So now it’s all about the “nice guys.” It’s not just that mean, mean Rebecca Watson slandered the good name of all men in the world by suggesting that one amongst their number had committed a somewhat creepy act in an elevator at 4 AM. Now some commenters are accusing her of something like a hate crime against the Nice Guys of the world.
According to cranky sometime-Men’s Rights blogger The Damned Olde Man, the woman he refers to only as “Rude Elevator Bitch” has publicly humiliated a man whose only crime was that he was a little bit shy. Embroidering liberally on the scant few facts we know about the case, Olde Man sets forth a brand new narrative of the incident — based largely on his own imagination –with the mysterious man at the center of the story now transformed into a sweet, awkward fellow he calls Nice Elevator Guy:
By all accounts, NEG appears to be a rather shy, somewhat unconfident nerd or geek who appears to be lacking in the social graces.
When Olde says “by all accounts” he actually means “by no accounts.” We have no idea what sort of personality this fellow has, only that he apparently propositioned Walker in an elevator in Dublin at 4 AM.
It was probably not a good idea to ask REB for coffee just after she finished a lecture on how she is offended by men who sexualize her, especially late at night in an isolated elevator. That would be her point of view which she and all of her supporters have stated quite eloquently. So if one only accounts for REB’s feelings, it was the wrong thing to do. But how about looking at the situation from NEG’s point of view?
That is, from the imaginary point of view of the imaginary character Olde has simply superimposed on a real man we know almost nothing about.
A shy, socially awkward nerd who lacks confidence is likely to feel uncomfortable in any situation where he intends to proposition a woman. But he is likely to be terrified of doing it in a public setting with plenty of people around to witness his humiliation when she turns him down. So from his point of view, an isolated elevator in the middle of the night is probably the ideal location, especially since he was probably never going to have this opportunity again.
Note to shy guys of the world: this is not a good idea. It’s not going to work out well for you.
I’m not quite sure if that’s necessary. I’m a shy guy, and I’m pretty sure most of us shy guys already know that propositioning a woman when the two of you are alone in an confined space is a bad idea. Many of us who sometimes feel awkward in social settings have what is known as “empathy” towards other people and thus are aware when something we do might just make someone else feel awkward. Olde Man continues:
His fear of humiliation is probably not as irrational as her fear of rape and in hindsight, it was definitely more justified. He didn’t rape her, she did reject him. She not only rejected him, she humiliated him, publically, for all the world to see.
Yeah. She “publicly” humiliated a guy she never named. According to a guy who has just written a long post in which he repeatedly refers to her — a blogger who posts under her real name — as a “bitch.”
It’s bad enough to read this bullshit in MRA blogs, where it’s irritating but hardly surprising.
It’s a bit more troubling to find much of this dumb argument repeated – in somewhat more polite language, admittedly – in Psychology Today. In a post entitled “What’s a Shy, Geeky, Nice Guy to Do?” cognitive psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman offers a very similar version of events, in which
a nervous, presumably geeky, socially awkward guy gets on [the elevator] ]with her … [his] heart probably beating fast and palms sweety as heck … .
“Presumably,” “probably” – in other words, these details are simply invented.
While Kaufman acknowledges that the mysterious (alleged) Nice Guy’s approach was “lame,” he, like Olde Man, turns the story into one in which Nice Guys are the real victims:
many entitled, narcissistic males have commented to the effect “what an ungrateful bitch, she should be grateful for being complimented!”, and quite a few feminists have commented “good for Rebecca for scolding men, they need to be put in their place!” All the while, shy, geeky, genuinely nice guys have sat there, reading these extreme comments, no doubt scratching their heads and wondering what in the world they are to do.
What is a shy, geeky, nice guy to do?
Then Kaufman gives some advice on how the Nice Elevator Guy could have handled the attempted pick-up better:
Don’t be creepy. Asking a girl to your hotel room in an elevator at 4 in the morning when the girl has already announced she is tired shows very poor mating intelligence. …
Well, yeah. He continues:
Look for indicators of interest. Any dating coach will tell you how important it is to look for signals of interest. Pay attention to her state. Does she look exhausted?
Generally speaking, when a woman gives a talk about how she hates being hit on at atheist conferences, then later announces that she’s tired and wants to go to bed, these are what you might call “Indicators of Leave Me the Fuck Alone.”
