Blog Wars - The Elevatorgate saga

[mr friendly guy]

@Eleas I am going to jumble up some of your statements, placing some together since what I will say can address several of them at once. Trust me, it will make more sense that way, and its more systematic.

How about you prove those assertions? Right fucking now would be good. Prove that I claim disagreement with Watson automatically makes one misogynist. Prove that I would call anyone pointing out Watson's flaws misogynist, rather than actual misogynist stances.

Later on

Actually... no. I agree with you there. I furthermore retract the accusation of misogyny. It's incorrect and it was stupid of me to make it by reading more into your statement on Watson's followers than I should have. I'm sorry.

Since you withdrew the accusation of misogyny against me, there is no point for me to continue arguing this point. I did not think I had said anything that would be construed as misogyny, so I had erroneously assumed that you made the accusation purely because I disagreed with Watson. Thus I will withdraw this point. With that in mind, I will bring this part up earlier.

Your original post used deliberately provocative language and sweeping generalizations in order to tell the tale of a feminist who went all crazy because she was the one with privilege, and who thought that just because she liked to sexualize herself could possibly object to other people sexualizing her as if she had agency.
I saw it as inflammatory. If it wasn't intended as such, then I was in the wrong. But it did seem rather trollish to my view.

I thought actually was relatively mild to be honest, but I will admit that might say more about me than you. I will say that I was less inflammatory than both sides (although more than Dawkins) in the sense that I deliberately avoided using the double entredre sexual references like “Twatson” or dick except when describing who said what. I even avoided terms which I normally use like twat or sacred cow because of how they could accidentally be perceived.

Now I guess this as a good time to expand on the sexualisation angle. I suspect in this situation people might be working with two different definitions or connotations of sexualisation. If you use the definition of just making someone looking hot, then to put a calendar out and marketing it in such a manner indicates that you are all but asking guys and gals who are into that type of stuff to find you hot. There is nothing wrong with that. However if you find sexualisation in and of itself wrong, you then can’t have it both ways, because you are using your agency via selling a nude calendar to make others find you hot. So unless you can ensure it doesn’t get to anyone who you don’t want to sexualise you, its not going to work.

If you means sexualisation in the sense that someone objectifies her ie views her as an object and denies her rights, then its quite different. Its NOT hypocritical for her to do such a calendar and object to someone objectifying her. However… if you use that definition, I am afraid I find claims that he was objectifying her somewhat spurious on the grounds that he actually left her alone when she presumably said no, that is respected her rights and wishes in this regard. Now you could say Elevator Guy ignored her wishes to not be hit on, not bother when she wanted to sleep etc. But we don’t know he actually was there when she said it. We do know when she made it clear to him no, he respected her wishes.

Next I am going to bring the Dawkins angle here. I will address all Dawkin’s criticism here, as they pretty much of a similar vein. So if you don’t see me requoting another paragraph here is why.

Dawkins' argument was still basically fucking stupid, because the issue itself had nothing to do with the coffee which you of course full well know. It is still tremendously privileged and asinine to go "yeah, shut up, there are kids in Africa that are starving so don't you dare complain about things that I consider much less relevant than my definition of the ultimate paragon of suffering." Don't you fucking get this by now? Should I break out the crayons?

There is a subtle context which I am not sure you are getting. Dawkins isn’t subscribing to the logic that issue A is greater than issue B, thus issue B is not problematic. This is obviously fallacious thinking. He is saying issue B is trivial (in and off itself, and not because of issue A), thus why are we not focussing on problem A. You obviously disagree with issue B being trivial, but it has nothing to do with it not being “ the ultimate paragon of suffering.”

Dawkins positions stands or falls depending
a) How important you place real action vs potential actions and
b) The amount of “red flags” from her description that makes adverse potential actions more likely
So lets get that part A out the way first

Well I am pretty sure I addressed this type of "could" argument in the OP. But lets have fun since you want to go down there. He could have been anyone. He could have been someone who missed her giving that portion of her talk. See how stupid it is when you allow yourself to use the "could have been anyone" argument.

