Talk about missing the point — now we’ve got someone declaring the TAM harassment problem solved — why, just call casino security, and they’ll take care of it!
Uh, yes. We know. We can go to a meeting, and if there is a jerk causing problems, we can seek out authorities and maybe get it resolved (although, in the case of women complaining of harassment, we’re more likely to see the problem treated dismissively). That’s always been an option, and it’s really patronizing to bring it up as if no other person on the planet ever even thought of it.
It’s not the issue. What’s wanted is a recognition of the fact that no one has the right to harass others at a public meeting, and that the meeting organizers have a zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment, to discourage harassment before it happens.
Why is this so hard to understand?
These events are safe: they are well-bounded, contain security staff, and all the organizers want them to proceed with little disruption. Nobody has complained that there was no available recourse to deal with jerkwads.
The problem is that they are not safe spaces, which means a place where women can feel comfortable speaking without risk of unwelcome advances. You can’t just announce that there are security guards outside the door to create a safe space; it takes a bit more effort than that.
The author of that blog actually hit on the real problem by accident in a comment on that thread.
Honestly, if your a woman at an event like TAM, expect to be hit on.
EXACTLY!
You know, there’s a lot of whining that Rebecca Watson or myself have claimed that TAM is unsafe, a claim that we actually haven’t made at all. To the contrary, we’ve both supported TAM and encouraged people to attend. But we’ve also asked that it be better, and I do give DJ credit — it has improved in the representation of women speakers during his tenure.
But if you’re looking to pin the blame on people who have said TAM isn’t a good place for women, who might be spreading the word that women shouldn’t attend, you might want to start with people who declare that women ought to “expect to be hit on”.
Some people seem confused by the phrase “safe space”. They seem to be unaware of the fact that in English, one word in context can modify the meaning of another: like “parkway” is actually a place where cars drive, rather than park. But to help out those poor naive simpletons, here’s an explanation of “safe space”.
As usual, Cuttlefish distills the whole wrangle down nicely.
I want to expect that organizers will make an effort to make all people feel welcome and safe.
I want to expect that I can go out in public while female and not get harassed.
I want to expect that my opinions and experiences matter just as much as anyone else’s, regardless of my gender.
I want to expect that the people organizing these events will recognize that the experiences of respectful people matter more than those who would harass or violate others.
I don’t want to expect harassment and there’s no reason why I should.
If you’re a man at an event like TAM, expect to be hit.
Okay, well that’s really clear. Those of us who don’t like to be hit on should just stay away. Got it. :: making a note – never go to TAM :: They should put that in their brochure so the menz don’t have to worry whether the people they hit on will like it or not. Maybe make a checkbox on the online registration “please check here if you don’t like to be hit on” then disallow registration if it’s checked.
Also, us men that don’t want to be labeled or suspected of being misogynist predators should also keep away. Note taken. (Not that I really needed it – Penn Jillette as a fucking hero=Pretty big hint that things are really bad)
I have decided to reverse several personal policies and now attend TAM wearing a T shirt saying “Here are my genitals, please take them” and nothing else.
With a convenient arrow pointing to my genitals.
This way, when the castrating feminazis who control the universe tell me I am being naughty I can relax in the warm bath of approval from my fellow TAMists.
After all, ladies, you should expect to be confronted with my gentleman fruit at every given opportunity when attending a public conference on scepticism. It’s a well known fact that my carrot and peas and scepticism are linked.
How dare you question the appropriateness of my John Thomas in scepticism?
Louis
Set up one conference room as the ‘ok to hit on’ space, or book one of those pick up artist speakers, then when all these rude asshats go in just shut and lock the doors. Problem solved.
Why is it that when women say they don’t want to be harassed everyone assumes they’re saying they don’t want to be hit on? Is harassment really the same thing as flirting to the people complaining about these women asking for no harassment?
The blogger, Redd, mentions that if women don’t report then they don’t have a right to complain about what happens to them. It must be nice to have never experienced problems with reporting. Reporting helps, most assuredly, and I don’t think I’ve seen one person yet say reporting is bad, don’t do it. What I have seen a lot of is people saying it’s not always easy to report and when you’re in a situation that you’re upset over it’s not always easy to think clearly. Along with that, if the place you are in doesn’t make it clear that there’s a procedure to follow when reporting harassment then it’s even less easy to report.
As I said on the great penis debate thread, I’m honestly sick of reading about this and rather glad I’m not attending any conferences ever. Hell if this keeps up, I won’t ever bother coming out as an atheist. Why would I want to associate with a community that has such a strong voice of dissent when it comes to harassment? To be clear, I love the bloggers at FtB and their responses to this situation. If only more people would be willing to be this reasoned when discussing this situation. And really it’s the bile coming from the detractors that poisons the whole community for me.
I may also wear a platform for my genitals to rest on. Or is that going too far?
Louis
@Ing
I don’t think that works, because it’s not close enough to discomfort. Is there something that men sometimes do for fun but won’t always find comfor… Ohhhh.
I got it.
“If you’re a man at an event like TAM, expect strange men asking you to compare penis sizes (subtle implication that yours is small if you refuse to participate)”.
There, that might do it.
This needs chiseling in stone letters a mile high. Even the most chuckle-headed can surely grasp that telling a black delegate procedures are in place for the reporting of racism would not in itself be enough, when what all of want is to be treated with dignity and respect as an absolute minimum. If we must make recourse to a lengthy and unreliable complaints procedure after the fact then clearly something has gone terribly wrong. Yet, when it comes to women and their safety, it’s nothing but the usual: shut up, stop complaining, stop causing a scene, stop being so damn sexual and if you really must, take it to a member of security.
I see the problem, it’s supposed to be “you’re”, right?
In all honesty, I would tend to think that an increased visible presence of security would make me feel less safe, not more. If it’s necessary to have guards on every door to be safe, then it isn’t safe.
The trouble is, I don’t have any good suggestions on how to get from where we are now to being safe.
I think a little matchbook would be discrete and not at all going too far, Louis.
So long as those saying things like that understand that the ramifications are clear:
If you’re a woman who doesn’t care to be ‘hit on’, you’re not welcome at TAM.
If you are, for example, a women who’s there to speak rather than be hit on.
If you are a woman who’s there to learn rather than be hit on.
If you’re a woman who’s there to meet people socially rather than be hit on.
If you’re a woman who’s there to shake the hands of people who helped you shuck religion or woo or just plain destructive bullshit rather than be hit on.
If you’re a woman who’s in a stable relationship and isn’t looking to be hit on.
…then please don’t go to TAM. According to some, you won’t be welcome.
And after weeding out all of the women who might be there for any of the above reasons, I suppose they will be left strictly with the women who are there to be ‘hit on’ – and then, they will say “But no-one here is objecting!” and their self-fulfilling prophecy will be complete. They will have only their vision of perfect women attendees: not there to learn, or meet people, or participate, just targets.
That’s all some men want from women, apparently. Sadly, they may get just exactly that.
That’s why I only go to Hasidic Jewish atheist conferences. Men and women always in different rooms, or separated by the mechitzah.
Sexual harassment is not equal to flirting or getting hit on. You can have policies and guidelines to prevent the former, but its impossible to prevent the latter without telling people to completely repress any sexuality.
Pray tell, karl, what is your definition of “getting hit on”?
All this righteous indignation about the objectivisation of women next to all these ads featuring bimbos in tight T-shirts. Seems a little hypocritical.
No, you are the one providing the objectification. Stop that.
As has been mentioned many, many times, FtB doesn’t have much control over what ads show up.
@7 I think for them it often is. A lot of it has to do with the degree of mutual interaction. Good flirting involves a fun back and forth between people getting to know each other. Hitting on generally involves a one sided aggressive or tricky minded approach. For some people the latter is the only means by which they think they can interact with women.
Flirting is a lot like drinking. If you’re doing it right no one ever complains but if you are finding that you always have to justify your behavior then you’re probably doing it wrong.
It’s depressing to see that “skeptics” and “thinkers” believe that saying “there’s no problem here but you *should* expect to be harassed” is not at all contradictory.
Maybe those MRA guys will understand this better in terms of Florida’s SYG laws. If you feel even remotely threatened by someone, you have the right to use deadly force in self defense. That’s the direction this crazy country is going. Now, do please continue to argue that you have the absolute right to harass women as you see fit.
*points and laughs at sc_179e0292fa077e16a32f6cf994e62895 *
HAHAHAHA you’re stupid!
One wonders why men are always striving to hold themselves to the lowest possible standard of conduct.
Privilege. They know people will just shrug and say “boys will be boys”. They know, as we’ve seen here recently, that women will be blamed for whatever they (men) do. They know they will suffer no ill consequences for continuning on the lowest possible standard. That’s easiest.
sc_numbersalad @17
oops blockquote fail, sorry:
sc_numbersalad @17
Hmmmmmm. The adverts on my screen are for an Atheist Film Festival, Atheist Ascent Conference, an insurance company and a hardware store.
No “ads featuring bimbos in tight tshirts”. Isn’t it amazing how targeted advertising works?
michaelblayney wrote;
Speak for yourself, Mr blayney.
…from the fourth comment in the linked article:
Yeah, I suspect that blog is not a safe space either.
“Isn’t it amazing how targeted advertising works?”
Goodness. Then why do I see ads for xtian churches? And WTF is up with the guy “language professors” hate? How did I get targeted this way?
All this righteous indignation about the objectivisation of women next to all these ads featuring bimbos in tight T-shirts. Seems a little hypocritical
I don’t have any ads, scumbag.
Now how’s your theory of stupid going?
Man, that quote has everything- victim blaming, privilege, misogyny, and bad grammar. That’s an impressive pile of fail.
I got a furniture ad and a political ad. In fact I’ve been on FtB today for about three hours and haven’t seen a single scantily-clad-women ad.
It’s almost as if advertisers use cookies to track the sorts of websites you visit to determine your interests, and show you ads corresponding to those interests.
The ads you see say more about your own browsing habits than the website you’re visiting.
Targeted advertisement, IIRC, uses AI algorithms based on the user’s internet search history.
So where have you been, sc####? You naughty, naughty, boy….
The irony of the hypocrisy argument just blew another one of my meters. Damn.
AI algorithms.
Artificial stupidity. It’s a trope.
(For example, if your browser history may include lots of sites that discuss christianity, but the AI can’t tell if you’re for or against. Or something….)
@29 You’re right, of course: not all men. Just many.
Well, it’s definitely not a safe space for logic, common sense, reality or truth. but, if you want to tap dance for male approval, she’s your girl.
Flirting and hitting on that is persistent and unwanted, despite communication of the unwantedness, is sexual harassment.
Flirting and hitting on in a location and context where such behavior has already been declared to be off-limits, is sexual harassment.
michaelblayney @27
You need qualifiers before the word “men” in that sentence. I suggest: “so many moronic” or “a depressingly large minority of” or “smug, stupid, bastard”. Unless of course you have citations for the proposition that all men strive for the lowest possible standard of conduct.
Please stop conflating getting hit on with harassment. A harassment policy won’t stop guys from hitting on girls. If that’s what you want, then please say so. Stop trying to lump yourself in with people trying to prevent harassment. Stephanie Zvan, the FTBlogger most vocal about this, put it this way:
Getting hit on is the the issue here. The issue is HARASSMENT. They are not the same thing.
Further comment about the skeptic community’s discussion of flirting vs. harassment here.
@35 Sadly you are correct. Still, the kind of consciousness raising that the issue with TAM (and really, much of the content of Pharyngula and other FTB blogs) provokes may help reduce the “many” to, someday, “few”.
@Stevarious #28:
Reminds me of a convo with a dudebro on FB, where me declaring that my right to bodily autonomy is non-negotiable resulted in me being declared a female supremacist.
Because it’s not equal if men don’t have a say in whether or not I take on the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbirth with a chronic illness, dontchano. But don’t I dare try to suggest they get vasectomies, wear condoms, and/or choose partners who are for carrying any accidental pregnancy to term if they’re so enamored with having a say – that’s just inhumane. *eyeroll*
Well, if you HAVE the baby, even if DudeBro doesn’t it WANT it, you get his MONEY! And you getting his MONEY is EXACTLY THE SAME as him making decisions about your body!
So obviously they should have equal say in the matter, at the LEAST. It may be your body (meh, whatever), but it’s DudeBro’s MONEY, dammit!
(Rando-Cap™ random capitalization provided by Wingnut Typing Services, Inc.)
#39
I didn’t. I was asking why other people are conflating getting hit on with harassment. But thanks for telling me what I already know.
@Timid Atheist – Sorry. I was agreeing with you. The “please stop” was directed at the OP and comments in support of such.
@20 scottgifford
I like this a lot.
@wfenza
Oh! My apologies then, it read as if you were responding directly to me. Glad we’re in agreement. :)
@Stevarious
Holy flying fuck at a rolling doughnut, that was his exact argument. Random capitalizations included. It’s almost verbatim. XD
You win an Internet for that, friend.
I’ve decided that “hitting on” IS harassment. “Flirting” is a give-and-take encounter between two or more people. “Hitting on” is imposing your goal of a social encounter upon another person with little or no interest in whether or not they are amenable to that encounter. It is dehumanizing towards the desired target.
By the same sort of logic, “just call security” assumes that one person has a right to invade the space of another person without their consent and “make their move” and then their victim can complain later if they get too bent out of shape about it. That’s a tiny step away from “if someone punches you in the face, I guess you can call the cops later if it bothers you so much.”
@17
“All this righteous indignation about the objectivisation of women next to all these ads featuring bimbos in tight T-shirts. Seems a little hypocritical.”
‘
Why do you assume an attractive woman in a t-shirt is a bimbo?
@48 – that seems guaranteed to create a lot of confusion. Why not just say “hitting on” is attempted flirting? Sometimes it leads to flirting. Often not. If it’s discontinued after a reasonable time where the subject fails to express interest (or expresses a lack of interest), there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with it.
Exactly, Joe. “Hitting on” implies a unilateral decision, whereby one person is targeting another. That’s very different from the mutuality of flirting.
Improbable Joe
I dunno. “Flirting” often begins with “getting hit on”. In fact, many would equate the two. It becomes mutual when the “hit on” hits back, as it were.
That said, aggressive or repeated incidences of hitting on someone could easily constitute harassment, particularly if it is stated that the attention is not wanted.
Improbable Joe:
Bingo.
This argument that “hitting on” and “harassment” are two different things is complete and utter bullshit. Women are hit on all the time, in ridiculously inappropriate situations, and we’re supposed to not consider that to be harassing behavior?
Let put it this way: I get hit on while making phone calls at work. The guy on the other end obviously does not care that his behavior is at best unprofessional and at worse creepy as all fucking shit. I’m not supposed to consider that harassment?
It’s also dangerously close to the “OMG, YOU’RE NOT LETTING PEOPLE HAVE TEH SECKS!!1” argument that we’ve heard since Rebecca Watson said “guy’s don’t do this”.
Why do all these misogynists keep crawling out of their holes? It makes for very depressive reading. As to the blog mentioned above, she didn’t just missed the point, she’s used an entirely different map. Of a different continent. Written in a different language.
((And damnit, that’s supposed to read sharp, flat and natural! WordPress, y u no work?))
((… never mind me. Problem existed between screen and keyboard. Sorry, wordpress!))
Hotel security’s primary mission is to protect the property and reputation of the hotel. Their actions may appear be congruent with your best interest at a given moment in time, but I wouldn’t depend on them.
Why is it so difficult for TAM or any other agency to have a POSH (Prevention Of Sexual Harassment?) policy in place? They are posted all over the web. Pick one that fits and and go from there.
What’s so fucking difficult?
The author of the post PZ linked to is responding vigorously in comments… Just in case anyone was wondering.
I think this is what Halle Berry would have felt like if she had received her Oscar for Swordfish instead of Monster’s Ball. All the super-insightful interesting comments I’ve made, and I win an Internet for correctly predicting DudeBro McWomanHater’s response to a reasonable argument?
Ah, well. I’ll take it anyway. I mean, it IS an Internet. How do you turn that down?
Maybe the men should expect to be “hit on” by men, trans-men, and all variations on that theme?
Or would that “create an unfriendly environment for heterosexual cis-males”?
Since being a woman out in the wilderness (or just buying milk in the corner shop) automatically makes you fair game for the whole spectrum of advances, including but not limited to being hit on, flirting, some guy starting a really suggestive conversation about cucumbers and how his daughter(!) likes a big, thick one, groping, being told how fuckable you are or getting a really creepy guy call you Lolita while licking his lips, etc… well, that kinda makes us a bit sick of guy’s god given right to hit on us at any time they wish. Which kinda really makes being hit on border on harassment. Because sometimes we just want to buy milk or listen to an interesting speech without having to think if that guy standing right next to us is going to try his luck and then maybe loudly or even physically show his displeasure when told no.
I mean, I’m pretty sure most of us don’t have to swat guys like flies when they start swarming at us, but most of us have also had a couple of experiences with men who think that they are entitled to give it a try with any woman at any possible place whenever they wanted. Women are not public property and when entitled men treat you as one, yeah, it becomes harassment. Not on the same scale as actually getting groped or a man being too persistent and not taking no as an answer, but it is a sort of harassment.
No, it removes a lot of confusion, in that you don’t have a right to impose yourself on other people, sexually or otherwise. The thing about flirting is that it can be intent-free: it isn’t designed to necessarily lead to fucking, the way “hitting on” is. The only “confusion” belongs to people who think that they can force themselves on other people and then put the other person in the position where they have to reject the advances and then potentially deal with the other person’s negative reaction to that rejection.
Do you like Christians banging on your door and shoving fliers and magazines in your face and trying to convert you when you just sat down to dinner? How about if they did it to you when you’re at the movies, shopping for groceries, in public restrooms, and when you’re sitting in the emergency room? Would you say “hey, they have a right to ask and it is my obligation to give them a chance to make their case before accepting or rejecting their position” or would you do what almost everyone does and be pissed that someone ignored your personal space and freedom to go about your life in peace without having to fend off their high-pressure sales pitch?
You wouldn’t generally accept someone sitting down next to you and randomly launching into a sales pitch for Jesus, time shares, or anything else. Of course it is even more of an offensive imposition when it involves having intimate relations, and yet people(almost always men) act like it is much less of a big deal.
“Flirting” often begins with “getting hit on”. In fact, many would equate the two.
No, the’re pretty much the opposite. Flirting involves showing interest without ever directly expressing that interest. Hitting on someone is a direct statement.
Contrast:
“Oh, that’s a great cd! I really like that band.” *waits to see if there is a response*
to
“Lookin’ good! Wanna go out?”
wow what a douche.
Improbable Joe,
I like your comparison to proselytizers.
eternal salvation is about as important as dudesex, after all.
P Zed Ngmhllrdzsh, #12,
Please pick from the following responses, with appropriate levels of outrage:
1) You promised not to tell! After last Thursday’s orgy I assumed we were…”on better terms”.
2) I’ve been told it’s a pretty good size.
3) They make 4 foot matchbooks?
4) I acknowledge that the size of my membrum viralis is not only resoundingly average but not an adequate descriptor of my character and person, and thus, largely irrelevant to anything.
5) I believe it measured larger than yours at the All Comers Scientist Cock-A-Thon 2011.
6) It’s cold and I have recently been swimming in an icy lake.
7) It is not the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean, and sundry variants.
8) All of the above.
Thank you.
Yours et cetera
Louis
Oh, this, absolutely.
I repeat the thought that’s been bugging me all weekend. Where the $#@& is the JREF Board? This has been mishandled extremely badly by all parties involved in TAM, and their organization’s brand is in the process of being destroyed (indeed, at this point I’m dubious anything can be done to recover it short of the sort of measures that trigger a whole other set of potentially irrecoverable problems).
Who, why, and how really don’t matter a whole lot at this point. Debate which smoke detector is the most efficient after you’ve evacuated the building and put the fire out. If your top executive is unwilling or unable to do so, then it is the duty of the board to intervene.
This is how organizations die.
*has a rage induced seizure*
Because there are just that many of them out there.
And why it is important to keep raising awareness on this issue.
‘Hitting on’ is an oddly aggressive way of expressing this. Why not ‘approach’ people? I think the way things are phrased says quite a lot about the mind-set involved.
The religious proselytizer comparison is a good one, or a salesman would be another good one. Sure it’s mildly annoying when someone comes to your door or solicits you by phone but how would you like it if proselytizers or salesman interrupted you while you were having a drink with friends, sat down on the dinner table with you, sat next to you on the bus on the way to work and began to pitch you, approached you while you were sitting reading a book, studying or doing your work, interrupted you as you attempted to speak to them about someone else to make their pitch … etc. And if this not only happened all the time, but was considered totally fair game by society and if you complain about them are told “Well just tell them no.”
I wonder how well it would be accepted if JREF allowed religious proselytizers to show up at TAM, socialize with participants and attempt to convert them. Would this be something you should just “expect” at TAM? After all it’s a whole hotel full of people who are known to be eternally damned. How can you expect missionaries to NOT at least try to convert you?!
This is right on the spot, I can’t grok why this is so hard.
Improbable Joe, is it okay with you if I excerpt your #61 for the Pharyngula Wikia? This means licensing it under the CC BY-SA 3.0.
violet, I have the same question for your #72, can I put that up on the Pharyngula Wikia?
So would it be possible to create a reasonable harassment policy that cut down on or eliminated unwanted “hitting on”? My understanding of the discussion around harassment policies up until now is that they were meant to police the kind of actions I quoted Stephanie Zvan identifying. Should this be expanded to include things like creepy guys hitting on women?
@Stevarious Hee, sorry.
It’s more that most people IRL for me are completely obtuse on such matters, so it’s thrilling to see someone who 1) gets it (without me having to spend a few hours arguing). and 2) manages to so closely predict DudeBro’s ‘argument’.
So, I think it at least in part has to do with me just not being spoiled enough by the Pharyngula folks yet.
hmmmm.
I am eating dinner with my family and a religious person comes to my door and asks if I want to be saved.
I am sitting at a park bench and a little old lady approaches me clutching a Jehovah’s Witness’ pamphlet and, smiling, asks me if I want one.
I am walking down the street and come to a crosswalk. Damn, I missed the light and have to wait. There is a street preacher (wearing his permit) next to me shouting about sin and that some dude named Hay Zeus is the only way to salvation.
Am I being harassed?
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
Wow, seriously? Of course you can use whatever I post here for the Wikia.
But someone owes me a cookie later. :)
Re getting hit on “all the time” – during the Elevator Incident comments, one woman said she was hit on by *ten different individuals* at one LOCAL skeptics meeting. That’s excessive even IF the invitations were polite (and they weren’t.) She was advised to let it slide because she was quote “fresh meat”.
—
nooneinparticular: Religious proselytizers rarely turn violent, persistent, or obscene when rebuffed; and there’s a reasonable expectation that if they did, police or security would not give them a free pass on it. (Notable exception: anti-abortion protesters.)
slightly cutting down on them, probably yes, since repeated “hitting on” after being told to stop could qualify.
Actually minimizing being hit on substantially requires changing an entire culture and socialization to make women into “people” instead of “targets for hitting on”. That change starts with harassment policies that treat not-stopping-after-being-told-to as actionable harassment, but it also requires people to call out inappropriate behavior that’s not-quite-actionable-harassment-yet, it requires people to call out the punishment of women who take initiative in flirting (to destroy the man-predator, woman-target dynamic and stereotype), and it requires people to accept that a basic filter between what they want and that they can act on (besed on social context etc.) is not some sort of EBIL, sex-negative manslut-shaming.
@nooneinparticular If the proselytizers are telling you you’ll burn in hell if you don’t, continuing to bug you after you tell them you’re not interested, blocking your attempts to get away, physically restraining and/or assaulting you, yes.
And that’s what we’re talking about.
That post by Redd is repulsive. As a Chill Girl she nearly outdoes Mallorie Nasrallah.