Kaufman goes on:
Does she cringe when you start talking? That’s probably not the right time to put your arm around her.
Can’t argue with that one, really. Cringing: never a good sign.
Kaufman barrels ahead with this mixture of the obvious and the creepy:
Build some sort of rapport first. The guy in the elevator was a complete stranger. There was zero connection. What could the guy have done to increase his chances of receptivity in this particular situation, when she clearly was not in the mood? It’s hard to imagine he could have done anything, but at the very least he could have tried to make some sort of connection.
Or, here’s a radical notion: he could have just LEFT HER ALONE. This one tired lady in the elevator is not the only lady in the world. There will be other chances. Stand down, dude.
But Kaufman, who can’t leave well enough alone himself, goes on to imagine a scenario in which Nice Elevator Guy manages to charm Watson utterly.
RUPERT: Oh, hi Rebecca! I’m a huge fan of yours. I really liked your ideas earlier about skepticism…feminism…blah…blah…And I totally hear you about the guys here. They really are creepy, aren’t they? [Insert witty joke here about how if you were a female at this conference you’d become a lifelong skeptic of geeky men]
WATSON: [Laughs] Yea, thanks for understanding. You were really listening to what I said earlier. What do you research?
Ungghhhh. Excuse me, but I have to go lie down for a moment. The stupid here is too much.
After a bit more of this imagined witty banter, the charmed WATSON is inviting HIM to HER room!
It was at this point that I discovered that there was another whole page worth of this shit. I couldn’t bring myself to read it.
Then let’s talk about ‘potential rapist,’ if that’s what you think ‘creepy’ is supposed to mean. How offensive do you feel this statement is to you? How many feminists have you asked about it, and do they agree that it means ‘potential rapist’? How strongly do you think the potential for rape is implied by the word creepy?
It’s not exactly something one goes around talking about to semi-random people, because 1. that in itself might come off as creepy if approached in the wrong way, and 2. as they always say, don’t ask questions you don’t want to hear the answer to.
I would feel like I was being treated in a bigoted manner due to my being born male, and I would not like it, so I might not have done enough debating on the issue before this.
As for offensive, well, given how horrible a thing rape is, it’s kind of like being accused of being a Complete Monster.
I think it’s actually a valuable discussion to have with lots of people, if you’re careful not to tread on toes. It is a bit of an inflammatory subject, but as long as we’re both really listening to each other’s points of view I’m happy to discuss this with you.
Now, you think that being called creepy is an example of a gendered slur? And if you were called creepy at some point, you think it would be because you were “being treated in a bigoted manner due to [your] being born male,” and that calling you creepy is the same thing as directly accusing you of “being a Complete Monster” and rapist?
I’m not trying to annoy you with these questions; you said you haven’t spent much time thinking about this issue and I’m curious as to whether you’ve put a lot of thought into it.
It’s quite alright.
I don’t think creepy is inherently a gendered slur, no. However, in the context at hand, I believe it does serve as one.
To me, context is a big part of the whole controversy.
Rebecca Watson was concerned that women were “intimidated” to come to atheism conferences because of fear of unwanted male propositions and other “sexualization.”
Now, I don’t really have a horse in that particular race, but if I were an atheist activist, I would feel like I was being told yet again that men are, at the absolute least, are thoughtless, awkward louts who clearly needed to be shamed and browbeaten into being “socially adept,” or at worst, that all we men are there for is to treat female atheists like sex objects and disregard them, which a given man might not do but it does in fact have a similar effect on the men who are good, they are afraid to say anything for being called a sexism enabler, or an objectifier.
It is a real problem at some of the other blogs, as you are surely aware.
Let’s take this slowly so we don’t say too much in one post and start tangling our topic of conversation.
Earlier, you said that I had some valid concerns about how some men will dismiss what I say, or call me a bitch, or react very strongly and very badly to statements of mine in ways that women don’t, for the most part, react. So you believe that there is a problem with some men who get really angry when women are talking. If we can agree on that, let’s move on to the next point.
You also believe that when women talk about how some men treat them poorly in gendered ways, they go overboard, and you feel hurt. You are certainly allowed to feel hurt, and I’m not dismissing that. I want to know why you feel the way you do.