No, you're simply missing the point, intentionally or not. He could have been anyone, which means the onus is placed on her to potentially defend herself, and this is a situation that only came about because he wanted to solicit her. Which was kinda creepy and inappropriate, since he could have done it in any number of ways but chose this one.

Now you have also accused of failing to realise is not about the coffee, but you failed to get is that I know you guys are coming from the potential action argument or he could have been anyone argument. That’s why I devoted a section in the OP to the Shrodinger’s black mugger argument. I just don’t share your premise into how significant it is, and I suspect neither does Dawkins.

Firstly the potential action argument is not utterly crazy. Nation states for example use that type of thinking when evaluating the military capability of each other. In this context I find the potential criminal problematic for the following reasons

1. Ultimately real actions mean more than potential actions. Because real actions actually have effect. In this case the real action was… well nothing serious aside from making her feel uncomfortable for a short span of time. I will address part B (the red flags) later.

2. Potential actions can be used to cast aspersions on someone’s character. Elevator Guy could range the gamut from social awkward nerd to rapist (fuck, lets go all the way and say serial killer) when he could simply be on the lower end of the scale. I am uncomfortable going to the upper end of the scale because it smacks of bordering on accusing someone of a serious crime without evidence (see below), and runs counter to the innocent until proven guilty maxim.

3. Any incident no matter how innocent can be hyped up very easily – especially when Shrodinger’s rapist allows us to set our own tolerance levels

4. Going on, since you accept Shrodinger’s rapist argument, there is no logical reason why you shouldn’t also accept Shrodinger’s black mugger argument. Or any other variation for that matter. Is it suddenly wrong for me to freak out if a black man talks to me in the elevator because there is a perception (rightly or wrongly) that blacks are more likely to commit crime.
If you are going to argue that its wrong, but its ok with the potential rapist part, then its called special pleading.

5. Don’t need evidence – well that goes without saying. Because you aren’t accusing them of a real crime, its just a potential crime. So no evidence there, but you can still do 2. Which leads to me to the final point.

6. I will preface this part by saying it could be seen as a slippery slope argument, but I will back it up. If you become used to provide evidence of a potential crime, then how much easier is it to then go to accuse someone of a real crime without evidence? Sounds like a slippery slope right? Until you realise that PZ Meyer’s (a supporter of Skepchick and these type of arguments) has on his blog (Free thought blogs) accused Michael Shermer of rape based on hearsay. Now apparently Lawrence Krauss is getting similar treatment. This is not the way to handle it. The proper way is via a court of law with fair trial. Not the court of public opinion with hearsay.

Now lets go onto the red flags

As soon as someone places themselves in a situation that is clearly inappropriate, yes. Following someone at night has connotations. You may not believe in those connotations, but they do exist.

Wait. So are you actually saying that no matter how much I invade your personal space, no matter if I follow you around at night, no matter what happens as soon as I don't actually commit an assault... then it's okay because after all it's only a matter of "he could". Nobody has a right to complain and this is in fact vilifying the person. Okay then. I think I know all I need about your position and what you consider "special pleading."

I have a question. If she said straight off the bat that this guy followed her from the bar after hearing she indicated she would be going to bed, do you think we would arguing on opposite sides? No seriously? I just rewatched her video just in case I somehow fell asleep and missed that. Because it didn’t automatically indicate that. I am going to hazard a guess, if that was said straight off the bat, a lot of her detractors would not have said what they did and a red flag of stalker would have come up.Now it may have been subsequently mentioned in her blog but it wasn’t in the video.

I submit that people are trying to come up with the more sinister interpretation of the events. I also submit that when the “other side” rightly or wrongly “didn’t get it” the first time, her side made Elevator Guy more sinister. He is now following her (as opposed to opportunistically proposition her) and he is now a potential rapist. The tactic obviously makes her detractors look like people who “dismisses the concerns of sexual assault victims”.

Which brings us to the next point.

Did it change, though? And did it change because of Dawkins, and not the rape threats, the guy saying he would totally feel her up if they were alone in an elevator, and acknowledging the fact that until such a situation is resolved, the woman does not know when that man would decide to stop.

I think the narrative changed after Dawkin’s first statement, since they kind of referenced Dawkins original statement. Obviously his subsequent statements are meant to explain his first statement, which was in the original context that Elevator Guy was creepy.