Scott Gifford:
FIFY.
nooneinparticular and QED, if it’s not about you, it’s not about you. We’re all perfectly aware that not all men are like that, so you can save your “What about teh menz?!” whining.
wfenza: Ah, yeah, PolySkeptic, which spawned JT’s two favorite mansplaining buddies, Wes and Shaunphilly, who also think that poly people are oppressed on the same level as GLBT people. Vom. I agree with Improbable Joe: Flirting’s fine, hitting on is predatory. (Also, wfenza, if noonewithanybrains is agreeing with you, that’s not a good sign.)
Pteryxx
No doubt, no doubt. I truly wasn’t trying to suggest anything like that. I was trying to get at what I believe is a fallacious analogy posted upthread.
nooneinparticular, Are you really going to argue that free-thought conferences should use religious proselytizers as a baseline?
only insofar as it should be easy to report even just “creepy” behavior, and if a single individual ends up having fuckloads of reports about how they’ve made attendees very uncomfortable, it shouldn’t be wrong for organizers to decide that that individual should be removed. On a purely selfish basis, from the perspective of the organizers, too, since a single individual that can spoil many people’s enjoyment is causing harm to the organization (certainly moreso than removing that one individual would)
@85
Well, I…wait. What?
lol. unsurprised at this, considering the bullshit PolySkeptic wrote about one of my posts recently
@nooneinparticular:
Now I guess I see the fundamental point that you are seemingly incapable of grasping, based on that question. The answer to that question, and one of the biggest points that I’m trying to get across, is that no one gets to decide for someone else what is or isn’t harassment! That’s THE problem with hitting on people: you’re deciding a relatively high level of interest/intent/imposition on another person. If they feel harassed, the harm is done because you were insensitive and entirely ignored their potential boundaries. Yeah, maybe it is “easier to ask forgiveness than permission” FOR YOU, but it makes you an asshole for not thinking or caring about what the other person wants.
Serious on topic post:
I seriously doubt anyone is objecting to being “hit on” in a generic sense. I think what people are objecting to is “being hit on when it’s pretty obvious that this is not desired” and downstream “repeatedly hit on” stuff from there. And also harassment.
More importantly people are objecting to “women at event X should expect to be hit on” where event X is not specifically related to hitting on each other and the key word is “expect”. EXPECT?
I expect a blow job and a mojito whenever I leave the house. I am frequently disappointed.
I think women should NOT have to “expect to be hit on” at quasi-professional conferences (and certainly not at professional ones). Not for values of “hitting on” anything greater than “very slight and incidental if the two people involved are demonstrably getting on like a house on fire and mutual flirting is occurring”.
Even then, there’s hitting on and there’s hitting on. A polite request, subtly made in a classy manner to a welcoming hittee is likely to be met vastly differently than, hmmm let me think of an example, nope struggling, hard thinking….got it….a young lady being isolated in a lift at 4 in the morning after giving a talk about making conferences more safe spaces for women and how she personally doesn’t like being hit on this way and then following said talk up with hours of relevant post talk conversation with a coterie of participants at the bar. The first gets met with a polite “yes please” or “no thank you” the latter gets met with “guys, don’t do that” and the merest hint of delicate exasperation. I know, cataclysmic, right.
If I go to a conference as attendee or speaker and a woman comes up to me and says “nice talk, sweet cheeks, how’s about you and me go back to my room and go halves on a bastard” I might, at a push, be flattered for a nanosecond before it occurs to me that turning up in my best suit and giving what I consider to be a professional, technical talk in my area of expertise was all wasted, as the sum total of what I am to this person is the parts they wish to rub their parts against. In other words, flattery it really ain’t.
The word “expect” in that sentence is the piece of cluelessness being objected to. How about women going to conferences should expect to be treated as equal, fellow participants, of equal value, ability and potential to contribute? Is that really so revolutionary a change? Are we really trying to reduce women to a sum of their secondary sexual characteristics and ask them to assume that being the target of sexual predation, however gentle, is all that they can expect?
Fuck, I think a LOT more of women than that. Hell, I think a lot more of every single one night stand partner I’ve ever been with and there’s been a goodly few (both of my hands and my sofa… I jest, the sofa turned me down ;-) ).
Bah, this isn’t rocket surgery.
Louis
dissection of that dishonest screed here
@82 wrote;
(emphasis added)
Precisely. The bolded part is harassment.
Incidentally, all three of those occurred to me in the past two weeks.
you owe me a soda and a ‘b’ key.
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Sexual_proselytizing
(Anybody who wants to add to that, I recommend you make an account so your IP address isn’t publicly recorded in the page history (that’s the default behavior of the MediaWiki software, sorry).)
@89 Improbable Joe
I get what you are saying, including your insults. I disagree that the incidents I cited were harassment. They were most certainly boorish. They were unwelcome. They were an imposition on me.
They were not, however, harassment.
Had the guy come back to my door after I shut it, had the little old lady sat down next to me to talk about Jehovah after I declined he sweet offer, had the street preacher followed me across the street or continued to direct his words towards me, THEN I would be harassed.
As it stands I was merely subjected to human behavior that I personally do not like. I cannot expect my life to be free of it.
Blueaussi:
Because obviously it’s a woman’s responsibility to maintain a level of dress that cannot possibly be seen as bimbo-like to any man. Any unwanted advances are therefore the woman’s problem. I think this is the line of thought that led to the burka.
@nooneinparticular #95
Have any of the women on this thread or the numerous other threads about this topic ever given the impression that their lives are free from harassment, and that skeptic conventions are some sort of weird harassment aberration? No.
This entire conversation is all about facing up to the issue and making a clear statement that harassment, while it might be ubiquitous in other areas of peoples’ lives, will not be tolerated at organized events.
Life = Chaotic/Unpredictable. Event = Organized/Relatively Controllable.
from red in the comments.
I used to say this kind of shit about neighborhoods with crime problems, “why don’t they call the cops! stupid people!”. Of course I was like 15 and a clueless honky.
I wonder if a big cause of misogyny isn’t religion itself. Sure, we can escape the stupornatural aspects of religion, but what about all the genuinely stupid shit that religion teaches us on the social level of things? Like the notion that men are somehow superior to women, for starters?
nooneinparticular, those weren’t harassment TO YOU. You still don’t understand that you aren’t the universal arbiter of what constitutes harassment, do you? Also, what insults? Clearly you’re too sensitive and/or delusional if you perceived any insults in what I posted.
how quaint. hope she never has to learn how misguided such trust in the system is first-hand.
You know, the “bimbo” thing really is thoroughly unwarranted. I friended Ashley Pridgen from Snorg Tees a while back on Facebook. She is very attractive and extraordinarily busty, yes. But she’s a very talented artist and anything but a bimbo, so I know first-hand that it’s ridiculously unfair to make assumptions about the ads or the people in them.
mythbri
You are ascribing to me things I did not say nor which I implied. I am making an argument about the use of a word; harassment. Improbable Joe used an analogy to religious proselytizers that I feel is badly wrought and in fact in some ways undermines the what is at issue here.
As for your final equation; you are correct in that it is impossible to create an environment in which you prevent unwanted attention or even harassment. The best anyone can do is create an environment where that is actively discouraged and in which something can be done about it if (when) it happens. I think the various discussions that have been had over TAM and even Elevatorgate, though at times ugly, will go a long way in making it happen.
I don’t think that male superiority, as an idea, is only part of religion. People have been trying to justify the idea with science forever, still are (with shitty evopsych).
Puritainism is a uniquely religious brand of misogyny. At least I haven’t encountered any real secular justification for puritainism.
Because when women report harassment, assault or rape to security or the police, it’s always taken seriously, the victim is never doubted or subjected to the implication that it was her fault or that she’s overreacted, and due process is applied without prejudice and justice served.
Can anyone tell me how to get to that fantasy land? Because I want to go to there.
@105 the pint
she told me that every time she has reported something it worked out for her. its not a very skeptical justification, but there it is.
you all need to get over to the thread. its rare for blog authors to engage commenters so thoroughly, and theres only a few of us there making these (obvious) points.
@skeptifem – if it has, well, great for her, but that sure as hell doesn’t give her license to apply her experience across the board as the norm and paint everyone else with a different experience as making a big deal out of nothing, especially when it flies in the face of all the evidence that puts *her* experience as out of the norm.
Hop on over to another thread and engage in further work distraction, you say? *opens another tab in Chrome*
nooneinparticular
Oh look, the exact same argument that gets spewed every time a woman reports harassment. “Well if it doesn’t bother me…it’s just boorish, unwelcome and an imposition…blargitty blah blah”
Please tell me, why should I pay 500 bucks to go to TAM if I have to expect boorish, unwelcome, impositions? Or take a night off for a skeptics in the pub if I’m going to treated as “fresh meat.” Or donate any of my hard earned cash to an organization which will use my presence as a way to attract more members but toss me under a bus if I report any boorish, unwelcome, impositions that get out of hand?
@nooneinparticular #103
I was responding to this part of your comment:
“As it stands I was merely subjected to human behavior that I personally do not like. I cannot expect my life to be free of it.”
Could you clarify whether you meant that you don’t expect your life to be free of human behavior you don’t like, or harassment?
As to the religious proselytizing analogy, I think it serves its purpose if it manages to shake some empathy loose in people who are minimizing the issue.
This is why I wouldn’t attend TAM now or in the future, even if I had the money.
Not because of anything PZ, Greta, Ophelia, Rebecca, or anyone else has said about the need for clear-cut, effective policies, but because of TAM’s defenders, who have made it clear they condone sexual harassment and victim-blaming and do not intend to do anything to change that.
When well-known women in atheism circles are being treated as they are for demanding that events do their best to reduce sexual harassment, that is an even greater disincentive for me. I’m a nobody — even if I go straight to security, who the hell will believe me if I report someone for groping me or making lewd suggestions or even raping me in my hotel room?
Certainly not TAM’s defenders, from what I can tell.
Fireweaver, I agree with Jacqueline Homan that patriarchy precedes religion.
Jebus bleeding christ on a broken pogo stick – I’m still wading through the comments over there and I just can’t… It’s just so much worse to read this sort of defensive victim-blaming “stupid women, you should just stand up for yourselves and grow a thicker skin” internalize misogynist shit when it’s coming from ANOTHER WOMAN. I have too many friends who’ve been raped and assaulted and harassed but who have not seen any justice because “who would believe them/it’s not worth the amount of pain they’d be subjected to if they reported it to the police or took the case to court” and I’ve seen how badly it’s scarred them for life. I just can’t read this shit anymore or engage with assholes like that without wanting to break something and start crying.
skeptifem, Sally (and any others over there) – I’m sorry, I just can’t dive into anymore of that shit at the moment, and you guys are trying so hard.
Improbable Joe
There are many ways to take this. We could use the legal definition of harassment (which would make your claim wrong). We could use the dictionary definition of harassment (which would make your claim wrong). Or we could use the special definition that you have come up with for harassment, which in the case of the religious proselytizers appears to be “any behavior I, personally, find annoying”.
Now, ISTM there is another way to restate YOUR definition of the word and one that works for this discussion and which is why what happened to Ms Watson in that elevator and (sorry can’t remember her name just now) the woman who got the card from the cluelessly obnoxious poly-amorous couple is important to understand; “any behavior I, personally, find threatening“. A subjective definition in most cases to be sure, but reasonable in both these incidents.
I don’t have a real problem with framing this in those terms because these kinds of interactions, which have a real or potential sexual dimension to them, are fraught with issues having to do with violence and subjugation.
My point in this aside to the thread was to suggest that your analogy was flawed. And it was flawed in a deep way that undermines the reason these incidents are important. You trivialize what happened to Ms Watson and the other incident (again apologies for losing her name) precisely because you mangle the analogy by coming up with personal meanings for words. You are not alone in this.
If you get to define words any way you wish, then so do I. None of the religious proselytizer incidences I cited amount to harassment. This is also the legal and dictionary definition of the word.
Yes, they do. To protect the hotel from bad PR and to protect the rich and powerful from the poor, respectively.
Ah, white privilege. Making clueless white people say jaw-droppingly dumb things since . . .. forever. . .
Guess what, the police don’t give a fuck about “serving and protecting” unless you are a) rich and powerful (esp if you’re also straight, white and male) or b) one of them.
What fucking planet does she live on?
As, yes… appeals to (dictionary) authority are totally not fallacious, and are in fact the sign that someone’s brain is firing on all cylinders.
All? All cylinders? Wait, I meant the opposite. No cylinders firing, not a one.
Security and the Police are almost always reactive not proactive.
Letting Them™ know after the incident is not what this whole thing is about.
mythbri
Thanks for YOU shaking me up. I think I should make it clear that although I find Improbable Joe’s analogy to be flawed, as a teaching guide it has potential to get people thinking.
Now to your question;
I meant exactly that. I do not expect my life to free of jerks. Sometimes, in some circumstance, I feel surrounded. That does NOT mean however, that I -or we- should accept it or do nothing about it. As I’ve said elsewhere here there is good that has come out of both elevatorgate and the TAM tussle.
As a man I am NOT subject to the kinds of harassment and unwelcome attention that women are subject to every damn day of their lives. So it is incumbent upon me to be aware of it, to address it whether it comes from me or from someone else, and to live by example to my sons so as to break the cycle. But I must live in the real world and I acknowledge that among any ANY group of humans -including skeptics, atheists and humanists- there are going to be jerks (sometimes dangerous jerks) in the crowd.
That’s what I meant.
no one @ 95
But it’s not the same person, it’s the same events, repetitively. Every time you sit down to eat or have a drink with friends at a bar, they come up to you. Every time you go to watch a favorite show, a knock on the door. When you’re working, three or four interruptions to try to sell you religion. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It never ends, it never stops.
Some are easily shot down with a “no thanks, not interested.” Some try a few times, despite being told no and shutting the door in their face. A few yell and scream and call you a tease for making them think you were interested in religion by standing in your doorway speaking to them. A couple may try to push into your home, and one is successful, perhaps even tries to forcibly baptize you.
At what point do you become so tired and frustrated and angry that you decide you would like one space, one area of your life, one little fraction of your leisure time, to be mostly free of those interactions?
Wait even more… nooneinparticular is using a nonsensical and false definition of “harassment” to refute me? That’s just stupid. Merriam-Webster’s website lists the first definition of “Harass” like so:
So, I’m right in the sweet spot. I’m tired of religious proselytizers at my door, I find them exhausting. They are also annoying. Look, there’s “uninvited and unwelcome verbal… contact”
See? It doesn’t have to be threatening, or necessarily persistent by the dictionary definition. Asshole.
And you know, I DO expect my life to be free of jerks, besides myself of course. I haven’t figured out how to get away from myself yet, but I’m working on it.
That’s the baseline situation as far as I’m concerned, and what everyone should expect. The fact that it isn’t so is a failure of the world, not of our expectations.
You are an entitled twit. Harassment doesn’t bother you so the people who are impacted by it should just accept that it happens. Guess what, oh might hunter, there ARE going to be jerks. That wasn’t even in doubt, that’s not even the question. The question is what to do about it. And your answer “Ignore it because it doesn’t bother me” is overly-simplistic and completely useless.
But hey, at least you got everyone to focus on you and your terribly important fee-fees instead of all those whinging women.
@the pint
no need to be sorry, I am sorry I made it seem like you had to go over there.
I used to get more angry with women defending the patriarchy, but now less so. they are trying to play with the same shitty set of cards we all get dealt as women. I used to do the same thing, it protected me for awhile from dealing with certain horrible realities of being a woman. I don’t know if I was ready for the truth before that. Most of all I didn’t really know what the fuck I was talking about, and having realized my error I have put considerable effort towards busting the myths I used to buy into. I believe that many of these women find out the hard way that they were wrong and get angry. RW was somewhat of a “chill girl” before elevatorgate. You can’t ignore reality forever.
It seems a lot of people seem to think harassment must include some sort of physical component. That words of any sort aren’t really harassment but an annoyance.
/general comment from reading several threads at once
My aunt, who is currently a parole office and was once upon a time a corrections officer in a men’s prison CA refers to law enforcement professions as ” The Criminal’s Cleaning Crew”
That is, “police (in particular) exist to clean up after a crime is committed, unless you’re rich, then they’ll beat up hippies for you.”
She’s a hardcore republican who was a hardcore supporter of Occupy in my town.
@nooneinparticular #117
Then I agree with you. I don’t think any realistic person expects that their life will be free of human behavior that they find personally distasteful. Nor do I think any realistic person (especially women) expects that their life will be free from harassment of various kinds.
It’s easier to face the expectation of harassment if you also have the expectation of support, responsiveness and continuous improvement.
nooneinparticular, you’re falling into #4 here. If you prove the technicality that Joe’s analogy isn’t exactly like sexual harassment, what is that going to prove? What do you think you’re adding to the discussion?
Women are harassed. One man hitting on a woman when she’s open to it isn’t a big deal, no, but it’s not “one man.” It is a constant psychological assault, wherein women have to consider how they’re dressing and behaving and speaking and where they are, because some jackass is going to take it as an invitation. Is it exactly like someone telling me about Jesus? No, it’s worse. It’s someone assuming that because I possess a vagina, I am fair game. It’s someone looking at me and seeing a body to fuck rather than a human being. It’s being reduced to nothing more than an object and having this onslaught repeated day in and day out.
Even when it doesn’t happen, it’s still there in the back of our heads. Men who are bigger than us and use their size as a “flirtation tactic” will loom over us while “hitting on” us. Men will try to get us in places where we are secluded and find it difficult to escape while they “hit on” us. We don’t know how the man is going to react. We don’t know if we’re safe. We’re not just offered some literature and asked to pray. We’re put on the spot, right then, to give an answer and when our answer is “no” we have to be afraid of the response. Not every man who is “hitting on” women is out to harass them, no, but it’s a unilateral act. It isn’t mutual. When there’s the potential to have that happen many times and in many places where a woman may not feel safe, she might very well (rightfully) feel harassed whether anyone was setting out to harass her at all.
So, no. Joe’s analogy isn’t perfect. Analogies never are. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
If the world were half Jehovah’s Witnesses who felt free to approach anyone who wasn’t under any pretext in any environment, and one met one wherever one went, one might have a different understanding of observing merely boorish behavior versus being harassed.
If half the world were doing this, one might not write them off as just a few jerks in an otherwise well-meaning crowd. But Jehovah’s Witnesses comprise less than a hundredth of a percent of the United States population and maybe a thousandth of a percent (or less) of the global population, and the comparison ought to make one laugh.
And laugh and laugh and laugh.
#122 – 100% co-signed.
I mock the chill girls by calling them tapdancers, but I don’t hate them, I think they’re Doing It Rong. To be clear – I mean the sister-punching. All of us do something to “get along” in a world hostile to us, but covering your ears and shouting “can’t hear you bitchez cuz I’m totally chill! That will protect me from it all , right?” is Doing It Rong.
One has to wonder if these doucherockets are actively fighting against workplace anti-harassment policies as well. And if not, why fight it anywhere else?
Either that, or it has to involve a threat of physical violence. It is about creating a mythical “harasser” that bears no resemblance to them and their friends, so that they don’t have to remotely consider changing their own behavior or calling out their buddies. It is also a way to more easily dismiss the victims of harassment, by creating a definition of “harass” that makes 95% of the victims of harassment into whiners complaining about nothing.
improbable joe;
Ok, I looked up ‘harassment’ in several on line dictionaries (legal and common use) not ‘harass’. I only did this to confirm what I thought to make the argument (that is to say it isn’t as if I was so unfamiliar with the term that I needed to find out what it meant).
I concede your point and withdraw my critique of your analogy.
dogeared, spotted and foxed
If you ever say anything worth responding to, I probably won’t anyway. Fuck you, very much.
this is exactly why I thought the religious witnessing comparison was excellent. A lot of the discussion has focused on individual men and their individual behavior, but its more of an issue of expecting the behavior from men in general. That is what makes me not want men hitting on me all the time, because there is no space free of it, and if you could come to expect it all the time from missionaries it would become bothersome as well.
on ex-mormon groups people report this kind of bothersome shit from missionaries, sometimes on a weekly basis. Most guys don’t have a set appointment to hit on you, but its still above and beyond what any reasonable person would want to put up with. It has nothing to do with the individual missionaries, they change every so often, or they send home teachers, etc. its the fact that the institution sees fit to interrupt the lives of clearly uninterested people repeatedly, to act as though they are entitled to the lives of others, that really seems to irk the ex-members I know.
Hey folks, check it out! nooneinparticular has declared that he’s going to stop harassing me. Fucking SWEET!
@ skeptifem #122 – Don’t worry, you didn’t come across as telling me that I should go over – I just finally seem to have hit a wall in how much of that particular mindset I can tangle with and I didn’t expect to get so burned out just reading her piece and her comments. It just got to the point where I can’t seem to even process it right now beyond “RAWRGRRRARGH!!!” because it’s so fucking pervasive.
And I know what you mean about women defending patriarchy as a way of trying to deal with the shitty hand we’re dealt. I’m ashamed to say when I was younger, I had a lot of internalized misogyny that took me years to recognize as such, often manifesting in the “I’m a special snowflake because most women are just stupid, shallow, whiny bitches who don’t know how to grow a thick skin like me!” idiocy. *winces* It’s been a very long process unpacking it and it’s hard, because sometimes thinking like that is a defensive way of telling yourself that sort of shit – harassment, rape, being discriminated against because you’re a woman – just won’t happen to you if you do X because you’re just so much better or smarter or tougher than those “other” women, when in fact you’re just lucky and likely benefitting from forms of privilege that you haven’t bothered to think about. But even though I understand some of the reasons why I thought that way, it still doesn’t excuse it, and I hate thinking that I was contributing to that shit in the same way that Redd is now. Reading her post is like hearing myself think when I was a teen/in my early 20s and it is not a pretty reflection at all.
I was reading over at Lousy Canuck a bit ago and he had some comments from a G+ person who commented that they thought it unfair that all men should be treated as potentially harmful when most aren’t. Only he doesn’t realize or doesn’t want to realize that a lot of women already view all men as potentially harmful because it’s virtually impossible to tell a asshat from a ‘regular guy’.
I think he doesn’t want to know that women view him that way irregardless of what he wants. There is no douchecanoe hat.
OH YEAH, a memory of really inappropriate witnessing just came to mind: Ohe time I found a jack chick tract in the “family room” at the cancer hospital I was working at.
For those who don’t know, the family room is usually where families get really bad news about their loved one (usually that they will die very soon or have a very low chance of survival). What kind of inhuman piece of shit puts a fucking chick tract in that room? Luckily I stole it for my personal religious propaganda collection.
Improbable joe @133
LOL!
Srsly. That was funny.
@skeptifem #132
I can add to the experience of ex-Mormons, being one myself. As my family is still Mormon, they’ll give my name and contact information to the missionaries once in a while, or let the local congregation know who I am and that I should be attending church with them. As such, there will be times when I have multiple unwelcome visitors per week, each of them smiling sweetly and asking if they can please come inside and share a spiritual message with me. Having grown up in the church, I know that it’s considered rude, if not sinful, not to allow purveyors of God’s message to intrude upon your time.
I’m both rude and sinful in this sense. :P
Shit, I guess dood is back to harassing me already.
To summarise:
The author of the linked blog tells me I should happily attend TAM, not noticing that she does her best to dissuade women by virtue of the posts on her blog.
If the comments on her blog are / were a genuine representation of the type of person to attend TAM, I’m led to believe it will be full of people who are likely to a) tell me to except being harassed, but that b) they get to define when it’s harassment and when it’s just “normal”; they’ll likely c) tell me to grow a thicker skin, and d) will blame me for not reporting (because I am too weak, and to blame when others are harassed) AND e) blame me for reporting, too (because it makes the conference look bad).
Thanks, but no thanks.
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
Yes, you can certainly use my comment here for a wiki, that is perfectly okay with me.
@nooneinparticular
I think this is where a lot of the argument gets bogged down. There is a whole range of behavior that affects women in different ways, from out and out sexual assault to harassment to simply an environment that they do not wish to be in.
