Full of impotent rage

[notcasesensitive]

eom

[Adder]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

eom

I believe our illustrious winner wanted "full of impotent rage."

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by Adder

I believe our illustrious winner wanted "full of impotent rage."

Oh, you read his Facebook profile?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

Oh, you read his Facebook profile?

one of my facebook friends is classic question of the day on http://www.straightdope.com/ he doesn't have an imdb page but this is another example of the fame my friends carry around- funny he never bragged about it

[Fugee]

Is there a word for a situation like this (other than stupid)?

Helmet law protester dies because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

one of my facebook friends is classic question of the day on http://www.straightdope.com/ he doesn't have an imdb page but this is another example of the fame my friends carry around- funny he never bragged about it

Methinks he just did.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Is there a word for a situation like this (other than stupid)?

Helmet law protester dies because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

counter-indicative of a need for a helmet law. if all riders died immediately like this guy there'd be no "the public pays to keep you in a hospital argument."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Methinks he just did.

no longer my friend's question

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

no longer my friend's question

I saw it last night -- just late in commenting.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Is there a word for a situation like this (other than stupid)?

Helmet law protester dies because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

I say let motorcyclists Darwin themselves. Illinois still doesn't have a helmet law and I'm fine with that.

[Adder]

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.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm interested in what people, particularly anyone identifying themselves as a feminist or just RT, think about this story.

It sounds like some context is missing -- like what was in her speech. And whether the guy had been talking/flirting with her at the bar and her response to it.

It can be kind of creepy/scary to be alone in an elevator with a guy very late at night, so a proposition under that circumstance might be extra creepy.

But I'm the last person to comment on the appropriate non-creepy way to ask someone you've been drinking with at a bar back to your room to do the sex.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

I read your link. Elevator guy did nothing wrong. He was respectful and polite. He treated her as an equal. He did not sexualize her, as she claims. He asked her if she wanted to get coffee in his room, which is one of two things: (1) code for sexualizing you later if you're up for it and (2) wanting to talk more over coffee at a place convenient for such a conversation at 4:00 am.

I tend to think that a lot of "creepy" behavior is behavior that might be not deemed creepy (or even welcomed) if the person making the proposal is better looking. I suppose if the guy hadn't established a rapport with her that would allow them both to feel comfortable to make a personal proposition like this, it might be a little weird or creepy. But apparently he'd been part of a group of people who were hanging out with her until 4 in the morning.

Maybe she's just not used to being approached. Whatever. The whole thing is ridiculous.

TM

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I read your link. Elevator guy did nothing wrong. He was respectful and polite. He treated her as an equal. He did not sexualize her, as she claims. He asked her if she wanted to get coffee in his room, which is one of two things: (1) code for sexualizing you later if you're up for it and (2) wanting to talk more over coffee at a place convenient for such a conversation at 4:00 am.

I tend to think that a lot of "creepy" behavior is behavior that might be not deemed creepy (or even welcomed) if the person making the proposal is better looking. I suppose if the guy hadn't established a rapport with her that would allow them both to feel comfortable to make a personal proposition like this, it might be a little weird or creepy. But apparently he'd been part of a group of people who were hanging out with her until 4 in the morning.

Maybe she's just not used to being approached. Whatever. The whole thing is ridiculous.

TM

I agree, sort of. He didn't do anything wrong. But that doesn't mean what he did wasn't perceived by her as creepy. I guess my point is that creepy is in the eye of the beholder, and might change from circumstance to circumstance.

Yesterday, for example, I went to Target on my way home. When I walked in, I was going to go use the restroom, but there was a guy just standing outside of the hallway to the restroom, and he watched me walk down the hallway, and something about him and the whole thing gave me the creeps, enough that I didn't go into the restroom and instead went about my shopping. Now, I didn't go home and post a whole angry video blog about why men shouldn't hang about womens restrooms and watch women while they walk towards them... but that doesn't change the fact that I, in that moment, found his behavior creepy enough not to go into that bathroom.

He probably wasn't meaning to be creepy. I'm pretty sure he didn't do anything wrong. But still, I was creeped out.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

I agree, sort of. He didn't do anything wrong. But that doesn't mean what he did wasn't perceived by her as creepy.

Sure. As your story points out, there is a difference between feeling creeped out and concluding that your creeped out feeling merits mention as something that guys shouldn't do.

One might easily describe the feeling of being hit on by someone you are not attracted to as being creeped out, but that doesn't mean we will get your back if you publishing something saying, "ugly dudes shouldn't hit on me."