However when he suddenly metamorphed into a potential rapist and those who disagreed with her become misogynist, thats when I

I still say this is a complete demonisation of what actually happens, and I will keep saying it until you acknowledge that it's been said.

Then I narrow the accusation to several critics including Dawkins.

Because if any disagrees with what Watson says, it becomes disagreeing with letting her speak her mind.

Which is of course not what I said in the first place. But you do seem to be used to lying, so I suppose I should hardly expect you to stop now.

I am puzzled. If that’s not what you meant, then the only other explanation I can think of is that you think I disagree with what Watson said, which is “no shit Sherlock” moment. Which is why I don’t know why you would even say something which is that obvious.

Oh, how cute. You're actually foaming at the mouth now, aren't you? I actually have no problem acknowledging that I think Watson used imprecise terminology and should definitely have avoiding calling out Steph McGraw a second time. I can acknowledge these things because I have integrity, a concept I'll be happy to introduce you to in the next post.

Considering I narrowed my accusation in the very post you replied to in response to your claim “not everyone” is labelled a misogynist, I am not sure where you got this I am too dishonest to admit when I am wrong part.

This, I do feel is slightly true. I thought (and sort of still do) that you're angry not because she spoke her mind, but because she considers men at creepy for actions that we're used to not have to consider. Like getting into an elevator alone with a woman in order to ask her out after the doors have closed.

The emotion I felt is more relief that Dawkins didn’t dismiss something serious (yes I know you will disagree with that) rather than anger at her. Since I started backwards so to speak, as when I first heard about it was from criticism of Dawkins dismissing the concerns of sexual assault victims rather than seeing her original video.

Short of mind reading powers I don’t see how can resolve this impasse. I don’t consider calling him creepy that big a deal, even if I fell the whole episode should have finished after he or she left the elevator. I will say thought that I feel somewhat disheartened that the Atheist movement got such shitty PR because of what should have been really ended very quickly, even if I do find youtube videos of the events hilarious.

Oh and I don't ask girls out in an elevator, so her statement doesn't effect me. Elevators are more crowded than wards where I work, which is why I sometimes take the stairs.

So what was that line about psychic powers?

Touche, touché.

[Terralthra]

Oops. "Hotel elevators aren't far from the hotel bars" is what I meant to type. Mea culpa.

[Scrib]

When exactly would Dawkins' response be appropriate?

Seriously you want me to start imaging wild scenarios and we can debate those too? No, I've had enough of this shit.

That's one possibility. Another is that I wanted you to recognize a rhetorical question.

[Starglider]

Here is a detailed explanation of what I was referring to earlier; why Twitter selects for divisive behavior and is particularly toxic for equalitarian movements.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow. This thread got big quickly.


Mr. Friendly Guy, here is the problem. Men have more power in society than women, and sexualize aforementioned women, in the sense that they essentially turn women into sex objects (read: a sexual goal to be obtained, rather than a person in their own right). A moment's consideration, especially given Watson's subject material in her blog, talk, and after-talk discussion should have made it very plain to Anonymous Dudesauce that propositioning her in an elevator would not be appropriate, and in fact that propositioning any woman in an elevator would not be appropriate. That women are, by and large, taught to be wary of sexual assault (almost to the exclusion of educating men not to commit it, in point of fact) and that this woman in particular is unlikely to respond well. A moment of consideration of her as a human being with her own thoughts, feelings, and desires would have avoided the whole thing.

She pointed this out. She did not go crazy. She did not name names. She used it to illustrate a point in about the most rational and milquetoast fashion possible.

At which point, the internet exploded. And while the simple act of disagreeing with her is not itself misogyny, the arguments made most certainly are a good chunk of the time. The rape threats most certainly are. The expansion of the argument to include prominent atheist bloggers outing other atheist bloggers as transpeople in order to cause them harm certainly are. The MRAs crawling out of the woodwork like cockroaches are definitionally misogynists.

As for Dawkins... having talked to him, he is just an asshole. He is an asshole to other biologists talking about biology. Snooty elderly upper-class english condescension combined with a cluelessness to social issues born of the same even if otherwise well intentioned. I am not even sure he realizes how he comes off sometimes, and it is both very easy to take him out of context, and really easy for him to have an Outside Context Problem.