I cannot speak for Improbable Joe, but when I elaborated on why I think the religious proselytizer comparison was a good one, I did not mean to use that as some bright line definition for harassment. What I meant was that the analogy is a good tool to use to try to make a person who has never experienced receiving a lot of unwanted attention understand what it might be like.
I am not saying that if TAM allowed missionaries to purchase tickets and come in and attempt to convert attendees throughout the weekend that it would be harassment. But I do believe that the number of attendees would drop if they were told that they could “expect” this to happen as part of TAM and when they complained at how it ruined the fun of the event for them were told “well, just tell them no.”
I also think that even if something is not technically harassment in an isolated instance, if it is happening to you repeatedly from different sources, it can FEEL like harassment. That’s why the “hostile environment” standard is part of a workplace sexual harassment assessment in addition to the “quid pro quo” standard – because little things can add up when they are experienced repeatedly.
There seems to be a large group who think that if women don’t feel comfortable in a certain environment that the way to get them to come there anyway is to explain how they are wrong. I think the analogy is useful to help in understanding why that won’t work, and in helping to explain why some women might not want to attend EVEN if they don’t feel that behavior is actual harassment.
Fucking hell, what?
“Statistics are not valid proof.” Now, I know the saying goes, “lies, damn lies, and statistics,” but SERIOUSLY? Statistics may not be complete, watertight proof (insofar as something exists) but they do waggle their eyebrows suggestively and say, “hey, look what I’ve found over here. Come see this.” I just… what is this I don’t even?
Beethovenfangirl – and that is exactly why I would not go to TAM at all if I had the funds to allocate for attending a skeptic conference in the first place. It’s not because of anything Rebecca or Greta or Stephanie or PZ or anyone else talking about sexism, misogyny and harassment in skepticism has said – it’s because of how DJG, Emery, Redd and others like them have reacted to that discussion. They’ve clearly indicated that TAM is chock full of the kind of people I try to avoid dealing with IRL all the time, so why the fuck should I pay for the privilege of being subjected to them? Frankly, if it weren’t for communities like Pharyngula or Skepchick, I’d be afraid there was no salvaging skepticism as a movement at all.
You know, when I made the analogy about the god botherers and sales-critters following you around everywhere, my point wasn’t that it is just like sexual harassment/hitting on women. My point is that it a lower level of harassment that is nevertheless taken more seriously than sexual harassment seems to be. If people kept sliding into your booth at the local Denny’s without an invitation and tried to sell you security systems and swimming pools and sunrooms, everyone would be annoyed. Somehow if they are asking for access to your body for their pleasure rather than a cash investment, it is LESS obviously harassment?
That’s just fucking insane.
yes, you do. We all know this women IRL. The one who will say anything to distinguish herself from “those crazy bitchez”, because that will magically protect her from what she dishes out on others.
She’s spineless, but convinced she’s He-man, Master of the Universe.
It is okay with me that she thinks that, it isn’t okay with me that she disregards the anecdotes that don’t support her view. That is really dishonest.
nooneinparticular, Brilliant rebuttal. Expresses exactly the level of discourse I have come to expect from you.
I took it as way of saying that evidence does not matter to her, and that her mind will never be swayed by it.
violet
Thanks. Well said. I didn’t really want to bog down any discussion and I take your point. I do understand how a hostile environment can “feel like harassment” but was discombobulated by the analogy IJ proposed in as much as the isolated incidents I proposed as an extension of his analogy do not, in themselves, constitute harassment. But he was making a different point with his analogy altogether. I conceded (upthread) his point; he is correct.
I have a vision of TAM: After her speech Ophelia, Surly Amy and some friends set off to have a great party somewhere else.
In the meantime Mallorie Nasrallah, Sara Mayhew and Redd are left with the guys and treated the exact same way they said they like and welcome and find absolutely accetable. Nothing more. Just what they’re telling other women to take.
++++
I got harassing phone-calls. I asked a friend of mine who’s a cop what could be done, if I could report him. He told me the only thing I could do was to change my phone-number.
Yeah, that was really helpful.
++++
Everything Improbably Joe said.
To elaborate more on the prosletyzer/ harasser/ hitter analogy:
Both sets consist of people who are utterly convinced that their needs and </their desires absolutely trump the needs and desires of the people they’re hitting on. And each and every one of them can be reasonably sure that their advances are absolutely NOT welcome before they open their mouth for the first time.
Louis @90
Well yes, unfortunately, even in relatively enlightened modern western societies it means a fundamental change to patterns large and small woven throughout our cultures. That this is reflected in microcosm at conferences is not surprising. Even skeptical/secular ones.
Recognizing women as equals to men with the same rights and opportunities is perhaps the most radical cultural change we will have seen in human history. Resistance to these changes will be ferocious and in many parts of the world, violent.
Of course if all we have to deal with in our part of the world/society are pathetic trolls whining “what about teh menz?”, “how are we gonna get laid if we can’t hit on chicks?”, “why don’t you girls just take proper precautions?”, etc, etc, etc… We can count ourselves rather lucky.
. . .
One other thing…
I agree with those who don’t see “hitting on” and flirting as the same thing. “Hitting on” clearly implies aggressive and one sided behavior. Flirting is (to me at least) mutual displays of attraction/interest building, or not, to increasing levels of intimacy.
It may be arguable that “hitting on” someone does not always constitute harassment, but this does feel like one slope that actually is slippery. How many times does the target have to decline/demure/reject/evade the unwanted attention before it becomes harassment?
I would be inclined to say: First time can be forgiven as cluelessness, clumsiness, misreading, etc. Second time is borderline asshole. Third time report the harassing behavior.
I realize this leaves PUAs the option of taking one swing at every woman in the room, but, if this can be observed perhaps the three times rule would work as well.
Am I being too generous?
There is simply no excuse for failing to mind one’s manners or to behave in anything less than a gentlemanly way, be it at TAM or any other gathering. I offer an open call to men and women alike, to be more courteous. Anyone should be able to attend TAM, or any other public event, with every expectation of finding a safe, positive atmosphere in which to meet and share common interests. Let’s not allow one or two idiots to ruin the wonderful opportunities we have to interact and learn from each other. We (men) are not all Neanderthals, but I certainly understand the concerns. Thank you for reading and, Cheers!
kokobean:
That’s a lovely idea, but the problem is not only that it is impossible to know which of the multitude of men in the room are the “idiots*,” but as has been made clear over the past year especially, for every one “idiot” who does the wrong thing there seem to a a few dozen people who will defend the perpetrator and blame the victim. And some of those people are the ones in charge, the ones who the victims of harassment are supposed to count on to deal with those “idiots.”
*”Idiots” is in quotation marks because predators are smart and know exactly what they are doing.
kumbaya
Just think how many more atheists there could be if the male half of the species didn’t contain so many repulsive jerks.
brianl @68:
And you’re not the only one. It would be a derail over here, but a few of us are hashing out critiques of nonprofit governance at Stephanie’s place. Come play.
It’s easy to see why many women are reluctant to spend valuable time and money going to The Attempted Mating, especially with all the defenders of the dudez right to, well, attempt. While there’s nothing wrong with a polite request for conversation in the right context, women would rather a guy heeded any ‘not welcome’ signals and went away long before mace spray and the security bell are required.
Unfortunately for some guys, along with learning there was no god they were learning that “no” means “try harder”, and that their atheism was a pheromone which every woman was turned on by despite some not being able to admit it. Sure, they’re a minority, but TAM is Pontius-Pilating over them, saying “They’re just part of life; if having your neck treated like an icecream gets too much, call security.”. What they need is to be told to fuck off and grow up.
I lol’d
I will never more see it any other way.
Except that the repulsive jerks would tell you that there’d be more atheists if the female half of the population would just stop being so damned picky and/or know their place.
I have a no trespassing or solicitation sign in front of my house. Coming up to my door to thump a bible at me means someone must walk past that sign and disregard it. This means they have already ignored a ‘no’. The first knock is therefore harassment.
Let’s translate that now to body language.
Person 1 – Open stance, making eye contact, returning a smile with a smile
Person 2 – Turned away, avoiding eye contact, immediately breaking eye contact if it is accidentally made, directing attention to an activity rather than returning attention.
Person 1 has a ‘welcome’ sign. Person 2 has a ‘no trespassing or solicitation’ sign.
Now, let’s move on to phase two, shall we?
Interaction 1 – smile, maybe nod, wait for either to be returned, then begin conversation with ‘Enjoying the convention so far?’
Interaction 2 – Walk right up and say “You are hot. We should have sexy times together.”
Observe the difference between the two interactions.
In the first, you are engaging a person. Your intent may be ‘I would like access to your naughty bits’, but you are still engaging the person attached to the aforementioned naughty bits and allowing that person a chance to indicate whether or not he or she is receptive to conversation regarding said naughty bits. This is the equivalent to ringing the doorbell and waiting for someone to come to the door. In the second, you are treating the individual as a target and not giving them a chance to engage or disengage. This is the equivalent of opening the door and walking right in.
Now, nobody here is saying ‘you aren’t allowed to preach’. What we are saying is that you aren’t allowed to ignore ‘no solicitation’ signs and barge right in to people’s houses.
If you look for a welcome mat, ring the doorbell, and allow the other person to indicate whether or not they are interested and then…this is also important…take no for an answer and accept rejection with dignity, you are not harassing anyone and nobody is going to complain about you. Also, get this…you are also vastly more likely to actually get positive results.
Yes, that’s right. This advice we are giving you to not sexually harass folks? It is actually going to INCREASE your chances of getting access to naughty bits. And even when access is to naughty bits are declined, you will get the ‘consolation prize’ of meeting interesting people who don’t think you are an asshole.
Thank you. I needed that.
In the town I grew up, a police officer was regularly pulling women over and threatening to cite them for egregious traffic offenses unless they performed various sexual acts upon him.
Last time I was in a casino and had occasion to speak to a member of security, he called me ‘babe’ and never took his eyes off my breasts.
I used to be a security guard. One of the guards kept ‘patrolling’ the opposite gender dressing/bath rooms. When a complaint would come in about his behavior, the supervisor would high-five him and ask if the complainer’s ‘tits were perky’.
I forget…why exactly are we supposed to call the ‘law’?
violet and Improbable Joe, thanks!
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Sexual_proselytizing
Dudebros,
There is one other thing you need to consider about the whole ‘flirting game’.
In this particular game, all you need to worry about is being told ‘no’. Maybe being told ‘no’ in a mocking manner. At worst, someone throws a drink at you or a security guard says ‘not cool’ and asks you to leave. That’s it. That’s how bad it gets for you.
The women involved? We need to worry about being groped, threatened, stalked, raped, kidnapped, tortured, and/or murdered. And presented with additional threats when we try to prevent any of those from happening.
So, explain to me again why you are so pissy that we don’t want to play this particular game? At the very least, all we are asking is for a few rules to be put in place.
Honestly, if your a woman at an event like TAM, expect to be hit on.
Actually, if I were a woman at TAM I’d expect to… you know… Hear speeches and discussions about skepticism! I mean, call me insane, but I thought that was the whole point of these events.
Hitting on someone is a lot like hitting someone. If you’re not absolutely sure they want it, then don’t do it.
Well, that’s the fundamental disconnect, isn’t, Akira? You think of women as fellow human beings. A large contingent of guys see us not as fellow skeptics but as ambulatory decor/fucktoys. We don’t go to skeptic events to hear speakers, no, that’s what
peoplemen do. Women go to conferences hoping to fuck the speaker. Or get our picture taken next to Richard Dawkins while wearing our favorite new dress and thrusting out our bosoms provocatively. We’re not there as people in our own right, we’re there to provide eye candy service, entertainment, and sexual gratification toreal human beingsmen.Of course none of them ever think about it in terms quite so explicit as that, but that’s how it works with long-held cultural patterns and assumptions.
@ chigau:
See, this is what brianl is talking about. Some of these things, TAM will never get over, even if they get a grip now.
psanity
If They™ handle it correctly, 10 years from now it could be a slightly embarrassing joke:
“Haha. Gosh we were a bunch of dumbasses!”
Think that’ll happen?
Redd:
No, a thousand times no.
If you want to treat people like human beings it is a big deal. If you want anyone to turn up at your meeting, it is a big deal. You’re saying its ‘no big deal’ for people to be subject to any creepy or obnoxious behavior that falls even a tiny bit short of some definition of harassment. That is a statement with zero empathy.
Its not OK that some people are being subjected to this unpleasant behavior that makes them profoundly uncomfortable. We might not be able to fully prevent it, but we sure as hell can make sure we don’t make it worse by supporting it.
chigau
Y’know, I really hope so. I really do. As I just said in the other thread, maybe they’re busy working on it, and that’s why they’re so conspicuously quiet.
Quoted in Saraface #142
Statistics may not be valid “proof”, according to this commenter, but they are evidence.
@ 4 Gnumann
At the risk of thread-jacking, I am put off by the idea of Jillette as a speaker at a skeptics meeting. An atheists’ meeting, OK, but skeptics? He’s the least skeptical celebrity I can think of. I can’t stand to listen to him or read any of his crap anymore because he behaves like a creationist: intellectual dishonesty and hand-waving away evidence. To wit, when a creationist on the Texas Board of Ed., Don McLeroy, declared “Someone has to stand up to experts” skeptics quite rightly laughed at the illogic, arrogance and idiocy of that remark. But when Penn Jillette says pretty much the same thing regarding education reform he’s invited to speak at TAM (?!?!). Jillette also commented regarding the crash of 08 that (I paraphrase) regulations were in place but they didn’t work (his point: regulations are pointless) – thereby ignoring 20 years of deregulation the way creationists hand-wave away evidence of evolution.
I find the hypocrisy of his speaking at a skeptics con irksome. Is it too much to ask that the speakers at TAM be, well, skeptics? Who will they invite to speak next year, Roy Comfort?
@SallyStrange
You think of women as fellow human beings. A large contingent of guys see us not as fellow skeptics but as ambulatory decor/fucktoys.
I stopped trying to find logical reasons for “geek” culture’s attitudes about the topics of women and sex some time ago. Yeah, yeah, fellas! I know. You’re sexually inexperienced and socially awkward. I get it. I’ve been there too. However, that’s not an excuse to thinking that just because you share some interests (be it skepticism, atheism, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, RPGs, model building, etc.) you are entitled to a woman’s… well… to a woman’s anything! Not her attention. Not her time, not her opinions of you, and certainly not her body. She’s there to enjoy whatever topic the event is about, and not to be bedded by you.
Now, that’s not to say that shared interests can’t be the start toward something more. In fact, I think they’re excellent starts. Nor am I saying that “extracurricular” activity should be frowned upon at these events. Romance (or even just casual lust) can bloom between people anywhere, but cast-iron law remains in effect: “No” means “no.” That, and there is a time and place for everything. Flirting maybe acceptable at a “singles mixer” or a room party (again, “No” means “no,” still applies), but a pass delivered in a elevator at 4 am to a tired speaker who just mentioned that she wants to catch some sleep? Sorry, that doesn’t fly.
Nor does handing an explicit picture or yourself and your SO in hopes of arranging a threesome.
And creeps with cameras on extendable monopods who take up-skirt shots? Do I even have to tell you that’s wrong?
Come on fellow geeks! This isn’t rocket science, guys! Use your fricken heads! (No! Not that one! Put that back in your pants!) Hey! Here’s a thought! Maybe if you treat her like a human being she might start to like you, maybe enough to date you? Huh? Think about it, guys.
We should go to the events because we enjoy them. If you met someone special there, bonus, good for you! I wish you both every pleasure and happiness that two crazy kids in love can share.
However, all that is ruined for everyone when you let them become stalking grounds for nerds with frat-boy mentalities.
I agree with Beatrice.
–
And, if they are forbidden the possibility to convert you at every conceivable opportunity, then the human race will just die out!
–
And religious proselytizers seldom insist on standing waytooclose, or touching you.
–
Which demonstrably works, inasmuch as burka-clad women are never groped or raped. And anything anybody reads to the contrary is obviously a lie. Just as those terribly attractive prairie-style dresses obviously prevents rape in Xian communities.
</sarcasm>
–
Bingo, fireweaver, and welcome to the Real World.
Actually, I suspect that it’s more that misogyny and religion (at least frequently) each provide covering fire for the other. They feed each other.
–
@sadunlap
I am put off by the idea of Jillette as a speaker at a skeptics meeting. An atheists’ meeting, OK, but skeptics?
Jillette get’s points among the JREF crowd because 1) he’s a skeptic toward supernatural claims like psychics, ghosts, mediums, etc., and 2) he’s a magician like Randi. However, JREF has become pretty selective regarding what topics they’ll choose to be “skeptical” about. You can doubt that Yuri Geller can bend spoons with his mind, but libertarian economic dogma (like the ones that Penn holds) seem to be outside JREFs pervue.
I’m also willing to bet that Jillette drops a pretty big wad of cash into JREF’s donation plate each year. That always helps get you a place at the rostrum.
Oh no… the whole “libertarian” thing got mentioned again. Good times!
@Improbable Joe
Yeah, that’s my bad. Sorry. Better batten down the hatches and lock and load. Things could turn ugly in here as soon as some Ayn Rand reading sociopath comes in here to lecture us on the virtues of throwing poor people to the figurative wolves.
@Improbable Joe:
Oh no… the whole “libertarian” thing got mentioned again.
Yeah, that’s my bad. Sorry.
Oh well, nothing to do now but batten down the hatches and lock and load. Things could turn ugly in here if some Ayn-Rand-reading sociopath comes in to argue that it’s only moral to throw poor people to the figurative wolves.
Speaking of which, did you know that a libertarian can detect online criticism of their politics from 10 blogs away?
@Akira MacKenzie:
A libertarian can sniff out criticism from 100 miles away, but can’t recognize their privilege or inconsistent viewpoints when shoved right in their face.
No need to repeat yourself.
I disagree. I’ll leave it at that.
Or literal wolves, as long as you can get them to sign a contract waiving their right to not be mauled.
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarians
@Improbable Joe:
Hush! I’m putting out some chew-toy bait here. The L-people might be tedious bores, but at least they’re not rape apolo….. Errr….
I’m sorry. My bad.
@dysomniak:
Totally unfair. Most people read it and eventually reject it for the badly-written sociopathic stupidity that it is. The rest apparently comment on the JREF forums and troll the comments at FtB.
Or, once government is disbanded and everything is privatized, literal wolves as long as you are richer than anyone who might go after you once your victim has been mauled.
Of course libertarians are rape apologists. After all, their solution for every problem is for the “free market” to deal with it. So rape victims can have their revenge by refusing to buy anything from their rapist… or something. I’m not a sociopath, so I can’t quite get a grip on the logic.
To quote my favorite movie of all time:
“THEY’RE COMING OUT OF THE WALLS!!! THEY’RE COMING OUT OF THE GODDAMN WALLS!!!”
M. Baines, “When the Nightwatchman is a Werewolf: Contract Law and Lycanthropy in a Minimalist State,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 32 (2003): 57.
If Penn Jillette were asked to explain the difference between catsup and cocktail sauce, he’d probably find the need to include ten nude, surgically enhanced and compliantly smiling, silent women to use as stage props.
Or not, maybe I should apologize, maybe he’s not actually like that in real life, maybe that’s just the persona and values he projects into our culture and into the eyes and ears of tens of millions of people.
We’ve seen the strain of MRA BS thought that pervades “Libertarian” circles, is it any surprise that a meeting that embraces libertarians and uses one as a “draw” is welcoming to narcissistic sexist asshats?
If not, then how about this…
If one of your key attractions is a Professional Misogynist, is it a surprise that some of those attracted might also be misogynists?
Hey, I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy who does those “Girls Gone Wild” videos is a Libertarian too, and maybe even an atheist. I’m sure he considers himself his own version of a skeptic.
Why not book him next year?
I was at TAM last year. I attended Penn’s donut and bacon party.
I had a great time, until the last song.
Penn had written new words to the tune My Boyfriend’s Back.
In the real song, a high school girl tells a boy who’s been telling lies about her–after she turned down his proposition–“my boyfriend’s back and you’re gonna be in trouble”.
Penn explained that the song always troubled him. In his version, the boyfriend refuses to stick up for his girlfriend, because he doesn’t want to get into a fight, and “I’m OK with polyamory.”
One line of his went something like, “stick a cock in her mouth and shut her up.”
Colour me surprised in all the colours of the rainbow (better stick on uv and ir too).
On a less sarcastic note: that’s the Penn Jilette we’ve all learned to know and loathe. I get a bit of sick in my mouth when I think of the time I actually liked his shows (ironically since Teller seemed like a respite from the half-naked-assistant-thing)
Glad this thread is highjacked; I’m so tired of E-Gate.
Yeah, Penn Jillette is annoying if portrayed as a skeptic. His “Bullshit” series had many complete nonsense episodes. They started out by attacking things that were inarguably “bullshit”: astrology, homeopathy, UFOs, conspiracy theories. Then, he starts veering in shows on public policy with the same air of certitude and ridicule:
For the endangered species episode, they interviewed a guy from the American Enterprise Institute. (Gee, _that’s_ a non-partisan commentator.) I’m pretty sure he (like Ron Paul) would say it’s just fine for a restaurant owner to refuse to serve people based on their race (“It’s their business.”) The common thread is that it all ties in with his Libertarianism. He so sure he’s right about it, that he maintains that non-Libertarian policy opinions are as nonsensical as belief in UFOs.
It’s quite a blind spot for someone who’s obviously so intelligent. And what gives me pause when someone displays intellectual lapses like that is, If he can make such catastrophic errors of logic in that area, why isn’t he a believer in God? If you can go so far off the deep end in one area, why not the other?
I think he’s at heart a Randian Libertarian first, and an atheist second. Reason isn’t what drives him, but that selfish Libertarian concept of absolute freedom. He eschews “big government,” so naturally he eschews “big god.”
psst – it really isn’t.
And I’m on the phone right now, so can’t check properly, but I think you’re the first one to mention e-gate…
He has said this. Numerous times. Check his radio show, old blog posts, etc. I’m sure as hell not going to do the digging but it shouldn’t take long.
At the risk of ruffling a few feathers, and raising a few eyebrows, I’m going to wonder aloud if this phenomenon of “hitting on” women at conferences is preponderantly American.
I’ve been to a few conferences, my husband has been to a few more, all mostly in Australasia/Asia and Europe. It was NEVER noticeable.
Until…I went to the GAC in April. There, in a bar, excited about meeting the Poopyhead himself, I found myself in animated conversation with a man of the American persuasion. I thought we were having a swell time, then I remarked that my husband would be joining us shortly, and registered his markedly pissed-off, I’ve been short-changed – expression.
Call me naïve, (you’d be correct) but I really was surprised. It was disappointing, and a little frightening. I felt as if my worth had been diminished. If American women are subject to such treatment and regard as a matter of course, then they really, really have a lot to complain about.
It’s just banal. Put ‘Must Do Better’ on the report card.
Well obviously she’s already supposed to have a contract with a security company, who will then follow their contract and find the culprit and extract monetary compensation.
S as long as she’s got enough money, she can get paid. Also, it would help if her rapist isn’t extremely rich and can therefore rape with impunity as long as he pays the rape tax, or isn’t so poor that the effort is wasted, or doesn’t work for her contractors, or isn’t an immediate family member…. so statistically she’s got quite a bit of odds to beat on the slot machine of rape payoffs here.
But it doesn’t really matter how it works, we can just know that whatever we set up will be better than the current system since it won’t be run by that theiving gubmint!
Sorry, I’ve several family members who insist that this system is best, but don’t seem to feel that the obvious, glaring, critical flaws are worth examination. After all, we all know the kind of woman who gets herself raped so who cares? *retch*
I think it’s not so much “conferences” as interest-based rather than professional meetings. I’ve not encountered any problems at professional meetings (not to say it never happens,of course). But some harassment at various other types of things. Choral societies, mainly in my experience. I hear it happens in sporting groups a lot.