When I say that some men react badly to things I say, and as a result I am often more hesitant about expressing strong opinions around men, I don’t mean to say that I dislike men, or that I automatically assume every man is the worst case scenario jerk in any conversation. I’m just slightly more aware that a conversation can go south when I’m talking to a man. And if I actually know the guy in question, I’ll make my predictions based on how we’ve interacted before, not on my general impressions of how other men have talked to me. A conversation with a woman can get just as ugly, but it’s not quite as likely to get ugly. Do you understand the difference?
When you say that some women/feminists (which group are you talking about?) react badly to situations in which some men are up for criticism, you feel that they are tarring your entire gender with the same brush, and you feel hurt because you are one of the good ones and you don’t feel like you hear women/feminists (please specify) talking enough about good men, so you come away with the impression that women/feminists think poorly of men. Did I get that right?
I think that basically sounds accurate, yes.
And, I have the various postings of those other blogs to back me up.
You might say “those are only a few, other women there are more nuanced about it.”
The thing is, is it not said that men have a duty to police their fellow males for anything that smacks of untoward behavior?
I see very little, often none at all, censure of the women who state plainly their distrust/hatred of men per se.
Therefore I tend to figure that their own more nuanced positions are simply trying to pretty up an underlying message of feeling the same way as the less nuanced ones, or at least are fine with the less nuanced ones engaging in undeniably brazen misandry.
But I’m expressing some distrust of men in my statement up there. Given my experiences, am I in the wrong for being wary? I’m not saying that men suck, but I am saying that I, personally, don’t give them as much of the benefit of the doubt as I could when I’m talking to them about gender issues. Do you get the difference between “I don’t like men” and “I’ve had a few bad experiences with men, and I’m more cautious than I used to be around most men”?
I would like to think that it’s best that we judge everyone as individuals. If someone wrongs you, it is because they were a jerk, not because they were a man or a woman.
I would be more tolerant of female distrust if men were allowed to freely be distrusting of women.
By freely I mean it is treated as legitimately as female distrust of men is.
Yes, it is not just men’s duty, but everyone’s duty to “police” or as Rebecca did, create a teachable moment.
Well, let’s have an example of women who state plainly their distrust/hatred of men. From there we can see if your observations are correct.
From there we can examine the impact on society that such brazen misandery has, as opposed to the current pervasive misogyny that has existed for the last couple of thousand years of recorded history.
Your statement alone suffices.
Implying that it’s ever okay for women to indulge in shameful bigotry just because of the last two thousand years.
Actually, cynickal, I don’t want to ask caseymordred to pull examples from feminist websites, since he seems to have had a chilly reception there. We’re doing just fine with this discussion.
Now, caseymordred. We were talking about legitimacy of distrust.
You say we should judge people as individuals, and I am all for that. I have had many conversations with many men, and by no means do I think they’re interchangeable. But here’s the thing. When I don’t know a man at all, I have no idea how he will feel or react when I bring up conversation topics such as ‘being hit on in an elevator at 4 AM is an uncomfortable experience for women’. I don’t know how a strange woman would react either. BUT, this is important, in my experience, there is a general trend that I have noticed, in which a small minority of men have reacted badly to this kind of conversation. And this is a larger minority in men than in women that I have encountered. So is it okay for me to keep this in mind when starting this kind of conversation with men?
It almost sounds reasonable when you phrase it that way.
However, the same holds true with me, for similar reasons.
Imagine me trying to have this same conversation with a radical feminist in real life, who may or may not be less inclined to discuss things objectively like we are now. It would definitely be nerve-wracking.
Yes, I definitely agree that you would have trouble having this conversation with most feminists. Heck, this would be a difficult conversation if I were in a different mood, or if you were. Neither of us is being objective, by the way. We’re both being calm and reasonable and generous with our interpretations, but we are discussing deeply personal, subjective experiences. There is no way to be objective about this kind of stuff.
Now, I’m really curious. You said my point was almost reasonable. What part of it was unreasonable?
It’s more like I’m holding back from full approval because it could still be basically saying “It’s alright for women to falsely judge me before they get to know me.”
Also, I mean objective in the sense that we are willing to talk with each other rather than talk past each other, which is what I think the problem is in these debates. The men hear “Rebecca Watson thinks men are creepy potential rapists chasing away female support from atheist groups” and the women hear “Some men think we’re calling them potential rapists just because we talk about our worries.”