[Lagmonster]

As for Dawkins... having talked to him, he is just an asshole. He is an asshole to other biologists talking about biology.

There's an old saying to the effect that we take people as they are, not as we would have them be. People who swear off of or pledge allegiance to either Dawkins or Watson as a result of this issue are probably engaging in at least a bit of hero-worship. Dawkins makes an ideal ally when discussing, say, atheism, or evolutionary biology. That anyone would feel betrayed to learn that he doesn't also have a reasonable or likeable grasp of women's social issues seems...silly. I'm sure the same applies to Ms.Watson.

Or to any of us. I'm sure you and I could have a vibrant and engaging discussion on a half-dozen subjects where our expertise intersects, but I imagine if we talked agricultural expansion and the conversion of wetlands our conversation would wind down to us just punching each other in the testicles over and over again.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or to any of us. I'm sure you and I could have a vibrant and engaging discussion on a half-dozen subjects where our expertise intersects, but I imagine if we talked agricultural expansion and the conversion of wetlands our conversation would wind down to us just punching each other in the testicles over and over again.

Oh... now I am interested... because my positions on various things in that realm are somewhat non-standard for my profession.

There's an old saying to the effect that we take people as they are, not as we would have them be. People who swear off of or pledge allegiance to either Dawkins or Watson as a result of this issue are probably engaging in at least a bit of hero-worship. Dawkins makes an ideal ally when discussing, say, atheism, or evolutionary biology. That anyone would feel betrayed to learn that he doesn't also have a reasonable or likeable grasp of women's social issues seems...silly. I'm sure the same applies to Ms.Watson.

He is an old man. Old men have baggage. One's WW2 veteran grandfather is a war hero, but he is probably also at least a little bit racist, at least when drunk during the holiday season. That does not invalidate the war-hero part. It just makes you hit your head on the dinner table at christmas.

[mr friendly guy]

Wow. This thread got big quickly.


Mr. Friendly Guy, here is the problem. Men have more power in society than women, and sexualize aforementioned women, in the sense that they essentially turn women into sex objects (read: a sexual goal to be obtained, rather than a person in their own right). A moment's consideration, especially given Watson's subject material in her blog, talk, and after-talk discussion should have made it very plain to Anonymous Dudesauce that propositioning her in an elevator would not be appropriate, and in fact that propositioning any woman in an elevator would not be appropriate. That women are, by and large, taught to be wary of sexual assault (almost to the exclusion of educating men not to commit it, in point of fact) and that this woman in particular is unlikely to respond well. A moment of consideration of her as a human being with her own thoughts, feelings, and desires would have avoided the whole thing.

She pointed this out. She did not go crazy. She did not name names. She used it to illustrate a point in about the most rational and milquetoast fashion possible.

At which point, the internet exploded. And while the simple act of disagreeing with her is not itself misogyny, the arguments made most certainly are a good chunk of the time. The rape threats most certainly are. The expansion of the argument to include prominent atheist bloggers outing other atheist bloggers as transpeople in order to cause them harm certainly are. The MRAs crawling out of the woodwork like cockroaches are definitionally misogynists.

As for Dawkins... having talked to him, he is just an asshole. He is an asshole to other biologists talking about biology. Snooty elderly upper-class english condescension combined with a cluelessness to social issues born of the same even if otherwise well intentioned. I am not even sure he realizes how he comes off sometimes, and it is both very easy to take him out of context, and really easy for him to have an Outside Context Problem.

I don't think EG is exactly a casanova or anything. I do feel however that at the end of the episode, EG is most probably some socially awkward guy than some arsehole based on the evidence, ie he left her alone when she said no, and we are not sure if he was there during that part of her talk etc. I think the difference lies in how some people see it as a) EG is the former, and no harm done, so aside from feeling uncomfortable, its not that big a deal vs b) EG is an arsehole, he could be a potential <insert whatever crime here>.

Dawkins may or may not be arsehole, but I don't think he is a misogynist. At best he doesn't "get it."

I do agree that a lot of miscreants crawled out from the woodwork and the debate would definitely be better if they just stayed hidden.