Amblebury,
My experience (and that of my wife) would concord with what you’re saying too.
In truth I doubt we can make any general statements other than certain outgrowths of misogyny are more expressed in some cultures than others. None of us are off the hook. I might be doing you a disservice but IIRC you’re a Brit like me. To pick one example those Yanks might have the “conference hit on” side nailed (and I have no evidence other than anecdote to suggest they do have this problem more than we do) and we have tits on page 3 of a major daily newspaper. What better way to reinforce cultural misogyny than the daily message that women are breast possessors and little else?
I think it’s inarguable that misogyny is a cross cultural phenomenon, and I’m not sure that if American expressions of it are different from British ones, it’s much more significant than a difference of accent. I am freely pleading ignorance here though, I haven’t made any sort of in depth study, this isn’t my area of expertise and I have enough to be getting on with! I can’t do all the research all the time. I’ll add it to the list! ;-)
I can see how “expression of misogyny A” is not/might not be equal to “expression of misogyny B” in terms of results/harm etc, but I see that conversation going no where fast when applied to considerations of international differences!
Louis
Actually I’d be really interested in the Horde’s opinions of what the differences are (if any) between UK-style sexism and US-style – specifically from the point of view of a young UK woman soon(ish) to be visiting the US for the first time. A dos and don’ts advice request, really. Hmm, better take this to TET, perhaps?
Misogyny is definitely present on both sides of the pond. But, having lived in the US and Germany, I think I noticed that the dating culture differs quite a bit, with the US variety generally being more conservative and formal in its procedure – more emphasis on the guy picking up “the girl” and so on, pretty specific ideas about how quickly to proceed (was BJ supposed to be on the second or third date, I get confused), and at the same time more emphasis on “scoring” on the guys’ side and other metaphors related to hunting and sports. While the German side is not free of misogyny at all, I would not be surprised if it turned out that it manifests itself differently in day to day interactions for example at conferences because of these cultural differences.
Have to leave computer for a bit; eager to peruse your possible thoughts on that later.
Tyrant, that’s pretty much how I imagine it. I would think it would be very easy for someone from the other side to mis-read a situation.
Stevarious:
My human rights are not for sale at ANY price. And paltry child support payments is NOWHERE NEAR adequate compensation for the pain, trauma, disfigurement, permanent side effects, debilitated long-term health consequences that diminish one’s quality of life, and risk of death that would be forced on a woman against her will.
Forced pregnancy and childbirth is no more moral than any other form of forced organ donation. A law passed to remove a woman’s right to abortion and birth control, regardless of how you want to argue it, would not pass Constitutional muster if both men and women alike could get pregnant. Therefore, such a law would only be Constitutional if the burden, in law and practice, was imposed equally on everyone — not just on the convenient, traditional “losers.”
No “pro-life” laws exist anywhere that force men to suffer trauma, pain, disfigurement and risk of death from mandatory kidney donation surgery to save the life of another — even if the person in need of it is his own child who would otherwise die without it. No man ever suffered disfigurement, maiming, or death as a result of not being able to get it up. Men have no one refusing to fill their Viagra prescriptions so that they can have all the sex they want — whether it is consensual for the woman or not, outside of a committed relationship or not, and whether it is an extra-marital one-night stand or not.
No one has the right to the use of, or to coerce the use of, another’s body — in whole or in part — against their will. Even if some paltry stipend were involved. The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling on McFall v. Shimp, 1978 agrees with me. So do the federal courts on Angela Carder In Re which established the rights of pregnant women to determine their own health care, and the architects of the UN Convention on Torture (ratified by the US Senate in 1994) and Article 7(g) of the Rome Statute in the ICC at the Hague.
If I’m not entitled to my protection, then you’re not entitled to your erection. Your money has nothing to do with it. But your mentality about your having money (and economic power over poor women) automatically entitling you to force the use of women’s bodies against our will reveals a lot about you.
The mentality of some john who thinks he can inflict whatever harm he wants to a woman’s body and/or psyche because he “rented” her vagina for an hour is not much different than that of a man who thinks he has the right to forcibly conscript ALL women into reproductive enslavement against our will, no matter the harm, cost and peril to us, because he feels entitled to our uteri and injure, maim or possibly kill us prematurely with forced childbirth — just because he can, male privilege and all.
America deserves the Scott Peterson Award for misogyny, and men who trivialize or minimize the deprivation of women’s human rights to have a say in what happens to our bodies are NOT women’s allies or friends. The only difference between America’s homegrown misogynists and the Taliban is 8,000 miles.
Yes, but it’s more than about misreading situations. I don’t know whether the dating system in the US causes more victimization of women as compared to Europe (some googleing even seemed to indicate the opposite, but I am at a loss for a good metastudy), but these differences can be relevant for the appearance of sexual harassment at conferences etc: for example, I suspect that a more rigid conservative dating system, in combination with misreading cues, can lead to a stronger sense of entitlement on the men’s side (“She let me buy dinner three times, now she better put out”).
Jacqueline Homan, you are aware that Stevarian was just mockingly repeating misogynist arguments and wasn’t actually stating that as a serious argument against women having control of their own bodies, right? If you knew that and decided to argue against the point anyway, that’s fair, since there are plenty of misogynists who no doubt would actually use that argument seriously.
Say as much or as little as you like. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I do, however, love that you discourage women from going to security or police because it will be “dismissed” — wow, talk about not doing ANYTHING to help solve the problem. Sure, some women have had bad experiences. This INCLUDES me. But, if those who are capable don’t report it, then it will never be something that women who are afraid to “come out” about will ever feel safe doing.
I encourage anyone who wants to continue dropping bombs on me to do so, and I will simply return the favor. Because in reality, If this is what it takes to make someone aware of this ability… Drop ’em all day. I support it. I encourage it. I EXPECT it.
Yeah, Palladium I got his sarcasm because I saw the ::rolls eyes:: part at the end of his post. My post was to make a case as sort of a public smack-down to any lurking MRA/PUA’s. However, my post has a major typing error/omission that I did not notice until AFTER I hit the “Submit” button and there was no way for me to go back to edit it. What it SHOULD HAVE said in the beginning was “For anyone making the case that money entitles the coerced/forced use of others’ bodily organ systems, in whole or in part, against their will:…”
But my thoughts were racing while I was also trying to fix my supper while doing my post. All this while on the phone with my South Carolina feminist and atheist activist friend who related to me more incidents of clinic terrorism while he was doing volunteer escort duty. My bad for rushing through a post while having other things on my plate. Sometimes collapsing time frames just doesn’t work out very well. Especially when one is running on a sleep deficit.
caseygaspari, did you forget your sarcasm tags?
If not…. I think you need to re-read some of the comments here for comprehension. Then again, maybe I do, because I certainly don’t see anyone trying to “discourage women from going to security or police because it will be “dismissed””.
I hope you don’t mean to lend your voice to the crowd trying to argue that the victims are the ones who need to change their behaviour.
Damn, my own sarcasm tags got lost. Whoops.
@caseygaspari
When I was in high school, my best friend told me she was raped. I told her she should tell the adults (school counselor, police, etc) what had happened because I believed they would help her. The police (at least); they blamed her, shamed her, and spoiled any possible chance of getting a conviction.
If I had known this was going to happen, or had a high probability of happening (and I did not), then I had the responsibility to tell her this. Why? Because she had the right to make decisions based on sound knowledge of what was going to happen (or what was likely to happen). If I had known what the police were going to do (or likely to do) and not told her, that would have been wrong of me. It is not reasonable or ethical for me to withhold information from her so that her actions will match with my desires. Furthermore, once I gained knowledge of what could happen to someone who is reporting via experience, it is not reasonable to hide this from women who come to me in the future.
Do I think people should report? Yes. But I think women have the right to make informed decisions about all their actions, and that includes reporting. Besides, it isn’t like women aren’t going to find out if we don’t tell them; my friend certainly got a first hand experience in the trauma of reporting, and she vowed to never report anything again. Perhaps if she had been properly prepared, if had had the opportunity to assess the benefits vs reward, to weigh the risks, to get further support if she could, things wouldn’t have turned out the way they did. But neither of us knew what was coming, and if someone did know, they didn’t feel inclined to tell us.
Tyrant of Skepsis
Certainly seems plausible. Ugh.
Alright, without any sarcasm* (let’s see if I can manage this):
To summarize the ‘other’ side of all this:
“Of course you should report any problems! We really want to know if there’s a problem! Just remember that your discomfort is not a problem. No, it’s not. Stop your whining. Oh, and come hang out with us! What? Why not?!?”
Yep, makes perfect sense.*
*Crap. Couldn’t do it.
“(although, in the case of women complaining of harassment, we’re more likely to see the problem treated dismissively)”
If that’s not discouraging someone, then my bad. again, i’ve got it all wrong.
@Erista
Many people have brought up other situations to me, and while I have apologized that those things have happened (again, I have had it happen to me, and people seem to be ignoring this). That said, no two incidents are exactly the same, and these conferences, or even “TAM” itself… are a bit different from say, nightclub incidents, family or school related incidents, or work related incidents.
But again, the point is… if 2 people report harassment, they might be dismissed. OR they might be helped. There isn’t a definite “they will be treated badly,” or even “it’s likely it will be dismissed.” Furthermore, if 15 women report it and it’s not being taken seriously by any of them, by all means, it is most certainly the fault of security and police, and again, I am wrong. But if more women come forward, it becomes more serious, more obvious to those dismissing it that it is in fact a problem, and it encourages other women to do the same.
That said, I don’t know a security officer in vegas who isn’t willing to throw someone out of the casino. But I don’t know them all, so maybe i’m wrong.
This is my last post on this blog. I wish you all the best!
Ah, I see! Pointing out that there’s a problem is totally the problem here. Got it.
/sarcasm
(ha, remembered to ‘preview’ this time! w00t!)
from SOLVED:
Checkmate, feminists! Why are you discouraging women from reporting when they’re perfectly welcome to tell security their bullshit so they can “feel safer” or whatever?
caseygaspari @ 208:
No one has tried to discourage women from going to security or the police. Most have said (in a variety of ways) that “just tell security!” does not “solve” the sexual harassment problem (as was stated by Redd at the link).
Mostly because a lot of harassment is the low-level sort that police and security can’t do anything about even if they wanted to (micro-aggressions). Situations where security or police can step in are the more egregious offenses (groping, upskirt photography, etc.).
It would be great if I could go to security and say “Hey, that guy over there said I’d look better with my clothes off” and expect some sort of useful response, but I think we all know they’re going to say, “Um…just stay away from him.”
JREF is acting like the Catholic Church. End of debate.
ibbica @ 216:
Yep. Because all problems are solved automatically by not talking about them.
People who still don’t get it, think of it this way:
Being a woman in our society is like having an obviously athiest tattoo in a prominent location in a religious conservative community. Only you don’t choose to get the tattoo, you might not even agree with the tattoo, and you can’t get it removed.
So it’s not just the occasional preacher. It’s always. And some of them are quite nasty. And a significant minority believe you’re not a full person and don’t deserve rights like the right to vote or get a job that pays the same as someone else. Some think that because the law says everyone is equal, everyone is equal and you shouldn’t have any ability to enforce it even when it’s very obvious that you’re not being treated equally. Often these groups overlap. And you’re confronted with people insulting you as splash damage in casual conversation all the time. And some think they should be able to control what happens to you, and that you shouldn’t be able to offer medical consent to, say, psychiatric treatment – they should be able to make that decision for you, but don’t worry, they totes won’t have you committed against your will and subject you to potentially dangerous treatments (and hand you the bill after you get out) just because you’re athiest. It’s just that you can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
And even when people like you and get to know you, your tattoo will always be hanging over everything. If you’re complemented on your honesty, there will always be the unspoken “…for an atheist” tacked on at the end. You might be told you know scripture well (…for an atheist) or are trustworthy (…for an atheist) or are brave (…for an atheist). Nothing will ever be judged on your own merits. If you’re a good person, you’re a good person (…for an atheist). If you’re good at your job, you’ve got a good work ethic (…for an atheist).
And keep in mind: you didn’t choose it, you can’t take it off, and everyone can tell at a glance. Always.
@BCPA_Lady
…which is is exactly the response you’d get from caseygaspari, apparently.
Problem? What problem? I’m cool with it…
caseygaspari @ 208:
Did you even bother reading this thread? Because if so, that’s a piss-poor demonstration of reading comprehension skills.
Well, as someone who knows and respects PZ and knows and respects Redd, I feel obliged to voice some of my thoughts. I know I’ll probably be lambasted here. I was hesitant to join the conversation, but it’s an important one. FYI, I have a compulsive need to be liked, and the men in my family are known for avoiding conflict…
I guess I should preface by clarifying that I think the point of one group of people is that DJ Grothe has not done enough to promote the welfare of the female population at TAM or apologized sufficiently enough for implications made by him. Please correct me if that’s not the case. Because I think that that is the crux of the matter and that all of the rest may be peripheral to the main point.
A) First and foremost, I don’t think we should lose sight of the fact that we’re all on the same team. This issue seems to be putting a rift into out little community, and I just think we should keep in mind that our goals are probably the same.
B) Name calling doesn’t get us anywhere, and we’re all better than that. Try not to make judgments about people based on a few comments in the “heat of battle.” Some people are saying that now they wouldn’t go to TAM because of “people like Redd.” Then you’d miss out on opportunities to meet very nice people because they may have a different opinion from your own.
C) Respectfully, I don’t think that it’s patronizing that the thrust of Redd’s post was to take issues to security. To be Frank PZ, you make it sound obvious and yet no one mentioned in through any of FTB’s post or videos. And, well, I think it is a valid point. And it does provide a solution to an issue. Security is there to help to protect the patrons and investigate problems. And if you feel like security is being dismissive, do what you do when you’re on the phone with your cable company about an unresolved issue. Ask to speak to a supervisor. Go higher in the chain of command. And to the people who chastise Redd for saying that you won’t be taken seriously, and that it’s a fantasy world to think so? Pretty cynical IMO. There are many posts from people citing examples where they may not have been taken seriously by security, but I think we might be able to agree that this is an example of argument from personal experience and may not be representative of reality.
D) No one wants to be harassed. And I don’t think any of the people that I know at this type of meeting would tolerate seeing it either. If I see it happening, I’ll be the first to put a stop to it. But to say that TAM needs to have “a policy” is kind of smoke and mirrors in my opinion. Do other skeptical conferences have this policy (I’m asking a serious question because I don’t know)? Yes, legally it would be wise for them to do so. Yes, it would be encouraging step to fostering a welcoming environment. But at the end of the day it’s a statement on a piece of paper (sorry, a webpage…). And what exactly will be their zero tolerance policy? Banning them from the meeting? Kudos. I think that’s great. But what if it’s not a registered TAM patron? What then? You are in a public, not a private space. As I see it, TAM has very little control over the issue. They are limited legally in what they can do to enforce a harassment policy. Honestly PZ, you’re right. It’s not hard to understand that TAM should have something in place. Yet I fear though that it will be a declarative document without much in the way of force behind it. That’s why I like Redd’s comment to take it to security. That is the proper channel. That way it can be legally documented and investigated. Aside from banning a patron from the conference, TAM would have very little in the way of recourse even with a well stated policy in place. And do you think that a drunk, obnoxious guy being inappropriate with a female patron is going to be worried about getting thrown out? I suspect not, in the heat of the moment. My point is that the harassment may still occur even with a policy in place. Should they set up something too? Probably. I spoke with a friend who suggested that they have a “harassment hotline.” If you feel like you’re being harassed, call the number, speak to a TAM volunteer (hell, I’ll do it), give them the information, and then let them investigate the situation. Then that person can work with the victim and staff security to get all of the details for that situation.
E) Between my work and my interests I have been to scores of meetings, some small and some very large. And I don’t ever remember this being an issue. It doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been, by any stretch of the imagination. But why now? And why TAM? To say that there are many other meetings to go to also seems to me to be missing the point. Because I guarantee that the patronage is not very different at any of the other skeptical meetings. And I guarantee that if harassment occurs at TAM then it occurs at those meetings as well. It just seems to me that a good quality meeting is suffering unnecessarily at this point.
F) I don’t know if DJ is doing enough at this point to rectify the situation. Or if anyone else has discussed this issue directly with him. But we’re a small enough community that he can be contacted directly. My perception is that this whole “blow up” started between Rebecca and DJ. Maybe they should just sit down and have a chat about this. Maybe have a Google Chat with Rebecca and DJ to post and show that we can all be civil and understanding of each other’s concerns.
G) Now, this is my big issue that I know I’m going to get a lot of grief about… So I guess I now see the difference in all of the conversations between “feeling safe” and a “safe space.” And I don’t think that I am a poor, naïve simpleton. The formal concept was not part of my parlance for whatever reason. But a “safe space?” (failed to insert hyperlink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-space). Per PZ, “a place where women can feel comfortable speaking without risk of unwelcome advances.” Guess what. You’re not guaranteed to have a “safe space” at a public event. You’re not entitled to a “safe space” at a public event. Not by that Wiki definition anyway. Because the world is a great big place. Full of different people with different opinions. And some of them are just assholes. That’s just reality. We can say that we want to work toward this. But I think it’s pretty idealistic to create this “safe space” that everyone is talking about. If you want a “safe place,” stay at home. I mean always. Never leave the house. I’m not trying to be mean or cynical, I promise. I’m saying it because no one can guarantee that you will never be harassed ever at a meeting of any kind at any place in the world. No amount of effort can create this magical space in a public event in a casino in Las Vegas (or anywhere else). No matter what steps TAM takes. Harassment may still happen. And like I stated above, I fear that TAM will have little recourse. I think it’s what you do about the circumstances that you are under that makes the difference. 1) Be responsible and use common sense (again not putting any blame on the victim, just saying we all should use common sense and be aware of our surroundings). 2) If you perceive that you are being harassed, engage the person to stop and leave you alone. 3) If they don’t, find a friend, get to a public area, contact security. Give them all of the information about the situation. 4) Contact the help/information desk at TAM and relay the incident to them to see if the person harassing you is registered for the meeting. 5) Christ, if all else fails call me and I’ll help you. We need to be taking care of each other anyway.
H) I don’t know that I would have stated that “women should expect to be hit on” at TAM. Let’s face it, you all make great points that you’re going to this conference to learn and be engaged, not to be at a meat market. I’ve discussed this with Redd and I think that her point (at the risk of putting words in her mouth) is that at a conference like this there are many single men and women with very, very similar interests. You might expect that you’ll meet someone who is attractive and interesting. And that you might have to be aware that you will be approached at some point by the opposite sex.
I) I may be completely off mark. I may be missing the boat. And like I said I have a pathologic need to be liked…And to avoid conflict (please be kind to me ☺). All I know is that I went to TAM for the first time last year and I had a wonderful time. Insightful and intelligent speakers. Meeting interesting people. All in all just having fun. I don’t really know what a “TAM defender” is, but if it means someone who enjoyed the event then I guess I am. I’m not vested in TAM, and I haven’t yet been to any of the other big skeptical meetings. But, based on my prior experience, I just want to go again and have a good time. And I wish that some of the people that I’d like to see would still be going instead of boycotting based on something that seems to be resolvable fairly easily. With a little conversation, compassion, and common sense. Thank you.
Stopped reading here. Really do you think 3 paragraphs of sniveling toadying passive aggressive apologizing followed by that idiocy is going to make anyone read what you said?
Trim the fat and try again.
Also for fuck sake, TAM invites Penn and Teller; “we” are objectively NOT better than that.
Ugh! Nothing is as unattractive as this, NOTHING.
davidmcadams:
Prior to wondering why you’re not quite on point, start reading here:
how to find the plot if you’re just tuning in
Followed by:
timeline
Then go back, re-read what you just wrote, and decide if it’s really what you’d like to say to everyone who has been following the events closely.
Typical of a tone-trolling apologist to miss the point. Reporting shit doesn’t stop the shit from happening in the first place. What part of that do you have trouble with, so we can explain it to you in words of one syllable or less? Less in your case, as you are remarkably dense, not cogent and to the point.
Hmmm, that doesn’t bode well…
Why, oh why?
That’s good to know, but I am heartbroken to report that I can’t do you that favor. I don’t like you. You induce vomiting in me. I get ulcers from reading what comes out of your brain.
And isn’t that just such a shame… but I guess that’s the way things are, and I am already in my pajamas, so I guess, suck it up, women – And don’t make so much noise in the process, I like things harmonious because I am addicted to harmony.
I don’t know whether I should laugh or cry.
You selfish fucking hypocritical asshole
For someone with a great need to be liked you sure as hell haven’t put much effort into actually being likeable have you?
train wreck @ 224,
DJG is being criticized for blaming those who have been pointing out problems with TAM for causing falling attendences at TAM. And for saying there were no reported cases of harassment when there were.
What people are saying is that it would be nice if it would not come to harassment in the first place, that policies would be in place and the environment such that security or police do not have to be involved. Pay attention, for heavens sake.
You are a fucking idiot, mate.
If someone went around TAM groping scrotes or pepper spraying people, would we still have the “well no one is entitled to a safe space” shoulder shrugging?
@celticwolf – Thanks for the links. I think I’m up to speed. And considering some of the other drivel in this thread, I think my points are more than valid and pertinent.
I stand by my post despite the lack of brevity. I think I make good, cogent points as well. But I just LOVE your thoughtful, insightful character attacks. Very mature. Christ, I actually hope you don’t go to TAM.
@Tyyrant of Skepsis and We Are Ing The Matrimonial Collective- Can you not see any humor in a post in addition to any points I’ve made? And nice of your selective reading to crop one tidbit out without commenting on anything else.
But all our problems are solved!! if only we report and make sure to take precautions, all of this can be avoided!!! if not, it’s totally our fault for not staying home!! cuz home is always a safe place!!! totally!!!111!!!
OMG!!!111!! I never knew this!!! I’ll just have to stay home!!! cuz that’s totally safe!!!!!!!
davidmcadams, honestly, if you don’t like conflict and want to be liked a good first step would be to avoid posting this kind of rubbish. Your post demonstrates that you haven’t read or thought much (at all?) about the issue but want a cookie for writing something that looks (utterly) superficially “wise” and “thoughtful”.
Bollocks, pal. You haven’t actually thought for one second about what people have said on this issue. You think this is a matter of Watson and Grothe sitting down together and having a chat? As if this were just a personal matter between two individuals? Give me strength. You haver on about how no public space can be guaranteed safe because what if it’s not a TAM attendee and the world is full of assholes … as if that somehow means there’s no point to having an anti-harassment policy? This is about TAM aiming to do a little better than the below-ground-level-of-low bar set by public spaces in general. About making it clear that TAM policy, what they are aiming at, is to be equally welcoming to women and men. An anti-harassment policy, with clear guidelines for taking action and clear announcements of who to turn to, is just a start. A drop in the bucket.
Go and bloody read what people have said. It doesn’t take a genius to understand the distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, it really doesn’t.
It just takes a bit of effort on your part to pay attention to what the people affected are telling you.
I admit that given my geographical location it’s a moot point, but if the attitude and blinding lack of comprehension you evince are in any way typical I wouldn’t want to come to TAM either.
@Jacqueline Homan
I was making the ‘argument from MY MONEYZ!1!’ facetiously and I apologize that I did not make it more clear in my comment. I was not putting the argument forth seriously and have nothing but the deepest contempt for anyone that would make such an argument.
It’s just…. How do you parody these fucking people? I mean, even Colbert has been reduced nowadays to simply repeating verbatim the things that conservatives actually claim to believe and and just giving a knowing wink. There’s no position too anti-human and awful that you can put forth nowadays as a joke, that some scumbag doesn’t actually already have in their campaign platform.
Dogeared, spotted and foxed: You should take Noonewithbrains’ reply to you at #131 as a supreme compliment.
As someone else who has done her share of Chill Girl shit, I don’t think we should cut it any slack whatsoever.
