I'm interested in what people, particularly anyone identifying themselves as a feminist or just RT, think about
this story. The Dawkins part doesn't seem all that interesting, except as a symptom of the disconnect in understanding.
But to the extend that Dawkins is claiming a lack of understanding of what the original objection was, I'm with him (although I didn't read all the links).
If I may sum up, a woman was at a skeptics conference, gave a speech, hung out with some of the attendees until late at night at the bar. As she's leaving to retire for the evening, one of the guys from the conference and the bar gets on the evalator with her and while there asks her back to his room for "coffee." She says no, end of story. Until she comments on it later on the interwebs, telling the story and saying, "guys don't do that."
At the outset let me say that it seems there might be context here for why Elevator Guy should have known better, but I don't know what she said in her speech.
But without that context, I have a hard time seeing what he did wrong. Ms. McCreight, quoted in the Gawker piece, points out that women are frequently subjected to inappropriate conduct on the part of men, but I don't see that as a helpful at all at explaining what Elevator Guy did wrong here. Surely it can't be that guys do creepy stuff all the time so never say anything to a women because she might think it's creepy (that's not a good result for anyone).
Brandon Thorp, writing for Gawker, is slightly more helpful when he says, "flirt in the open." Except that Elevator Guy, who had been hanging out at the bar with her, almost certainly thought that he did his flirting in the open and now was just trying to seal the deal. Again, the rule can't be "only proposition women in earshot of other people." That strikes me as just as creepy, and puts him in the uncomfortable position of being shot down in public and her in the uncomfortable position of having to do the shooting.
So it it just that this was in the elevator that makes it creepy? That she couldn't immediately flee and would be subject to a few seconds of standing in an enclosed space with the guy she rejected? Or that she might have to wonder for a few seconds if he was going to try to use that enclosed space to behave inappropriately/coercively? And if it's that, wouldn't she have those thoughts just about anywhere?
From what we know, the guy wasn't trying to abuse the power dynamics of a pre-existing relationship (unless you think that there is an inherent power imbalance between the genders, in which case no guy may ever pursue a girl I guess). He wasn't using violence or the threat of violence. And he didn't make repeated unwanted advances. So what did he do wrong?
I have to admit, I have a hard time shaking the suspicion that Ms. Watson just felt that this guy should have known he didn't stand a shot, and that's ultimately what underlies her complaint. If that's the case, I think it's fundamentally unfair. And I don't think any feminist should really want to live in a world where a guy's behavior is deemed objectionable for politely making a proposition and taking no for an answer.