[mr friendly guy]

Back when this was going on, another commenter looked at the evidence available and commented on the likelihood that she, in fact, had prosopagnosia, rather than simply claiming it as a convenient cover. Suffice it to say, she never showed any evidence of having this issue in public (including various other conventions) before or after this incident.

.

I would not bother to get some doctor's certificate or medical records to prove I have disease x just to win an internet argument. Thus I don't have a problem if Watson chooses to or not to do the same thing. By that same token, since this is a flame war among sceptics, her opponents don't have to take her word for it either.

I do feel however, that by trying to disprove her claim of prosopagnosia as the above poster did, its reversing the burden of proof and well he clearly made an effort to look into this, I wouldn't have bothered.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't think EG is exactly a casanova or anything. I do feel however that at the end of the episode, EG is most probably some socially awkward guy than some arsehole based on the evidence, ie he left her alone when she said no, and we are not sure if he was there during that part of her talk etc. I think the difference lies in how some people see it as a) EG is the former, and no harm done, so aside from feeling uncomfortable, its not that big a deal vs b) EG is an arsehole, he could be a potential <insert whatever crime here>.

The issue is that it never occurred to him that his approach could be an issue in the first place, and this results from Male Privilege. He has the luxury, thanks to a historical power-differential, of not needing to have the conscientiousness to take the physical and social context of a sexual advance into account.

He does not have to be doing anything maliciously in order to be creepy to a woman who, even if she consciously knows the stats on rape, has been conditioned since early childhood to be wary of strangers in enclosed spaces. Between 1 in 5 and 1 in 4 women get raped/sexually assaulted. The proportion of rapists is a bit smaller due to repeats, but I can guarantee you that you have a friend or two who is a rapist or will be in the future. The cultural onus is also on women to avoid rape. "Dont go X during Y time. Make sure someone watches your drinks. Dont dress too provocatively" etc. So they get to deal with Shrödinger's rapist. It is not that every dude is a rapist. It is that a woman does not know if some random dude who is talking to her on the bus or at a convention is a rapist or not. Her only cue to that is behavior.

So it is the middle of the night, and you are in an enclosed space that will conveniently attenuate any sound that might come from within. You know rapes at conventions are relatively common and that they can, in point of fact, happen to you. In fact, you have been conditioned to be vigilant when it comes to avoiding being raped from at least puberty (with education on rape avoidance being exclusively in the realm of "Now, girls, here is how to avoid being raped" instead of "now boys. This is rape. It is bad. Dont do it"). So now, some individual is in the elevator with you, and says they want to get to know you better, and in that confined space asks you to their room, which is another confined space. The very request is something that there is a slight cultural bias suggesting you are "supposed" to accept someone's hospitality in order to be "polite".

Dont you think that if you were her in this situation that you would be somewhat uncomfortable? That this person would be, dare I say "creepy"? I certainly do. And in order to be creepy, he need not have any malice at all. He just needs to be clueless. The misogyny in this case is not individual. It is cultural. He is not objectifying her because he really thinks she is not really a person worthy of concern. He is objectifying her because the way he was taught to interact with women script that behavior.

[Jub]

@Alyrium Denryle:

We both know that the chances of a woman being violently raped by a total stranger are almost as low as being the victim of a random serial killer, and most people don't take undue precautions against that. This is the problem with how we educate both sexes. Women are told to act defensively and men are told next to nothing about the subject, let alone what things we do that make women uncomfortable. Yet women's rights groups seem to fail at getting the education changed and often aren't even focused on it at all. So I can see why men stand here and say, "I don't see why this is a big deal" and when pointed out why she might be uncomfortable say, "She's worried over nothing". Both are pretty easy viewpoints to see from a male perspective and have hard math to back them up.

Now, I agree that what EG did was pretty socially awkward and that SC's initial response was reasonable, it'd be like me making a comment in a video that farting in the elevator was rude. The thing is, SC has taken this too far and it makes it hard for people to care about the underlying issues when she's making no effort to show why this sort of thing is an issue to her.