No, Kokobean, we actually don’t need more “gentlemanly” behavior. We need men not to treat women “gallantly” but as equals. Fuck your “open call to men and women alike,” because the playing field isn’t level. If you’d bothered to keep up, you’d have realized that it’s hardly just “one or two idiots” ruining things. And, as said above, if it’s not about you, it’s not about you. IOW, take your condescending crap and fuck of.
David McAdams:
I don’t like you. At all. This conversation was much better off without you.
Contrary to what blithering privileged shitstains may claim, asshats who demand that I attend their conference, even as they scream in the same breath at any woman who has the temerity to ask for a safer space aren’t on “my team.”
Fuck you, fuck your tone trolling, fuck your mansplaining, fuck your apparent utter failure in reading comprehension, fuck your inability to use paragraph breaks, fuck your terminal case of verbal diarrhea, fuck your passive-aggressive smiley, fuck your plea for us to be “nice” after you’ve dropped your pants and shat on our carpet, and fuck your manipulative idea of “humor.” Shove a live, rabid porcupine with freshly sharpened teeth and claws up your rectum and clamp your legs shut.
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
http://xkcd.com/169/
There’s no humor because you weren’t funny…and intentionally communicating points counter to your actual one isn’t clever….and your intended points suck as well.
@Davidmcadams
So if I understand you correctly:
A) We’re all athiests here, so don’t complain if you’re treated badly too much.
B) The people who haven’t blamed the whistle-blowers for the problem, called other people cunts and hysterical bitches for continuing to talk about it, and haven’t trivialized others’ trauma should refrain from name-calling.
C) Someone who’s being harrassed should go to security, which is made up of people in the same group as the harrassers and which may well contain more harrassers to resolve it. And take it upon hirself to go ‘up the chain’ to resolve a problem that should be dealt with in the first place. Right.
D) People who don’t know who they should be complaining to are at fault for not complaining to the right people.
E) I’ve never noticed it, therefore it’s not a problem. Never mind that I’m not among the targeted group and there’s a huge problem of systemic under-reporting that is worsened by a lack of effective anti-harrassment policies, effective recording policies, and investigation by the people being reported to (since people who complain about sexual harrassment often take the ‘sexual’ angle out of it and it only becomes apparent on questioning and investigation, in my experience as a TA who’s had complaints about other TAs confided in me).
F) I haven’t read many of the blog posts or comment threads in this shitstorm, but I’m still qualified to comment.
G) We should just accept the world is shitty and not try to improve it.
H) I agree with what people who are complaining about this situation are saying but for some reason feel compelled to rail about the fuss being made about it because I’ve never noticed it as a problem and therefore it’s not a problem.
I) Be nice to me as I condescend to you about how I don’t think this thing you’re complaining about is a problem and how I think everyone is over-reacting even though I admit that I haven’t read in detail into this issue.
Regarding C) Let me ask you, were you ever bullied in school? I’m guessing yes, since most people have been bullied at some point. Did you take your complaints to the teachers every time? I’m guessing no. And if you didn’t, I’m guessing it was because you either 1) expected that the teachers would adopt a middle-of-the-road view and punish you equally, 2) feared reprisal, 3) worried you’d be dismissed, or 4) some combination of the above. The same is true of harrassment – and the victims are usually right. Just look at all the hassle Ashley Mills faced – and she had witnesses!
It is not the fault of the victim if the system is onerous and unfair.
Regarding D), where I work, we have a policy that every complaint to any employee is investigated and followed up. That someone doesn’t know who to complain to is not reason to stonewall their complaint, and it does not excuse a lack of proper response.
Regarding F), go here and read most of the posts and at least skim the comment threads, then see if you still think we’re over-reacting.
Regarding G), if people accepted that, women still wouldn’t have the vote because that was just the way things were.
Regarding I), I’m glad you were able to have a good time. There are people here who are saying they weren’t able to because of harrassment. Your good time does not negate their bad one, nor is the reverse true. People who are not you have had certain experiences and say there is a problem that needs to be solved. That you have not had those experiences does not mean there is no problem.
Think of it this way: even if you’ve never smashed a deer on a Canadian highway, you’d accept it if people who had told you there are deer around those highways and you should be careful around dusk and dawn if you’re driving. You wouldn’t try to argue that because you’ve never seen a deer, there’s no danger of deer, right?
I betcha that teh menz in his family are oblivious sexist shitheads who say oblivious sexist shit every time they open their mouths. Then, when they get a fully justified load of grief from “their” women, withdraw all sadface-like, with much brooding about “nags” and “viragos” and “battleaxes.”
@Ms. Daisy
apparently that was “kidding”
I think people are missing the really important issue which is clearly my violation of pubs is only because they are wearing those short, short beer gardens.
Why will no one consider me the victim? I get drunk, assaulted by the beer monkey and suffer from hangovers all because those dirty, filthy, slutty pubs are located in alleys or are wearing a particularly alluring bitter.
Also if people could be very quiet about any and all condemnation of me for being a drunken bastard that would be nice. After all I have a headache.
If only pubs would realise that people are just going to go into them and drink beer, if they don’t want this then they can just stay shut. I think all these pubs complaining about people going into them and drinking beer and getting drunk is just silly, but I’m not blaming the pubs, obviously it’s the fault of the drinkers, but if the pubs were shut there would be no drinkers would there.
Something to think about.
Louis
No you didn’t, pal. Are you some kind of comedian ?
davidmcadams @ 224:
No, having a different opinion is not the problem. The problem is that they a) tell me to expect to be sexually harassed, and b) will stand by and do nothing when/if I am sexually harassed (because it’s my job to go to security and risk hate and vitriol for doing so), and c) will blame me for 1) being harassed and/or 2) “destroying TAM” by complaining about being sexually harassed.
My cable company would not defend nor allow hordes of supporters to defend their right to not fix my modem.
Again, micro-aggressions. Low-level, easily (and often) dismissed as “misunderstandings,” “she took it the wrong way,” “didn’t mean it like that,” “hysterical woman seeing shadows” etc. etc., blah blah blah.
Wow. Haven’t been paying attention at all, have you? Go read.
Really haven’t been paying attention, huh? *sigh* I’m on a crappy connection so I can’t do the legwork of finding lots of links for you. I will say that TAM did not become the focus of the need for anti-harassment policies until DJ Grothe blamed Rebecca Watson and others on Facebook for declining registration by women.
Short answer: no, he hasn’t.
So it’s wrong to think that people who want our money and our support ought to provide a place where harassment is not acceptable or tolerated and where action is taken to ensure that all participants who’ve paid mega-bucks to attend feel secure and unthreatened as much a possible?
Holy breathtaking fucking bullshit. Really? Just take “reasonable precautions” and tell the person harassing you to stop and they will, pwomise? Gosh, why didn’t we think of that!!
Oh right…BECAUSE THAT’S NOT ACTUALLY HOW IT WORKS.
Once again, I state that I will never, ever attend TAM — now or in the future — because of precisely this attitude.
FUCK YOU.
So you still see nothing wrong with what you said ?
Bit slow on the uptake are you ?
I do trust you will not being going to TAM. Indeed given your attitude it is to be hoped you will be banned from attending since you clearly have no concept of how to behave around women.
I’d say no…but then I look at Pauli Shore and Carlos Mancia.
OMG REALLY?!?11! I had no idea, I thought that everyone out there was exactly the same as me! Well thanks for illuminating the problem for me, my silly lady-brain was just incapable of understanding this reality without someone to point it out for me.
Seriously, do you think we’re THAT stupid? REALLY? That’s just fucking insulting and that right there was a big fat red flag as to what was (one of the many) problems with Redd’s post and the frustratingly common replies that were rightfully smacked the fuck down on this thread. Which you would have known if you’d bothered reading it. Assuming you have the ability to grasp basic principles.
We KNOW that the world is not a “safe space” We KNOW that the world is filled with people holding differing opinions, many of which are downright repugnant, not to mention dangerous. The world is a dangerous place, period. That’s no excuse to do nothing to help make events like TAM safer spaces for everyone, including women, by providing visible, publicized and ENFORCED guidelines about appropriate behavior within the event itself.
But gee, you can’t ever stamp out sexism or misogyny or eradicate asshole behavior in total, so why the fuck should we even try, hmm? Just gotta toughen up and deal with it, amirite, ladies?
ischemgeek @243: All of that. Thank you.
Who going on the past performance will fail to record the reported incident so that next year DJ can claim no such incidents were reported.
But thing is TAM is ticketed event so the organisers have control over who attends. Of course they don’t excercise such control, but that is more down to them not wanting to rather than any practical considerations. For example, people who go around claiming women do not have the right not to be hit on would be on my list of people who were not welcome.
Ischemgeek and BCPA_Lady, I doubt he’s interested in reading any of the other posts. His initial comment demonstrates a love of reading or hearing his own words and little interest in reading or hearing anyone else’s. He came in here to “share his wisdom” with us; any implication that it is somehow deficient or incomplete will not penetrate.
davidmcadams:
I’m sorry you think you’re up to speed. I couldn’t get past the “tell me if other conference’s have policies” before I realized you didn’t have an actual clue about the current situation. This is why I politely gave you the resources to get up to speed.
Instead you double down and don’t even bother to look at the timeline that has summary’s of everything…
At this point, I say you should worry less about the tone of others and more about the fact you can’t be bothered to do minimal research before sticking both feet firmly in your mouth. Do go read the timeline at least when you’ve finally realized you’re missing something and then decide if you want to comment more.
Yes, I see it, it is as funny as cancer.
As to the rest of the post, I see that it has been conveniently been taken care of already.
No, you’re really not. What you are is a shining example of Dunning-Kruger.
Ms. Daisy Cutter: Agreed. I realized it too late, but at that point I’d already spent enough time reading that I didn’t want to just erase what I’d written.
Oh, well. I’ll simply assume my response is of value to some lurker who now thinks davidmcadams is a tool and an idiot. :)
mehitabel, wotthehell wotthehell:
Normally, I don’t dignify such utter assholianship with an answer since dumbasses claiming to be oh-so-fucking smart and “rational” are not worth my time. No “feminists” that I have seen on posting on this site have “discouraged women from reporting their bullshit” to TAM organizers or security, so cut the dishonest crap. If anything, TAM organizers and funders are worried that women are voting with their wallets and their feet — which obviates the need to report any “bullshit” in order to “feel safe or whatever” as a preemptive measure to avoid harassment at an over-priced misogyny fest of self-entitled privileged assholes, doesn’t it?
If anyone discouraged reporting of SEXUAL HARASSMENT it was the MRA/PUA bowel movement. And if you think women should be forced to put up with your/other men’s bullshit, your capacity for “reasonable” and “rational” thought is highly debatable. You don’t “checkmate” by claiming you didn’t cheat because you “didn’t know” the rules while thinking that no one was looking.
That.
David “I’m making cogent points and hate conflict” McAdams, #224 and sundry whingings,
Congratulations on one of the most passive-aggressive pieces of writing I have ever seen. I am sat in my office giving you a very little golf clap. Now, I have things I would like to mock you for, so tie yourself in, I’m going to mildly enjoy myself.
Allow me to summarise your advice for you:
1) Women should use common sense and be aware of their surroundings.
2) If a woman “perceives” (*cough* weasel word) that she is being harassed ask the harasser to stop.
3) If the harasser fails to stop get a friend and/or security whilst getting to a public area.
4) Contact the help desk to see if the harasser is a conference attendee.
All good advice. No, seriously, nowt wrong with that, be alert (your country needs lerts), report stuff and trust the authorities. Seems sensible enough to me. But why stop there? And why direct your advice only to the harassee as opposed to the harasser?
Oh My Lack Of God! What if none of this works? And more than that, why should women expect any of this to be necessary? I’m a man and I don’t expect to have to do any of this at all. Why should any woman?
The chances of a sodding great git like me being harassed at any conference are minuscule. That’s a privilege I enjoy. Go me! I wish to EXTEND that privilege to others, part of how I do this is by not harassing them and an even more important part is encouraging others not to harass people.
So how about we retool your four pieces of advice.
1) If you see a woman you find attractive, use your common sense. Pause and examine the situation a little.
Is she on her own, is she isolated or could your approach accidentally isolate her, does she look nervous, is she already chatting to someone else and looks like interruption would annoy her, has she just given a talk on how to make sceptical conferences more welcoming to women followed by hours of holding court on the subject in the bar before announcing she wished to go to bed alone and walking alone into a lift at 4 in the morning?
Consider the common sense context. Try to empathise. Perhaps, juuuuuust perhaps, this woman does not want you to touch her with your peepee and doesn’t need to actually tell you this. As someone who hates confrontation perhaps there are other clues this woman has given you.
2) If you do approach this woman you find attractive and make it clear to her that she is someone you would like to touch with your peepee and she says “no”, smile politely, thank her for her time, apologise for any inconvenience and walk away gracefully. Try to perceive that your intentions, however honourable, are not immediately perceptible to others, imagine what another’s perception of you is.
3) Never fail to take “no” for an answer. Yours is not to question why, yours is just to fuck off. Nicely, calmly, politely, fuck off.
4) Don’t touch anyone with your peepee unless they specifically ask you to. I cannot emphasise this enough.
Enjoy the huge number of porcupines you have coming your way for being abundantly clueless and failing to notice that your “cogent points” and passive aggressive drivel have already been addressed. Dozens of times. A few clicks away at most. Before you even wrote it.
Louis
It just gets better and better.
I’d be, uh, skeptical about reporting too, because of something that happened to me last year. A guy started calling me up in the middle of the night, wanting to have phone sex with me. I don’t know who he was, he was just some random douchebag. After being awakened by multiple calls, including one where I actually talked to him for a couple minutes because I was too asleep to realise he wasn’t someone I knew, I called the police. The policewoman I talked to was nice and sympathetic and all, but she told me that the police couldn’t do anything until I was able to get the creep’s phone number (I don’t have Caller ID, and he probably had it blocked anyway) from the phone company. When I called the phone company and made it explicitly clear that I had been getting harassing phone calls and that the police had specifically requested that I get the guy’s number, they refused to help me unless the police called them directly. Since it’s the local police’s policy not to do anything until and unless the phone company cooperates with them first.
So some dickbag out there got away with harassing me several times in the middle of the night despite my best efforts, and I’m educated, tenacious, and used to being able to get my way from large bureaucracies, i.e., the edge case. If I couldn’t do it, who could?
After a lifetime of such things, couldn’t any of you naive people see how someone might get a little weary and stop bothering?
Jacqueline, I was referencing the “Checkmate, atheists” meme that makes fun of silly religious arguments. The passage I quoted was from the article linked in PZ’s OP, I was making fun of the woman on here (the passage’s author) blaming feminists for discouraging reporting when her own words were that complaints were “bullshit.”
Check out the checkmate atheists quickmemes; they’re funny.
Stevarious:
No worries, it’s cool. I forgot to preface my post the way I wanted to and I didn’t notice that I failed to make the change until I already hit the “Submit” button. My bad, not yours, because I DID get the sardonic humor when I saw the ::rolls eyes:: bit in your post. So if my reply to your post came off like I was slamming you, then I am the one who owes you an apology for being so damn sloppy that I forgot to rework my first sentence the way it was supposed to be in the first place before submitting the post, which was specifically to shred that argument so commonly raised by MRA Clingons and other floating doo-doo balls.
Don’t bother davidmcadams, the ghouls present on these comment threads are incapable of showing any basic empathy/understanding/compassion to anyone that doesn’t buy into their own narrow ideology. They only understand mind numbing insults and name calling.
Basically, this is what I see here: Men, if you’re interested in a girl sexually – too bad. Even if the remote possibility exists that she might not like you, you’re not allowed to demonstrate this interest in any way shape or form. This is especially true now that there is confusion and conflation between getting “hit on” and “harassment” (there is a difference – one is persistent attention despite signs the recipient doesn’t want it, the other is simply testing the waters for further romantic/sexual interaction). I’ve said this on previous threads, to wailing accusations that I’m just simply inventing a strawman – and yet this is the ONLY course of action I see that eliminates the possibility of any person being uncomfortable in a public space. If a man can’t demonstrate sexual interest in a woman, then women will never be uncomfortable. Otherwise, the possibility is always there. That’s life.
Fortunately, those of us that don’t have our heads in the sand understand that nobody has the right to never be made uncomfortable or the target of unwanted attention. In the real world nobody is going to be immune from this. As commenter #14 said way back at the start of the thread, perhaps you would all be more at home at a Hasidic jewish atheist conference where men and women are separated.
Oh goodie, look who’s back…
Jacqueline: I think mehitabel forgot hir sarcasm tag – they’re a ‘regular’ and would definitely be parodying.
2) If you do approach this woman you find attractive and make it clear to her that she is someone you would like to touch with your peepee and she says “no”, smile politely, thank her for her time, apologise for any inconvenience and walk away gracefully.
OMFG….Holy shit Louis, you’re too funny.
Learn to refresh before posting, Emrys my precious… *headdesk*
And guess who has turned up to comment on blog post PZ linked to up the top. None other than Abbie Smith, who was agreeing with the author in conspiring to throw women under the bus.
Not until you have spent time talking to her, no. It really is pretty simple, but clearly not simple enough for you to be able to understand.
With perception and reasoning skills like that, I can see why you need PUA techniques.
Line up, ladies. If you’ve ever wanted to play Garp’s mom and fuck someone who’s practically comatose, karlvonmarx is your chance.
(You don’t like the name-calling? Too fucking bad, fuckhole. I’m gonna have fun at your expense. When I’m done, if you don’t like it, feel free to call hotel security and ask them for a towel.)
I was making fun of the woman on here (the passage’s author) blaming feminists for discouraging reporting when her own words were that complaints were “bullshit.”
Check out the checkmate atheists quickmemes; they’re funny.
OK. Will check that out. For the record, I think Louis is the hands-down winner in the funny department with his rule on “peepee’s” (you don’t want to know what sort of visual that conjured up)!
Emrys, I don’t think I’m really regular, I’ve just lurked for a long while, and finally leapt in.
Before this sentence, you were just a privilege blinded idiot. Then you got this far, and you became a misogynist privilege blinded shitstain. You deserve every ounce of abuse this thread is heaping on you and more.
Announcing that ‘women who want a safe place are not welcome at TAM and should stay home forever’ makes you the person who is generating the ‘Deep Rifts’ that you are complaining about. At this rate, the only women at next year’s TAM will be the half a dozen or so ‘chill girls’ like Redd and the strippers that came in with Penn and Teller – and you won’t be able to say a word of complaint, because YOU told them to stay home, because offering them a safe place – or even trying to do so – was just too much bother for you.
(Did it occur to you for a moment that ‘home’ may well not BE a ‘safe place’ for some of the women you are talking to?)
Redd to Abbie Smith :
What can you say. Words fail me.
If you want a “safe place,” stay at home. I mean always. Never leave the house.
Here’s a better solution: SYG laws. :)
karlvonsasshole, ever tried, you know, actually talking to a woman? As if they were (gasp) a real live human being rather than a piece of meat you want to wank on?
Because if you did that, you might have a chance of finding out whether they are attracted to you in any way (unlikely in your case, I know) without harassing them! Amazing!
@ Ms Daisy:
I’m aware, but I’m posting more for the benefit of befuddled lurkers and to assuage my own irritation. Same reason every time abortion gets discussed on friends’ FB pages, I feel oblidged to wade in with the Hammer of Facts and Statistics to debunk the inevitable myths that come up (and often get called a fem supremacist because I have the audacity to declare it non-negotiable that my uterus is mine and that I alone should be able to decide what takes up residence there).
It’s not, actually. Not at all. If you’d actually read it, you’d know that.
But even if it were, let’s do that thought experiment. What would happen? You’d lose the possibility of doing a cold-call proposition, which, face it, rarely works anyway. Instead, you’d be forced to actually get to know a woman BEFORE you asked her whether she was interested in your peepee. (Jacqueline – Louis had a much larger treatise on the peepee and rules thereof the other day, but my googlefu is weak when looking for comments.) Wow, is that ever terrible.
And pushing the thought experiment further, what if it (gasp!) weren’t allowed AT ALL during the conference? Quelle horror! Would any man go to a skeptic conference if it was about skepticism and getting to know people who are also skeptics and there was NO SEX???? What???? Could such a thing even be? What on earth reason would there be to go to a conference if not to score with chicks you don’t have to bother with calling again because you’re both from out of town?
Seriously, that’s the argument you’re trying to make?
Like the one I got stuck in my thumb. Went straight through to the nail.
I think you might have hit upon the problem. Maybe these odious (physically and metaphorically I suspect) individuals have tried the talking to women thing, and because all they want is a fuck for the night and because spending more than 5 minutes in their company will reveal them to be the obnoxious arseholes they are, they do not succeed in getting to use their pee-pee in a non-solo scenario very often. So I expect rather than learn to become a decent human being they just cut out what they see as all that time-wasting crap.
I’m so very thoroughly sick of virtually every problem being brushed off with “oh, it’s just America”.
Sure, it’s not typical in Europe to ask complete strangers on the street for their phone numbers, and I’ve not encountered the dudes who think all interactions with women are flirting, like the American you run into at GAC, in Germany at least; but “hitting on” happens plenty enough nonetheless.
indeed it does. asking complete strangers to spend time alone with you would be seen as deeply creeptastic. But that doesn’t really apply to behavior at conferences, where you’re socializing with (more or less) likeminded people.
more formalized, rather. certainly not more conservative.
you’ve not hung out at German clubs a lot then. but fair enough, no one “dates” if all they want is to fuck. That’s one of the trickier parts of North American mating rituals: the one for becoming a couple is almost identical to the one for ending the night by fucking each other’s brains out and never socializing with each other again afterwards.
I read somewhere, I forget where so sorry to ever suggested it, that one idea at events such as TAM was to set aside a room where the men who are only interested in talking to women in the hope they will get a fuck can go, and so can the Redd’s, Abbie Smith’s etc. They also suggested someone lock the doors and leave them locked for the duration of the conference.
Sounds like a plan to me.
You’re not entitled to a “safe space” at a public event.
Why do you think that some people are entitled to encroach on others’ bodies and personal boundaries at a public event?
@Jacqueline Homan
Quite all right, I noticed just after *I* hit submit that you had already responded along these lines.
So no harm done all around it seems for once. Yay!
“Oh goodie, look who’s back…”
Did you miss me? Hold the applause please, I’m not done dealing with Brownians ridiculous schoolyard bully non-responses.
“karlvonsasshole, ever tried, you know, actually talking to a woman? As if they were (gasp) a real live human being rather than a piece of meat you want to wank on?”
“Not until you have spent time talking to her, no. It really is pretty simple, but clearly not simple enough for you to be able to understand.”
What a lack of perspective these responses illustrate. So, according to you guys, a man must always follow a standard protocol for talking to a woman he is interested in – say x minutes of small talk about non-sexual topics, then obtain a signed consent form before asking for a date, notarized by PZ himself. But not before examination by the thought police to make sure you aren’t objectifying her as a sexual object.
Every situation is different. Every person is different. Not every woman is going to be comfortable with a romantic/sexual proposition even after a whole day of conversation. In contrast, some do want to fuck even after just a few minutes of conversation. Nobody can read minds, and you cannot automatically assume that every person is going to think just like you, and banish any sexual contact that doesn’t fit. Stop living in fantasy land.
I do remember that day where complete stranger me plucked you off your much delayed plane in Copenhagen to take you straight to my hotel room one day a couple years ago. Sadly, we lost. I somehow forgot all about the hitting on you bit. Bloody Serbians.
Karl von Pox:
One of many reasons I always get an early-1960s vibe from the PUA crowd, and I’m not referring to stylish retro fashions, either.
I’m going to quote Maggie over on Skepchick, who is commenting on the “fuck card” incident but whose remarks about social context apply to TAM as well:
I also highly recommend Frisby’s comment on “context denialism,” frequently accompanied by rules-lawyering. Feminists who talk about rape are familiar with this sort. You can see several of them in that Skepchick thread.
Ischemgeek, true, such content is useful for the lurkers.