Oh, I see the problem. It’s the give-an-inch principle, where if you think you agree with something, I’m gonna go all reductio ad absurdum and try to force you to agree that women are completely justified in whipping out the flamethrower when a man coughs too hard.
I’m not going to do that, caseymordred.
I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, and I’m sure you don’t agree with everything I’ve said, but what we’re doing here is trying to find some common ground to build on. I keep asking you these questions so I can find that common ground. Do you agree with my ‘almost reasonable’ statement, or do we have to keep looking?
EWME, of course, misses the context.
Jenny McCarthy is a vaccine denier. All the diseases in that “game” are diseases she is actively working against preventing.
Do I think having her engaged in bathroom reading when she’s being mocked is great? No. I do note, however she’s clothed.
I’d say the comment on the back spine of the book in the picture is actually at least as offensive as the use of McCarthy’s fame from being a model is.
More, actually, as caricature is a perfectly valid part of politics, and I’m hard pressed to find any other aspect to caricature. I dislike it, not so much fort that, as the latent schadenfruede should she contract a preventable illness.
Shorter version: The thing on McCarthy isn’t about her looks, but her actions.
cynikal: Arks was using them because they are valid. He was comparing them to a PUA textbook.
Specious, because the one is junk, and the other two have merits.
Pecunium, The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker is not a PUA textbook. It is a personal security guide for women, offering strategies to deter stalkers and rapists. At one point in the book, it mentions a number of common strategies sexual predators use against women to make them cooperate. I believe Arks was suggesting that nice guys should pick up tips from that list of strategies.
As usual, late to the party.
That Kaufman guy sounds like he’s trying to be a PUA, with all the inherent assumptions about gender communication. Seems like the perfect psychologist to avoid for any man that wants to learn how not to be creepy.
A failure to communicate? It is communicated to women (and people read as women) again and again and again, primarily from men (but also in lesser degree from some women) that they must curtail their behavior and must be wary or violence will happen against them and will be treated as excusable. Women are constantly told to be terrified of these situations on threat of violence, yet when they express discomfort about these situations, they are the villain. Except, they can’t win even if they refuse to be afraid, because then they will be accused of being rude, hateful, and emasculating and told that they deserve any violence that happens against them.
“that all we men are there for is to treat female atheists like sex objects and disregard them” You know, a good way to change that impression would be to stop fucking doing those things. This is a widespread problem, and Watson was at this conference specifically to give a speech on this problem, after which, surprise surprise, some asshole kept doing it. And, she told people to “not do that”. If you don’t want people to think you are a sexist asshole, not doing sexist asshole stuff would be a good first step.
@darksidecat,
That comment wins.
@caseymordred,
Can we please stop acting like a man being called a potential rapist is the same thing as a man being called a rapist? Calling all men rapists isn’t cool, and not something I would ever stand for. But potential rapists? Well, basically, yes, to women, all men are potential rapists. That is to say we don’t know if a man will rape us or not. We don’t even know that of the men we trust, and it just so happens that most rapes are committed by men known to the victim. So if we don’t know if we can trust the people we already know, how the hell are we supposed to know whether a stranger is a rapist or not?
That’s the point of the whole Shroedinger’s Rapist thing. Every man a woman meets is going to be judged by her to have 50% chance of being rapist, varying depending on appearance (tattoos for example), place met (was it a restaurant or a bar?), and how easily the woman trusts based on previous experience. Depending on what the man does, he can increase or decrease that percent. If he does something to invade the boundaries of the woman he is speaking to, or he asks her an awkward question in a place without an easy exit, or he says something offensive or insensitive, that percentage is going up. If, however, he refrains from approaching, or he approaches in an open, easily escapeable setting, he avoids inappropriate language, and does not overstep any boundaries, that percentage will lower, and will continue to lower the better she gets to know him.
Just remember this: sure, you might be thought of as a potential rapist now and then, but that means you’re also thought of as a potential non-rapist. If that wasn’t the case, there’d be no need for “potential”. It would just be rapist.
I will give you points for honesty, at least, Alex.
Any woman who thinks of me that way can go FUCK herself and join the KKK.