[PainRack]

Dont you think that if you were her in this situation that you would be somewhat uncomfortable? That this person would be, dare I say "creepy"? I certainly do. And in order to be creepy, he need not have any malice at all. He just needs to be clueless. The misogyny in this case is not individual. It is cultural. He is not objectifying her because he really thinks she is not really a person worthy of concern. He is objectifying her because the way he was taught to interact with women script that behavior.

Except context matters.

If as SC said he had been chatting to her in the bar, it might very well be that he felt they were on more friendlier terms than the case, which would then boil down to miscues in communication.

And a scenario which from all forms, was resolved amicably in the elevator when she gently brushed him off.

The problem is what happened later.
Now, she chose to blog about this and said that it was creepy........ something irritates me initially because the question in my mind is, 'why didn't you tell him that?" Wait, before anyone defends this with fear and trapped in enclosed spaces, the fact remains that in terms of social manners, its rude to speak of someone behind their back with someone else. That's what I think is sparking some of the response from Seth or Dawkins, and then the dismissal of her concerns because they felt offended by this.


And this being the internet, we have the barrage of disproportionate, inappropriate comments that then closed her off and caused Skeptic Chick to dismiss any criticism as misogynist behaviour even when its not. You can claim its male privilege for dismissing her concerns of course but I think this has been a huge storm in a teacup that nobody looked good coming out from.

[Channel72]

A lot of guys suck at picking up women. I probably suck at it. But there's nothing I've ever experienced that would clue me in on the fact that I'm not supposed to ask a woman to go get coffee in an elevator at a convention in Ireland. I could have very well been Elevator Guy (except, I actually don't think Watson is that attractive or interesting...) Perhaps Watson should come up with a list of locales and/or situations wherein it is inappropriate to ask a woman to have coffee. Would it be okay if it was a freight elevator? (Also, most elevators have cameras... an elevator is literally one of the worst places to rape someone and get away with it.)

But I get it.... it's all about "vibes" and "feelings" here. I think if anything is inappropriate here, it's Elevator Guy's straightforwardness in asking Watson back to his room for coffee, instead of asking her out for coffee in some public place first. (But alas, he probably just took the chance because he'd likely never see her again.) Whatever, I'll just take the stairs the next time I'm at an atheist convention.

Anyway, since I'm not really too familiar with the ensuing shitstorm that occurred in the wake of Elevator Guy's sex-capades, what has the reaction to this (non) incident been from other women? Do other women who have bothered to weigh in on this tend to side with Elevator Guy or Watson?

[PainRack]

I wish to open up a topic about male privilege though, since the accusation at Dawkins is that his male privilege blinded him to the fear and concern of Watson. I'm quite curious why this was called male privilege, because it seems to be more a question of perspective. Is calling a different perspective privilege accurate or worth it? This isn't racial privilege, where the benefits of race means that you can't see the problems for females.

In this scenario , its Dawkins and others giving another perspective, namely, that women in other countries are facing actual persecution and problems, whereas Watson follow up replies(not the actual video post itself) protrayal of persecution is honestly nothing and should be treated as just a clueless guy overstepping a hidden line.

Is this honestly male privilege? Note that Watson salient defence was that she set off explicit cues that she didn't want to be disturbed and ignoring her wishes, especially given her panel discussion was creepy. But this all hinges on said guy actually having heard the panel, or said guy having seen the cues or was dumb enough to misread the cues. We never heard from EG here insofar as I know.
Its entirely plausible to construct a scenario where it isn't as creepy as it looks, for example, guy having conversation with Watson in bar and thinking he has a chance and trying to act on it in a more private setting as opposed to random stranger in bar approach you in elevator looking for hookie.
And remember, the whole handling of the affair in the elevator appears to have been resolved in a mature manner. She said no, the guy left without pressuring her or anything. Watson was disturbed enough to post about it later sure, but it was based entirely on her feelings and perceptions of the event. Dawkins assault was belittling and condescending, ignoring Watson perceptions and according to others, entirely a result of his male privilege where he cannot see the perspective of American women who must be afraid of rape.

Is Dawkins approach honestly that of male privilege? Just what is the extent of male privilege?

[Kojiro]

Is Dawkins approach honestly that of male privilege? Just what is the extent of male privilege?