Karlvonmox,
Well then you’re about to get a terrible shock because this isn’t what I think at all. And I think quite a few people don’t think this either. I think you’re wrong, and this claim of yours is a straw man.
I think:
1) Anyone is free to “hit on” anyone, depending on context and for certain values of “hit on”. If my “hit on” you mean “approach and politely indicate one’s interest in touching with one’s peepee” then I have little objection.
2) Context matters. As does the manner of the “hit on”. Going up to a grieving, but young and sexy, widow at her beloved husband’s funeral and whipping out your mighty man mallet and yelling “Fuck me, love, you don’t half make a lot of noise, how’s about you stop bashing all us ears and get yer gums round me plums, eh?” is, and I think I can say this uncontroversially, a bit of a no no. Approaching a similar, single, young lady in a singles bar when she is smiling enthusiastically across the bar at you and handing her your card or asking if you can buy her a drink might well be cheesy, but far less problematic.
3) Sexual interest is GOOD. Expressing sexual interest in the right context is GOOD. There are plenty of people I have worked with/work with who I am sexually interested in, or rather who I would express sexual interest in, in the right context. I’m thinking that as they are injecting a pyrophoric reagent like t-BuLi into a reaction flask that going up behind them, grabbing their tits from behind and saying “Guess who, sweet tits” is not going to be the right context, or manner. What do you think? Getting my cock out in the lab is good? Perhaps the really sexy recent graduate I am training at the moment would be oh-so-flattered by the attentions of her boss’s boss? Or just perhaps I should evaluate her on criteria other than her sexiness, perhaps more work relevant criteria like her great scientific ability and awesome intellect? Hmmmm whaddya say?
4) Asking women to “expect to be hit on” is very different from asking women “to merely deal with being hit on at a similar rate and in a similar manner to men”. It’s asking them to put up with a status quo that demonstrably disadvantages them, singles them out for special treatment. As I said above, when I go to professional conferences I don’t expect to be hit on, not because I’m ugly or married (I am one, not the other! I’ll let you choose!), but simply because I’m male. It’s relatively rare, to my eternal disappointment (joke), but then many people think being famous would be great, until they’re famous…
If someone harassed me, I’d do all the things advised above by the many people who just aren’t getting it. The real issue is that I shouldn’t have to go anywhere EXPECTING to be harassed as if this were simply a normal part of life. I’m not white, should I expect to be called “nigger” or “paki” or “dago” or “darkie” or “wop” or “dune coon” or….(I’ve been called all of these and more by the way, I wish racists would just pick one category and stick with it…). Not called “nigger” repeatedly, just once will do. Even a good old “friendly” calling me “nigger”, as in “what’s up my nigger?” from some unknown white person. Should I expect that? Don’t worry, I’m a big boy, I won’t lose my mind if someone says that to me, I will casually walk away from this unknown idiot however. And FSM help them if they follow me!
I’m guessing that “what you see here” is filtered through your own quite awesome bitterness and idiocy. Harsh, I know. Because how you can get to “no sexual interest” from “don’t blame the victim of harassment” is beyond me.
Louis
Ms. Daisy Cutter @240, Thanks and, yeah. As a woman who has been to TAM and will not be returning, I’m getting just a teensy eensy bit tired of people condescending to tell me why I’ve made that decision and how it is wrong.
And the word “expect” as if dealing with entitled twits is some sort of puberty-gift* like menstruation or hair in funny places. Harassment is not a given, it’s not even a normal human interaction. It is a negative aberration with several simple solutions ranging from the personal to the societal.
The defenders of The Attempted Mating** have a huge problem with “Don’t do that” but feel perfectly comfortable with “Shut up and take it!” Even their worst behavior is somehow my responsibility. (Which, come to think of it, is a little strange. One would think these libertarian superheros would leap at the chance to clean up their own mess.)
In short, I’m long out of patience.
* Which is sadly an exaggeration. Harassment starts before puberty.
** Not mine, from another thread and brilliant.
Clearly still not simply enough for you to understand. Which given how simple it is suggests two possible reasons. One is that you are just very stupid, the other is that you don’t want to understand. Or that you are very stupid, don’t want to understand and are fucking awful person bordering on being a sociopath.
So in your mind, you are entitled to make the other 99% of women at the convention feel uncomfortable and harassed, on the off chance that you’ve managed to hit on the one woman at the convention that wants to fuck after just talking for a couple of minutes? And every other man at the convention is entitled to do the same thing? This is your actual opinion?
Ludicrous strawfeminist. We don’t have the funding for that many thought police officers!
Here’s a better idea. How about you try educating yourself so you can be aware of when you’re objectifying a woman, and then, when you notice yourself doing it, break out of that pattern!
You know if men were dogs, karlvonmox, and the others who do not get it, would be the type of dog that would screw table legs, the vicar’s leg, or your great aunt’s leg at every given opportunity.
@Jadehawk
Yes, formalized, that was vocabulary failure on my part. Conservative I meant not in the sense of opposed to pre-marital sex but rather conservative gender roles.
No, indeed not. I from time to time would go there for the music, but I hate the music in most of them.
I have never seen it that way, yeah…
I realize that starting to attribute certain problems in society to particular aspects of a culture is dangerous (but interesting to contemplate). But to come back to the OP, these differences are pretty much irrelevant for the issue of harassment policies which are universal I guess, so the discussion is moot.
Now don’t be greedy, karl. If you use up all the straw, there won’t be any left for the rest of the lads will there?
Social interaction too complicated for you, is it? Are you really that bad at discerning whether a woman is interested in you a) at all, and b) for sex? (Although come to think of it, you can’t be expected to recognise what you may never have seen). Oh dear. Doesn’t bode well for your skills at engaging in any other kind of intercommunication, does it?
You know, some women might not think it was particularly enticing – the idea of getting it on with someone who has no idea whether they’re into something or not.
Karlvonmox,
Yet more bullshit!
Context matters.
Singles bar at kicking out time: go up to the woman of your dreams and say “Hey, wanna come back to my place for sex?” as often as you like. I guarantee you you’ll “strike out” ten times more than you “hit”, but if you like getting a rude and abrupt “no” as if it some how validates your victim status, then fine by me. I pity the women in your vicinity and can only hope you’re not actually a predator, just a clueless moron. You are free to make an arse of yourself as much or as little as you want.
Professional conference: Go up to the female speaker who has just got off the stage talking about an unrelated matter, or worse a related matter where she has made her intent clear, and that intent doesn’t include your peepee, and say the same thing. Well if you’re not dragged out of the conference by your scrotum (I have it on good authority this is the true origin of the phrase “black balled”), I’ll be surprised.
See the difference?
Louis
Jebus fuck, how has karlvonmox not been banned yet or at least relegated to TZT for abject and blatant stupidity?
Louis – thank you so much for the reasonable response. Im going to ignore the rest of the angry people on here and actually focus on what you said.
Awesome. Does everyone else agree????
The rest of your points are fine. I really have little objection to them. But, it would seem to me then that there is a disconnect between what is actually being advocated by PZ and others on this thread vs. what is being percieved by the rest of us. Because even if you take the scenario at point #2, there is a grey area in between. Maybe she isnt actually smiling at you and giving you telltale signs of interest, but you’d still like to get to know her better.
hm, yes, I suppose that makes sense
Meh, failed at quoting – this is what I meant to highligh from Louis –
“I think:
1) Anyone is free to “hit on” anyone, depending on context and for certain values of “hit on”. If my “hit on” you mean “approach and politely indicate one’s interest in touching with one’s peepee” then I have little objection.”
sez the PUA. lol.
OK, I think I see the problem. You seem incapable of understanding what other people are thinking. That happens to some people, and the inability to empathise is generally regarded as a disability. But here is the thing, people with that disability are supposed to be aware of it. Many can learn in time how to read signals people give off, but it takes effort and they are seldom as adept at it as people who do not have such a disability.
Now it maybe you have not been given the level of support you should have, and that would be unfortunate, but unless and until you are more adept at interacting with people it maybe best if you avoid situations where you will have to do so. And sorry, but that may mean you are even less likely that you were to lose your virginity.
Straw argument ahead.
So many trolls have said this, I’m confused. Is this one of the dudes *demanding* a Standard Protocol so they know exactly where the loopholes are and precisely how far they can put their *cough* toe over the line while still claiming protection under The Rules? Or is this one of the dudes *decrying* a Standard Protocol because basic polite behavior cramps their free speech / supposed social disability / breeding chances?
Never mind that there IS no Standard Protocol, because women are individual people, not interchangeable monster spawns.
That is so telling.
So it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t want to get to know you better, as evidenced by her signals of disinterest. All that matters is that YOU’D like to get to know her better.
But you didn’t even bother to quote me. You quoted other people.
Is that supposed to make me feel jealous? I can see why you suck at interacting with people.
And then you shat the bed, instead making a strawperson and fucking them into oblivion:
You done, yet?
What a steaming pile of ir-fucking relevant.
Sometimes men like to fight. It’s in our nature. Sometimes it can welcome, and sometimes not.
Mind if I plow you in the fucking head upon meeting you? (Not everyone wants to spend a day getting to know each other before they strap on the gloves and see whose kung fu is the best.) You can call me a bully while I do so, if it makes your little pee-pee feel better.
From all the whining I’m going to presume Penn and Teller are disinvited from all sjeptic inc events and never won any awards because of their language and name calling
Karlvonmox,
Oh you think I was being polite and reasonable? Deary me! We’re going to have to work on your perception skills aren’t we?
I think you are creating ludicrous straw men and being irretrievably dense. Clear?
If the lady in my example in 2) from #290 is not actually smiling at you but the chap behind you, when you politely ask to buy her a drink or slip her your number on a card or say she doesn’t sweat much for a fat lass or whatever clichéd and doubtlessly “charming” opener you have in mind has been dealt, the reality of her disinterest may well become manifest. At that point, politely fuck off, apologise for wasting her time, thank her for her consideration etc. It’s not hard. She wants a different peepee, not yours.
As for whether or not everyone else, or indeed anyone else, agrees, who the fuck knows or cares? Well, actually that’s a little unfair, I reckon most people here would agree with me that chatting to a woman you are sexually interested in is not in and of itself problematic as long as you do so with an eye for context and some degree of what I am going to refer to as “class”. In other words a subtle indication that, whilst you are interested sexually in this woman, you also realise she is not merely the sum of her secondary sexual characteristics, and in fact is a real human being too! Amazeballs! Respecting women enough to treat them as more than mere peepee pockets? Revolutionary!
So no, no “x minutes of small talk”, no “never talk to a woman who might not want you to touch them with your peepee” just approach politely, with some sensitivity to context and environment and act respectfully because the woman in front of you is a person. This is not complex.
Louis
karlvonmox @287
And unless they have their boyfriends/husbands/bodyguards with them at all times, they’re going to have an unpleasant time.
(Is there a correlation between being a “chill girl” and having a significant other? I feel like there may be some privilege at work.)
Pteryxx:
The latter.
Matt, please don’t invoke ASDs, even in jest, as the explanation for Karl von Pox’s behavior. Most guys like that have a very good understanding of social rules, which is why they’ve become experts at flouting them, as Improbable Joe and Amanda Marcotte point out.
Karlvonmox,
With reference to your quote of me in your post #302:
Notice two things:
a) If I am using the phrase “touch with your peepee” anywhere the chances are overwhelming that I am being quite deeply sarcastic.
b) If you see a “1)” somewhere it implies strongly the existence of a “2)”. Arguments develop, they are not things one snippets nice bits from to make one feel warm and fuzzy.
Some people seem to have a profound problem with this last concept.
Louis
Considering this whole fucking “thought-police” fiasco online started because one fucking clueless clod thought it appropriate to hit on a woman alone in an elevator at 4 AM, and she later said “Don’t do that”, I don’t think it’s our side that needs to be told that “every situation is different”.
My blockquoting got a bit messed up. The tags are newish info. karlvonmox is the first paragraph only.
Really. The day I need lessons on social behaviour from karlvonmarx is the day he and I are the only two people left on Earth.
I’m sorry Daisy. I was actually thinking it was a real possibility given how clueless he seems to be reading people.
Don’t worry about it. He’s not gonna read it anyway.
Well, stick your dick in there and see what happens. Maybe something good!
I suspect if that was the case you would very soon be the only person left on Earth.
Every situation is different. You want me to spend an entire DAY with him before finding out whether or not he’s good to eat?
If you like rancid meat, go for it. *shudder*
Foragers aren’t too choosy about the freshness of their meat, but such strategies might no longer be necessary once the game has returned to lands previously occupied by agriculturalists.
[Starts knapping obsidian blades, just in case.]
Is it too late to get t shirts printed with the legend “Expect to get hit on” printed on them for use at TAM? I’m sure those who think that is appropriate behaviour could not object to making their intentions clear.
Brownian:
And in this case you wouldn’t have to worry about prions…
I was thinking that maybe those men who see problem with hitting on women regardless of the situation could be told to wear a badge identifying themselves as a sexist arsehole. That would make it much easier for most women to avoid engaging with such people, and allow Abbie Smith and Redd to identify who their friends are.
jessiexl: Rebecca already had buttons printed that the clueless dudes (and others) can use, instead of making it the hittee’s problem:
http://skepchick.org/2012/06/merch-update/
Brownian,
LIES!!!!!!!!!!
You refused a kindly offered pasty from me because it might go a bit rancid. I had to post one to you first class and refrigerated. That was not cheap. Miserable bastards, pick….groan…mumble…complain….
Louis
re: penn and teller (I know I am late to the topic)
From what I understand their solution is guns. If women buy guns and shoot rapists they will be deterred. The argument is in their gun control episode of bullshit. It makes it obvious that they have no idea how most rape happens, and how most women don’t want to carry guns around their boyfriends, husbands, fathers, uncles, etc in case of rape.
The worst one I saw was on prostitution. They said legalization would fix it all. There are lots of women who were underaged and escaped the commercial sex industry in countries where it was legal, many of them work to help prostitutes now, like the founder of GEMS. It does not take long to find these women if you look, but they were totally ignored in favor of showing more porn 2K compliant chicks while penn ran his mouth. They also showed a woman turning tricks out of her home to make it seem like prostitution is completely divorced from coercion or poverty. They acted a lot like the person in the OP, saying that she could call the cops if only it were legal. They *never* mentioned decriminalizing prostitutes but not johns. If they had their whole position would have been fucked.
So Redd sucks up to the Mother of All Tap Dancers. LOL quelle surprise. Cowards love other cowards.
I’m sorry. That was rude of me. I meant that you shouldn’t go out of your way to send me a pasty. Canadians tend to offer and refuse gifts with a lot less vehemence than other cultures.*
In my defence, I’m not a forager now. I do eat the occasional thing that’s fallen on the floor, and I did cook the occasional fish (stretching the leftovers no longer than two days after the date of purchase) when I was living without refrigeration in Africa, but I’ve got, more or less, the GI tract of a North American urbanite.
Anyway, I was going to tuck into this pasty, but if it makes you feel better, I’ll leave it out on the counter for a few days. I make no promises if the cat gets to it during the night, but he tends to only like to gnaw bread that’s wrapped in plastic.
*I was once involved with a research study involving data abstraction from health records. The woman who trained me for the study was from mainland China. We took a break and headed down to the hospital cafeteria for a snack. I offered half my bagel, she refused, and I offered again, as is typical for Canadians. When she refused a second time, I said “I understand that the tradition in China is to offer a third time. So, are you sure you don’t want some?” She was tickled, accepted, and we had a very comfortable working relationship after that. I never bothered to find out if she wanted to have sex with me, though. I wouldn’t last a second at The Amaz!ng Meat Market.
Well aren’t you just a special little fuckwit.who.does.not.get.it!
You are NOT entitled to a woman’s time or attention.
A woman who is not smiling at you or showing signs of interest has clearly demonstrated her lack of interest. (hint: no smile, no eyecontact, no tell-tale signs of interest means Go Away!)
SHE does not want to know YOU. This is the point in normal human interaction when you take NO for an answer and leave her alone.
But apparently you think that your peepees desire to “know her better” is so fucking important that you are going to completely ignore her clear communication.
Here is your porcupine, you have earned it.
“Never mind that there IS no Standard Protocol, because women are individual people, not interchangeable monster spawns.”
How ironic, since this is exactly what Ive been saying. One woman will be receptive to a particular advance by a particular guy, and another will not. This is the way of things.
Brownian and Penfold, I’m really unimpressed by your consistent tendencies to do absolutely nothing but make assumptions about me and my character. Do you really think attacking me personally is really going to advance your cause? Also, If I were to advocate violence against someone I disagreed with on this thread, I’m sure the banning calls would be instant. This is why I call you bullies.
I actually do quite well with the ladies – six years of partner dancing, mostly salsa, will help you out with that immensely. And thankfully I doubt I will ever encounter your brand of feminism in these places.
The point that continues to sail over the heads of everyone here, which I’ve already said, is that it’s unrealistic to expect zero awkwardness to occur when you have a public gathering. Sometimes, yes, EVEN AFTER KNOWING A PERSON FOR A DAY, its STILL impossible to be 100% sure that this person is interested in you romantically, especially if you haven’t been talking about it – not unless you make it known. Often you have a good idea, but it’s not always universally shared. This is not “being clueless” or lacking social skills, this is reality. Some women will even be interested but not make it obvious. Again, reality. Maybe it’s the woman lacking in social skills and is unable to clearly provide signs of interest. The only way you know for sure is to indicate your own interest in some way.
Then, when you conflate “hitting on” someone with harassment, you muddle the issue further and make it sound like you can’t make your interest known without these telltale signs (i.e., Louis scenario two when she is smiling at you and asking you to buy her a drink). Without these signs, are you really telling me its harassment to go talk to her and she how she responds? Seriously? This is why I resorted to hyperbole earlier – it seems to be the only way to illustrate how ridiculous you all sound.
<blockquote>paste quote here</blockquote>
So simple, a child could do it.
Hey everybody, karlvonmox, does Ok with the laydeeez!
Especially those non-feminist ones who have been socialized to accept unwanted attention with a vague smile and a quick exit so as not to hurt his feelings. Which is nothing more than what he is entitled to.
And seriously dude, women are individuals only as relates to how long you need to push to get a “no” because that’s not the least bit creepy. Also totally not creepy, the implied threat of “be nice to me or I won’t listen to any explanation of harassment.”
Who’s trying to impress you?
What, exactly, do you think my cause is, and why would you think I give a fuck how you interpret my intentions.
Advocating violence? I asked you a question.
Conflating the two just muddies the water and detracts from the real issues of violence.
Fuck me, but you’re really committed to the idea that I give a flying fuck what’s in your little fucking head. When I want to know your opinion on something, dipshit, I’ll ask you.
“I can’t ever know with 100% certainty whether a woman wants me to fuck her, so I’ll just do what I want, whenever I want. Freedom!”
Does that hyperbole make you sound ridiculous, or is it just a strawman of your position?
Think hard on this, you dumb piece of shit.
I tend to infer that Elevator Guy could have known subconciously that the elevator is a place where a woman would find it more difficult to say “no” without consciously calculating that the woman he was approaching would be intimidated or disturbed. Therefore, I don’t think every dude who automatically relates to the propositioning dude and thinks “hey, I might chat up a woman with intent in an elevator” is completely awful. I would just think that that person had limited empathy for women (bad!) and hadn’t listened to women very much (ditto!) or read the threads here with much comprehension. (reinforcement bias?)
Sometimes I think men looking for sex with or without relationship trappings think that making saying no more difficult means making yes more likely. These things are not strictly mathematically complementary. When a woman is determined not to have sex (for example, I am monogamous)(for other example, I might remember your user name and just loathe you), making it more difficult to say no doesn’t prevent her from saying no, it just makes her expend more energy to do so, and likely experience more stress.
Making it difficult for someone to say “no” is crappy, pushy behavior and in important matters, is not at all likely to get you a good “yes”. Cornering and pressuring behaviors are what need to be eliminated. When asking for a substantial amount of someone’s time or someone’s body, it needs to be very clear that “no” is a fine answer. I believe that the goal should be finding out if someone WANTS to do it with you, not if you can maneuver past all the objections of someone who doesn’t want to.
Brownian,
Ahhhhh so we have to ask Chinese women three times if they want a pasty.
Got it.
Louis
That’s because no one’s advocating for ZERO awkwardness, you fucking turd. What people are advocating is that shitheads like you don’t act at TAM as if it’s the first time you’ve been let out of your basement and have only twenty minutes to touch a real pair of tits before you’re sent back down to forever argue whether Kirk or Picard is the better Enterprise Captain.
You’re a moron and a lying, strawmanning piece of shit.
Well you’d better keep hitting on her, just in case! Even if she is showing signs of discomfort or actively running away she might just be playing hard to get!
This is the obvious assumption to make in this situation, so it’s always best to assume this is the case!
Yes, and then if she doesn’t reciprocate, keep hitting on her because even if she isn’t interested, you’re still interested in “knowing her better” (i.e. sticking your dick in her), regardless of what she wants because she’s a silly woman and their brains aren’t capable of making decisions like that!
Seriously. When I get hit on by guys like you, it is obvious in 0.2 seconds that you are a total douchebag who has no consideration for what I want or the fact that I am a person and not just a place to stick your oh-so-important cock. And don’t take “no” for an answer. There’s a reason you can’t tell when women are into you, and it’s because your personality is so abhorrent and so obviously so, that they are not. Fuck off and die and hope we never meet in real life.
Yes oh fuckwitted one. Ignoring her social cues because of your peepee is harassment.
…….
{meta}
Does anyone remember the name of the thread with a comic featuring this exact scenario?
Karl,
So you would advocate hitting on a woman until she’s crying from frustration, then drag her by the hair to a secluded location and rape her? Got it.
Hey….don’t complain, I’m just using hyperbole to illustrate how ridiculous you are being.
Louis
We’re not saying talking is wrong. Cold-propositioning, yes. Insisting on continuing to talk even though the other party is making their disinterest obvious, yes. Propositioning when the other person is showing no interest in you, yes. Continuing to proposition after the other person told you no (and fyi, something along the lines of “Oh, look at my wrist! I have to go!” – props to the Whedon brothers for the wonderful line – counts as a no), yes.
Get the difference? Chatting, flirting, propositioning after you’ve talked enough to be reasonably sure a proposition would be
Why do these fuckheads always insist that if we knew them in real life we’d realise what wonderful, caring men who fight for equality they were?
Read “The Great Penis Debate” and count how many times BJ Kramer insists he’ll buy you a beer and you can get to know him better, showing that creeps think creepy offers make them sound like non-creeps.
Stephanie’s response is perfect:
Ah, Karl just needs to find the right advice column for guys like him.
Special pleading?
Also, karlvonmox, if you were chatting to a woman and she wanted to make it clear that she was not interested in you, what is the correct way to get that through to you in a way that does not result in you continuing to try?
This is a serious question.
Jeez, no kidding. I was in a Facebook “debate” with one of them the other day, just went on and on and on and on and on* about how I don’t know him. It ain’t my fault if you represent yourself so poorly.
* Compressed for brevity’s sake. A few dozen more “and on”s would more accurately represent his paragraph-free ramblings.
Redd quit approving my comments. maybe she will show back up here?
she says that reporting is how things change. I asked her for evidence of that working as a tactic for social change and she didn’t let my comment through.
nice.
@ skeptifem – well, reporting is ONE way that things CAN change, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Has she responded at all to how reports can’t help if the people/orgs taking the reports aren’t using them to actually implement change or taking them seriously? Because if anything, DJG’s behavior has seriously put in doubt the effectiveness of TAM’s anti-harassment policy, their ability to handle reports of harassment or make any long-term, workable solutions to address concerns about how harassment, and reports of harassment, will be handled. Just look at how they handled Ashley Miller’s incident, for instance.
karlvonmox
Do you have any idea how often women tell each other about the creep who just wouldn’t take the hint? You are one of those creeps.
I second this question. Seriously.
