criticism.
Heidi, this is the Internet. This isn’t how things are done.
Sorry, I meant Sophie… I came here from a link that Heidi put up! Mea culpa.
This is probably the most fair/balanced response I’ve heard about the whole “thing” yet. I agree that Dawkins was definitely being “obtuse” as Phil Plait puts it, but why can’t we forgive a person for obtusely assuming that we are all equal and have equal abilities and opportunities and are equally capable of getting off of an elevator. Yes, lets educate Dawkins, but not hate on the man and forever label him as a “sexist.”
Keep up the good skepticisin’, Sophie
-John
Admitting you’re wrong Jeff?
This is the internet – that’s not how things are done…
Because, John, it apparently never occurred to Dawkins that the man might physically overpower her or in some other way prevent her from getting off the elevator. We are not all equally capable of getting off the elevator, just like Dawkins might not be if an extremely powerful and sexually aggressive woman decided to keep him on it. It’s just that as a man, he’s probably never had to consider such situations. Women know the dangers and also know that we’ll be blamed if the assault occurs because “we could have gotten off if we were scared.” Not by everyone, but by people like him. As old as he is and as supposedly intelligent, if that thought has never entered his head…it’s troubling. I lost a great deal of respect for him.
Great post, Sophie. It’s something everyone should be aware of.
Thank you, Sophie, well said.
I can sympathize with her (Rebecca) issue but I think her comment was inappropriate as engendered by the amount of response it has garnered. Though she has every right to feel the way she does, she used a public platform to send a message that many men will(and have) found insulting. That is no more an acceptable act of social behavior than making uncomfortable advances of strangers on elevators. The fact that she is a public figure and Richard Dawkins comment has made this issue even more public establishes my point. Public figures have to accept the idea that they are going to garner more attention (publicly and privately) and if this attention is unwanted then a refrain from making such comments publicly or a subsequent retirement from public appearances seems warranted.
Thanks Sophie; well said!
Thank you all.
Rick, you seem to be saying that Rebecca I’d wrong, somehow and you support that based on how much attention her complaint got. Honestly, just because someone is famous doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to speak out. Even if it bothers them, men need to know about these things and so do women. People are not less entitled to respect for their boundaries just because they get more attention.
Excellent post. Hopefully, it creates a little more understanding of the situation for those like Dawkins who can’t seem to grasp the seriousness of 4am elevator rides for a woman and a male stranger.
Well done Sophie!
Dawkins had the opinion that Rebecca overreacted, and (very poorly) tried to express that opinion in his post. While I disagree with his opinion, it does not necessarily make him a misogynist. One should judge a person by the entirety of what they’ve said and who they are, not just a single statement. He made a dumb post. It’s over. Let’s all move on now. Any movement needs to be able to let go of internal squabblings and forgive its members in order to function.
I’m confused by Rick’s comment. Is he saying that Watson’s complaint would be appropriate, except that other people reacted poorly to it. How does that even make sense? Other people’s reactions are the problem, not what she said (at least initially).
If Rebecca Watson doesn’t like being “sexualized” she may want to not to it to others, as she has on her blog (http://skepchick.org/2006/03/skanks-part-two/). I’m not objecting to her doing it, just noting that she holds others up to a different standard than she applies to herself. Dawkins acknowledged that it was her right to find the behaviour creepy and her right to be offended. His comments, which added some serious perspective to the incident, wasn’t him claiming that extreme wrongs in the world justify minor wrongs, he pointed out that there was no wrong in the elevator. She felt a certain way, in response to the question (in a small room with an alarm button & possibly a security camera), which was her right. At times I’ve felt scared when propositioned or asked out by women. That was me reacting (justifiably or otherwise), it wasn’t them making me feel that way. They did nothing wrong by asking me, regardless of how many reasons I have for my fear. I’ve been hit on by women in the military who out ranked me. They asked, I declined politely. If they were angry, they could likely have had me jailed for difficult to defend against things as “insubordination.” They could have accused me of attempted rape, if they were upset by my declining, possibly leading to me being jailed & losing my job and suffering extreme damage to my reputation. Regardless, this was people who asked, and politely accepted a “no,” just like elevator dude. Very civilized, regardless if I happened to be scared or not and whether or not the fear was justifiable because of the actions of some less civilized people.
@Ruth. Dawkins has been sexually abused, so I expect he considers circumstance which lead up to it.