My partner, who is a survivor of violent sexual assault, says she'd have no problem with this guy if she were in Watson's position. To her it'd be a moment of awkwardness, nothing more. Given she's utterly aware of the bad possibilities and not a male there is at least something else that can make one dismissive of Watson.

[Terralthra]

You may be misunderstanding. Your partner says she wouldn't have a problem in that situation. Fine. But she apparently understands why someone else would have a problem. Whether or not one has a problem in a given context and set of actions is not the issue, it's that some people seem incapable of understanding why someone else might have a problem. That is to what people are referring when they say Dawkins' response of "What's the issue? He just asked her to coffee," is male privilege. Not that he wouldn't have a problem, but that he doesn't even recognize that someone else might have a problem.

[Kojiro]

You may be misunderstanding. Your partner says she wouldn't have a problem in that situation. Fine. But she apparently understands why someone else would have a problem.

No, she thinks Watson is overreacting. She sides with Dawkins. This whole issue can be boiled down to 'Do you think Watson is overreacting?' but apparently you can't assess and dismiss the complaint- be you male or female- without being blinded by male privilege. You either agree or you're not qualified to make a judgement.

[Terralthra]

"Utterly aware of the bad possibilities" would seem to indicate she understands.

[mr friendly guy]

The thing people cry about is post hoc analysis. However I feel this is important. At the end of the day, EG didn't do anything after she said no. There was no indication he was persistent, took an aggressive tone of voice etc. Heck his asking her out was preceded by "Don't take this the wrong way. With that in mind I am of the opinion EG is most probably clueless and not sinister, and hence it should have ended when he left her alone.

Even if she were to say she found him creepy, that in itself shouldn't have sparked a shitstorm. I feel even the misantropes (?sp) wouldn't have been a problem because they unlike the intellectuals on this debate won't be taken seriously. Its when Watson and her critics started firing at each other, and then Dawkins chipped in that this led to the splintering among sceptical circles of the atheist and atheism plus groups. Oh and the fact some of these critics were suddenly misogynists. Dawkins might be stuck up and a dick, heck sometimes I can be that way as well, but he ain't a misogynist no matter how much Watson and her supporters spin it. This automatically makes the atmosphere toxic and its hard to have a reasoned debate.

Now to answer this

Anyway, since I'm not really too familiar with the ensuing shitstorm that occurred in the wake of Elevator Guy's sex-capades, what has the reaction to this (non) incident been from other women? Do other women who have bothered to weigh in on this tend to side with Elevator Guy or Watson?

My OP only covered some of it. There were clearly women who also "didn't get it" and then Watson labelled one of them as swallowing misogynistic arguments. This IMO made it very difficult for any serious discussion.

Watson of course has her female supporters (and male supporters namely Greg Laden and PZ Meyers) who strike me as people who will identify themselves as feminists.

So in answer to your question, there are quite a few women who "didn't get it" and not so much side with EG, they just feel like Dawkins that this is a storm in a teacup.

[Lagmonster]

"Utterly aware of the bad possibilities" would seem to indicate she understands.

Hmm. Two people who agree that there is a chance that X Bad Thing can happen in a particular situation may wildly disagree on the odds. If you have a good reason for thinking of an action as low-risk, I'd say you're likely to dismiss the complaints of people who feel it is high-risk, or who insist the action is wrong despite acknowledging a lack of risk.

[Grumman]

"Utterly aware of the bad possibilities" would seem to indicate she understands.

It indicates that she is a survivor of violent sexual assault - a person who you would expect to take a reasonable fear seriously, or even err on the side of caution in the case of an unreasonable fear. And she still thinks Watson was overreacting.

It is basically the equivalent of the famous quote "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

[Scrib]

You may be misunderstanding. Your partner says she wouldn't have a problem in that situation. Fine. But she apparently understands why someone else would have a problem.

No, she thinks Watson is overreacting. She sides with Dawkins. This whole issue can be boiled down to 'Do you think Watson is overreacting?' but apparently you can't assess and dismiss the complaint- be you male or female- without being blinded by male privilege. You either agree or you're not qualified to make a judgement.

Or it's just generally problematic to make judgements on others' risk tolerance and reaction to certain situations.