I think the mistake is that many guys responding think we are talking about him because he places himself at the center of the universe.
The guy posting here and (maybe) the guy posting there want to attend conferences, meet new people, and possibly meet the sexually active ‘girl of their dreams’. I don’t want to discourage social interactions, just want to be sure they are positive and consensual. (I’m a female person who strikes up a lot of conversations with people at conferences, perhaps without due consideration for the wishes of introverts, so I don’t think one has to wait for a smile before starting a conversation.)
I thought a lot of the conversation here is about egregious creeps, with specific crappy behaviors that many here have posted about already experiencing at conferences and skeptic meetups, etc. I don’t think the conversation is about guys who want to have sex but aren’t being assholes about it.
People are allowed to have consensual sex in conferences in their hotel rooms. However, some delicacy or at least consideration is required in pursuing new naked friendships. And if a speaker announces that she does not like it when people hit on her — don’t hit on her. It is not a law of nature that Open Vagina Season lasts all year and all unmarried vaginas must be presumed to be open unless slammed shut.
Karl
Your concerns have been addressed in the Your name is Tucker thread.
shaunphilly showed up on my blog defending his buddy’s lies about my post; oh, and I’m being emotional, dontchaknow.
skeptifem – did the Coward ever make with the “proof” that PZ, Greta, et al, were trying to shut down TAM or wev? She promised to produce it yesterday after the gym, but I can’t be arsed to give that useless tapdancer more blog traffic to see if she has any integrity whatsoever.
That’s what I think about karlvonmarx and his coy, ‘bully’ teasing.
Look how often he refers to me and Matt. Does that seem like the actions of a man who isn’t interested?
Don’t worry, karl: I’m pickin’ up what you’re layin’ down.
Oh, yeah.
Lol Brownian. is there room in the queue?
Thirding, and adding: Also, how can she know that a.) you will actually stop trying when she does thing thing which you will identify for us to indicate that she’s not interested and you should stop trying and b.) you will not hurt her in some way for making it clear that she’s not interested and you should stop trying?
#352 jessiexl: Not to mention how often we guys get asked by one of our friends to “rescue” her from some creep who won’t take a hint…
Also, it seems that Redd is only letting supportive comments through now.
#357 Illuminata:
I think this is her “proof”.
karlvonmox @ 334;
So, when you don’t know whether a woman is going to be receptive to your advances or not, your default position is to dismiss as unimportant whether or not she is receptive, because your desire to pursue a more intimate relationship is more important than any other consideration?
If there is such doubt, why not simply err on the side of caution? Why not wait to get to know them better, in the hope of reaching a point where you can be reasonably sure that they are interested? Should such a point never come, then you haven’t lost anything – there are plenty more fish in the sea, as the oddly pelagic saying goes – but you have gained something; the knowledge that you didn’t make a woman needlessly uncomfortable by putting you desires before her wishes.
I take it that you are new around here? These posters are not ‘advocating violence’ – when they make suggestions involving the rectal application of decomposing porcupines, they are referencing a well known Pharyngula meme. It is not any kind of statement of intent. You will also note that they suggest you do it to yourself – no one is threatening to pin you down and forcibly apply a porcupine suppository to you. It is no more an incitement to actual violence than if I was to say; “may a thousand two inch tall feminist berserker pixies attack your gentlemen vegetables with rusty safety pins” or “may you be trampled beneath the sparkly hooves of the Pink Quantum Unicorns for your perfidy”.
Insulting? Certainly. Violent? No.
You do realise that ‘our brand of feminism’ is simply a desire that women be treated as equals in society? Why should women be forced to put up with constant unwanted sexual advances simply because clueless blokes can’t be bothered to take the time to work out wjether they are actually intersted or not?
Why should women have to be satisfied with being treated as living sex toys rather than people?
No one is demanding ‘zero awkwardness’, but there is no reason why an environment should exist at conferences such as TAM where women should ‘expect to be hit on’. A culture where women have to constantly ward off undesired advances most certainly can have a chilling effect on the participation of women, and there is no reason why a skepticism conference shouldn’t be about scepticism, rather than being used as a venue for pick up artists to practice their trade.
Again, if there is such doubt, why not play it safe? Is the risk of missing out on this single opportunity to form an intimate connection really such a terrible prospect that it is worth contributing to an environment that makes women unwelcome?
Or maybe she just isn’t interested – why assume that she is incapabe of conveying her interest, when the more parsimonious explantion is that she isn’t interested, unless you are simply constructing a rationale that can be used to ignore a woman’s lack of interest, and press an unwanted suit because you feel that your desires are more important than hers?
‘Hitting on’ a woman exists on a continuity with harassment – constant, unsolicted advances are a form of harassment, and even if one clueless bloke gets the picture and stops, that doesn’t help the woman much if there are dozens more clueless blokes about, each of which will only get the picture after bothering the woman several times.
If you aren’t reasonably confident that the woman is interested, the best option is to avoid the topic of sexuality altogether, enjoy a companiable chat, and then go elsewhere, perhaps to a more enthusiastic welcome.
I think you are mischaracterising Loius’ position. As he says @ 290;
karlvonmox, 265:
Ummm…ignoring the whole “girl” thing*:
Is that really so difficult? Not to treat strangers as potential sexual partners at conferences? Not so much to hit on women as to meet and befriend like-minded people?
How about this: Men, if you are interested in a woman sexually, and you don’t know her, much less developed a trusting relationship, maybe just take your sexual interest, and like, ignore it for the time being.
*Kind of gave you away as an asshole right out the chute, knowumsayin?
I am not so convinced. If too many reports stack up (causing bad PR or wasting too much time) the agency it is reported to can either work to change the problem or work to dispose of reports/discourage reporting. Getting rid of the reports is much cheaper and easier than fixing the problem. In a society with capitalist values it is foolish to believe that people will do the right thing to their own financial detriment without some kind of externally imposed consequences for failure.
I find it telling that she doesn’t address how dangerous it is for women to report people like speakers at the conferences, the original cause for concern. The power imbalance makes reporting unlikely to matter.
The utility of reporting in individual cases varies and is something women have to decide for themselves, but she is advocating widespread reporting as a means of social change. I don’t doubt reporting got dr buzzo’s camera taken away, and that it was a good thing for the women at the conference, but I don’t think it was some sort of move towards greater equality for women. As others have noted this only takes care of the issue after something has happened. A dude gets to cop a feel or snap a few photos before he can be stopped, and its because the culture issue is not addressed at all by reporting as a universal solution to harassment.I am sure the chill girls of the world would scoff at the idea that a woman would feel fucked up after being groped or photographed like that; they probably think that if it gets reported and stopped that things are fine. They aren’t for everyone, especially women who are survivors of sexual abuse.
*snortle* and *applause*
–
If you are sending out “telltale signs of interest”, and she is not sending reciprocal signs back…perhaps she is simply not interested in getting to know you better.
Sometimes, only half of it is about you.
–
Cicely,
Hush your vile tongue! Are you calling my mother a liar?
;-)
I am disappointed that Karl and chums have not yet deigned to explain to me why it is not the fault of the pub* that I get drunk in it. If pubs don’t want me to be drunk in them, they should not serve beer.
Louis
* Slutty, slutty pubs, with their beer gardens showing and a smoking area. Dirty, filthy pubs, flashing their pool tables and exciting array of real ales. Phwoooooaaaaar.
No wonder she’s only approving supportive comments if THAT is what she calls an argument. Her four brain cells must be exhausted from all the “work”.
Brownian, I really have no interest in meeting judgmental morons like you in real life – much less buy you a beer. You said you want to “plow me in the fucking head” upon meeting me, thats not violence? Why would I have any interest in talking to someone for two seconds with such obvious psychological problems (to borrow from your baseless character assumptions). If that’s the way you treat others you disagree with, you belong more with the chimpanzees.
People like Louis using rape hyperbole to try to equate what I said about notorized consent forms would be funny if it made sense – unfortunately you all seem to miss the fact that I never say you should continue to pursue when someone makes it clear they aren’t interested. Only when it isn’t clear.
Despite what you all seem to believe about me, sometimes it’s quite clear to know through body language that a woman isn’t interested. But sometimes people ARE clueless, so I think the best way is simply to be direct with words if someone persists despite getting nothing back.
If you aren’t demanding “zero awkawardness”, then you have already conceded that in any environment where males and females are interacting sometimes small unwanted sexual advances will occur, such as when a male is interested in a female that isn’t. This is what Redd means when she says women should “expect to get hit on”. If you want to stop this completely, the only thing that will work is telling men they simply can’t “hit on” women. Choose one or the other.
Because it’s unrealistic. There is no “point where you are reasonably sure”. Often girls I’ve dated I’ve gotten phone numbers within a few minutes of conversation, called them later and set up dates, which led to relationships. Asking for the phone number is the initial move and her response indicates whether or not she is interested. Whatever you do, there is always a point where you have to leave your comfort zone, go for what you want and look for a response. Waiting for clear tell-tale signs will result in missed opportunities, every time.
When it comes to things like equal pay laws and reproductive freedom, I am with you 100%. It is when it comes to this issue telling men they can’t make their sexual interest known without the scenario fulfilling x/y/z criteria that I have a problem with, especially when x/y/z is never defined and variables always vary. We know that there are differences between the genders and attitudes towards sex, such as how experiments like the million dollar challenge have aptly demonstrated. There is always a lot of hand wringing to try to spin the results of that, but it’s the truth. But like I said, if someone says no the interaction should stop.
Have people had any luck posting at theredda.com ? I left two comments, one on each post she did and both were originally in moderation and now both are gone.
Where did this idea come from that men have some sort of absolute right to push their sexual interest on strangers?
Nonono, Louis; sometimes it’s only half about karlvonmmox, but it’s always all about you.
Well, you and/or Brownian.
;-)
–
x/y/z criteria has so far been defined as making reasonably sure that the opposite party shares your interest. How onerous could that possibly be? Especially when ignoring that minimal criteria can lead to the discomfort of people one is supposedly interested in?
Theoretically (and this may be one of those “utopian society” things) one is supposed to have some sort of general goodwill toward people they would like to bone.
No, diddums, those are words. And you know what words are NOT? Think real hard about it and get back to us.
Translation: Damn pussy vending machines and their desire to be treated like human beings. Don’t they know they’re just pussy vending machines?
Oh gawd. Are you going quadruple your dipshittery with evo psycho now?
We didn’t miss it. It’s loud and clear.
Why is the default that they have to make it crystal clear that they’re not interested in you? Why isn’t the default that you keep your metaphorical and literal hands to yourself unless you are explicitly encouraged otherwise? Have you even ever heard of the term enthusiastic consent? You keep talking about the poor women who can’t seem to express their interest clearly; what about the ones who can’t express their disinterest clearly enough for you? Why is it that you keep defaulting to the position that what you want is the only thing that matters and that the most obvious situation is that all those poor women who won’t look at you are secretly coveting your hot hot body but are stymied by their inability to use communication to let you know?
Take your dick out of your mouth for a second. Is your name BJ Kramer? If not, then I’m not talking about you, you fucking egomaniac.
I asked if you would mind, shit for brains. I understand that women’s social cues are a big mystery to you, but what I wrote is right up there to read.
As for the context I studied kung-fu. I’ve hit and been hit as a result. It’s part of learning the art. Now, obviously, such an activity can be consensual, as well as not. Clearly, there is no point where I can be 100% sure (quoting you, asshole) whether someone like you wants to spar or not. So, you’re saying nobody can hit anybody else, ever, just to be on the safe side?
Now, since you’re a fucking moron with analogies, let’s get more direct:
Then, you wrote:
Instead of lamenting about how nobody gets you (boo-fucking-hoo, you piece of shit), how about you answer the question posed to you, you fucking festering bag of filth:
Now, when you ignore a direct question like that, quoted by at least two other people, opting instead to play little games with me, what am I supposed to do but infer you actually like my violence-filled, bullying rhetoric and are just playing hard-to-get?
So, I’m going to keep it up, since you aren’t being clear.
So, you are saying that men and women are fundamentally different in how they handle sex and there is nothing we can do about it so we should just conform to whatever suits men the best…. Er, you remember that bit about equality which you support 100%?
That’s why I come out punching. You gots to leave your comfort zone.
And herein lies the crux of the matter. Menz gotta have as much secks as (in)humanly possible, because all missed opportunities to have some are chinks in the armor of their manhood.
For the people who aren’t worthless, pieces of shit who nobody important would miss if they fell into a wood chipper, here’s some information with regards to saying no, and why men who pretend that anything short of a solid No! is unclear are lying, predatory, scum:
Mythcommunication: It’s Not That They Don’t Understand, They Just Don’t Like The Answer
So women aren’t people with their own wants and needs and interests and autonomy, they exist as opportunities for men to stick their penis into them. Clear as a fucking bell, we got your number.
Please provide a citation for your assertion that deep down all women are dirty, dirty whores.
Again, what makes it clear that they aren’t interested and don’t want to be pursued?
Please answer.
Are there women who find the majority of sexual advances welcome? It seems like most of us don’t want this crap. If 99% were pure annoyances/creepy would whats-his-name still think its bullshit for men to try and cut down on this shit?
Louis you’re correct. I hope I didn’t give the impression that this was solely and American phenomenon. I get the impression – and I believe this is what many American women, and men are taking issue with – that there is a large body of people, who believe behaving in a sexually predatory way at events such as TAM is the norm.
Antiochus sums up my thoughts perfectly:
And this?
Indeed? Any possibility for variation within gender, or is it just dicks v. chicks?. Let me guess, it’s your variation of manly-man difference that gets to prevail, right? ‘Ccos a man has his needs. That’s the sort of banality I initially remarked on. It insults people of every gender.
—
BTW Louis, I am not an Englisher!, I am a Wild Colonial Gal. I think you may have led me to that ‘nym addendum I was after.
skeptifem, good point. Even the chill girls say things like “Just tell them no and move on.” or “I know how to assert myself.” Redd says “…then you should grow a backbone and have a thick enough skin to handle any given situation.” Which is very far from saying she would welcome that sort of attention.
Not important. There is always that one mythical woman who is going to fall for his sleazy advances, and he has to keep trying until he finds her. What? Did you say something about all those other women who rather wouldn’t be bothered by him? But, but his penis needs him to keep looking. Don’t you understand?! It’s in his nature, he can’t help it.
More confusion about what Im actually saying. Doesn’t it ever occur to you clowns that you can be sexually interested in someone WHILE regarding them as human beings, being interested in their work, their personality, etc (but also thinking they look good)? This is not dehumanizing – this is part of BEING human! Furthermore, isn’t it funny that you seem to forget that plenty of women exist that objectify men are or are not interested in “getting to know” them before sex. This isn’t a one way street, and its much more complicated than dumb simple statements like the above make it out to be.
Yall aren’t paying attention. I already answered this my last comment. Respond to that first.
Hey dumbass, you mentioned him directly in reference to an earlier statement I made (comment 345), which was also misconstrued to mean that I somehow have an interest in meeting you stupid dipshits like yourself. Who is the one lacking in communication skills?
Is that a trick question?
Still you, fuckmonkey. Let’s review:
Paragraph one of mine talks about you, and the tendency for assholes like you to assume that we’d think differently about you if we knew you in real life, which ties into your comment about assumptions about character.
There’s nothing in there about wanting to meet you, asshole, or vice versa. It was BJ Kramer who was talking about buying his interlocutors a beer, and that was pretty clear from paragraph two, which was a comparison, but not actually about you.
Jesus, you really have your face fucking welded to your navel, don’t you?
I can see why a woman would have to smash you across the face with a beer bottle before you’d fucking get it.
(Isn’t all this flirting fun, karlvonmarx?)
Did karlvonmox educate himself yet about what objectification means?
Obviously he did not.
“Yeah, assholes. Stop harassing me about what you think I’m saying, when I clearly answered the important question with one line eight questions in.”
Jesus, what a fucking waste of skin.
Is that a rhetorical question?
Did you read the part about missed opportunities? He’s got a bedpost to brag to his bros about.
What happened to this?
Sounds like horses for courses, Karl.
–
Point is, objectifying isn’t OK, it’s rude, banal and even traumatising to the human being being objectified. The fact that some women do it too doesn’t make it OK. I’m not so naïve as to think it won’t continue to occur, but regarding it as the norm or at least within a spectrum of normative behaviour just isn’t going to fly.
–
Didn’t someone else quote Granny Weatherwaxx earlier?
karlvonmox @ 369;
I think the situation is well beyond ‘small unwanted sexual advances’ – the situation is such now that a substantial fraction of the woman attending one of these conferences can expect a significant level of unwanted sexual attention, including from people who really can’t take a hint, and the TAM sexual harassment policy either isn’t robust enough to deal with the situation, or is actively organised to minimise the incidence of reports of harassment, rather than deal with the actual harassment itself, and that is a very serious problem.
Personally, I think that it is perfectly possible for a man to communicate interest in a woman, who is making signals that she may reciprocate that interest, in a respectful fashion. The fact that you think that sexual harassment is somehow inevitable in any environment where men and women meet, and that this should just be accepted as the ‘price of doing business’, so to speak, leads me to think that you have an exceptionally low opinion of men.
So there is no behaviour that you would think amounts to a fairly unambiguous statement of interest or the lack thereof? What about a woman saying’ “look at the time – must dash” or words to that effect? What about a woman edging further and further away from you, or refusing to make eye contact and instead looking across the room away from you? Or, conversely, leaning in, making eye contact, smiling, placing her hand on yours, with such behaviour being maintained for the bulk of the conversation? None of these signals would be clear enough for you? Not even enough to function as a broad hint as to which direction the encounter may be beginning to move in?
Asking for a phone number is an ‘initial move’, is it? Not actually talking to her about her life, her job, her hobbies, her interests? Not trying to determine the degree to which the two of you might be compatible, in terms of lifestyle or perspective? Not looking for clues that maybe she is interested in you, or is showing signs of boredom or even discomfort? I would think that offering a phone number might come up at the end of a conversation that seems to have been going well and heading in that general direction, not at the beginning as some kind of ‘hail Mary pass’.
And these women who gave you telephone numbers within a few minutes were completely within their rights to do so, but that does not mean that every woman would be comfortable giving or receiving phone numbers (with the implied sexual connotation) so quickly, and rather than assuming that they would, wouldn’t it be better to take recognisance of the fact that it might make them uncomfortable, and instead wait until they broach the subject, or otherwise indicate some level of interest in such an exchange?
But why do that when it may make the woman in question uncomfortable? Why not wait until you receive some kind of sign that she may be interested? Or even wait for her to make such a move? Why should the pace be forced to fit with your agenda?
So the woman can never express agency of her own in your view? And I see that I now have an answer to my question posed @ 363;
Your answer seems to be ‘yes’ – it doesn’t matter if you are risking making women feel uncomfortable with your sexual advances, all that matters is that you don’t ‘miss chances’ to maneuver a woman into a sexual encounter. You have admitted that, in your eyes, your desires outweigh the wishes of women.
But not in relation to sexual objectification and unwanted sexual advances, I take it?
As you say, women are individuals. Intimate relationships, and the intial advances toward them, are imprecise social interactions. Each person reacts to a given situation differently, and if you want some universal instruction manual for all such encounters, you will be disappointed. Approaching a woman is not like assembling flat packed furniture – you must be sensitive to the messages she is sending as an individual, and you must attempt to judge her level of interest as sympathetically as you can. What you must never do is simply treat it all as some kind of game – a combination of actions undertaken with the sole intent of getting her into bed by any means necessary.
Gender essentialism and evo-psych blather will net you more invitations to carnal relations with decomposing porcupines around here…
So only a hard “no” or “get away from me, creep” would be clear enough for you? Nothing more nuanced than that would suffice?
LOL you don’t have an honest bone in your body do you. You just fucking told us that you badger women well passed the point where they disinterest is obvious because you just never know what those goofy bitches will suddenly change their mind.
So, to answer your question: YES, people can be interested in someone sexually and not dehumanize them. YOU, on the other hand, clearly CANNOT.
“Some black people are racist. Therefore…”
Aside from the one that does all the thinking and determines how he interacts with the person-shaped rind around a vagina, you mean?
Not assumptions, but conclusions based on evidence from what you have said. And the evidence suggests you are a danger around women. As for your character, the person damaging that is yourself. No help is needed from either myself or Brownian to make you look a misogynist fuckwit.
Yes, but I didn’t like your response, so I’m going to keep asking until I get the one I want because my needs are more important and you might just be bad at communicating what you really mean.
Actually, I just missed it, but isn’t it frustrating when people steamroll right over what you believe to have been a very clear message?
Well then tough shit. You get to go home and play with your pee-pee on you own.
Really, this is not fucking hard. Well actually it may be, but the understanding is not hard.
that is such a fucking tradgedy though. I would gladly put up with dudes constantly trying to put their dick in me to avoid such a heartbreaking conclusion to a mans day. its only fair.
Feats of Cats, this is not your first awesome response in this thread, but I just had to QFT.
$50 says karl’s too busy juggling his heavy, full of the need to ejaculate in someone—anyone, stat!—balls to get it.
Aw, Brownian, that means a lot coming from you. :)
Wow, 24 whole hours… what is a man supposed to do, keep talking to a woman past 24 hours when he hasn’t even got his scrote fondled? I mean, come the fuck on! If you haven’t sealed the deal in less than 6 hours, your game must be weak!
Clearly, you know what to do. When you hit 36 hours you have to just whip out your cock and see what happens. She can always say no, and then you can move on to the next “romantic” target.
“Dehumanizing” is not in logical opposition to being human. In fact, only humans dehumanize. “Dehumanizing” is what one does to others. How you act on your sexual interest in a person (regardless of other accessory or integral interests) determines if you have objectified her.
So why not just wait for one of these women to hit on you if that’s your thing? You may even improve your chances by participating in the kind of lekking behavior that showcases willing objects.
Improbable Joe @ 404;
Stop, stop! I just can’t bear the injustice of it! The idea that some poor dood might have to work for more than one 24 hour period to build up a sufficient rapport with a woman to know whether she is interested sexually in him or not… surely no human should ever have to suffer such anguish?
Don’t you monstrous castrating feminazis care about our pee-pees? There you are, all womanlike and such, taunting us (and our pee-pees) with your woman bits (which are under clothing, but we still know they are there, damn it!), but when we decide that we are going to grace you with our pee-pee, without bothering to find out if you want us to, then you suddenly turn nasty, and it is all “guys, don’t do that”. What about our needs? And the needs of our pee-pees? Our precious, delicate, needy pee-pees…
*Runs away, sobbing uncontrollably*
Karlvonmox, it seems obvious that the woman who doesn’t give a single sign of interest while secretly craving the intromission of your mighty pizzle goes for rides on the Loch Ness Monster’s back every morning. Ditch those mythical archetypes and learn to interact with women as real people.
Not that the last bit will happen till you learn not to be such a bowing and scraping little toady to King Penis. A whole day! You poor little sausage. I knew my partner for three weeks before I knew that she was romantically interested – yeah, I was in a constant state of mental and lower abdominal distress from the first hour onwards, with a scrote so loaded I could’ve stood in for a carwash machine. (/sarcasm)
I must say, I am all but befondled by your delibertarian disregard for my precious pee-pee.
“romantically”?
pretty sure that 24 hours are not even enough to decide if someone is romantically interesting, much less if someone is romantically interested. so even if you blurt out that you’ve developed an insta-crush, that’s not going to get you any closer to figuring out whether the person might be romantically interested in you. and it might even scare them off, because really? what sort of person falls in love with strangers?
or is the problem here, rather, that karl can’t tell sexual interest from romantic interest, and he meant to whine about not being able to tell, even after 24 hours, whether someone has the hots for him?
Because those women tend to hit on people like me.
We do cut dashing figures in our Über-Feminist Thought Police uniforms.
Uh… so?
Is interacting in a non-sexual way with a woman you are sexually interested in really that much of a sacrifice for you? If you spend hours, days, even weeks talking to woman you’re sexually interested in only to discover that she’s not really interested in having sex with you but may like you as a friend, would you consider that to have been a waste of time?
Are you sure you treat the women you find attractive as human beings?
Tell me where I said that. What I and others do is approach women I find attractive if I feel like it, indicate my interest, and see if I get a favorable response. If I don’t I move on. How many times do I have to repeat that I’m not about badgering women past a point of disinterest? You people are incredibly dense sometimes.
Similarly, Im not going to engage in this pointless exercise with Brownian about what was/wasn’t said. He can mentally masturbate about this stuff on his own.
Im not saying harassment is inevitable. Hence the distinction between sexual harassment (not allowed) and indicating sexual interest (i.e. “hitting on”, allowed depending on some nebulous criteria according to you folks).
Im saying that this sounds good in theory but is impossible in practice. Signs of interest vary by situation, by individual, by culture. Things will always be awkward at times, unless you can read someones mind. This is the simple reality. Like I said before on another thread, all this will lead to is timid men who will have no idea how to express interest in a woman, and will problably opt not to do it at all.
Of course there is. But there is also behavior that doesn’t indicate either way, warranting further investigation.
This stuff can be accomplished during the date later – the fact that she is going on the date indicates she wants to have that kind of conversation. And contrary to the sexual morality you all want to impose on me, having sex with someone without “getting to know” them substantially is perfectly acceptable in my book, and in the minds of others both male and female. Again, it seems you all have this moral standard of when it’s acceptable to have sex that resembles something theists have.
Sure, but then I can be twiddling my thumbs forever waiting for such a signal and never get it. Is it “harassment” to ask for a phone number now? Or does it fall under mild annoyance or “hitting on”? The interested women will give it, the non-interested ones will not, and that’s the end of it.
I think what really bugs you people about this is that this strategy actually works. I’ve gotten sex and relationships from many women this way, by doing this at bars or at other venues. Vast positives for both me and a woman while the only negative might be making someone slightly uncomfortable for a few minutes who isn’t interested. The tradeoff here is clear.
You can’t protect or shield anyone from being momentarily uncomfortable, or from being the target of unwanted attention. Its simply not possible when there are groups of people interacting and trying to fulfill sexual desires. Cues will be misread or not noticed, and people might be momentarily inconvenienced. This will happen UNLESS you tell people not to act on those desires under any circumstances. This is too extreme even for you, so you try to saddle some hypothetical middle ground that exists in theory but is impossible in practice.
I haven’t posted in this thread for a couple of hours.
Did I use that time to have sex? DID I?
Well, no actually. Should I be upset about that? Or perhaps I could go and have the sexy sexy sex right now. Hmmmmm. I could put the proposition to the Beloved Mrs that the act of conjugal unpleasantness is to be desired this evening, but how best to do it?
I know. I shall march up to her firm and erect and demand in a manly voice that she perform her wifely duties upon my person with all due care and attention. I shall inform her that, as a woman, her views on the matter are immaterial and if she could keep the noise and movement down to a minimum I can get the whole sordid business over and done with in about 15 seconds of flatulent glory.*
Nothing like a good old fashioned bit of conjugal unpleasantness. Of course this does mean I will have to have a second child, but that’s women’s business, surely. Not for me to worry about.
Louis
* Including foreplay** and trip to the pharmacist.
** Uttering the words “Brace yourself” before turning the lights of and keeping my socks on.
Is that the uniform that comes with the built in castration knives in the crotch ?
Whilst I am commenting, I thought I should recount something I heard on Radio 4 a week or so ago. Tony Parsons, author of Man and Boy and other novels, was part of a discussion about couples where the woman earns more than the man. He said that were he ever in such a situation his penis would literally fall off. I’d always thought him a bit of a prat, but he has now entered a whole new category.
What brought that to mind is that I was thinking these PUAs would be like that.
Gregory,
They neither respect our peepees or our feefees (IMPORTANT!).
Why!? WHYYYYY!? WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BE A MAN!?
Louis
P.S. The white poison is toxic and can make us do bad things, which is why blue balls is a real medical complaint you can die of and everything. I know it’s true a bloke down the pub said.
Actually, no one here tried to impose such a thing on you.
I stand corrected, and make amends:
So why not just wait for one of these women to hit on you if that’s your thing? You may even improve your chances by participating in the kind of lekking behavior that showcases willing objects. Also, get one of those Über-Feminist Thought Police uniforms. The ladies love those.
This is the same guy that tells me Im the egomaniac. LOL
You brought it up. What’s the matter? Can’t finish the job? They have pills for that.
By the way, you never did finish dealing with my non-responses. You just said that, and then went on to deal with other people’s comments.
You having trouble following along? Or am I just too much man for you to deal with?
There you go again, totally missing the point. Which is that Brownian was not being serious but you are.
Jadehawk,
Just for the record, I’m pretty sure that’s the case. I was going to say something similar @#411, but then I refreshed, saw your post, didn’t want to repeat your point and deleted part of my comment. So #411 assumes that is the case.
Tell us where we said that!
(Why, I do think you’re warming up to me. Give me another twenty or so hours, and I’ll know for sure whether I want to fuck you.)
I think it was when we were telling him that asking a women if she wants a fuck five minutes after meeting her might not be a very nice thing to do. For some reason he has confused simple manners with moral dictatorship. Easily done if you think with your pee-pee like he does.
Be fair. Karl doesn’t know if a woman doesn’t want to talk to him until the bear spray comes out, and then some.
Calm down, it will be OK I swear! It isn’t our fault that some women expect men to pretend to listen to them under false pretenses, and then withhold the nookie from us unfairly. Our pee-pees have rights, damn it! If I buy a couple of drinks for a woman, I’ve earned at least a handy, and if I’m sufficiently good at nodding and agreeing for a whole day she owes me the whole nookie cookie. And if they aren’t going to give it up in the first 24 hours, they need to let us know so we can get our pee-pees serviced elsewhere.
What do we want? Men’s Rights! When do we want it? Within the first 24 hours!
I think a women could have ripped his balls off with her bare hands shouting “leave me alone you sexist arsehole” and he would still be left wondering if a fuck was on the cards.
Bull-fucking-shit, Karl. Did you forget this exchange?
Whoa, it’s like I have a wayback machine!
Hey, guess what? You don’t get to decide what other people consider harassment!
Let’s have an example, shall we? Most corporate anti-harassment policies ban “unwanted sexual advances” which would include (*gasp!*) hitting on someone who didn’t want to be hit on!
Tell me, Karl, do you rail at your HR department at work ‘cos they’re killin’ your mojo?
Fill in the blank!
When a man backs off because he is unsure if a woman is interested, it is bad because ____________.
Don’t you mean twiddling your pee-pee?
No, the bulk of us have a problem with d00dz that can’t tell the difference between “harassment” and acting like a decent (and sexual!) human being.
Here’s the thing, karlvonasshole (may I call you karlvonasshole? It’s so fitting): This isn’t about a momentary discomfort (why does this have a whiff of “stiff upper lip, ladies!”?)– if that were the case, we’d get over it and move on. It’s about women dealing with this shit all the fucking time and wanting to attend a conference where they are treated as people, not vaginas with legs.
missed this. entirely unsurprised karl is the sort of person who harangues complete strangers on the street for personal information and asks these complete strangers to spend time alone with him.
this behavior is probably the #1 reason why I hate American-style dating. One of these troglodytes once refused to accept my answer of “I don’t date”, and because I was at work I wasn’t allowed to say what I thought of his behavior any more forcefully than I already had. Had to give him a fake number just to make him go away, because a manager wasn’t around to kick the guy out.
Is there a bingo square for “Unless men are allowed to hit on women at all times real manly men ™ will become extinct/ the world as we know it will end!!!1elebenty!!!”
Karl doesn’t much remember who said what. All he knows is that he hasn’t gotten any digits yet.
since there is no epidemic of “timid” men remaining life-long virgins, I have a hard time taking this seriously.
Plenty of actually shy (as opposed to Nice Guy-ish) dudes get laid and get romantically involved just fine. Generally by treating women as humans and interacting with them the same way they’d interact with non-female people, and more-than-friends interest generally either appears or it doesn’t.
worries about missing a chance have nothing to do with shyness most of the time, they have to do with anxious masculinity
…I’ll be in my bunk.
Brownian:
Not being blessed with a pee-pee, I gotta ask: is memory loss a side effect of not getting teh secks from strangers?
er, no. that predation works is hardly what bug anyone about predation.
You don’t have to tell me. I’ve years of schoolyard bully effectiveness behind me.
Good catch. (I’m jealous I missed that point.) You have earned your internets for the day, AE.
karlvonmox is just one degree of separation away from making a comment about omelets and eggs.
Is that what you think is going on at events like TAM? Because that might be your problem, right there.
Well, Karl is afraid his balls will swell up, turn purple, and drop off like overripe plums. AND HE MIGHT MISS AN OPPORTUNITY!
BINGO?!?!?!?!?! THIS IS NOT A GAME!!!!!
Don’t you understand, there are pee-pees at stake! If a man is forced to go more than 36 hours without a woman touching his pee-pee he might be forced to… to… I can’t even say it! The HORROR!
If you honestly think this is some Feminazi misandrinist zone, why do you think that would do anything but encourage people?
Hell if I know. I don’t actually know any men in real life who endlessly worry about getting laid by strangers to the point of developing strategies based on duck hunting.
Well you know what they say: you can’t make an omelet without jizzing on a few eggs. Or something to that effect
most of karls’s comments are confused anyway. he keeps on conflating figuring out romantic interest and figuring out sexual interest. I blame it mostly on him being a fucking idiot, but I do admit, as I noted above, that American dating is really flawed because the scripts for romantic and sexual interest are almost the same
I can’t recall
Is Karl still occupying all the straw in the building?
{Whistles}
Hey everyone! Survey time! Also, CONFESSION Time. I’m going to be bluntly honest, so the tender and sensitive (and disinterested) can look away now. Let’s see if I can help clue Karl in.
During my life I have asked women in bars/at parties if they would like to dance, or have a drink, or talk. I have even, I am slightly ashamed to say due to cheesiness, given some my number (I never ask for a woman’s number…just…yuck). Several times in my life those questions have been the start of a one night stand or a short, or long, term sexual relationship. They weren’t always intended to start those things, but the majority of the positive replies ended that way. The positive answers that didn’t end in sex ended in a pleasant evening of conversation and/or dancing, which, I’m sorry, is just as good. And I loves me some sex, I also like female company. Women are people too, who’d a thunk it? In fact scratch that, I like company, a beer, a chat, a game of pool or a dance or a whatever (non-sexual), it’s bloody marvellous. Male, female, animal, vegetable or mineral, if it can hold its own in a conversation and buy me a beer I’ll love it until the end of time.
Every time I approached a woman, I was polite, observed the woman/situation in question briefly beforehand to see if she was likely to welcome my (or any) advance, and took the first indication of “no” or slight discomfort as a sign to politely withdraw. Because I took the time to assess the situation/woman in front of me (as to her willingness/openness to being approached), and thus only rarely been moved to approach a woman in this manner, I have been lucky to get more “yes” than “no”.
I have never done this in a professional environment, nor at a conference, nor randomly walked up to a woman on the street and propositioned her in any manner. Or anything similar. And not from a lack of confidence.
Since being married, my wife and I have conducted various degrees of open relationship from swinging to polyamory. We’ve even tried monogamy (freaky I know). We’ve approached women and men, in exactly the manner described above, at swingers’ parties, poly events etc (i.e. poly friendly and obviously poly spaces/events). We have taken every “no” instantly and politely, and we have similarly responded politely to every request we’ve received, whether yes or no.
Despite going out partying/drinking a lot, I very rarely bothered to try to pick up women at all unless it was reasonably clear that a specific woman was interested in being picked up by me. Now any and all picking up is done at specifically tailored events and under controlled circumstances, so it hardly counts.
Whilst this may come across as bragging, I’m not trying to do that, apologies if it appears that way, I’ve had a wider variety of sexual partners and experience than the vast majority of my friends, relatives and acquaintances (there’s a few notable exceptions!). Whether or not that’s a good thing is immaterial. I am on good terms with every ex short/long term partner, and the people with whom I’ve had one night stands were happy to have one night stands, this was established at the time.
Based on this am I a harasser of women? Are my wife and I harassers? (We do NOT have sex cards if that helps, nor would we! ;-) )
Louis
Perhaps the problem is that karl only has success when trying for a quickie one-nighter, because any woman who does talk to him any longer than that realizes what an ass he is and gets the hell away as fast as she can. He can’t risk actually talking to a woman first – then he’d never get anywhere.
Well one of the strawmen might want to have sex with him. He can’t risk missing that opportunity.
Audley,
Yes.
As is rabies, aeroplane crashes, automobile accidents, the stock market crash and the death of tiny little children.
Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children (And thus fondle my man bag)?
Louis
Ing,
Ouch! THAT is going to take more than a handy sized tube of lube.
Louis
He needs to take the advice Rebecca Watson gave men like him in the wake of ElevatorGate, and buy himself an inflatable woman.
The whole “timid man” bullshit sums up peckerheads like karlvontriestoohard in a nutshell.
Look, dude, just because you’ve got some fucking dipshitted issue with not being enough of a man doesn’t mean you’ve got to drag the rest of us along with you. Most of us are just fucking fine.
Go on a men’s retreat. Find your inner animal.
Oh I have a follow up question to my #446, but it has to wait until I have an answer or two. It’s for Karl’s edumification dontcherknow.
Don’t let me forget.
Louis
That’s why I suggested an inflatable doll. Got to be easier on the pee-pee fucking one of those rather than one made of straw.
Shit, I’m gonna keep an eye on the kitchen whenever I order one now.
Matt,
Imagine getting straw in your peepee hole….CRIKEY!
That does not bear consideration. I’m not doing THAT!
Is the practise called “sounding” or something?* I seem to remember it from a Savage Love episode. Hell, if it gets people off and they are all consenting adults, go to it, but I’ll take a pass and nip to the bar on THAT one thanks.
Louis
* Not fucking googling it.
Ing:
How many fucking times do I have to remind you guys?
My bladder control ain’t what it used to be! Won’t somebody please think of my couch??
Yes, it’s called sounding. Doing it with straw would be highly inadvisable – a polished surgical steel rod is recommended.
Quite frankly I don’t think anything is recommended!
Dysomniak,
Thanks!
I figured straw would be not quite the thing for the job. One thing I love about our species is it’s diversity of tastes. I can look at someone who engages in sounding and cheerfully shake their hand and be happy. I don’t require they have identical proclivities to me nor I to them. I’m even willing to go to a party at someone else’s house, look at their music collection and NOT utter the words “don’t you have any good music?”.*
That took years of therapy though.
Louis
* Unless they have Celine Dion and Justin Bieber albums. Then I kill them.
Oh Satan, not sounding… I was in a fetish shop in I guess Connecticut back in 2003 and I thought the (please let it have been a novelty item) 6″ diameter butt-plug was the scariest thing in the place until I saw the sounding rods. Yick, and also ouch.
Absolute worst case scenario – the women will have to start expressing interest more forcefully in the men.
Oh, the horror, the horror! Females with agency! AAAIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Improbable Joe:
Novelty? Anal stretching is totally a thing.
Don’t make me link to goatse.
Audley,
Goatse? I have never heard of this thing. It must be foolishness. Here let us sit down and have a party with these lemons, I only have the waffles left in blue I am afraid, and just the one cup for the girls who are coming.
Louis
*shudder*
Also, to toot my own horn a little bit* (‘cos no one else is gonna do it), I so totally called karl’s argument waaaaaaaay back in comment 53:
Self high five!
*Okay, I don’t have a horn to toot. Would any of you gentlemen let me borrow yours?
What made me Google that ? How the fuck am I going to get that image out of head ?
*points and laughs*
I’d prefer to keep my sightings of rectal cavities doubling as hangars down to one per lifetime.
Audley,
DOWN! GET DOWN! BACK WOMAN I SAY! BACK!
Louis
P.S. Good work though. I wanna know if I’m a harasser though, no one is telling me, I has a sad, I reckon it’s because they don’t want me to ask Karl my follow up question. ;-)
Matt:
Oh my god, I can’t stop laughing*.
I’m so, so, so sorry! I thought everyone one the internet had already seen it or at least knew of it.
*My poor couch!
Sexual harassment!!!!
I’m going to put together a Kickstarter project to make a documentary film, that I shall call “Not Without My Pee-Pee: The Karl Von Douchecanoe Story”.
Going around in circles now, evading anything substantive. Not surprising considering this crowd. I don’t know why I even invested part of my day to comment here on this, but I wont make the mistake again. Last comment.
Decided it wasn’t worth the effort, clown. I moved on to more substantive comments – sorry to hurt your feelings.
I was referring to a situation BEFORE you make it clear you are interested in some way. Again, more confusion, more distortions. Once you do make it clear you are interested, if this interest is NOT returned, then its over. Why is this so hard for you idiots to understand?
That is a fine answer. There is always another woman around the corner that will have a different one. Its okay that YOU dont like “American-style” dating, but you dont get to impose YOUR beliefs on others.
But they have a harder time doing so. The only way of making sure it will happen is by being outgoing, and going for what you want.
They are the same for a lot of people, and again, you don’t get to tell them otherwise.
Ask any of the women I’ve dated if they consider what I did “predation”. You will get an answer you dont want to hear.
I dont have time to respond to the rest of the nonsense here. Keep living in your fantasy world, maybe reality will catch up eventually, although its gonna be hard with the echo-chamber.
Why am I suddenly thinking about porcupines, their quills, and the things we suggest to trolls. Er… no. Just… no.
This thread is getting weird.
Well thank fuck for that.
I think I can say on behalf of us all, you will not be missed. Just make sure you wear your creepy sexist arsehole badge at all times, so the women you meet will know to get away from your asap.
You could totally pitch porcupines at that goatse guy and not even hit the sides. Hah!
Noooooooo Karl! Don’t go before we find out if I’m a harasser or not, I’ll never be able to ask my follow up question.
Louis
karl:
So?
Once again, fill in the blank!
When a man backs off because he is unsure if a woman is interested, it is bad because ____________.
Thanks. Now I will never get that image out of my head. And it now has added decayed porcupine.
Where the fuck did I put the bleach!
Yep, that is you kvm. You haven’t said anything of substance. Just fuckwittery and hot air. Very good at hot air.
Yes, you are still confused, and still distorting our arguments. Your fuckwittery was confused and distorted prior to your posting here. Not the brightest most coherent bulb around.
You are the one with the fantasy world, kvm’s world, all delusions. We live in reality, but not your imagined reality. The reality where half population is treated worse for something they were born with, and this should be changed. Any rational and emotive person can see that. But in kvm world, you can ignore what your actions do to others. And the echo-chamber you hear is from your empty head…
His pee-pee will fall off ?
Matt,
Lemon Party.
Blue Waffle.
Go, go to google.
Then go to the Encyclopaedia Dramatica’s gross out page, scroll through and look at the whole lot.
Then come back with your faith in humanity, mortal!
Louis
You know that’s not an echo chamber. The echo would never come back!
karlvonmox, if I asked one of the women who turned you down, I suspect “predation” would be a much closer fit of her view of things.
Matt,
Worse! His Man Feefees (IMPORTANT) could be hurt.
Louis
Matt:
I thought it was because he lost his mind.
*gasp!* Maybe both heads will be effected?
Louis, what was the question? Out with it*, man!
—
*Interpret as you wish.
Amblebury (Not male, not English…apologies!),
Am I a harasser of women and are my wife and I harassers based on the excruciating detail in my #446.
I can then use this information to show Karl lots of exciting things.
Louis
Late morning coffee.
With a soupçon of brain-bleach today, barrista.
Ah. Coin toss?
Heads you…oh, fuck it.
Or by “treating women as humans and interacting with them the same way they’d interact with non-female people, and more-than-friends interest generally either appears or it doesn’t.”
But I guess to you that would be too much of a sacrifice. Wasting time interacting with women when you can’t be sure there will be sex and romantic involvement afterwards? No way!
Hey bro, you might not want to wave your strawman’s phallus around in public, could get you into troub….Oh, never mind then.
I’m not “imposing” anything, and certainly not “beliefs”, you fucking idiot. Learn what words mean.
and?
1)you can’t every “make sure” you’ll get laid, unless you aren’t planning on taking no for an answer; and 2)it’s lovely how you conflate “outgoing” with “disinterest is an invitation, ambiguity is a yes”; 3)if making it slightly less likely that you’ll get laid is the only consequence to not promoting a meat-market-culture outside of actual meat-markets, then that’s fine by me.
you can’t read for shit. of course they are the same, that’s what I just said you fucking moron.
why would I? I don’t ask Mormons and their successful targets if what they do is predation, either.
In the time it took you to hit the enter key?
Right.
The actual answer is that you’re too fucking focused on yourself to know who the fuck you’re even responding to.
Just like in your interactions with women.
You may not be smarter than you, but I am.
We know, we know, it’s a waste of your time, six-and-a-half hours later. How terrible it must have felt to have been the first person to ever have heard that one, way back in the 80s.
Well, I’ll be here the next time you feel like getting your nuts crushed. Metaphorically, of course.
Louis @ 415;
Bad things, indeed. No unattended warm apple pie in the land will be safe!
Won’t any of you ebil feminazis think about the poor apple pies? What did they ever do to you?
—————————————————————-
Improbable Joe @ 425;
‘Tis surely a right and just manifesto for the rights of men (and their pee-pees) everywhere!
—————————————————————-
Audley Z Darkheart (liar and scoundrel) @ 427;
Now , now. Don’t confuse Karl by quoting his own arguments back to him. If we are so unreasonable as to remember every little thing he says, how on Earth is he supposed to come across as anything other than a dishonest, misogynistic moron? I mean, give the poor lad a chance!
Oh, oh! I know this one – it is bad because of missed opportunities, and without those civilisation will obviously collapse and we will all be reduced to cannabalising one another in a hellish, irradiated post-apoclyptic wasteland, possibly ruled over by Tina Turner…
Do I get a cookie?
:-)
Four quotes that tell me Karl is a shit:
It’s all about getting “what you want.” Conferences are “to fulfill sexual desires.” If a woman doesn’t want sex, like right off the bat, you “move on.” After all, “there’s always another woman around the corner.”
I suspect that deep down, Karl is shallow.
No, I wouldn’t consider that harassment.
Here’s what Karl and his ilk fail to grasp.
—
There’s nothing wrong with sex, lovely sex, enjoyable sex. There’s everthing wrong with treating meetings or conferences held because of an assumed shared interest as hunting grounds. And moreover, where the male of the species assumes it is his rôle/right to prey on the female.
How hard can it be to understand that? It’s in a file marked Bleeding Obvious.
karlvonmox, you’ve already admitted that making people uncomfortable in your quest for sex is acceptable. Their discomfort equals jackshit when balanced against you potentially getting laid.
This makes you an asshole but not any sort of rare asshole. A very common garden-variety asshole that can be found anywhere. The grocery store, a bar, on the job, walking the dog, basically anytime I leave my house I can find someone just like you.
Someone to walk up, hit on me, ignore my first polite response and, if I’m really lucky, snap at me for being a bitch when that doesn’t work. If I’m really, really lucky they might follow me around for a while to get back at me for being a bitch. If I’m super-duper lucky, they’ll physically harm me.
I can deal with it because I don’t have a choice. But Christ I’m so fucking sick of it. Every time it happens, I’m pissed off but I can’t even show that. There is zero support for women who aren’t nice about having their vagina chosen to receive the sainted seed of whatever loser strolls by.
I can guarantee that you’ve pissed off plenty of women and I know that you’ve noticed it. But as long as you can define how much discomfort they deserve in your quest for pussy, you don’t have to feel responsible. Which makes you, as I may have mentioned, an asshole.
Do you not get the connection there? You are imposing YOUR beliefs onto others by engaging in that behavior in the first place!!!!
Fun fact: karlvonmarx has never had a mosquito bite him. Their probosces just go right through.