Ruminations on Sexism

Ruminations on Sexism

Mark D Larsen
July 7, 2011

Several days ago I read on the internet a reaction to an incident that caused me to wince and roll my eyes. The incident to which I am referring was reported by “Skepchick” Rebecca Watson, as experienced while she was participating in the World Atheist Conference in Dublin, Ireland, June 3-5, 2011.
Her posted reactions to the incident, although understandable, struck me as “over the top,” especially given the minimal details she provided. I was going to shrug off the issue, but one of the other bloggers I follow determined that she “couldn’t remain silent about this”, and exhorted others to not shy away from the expressing their perspective, despite feeling “reluctant or afraid to express dissent.” Her admonition motivated me to tickle this keyboard.
I purport that it might prove helpful to first provide some of the background that preceded the incident itself. From what I’ve been able to determine, Watson had attended the conference session “Women Atheist Activists” and took issue with what Paula Kirby said in her presentation. I concede that I do not know what Kirby said specifically that irritated Watson, but if it was anything like her published articles criticizing the plight of women in religious societies, I suspect that she likely opined that sexism among atheists pales so dramatically in comparison that it is practically non-existent. I would agree with that assertion, and sincerely hope to see a video of Kirby’s talk on YouTube someday to ascertain if my guess is accurate. [NOTE: See my addendum at the bottom on the page. —MDL]
According to Watson’s interpretation, however, Kirby “doesn’t have a problem with sexism in the atheist community and, because of that, she assumes that there is no sexism.” Consequently, Watson determined to set aside her prepared presentation on the panel “Communicating Atheism” with AronRa, Tom Melchiorre, and Richard Dawkins, and instead use her allotted time to rebut what Kirby had said earlier, calling her remarks an “argument from ignorance” and an “argument from privilege.”
Although I was interested in what Watson had to say, and can appreciate her passion for feminism, I wish that she had not decided to depart from the assigned topic of the panel, as I do not believe that is why she was invited to participate on it. Moreover, I think it would have been more appropriate to have simply addressed Kirby directly, either during Q&A or afterwards. A simple question would have sufficed. But I digress.
After the panel presentation had concluded, that evening Watson gathered with other colleagues in the hotel bar to chat about everything discussed so far at the conference. Then, in the wee hours of the morning, as Watson was returning to her room, the incident in question occurred. Lest I do a poor job at summarizing it, let me quote Watson’s own description in her video:

Thank you to everyone who was at that conference, who engaged in these discussions outside of that panel. You were all fantastic. I loved talking to you guys. All of you except the one man who didn’t really grasp —I think— what I was saying on the panel because... at the bar later that night —actually at 4:00 in the morning— we were at the hotel bar... 4:00 am, I said: “You know, I’ve had enough, guys, I’m exhausted, going to bed. So I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said:
“Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”

Just a word to the wise here, guys: don’t do that. You know... I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman --you know?-- in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you. Just you. And I... don’t invite me back to your hotel room, right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.

Was that man, in fact, trying to “sexualize” Watson? It is possible —nay, I would even venture to say probable— given the evolutionary nature of homo sapiens. Nonetheless, there is a possibility —however remote— that this was not the man’s intent. Perhaps he really did find Watson “interesting” —rather than hot. Maybe he truly wanted to just “talk” —rather than have sex. Possibly he honestly wanted to offer her “coffee” —rather than get her into bed. As a skeptic, I deem it important to also hear the man’s version of what happened before drawing a definitive conclusion. Without his input, it would at least be informative to try to fill in several missing blanks to Watson’s anecdote:

Was the man a conference attendee, i.e., was he wearing a name badge?
Watson seemed to imply that such was the case, since she claimed that he “didn’t really grasp” what she had been saying. If so, perhaps he actually did grasp what she was saying, which is why he explicitly asked her not to “take this the wrong way,” anticipating that otherwise his invitation might seem like the very sexism she had been decrying. If not, on the other hand, then maybe he hadn’t even heard her presentation and wasn’t a “sexist atheist” at all.
Was the man one of the colleagues in the bar?
This would add more weight to his initial disclaimer, since he was also participating in the afterglow conversation. If so, one might also wonder if he chatted directly with Watson during the evening to form both his opinion that she was “interesting” and his desire to “talk more.” Conversely, what reciprocal opinion had she formed of him? Had his remarks given her the impression that he harbored a sexist attitude which would undermine his later request that she not “take this the wrong way”?
If in the bar, did the man decide to join Watson when she announced that she was leaving?
If so, one can comprehend the man wanting to express an “interest” in getting to know her better one-on-one, without a public audience listening in. Accompanying her to the elevator might therefore have seemed like an opportune moment to do so.
If not with the group in the bar, had Watson observed this man hovering around the perimeter or in the lobby, stalking her and hoping for a moment to get her alone?
Did he then suddenly appear and get on the elevator with her? Was the above quote, therefore, the first thing he said to her? It certainly sounds that way in Watson’s narrative, since she calls him “a man” rather than a colleague or attendee or one of the group. Such an unexpected circumstance would certainly raise a red flag for anybody, no matter what the man said or how he said it. What I fail to understand, however, is why Watson would claim that the man did not “grasp” what she had been discussing if he had not been in on the discussion.
How were the two of them positioned in the elevator?
My experience is that, when only two people are in an enclosed space like an elevator, the default courtesy is to space themselves equally between each other and the walls side-to-side. If they are complete strangers, they will sometimes put even more space between them and stay closer to the walls, and in extreme cases in the most distant corners. Did the man get closer to Watson than the elevator’s dimensions would suggest was proper? If so, did Watson literally feel cornered, perhaps next to the elevator buttons or in any of the other three corners? That would surely convey possible sexist intentions.
Were they both looking at the elevator doors, which most people typically do, only glancing at each other sideways? Or was Watson looking at the doors, but the man was looking directly at her? Everyone feels uncomfortable when being stared at, especially by an unknown individual.
Did the man attempt to touch Watson on the arm, shoulder, or back? That would also invoke a suspicion that his intentions were sexist in nature.
How would Watson describe the man?
How old was he? Younger, older, about the same age? Was he clearly more muscular, taller, stronger than Watson? Even if the man’s intentions were completely benign, a larger stature is always intimidating, capable of making the other person feel vulnerable, if not afraid.
Had the man had a few two many drinks?
Being tipsy can impair one’s judgment when articulating such an invitation to someone else. Of course, to be fair, a few too many drinks can also impair the other’s ability to interpret the intentions behind that invitation correctly.
What did Watson reply to the man’s invitation?
Did she let the man know that, since they didn’t really know each other, it was inappropriate and offensive for him to invite her to his hotel room? That such an invitation exemplified the sexism she had been decrying? If so, what did the man respond? Did he offer an apology for the offense?
Or did Watson, feeling intimidated, simply say: “No, thanks” and made a mental note to use the incident as an example to bolster her arguments against Kirby on atheist sexism, to give a “word to the wise” to all atheist “guys” in general? Did the man give no response after she declined his invitation, and they simply exited the elevator at their respective floors?

To be sure, answers to at least some of the above questions would add more pieces to this puzzle. Without them, I can only venture the tentative conclusion that the man’s behavior was not that offensive —except for one glaring, insensitive, rather stupid error: “his hotel room.” Perhaps I am mistaken about this, but I have a hard time believing that Watson would have felt equally uncomfortable if the man had said:

“I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to join me tomorrow in the coffeeshop for coffee?”

No matter the time of day or night, whether in an elevator, a hotel lobby, or in a bar with other onlookers, that one substitution in his invitation could have made a world of difference, in my humble opinion. In point of fact, maybe, perhaps, possibly the man realized that the coffeeshop wasn’t open yet, and thus spontaneously thought of the coffeepot in his room as an alternative. If so, it was a poor choice, and prefacing the utterance with “Don’t take this the wrong way” would hardly suffice to keep the sexist red flag from rising.
Nonetheless, a twist on the situation piques my curiosity: I can’t help but wonder how Watson would judge the opposite scenario. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that at an atheist conference a slightly built man happened to find himself in a hotel elevator, in a foreign country, at 4:00 in the morning, with a larger, stronger female colleague, the kind of woman who graces the covers of body builder magazines. If the woman were to issue the same invitation, likewise invoking discomfort in the man, would that also be sexist? Would Watson then admonish “Gals, don’t do that” to atheists in general?
Here’s another variation: Watson is in the elevator with the same muscular woman as above, this time wearing a t-shirt that suggests she is lesbian. If she issues the very same invitation to her as the man did in Dublin, would Watson feel equally uncomfortable? Would she deem the woman sexist and express the same admonition “Gals, don’t do that” in her video?
And what if there are two men on the elevator, and the larger, stronger one who issues the invitation is apparently gay? Would Watson’s “word to the wise” then be: “Gays, don’t do that”?
In truth, there exists a myriad of variations on the theme. The bottom line is this: people are sometimes attracted to others in life, whether intellectually, sexually, or both. Exactly how, when, and where one should express such interest in the other is difficult —if not impossible— to prescribe in exact terms.
After all, whether a woman or a man issues such an invitation, to a man or a woman, there are times when the other actually accepts because of reciprocal attraction. Sometimes they really do simply talk over coffee. Other times sex between consenting adults might occur: spontaneous, one night stands do happen. More often than not, however, such invitations invoke discomfort in the other, who then declines. It seems to me that the best any of us can hope for is to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, while at least trying to make a conscious effort to avoid external circumstances (location, time, the absence of others, etc.) that might exacerbate feelings of discomfort or fear —in ourselves and/or the other.
This is why, as I expressed in my beginning paragraphs, Watson’s posts about the incident caused me to wince, roll my eyes, and consider shrugging it off.
But the situation has since become worse. Much worse.
After Watson used the anecdote to bolster her arguments against Kirby’s take on sexism and atheism, PZ Myers published a sympathetic post on his blog, Pharyngula. Several bloggers responded. Some agreed with Myers’ and Watson’s judgment of the incident in the elevator; others disagreed.
Among those in the latter group, Watson’s co-panelist, Richard Dawkins himself, posted what I would term a tongue-in-cheek response, a “letter” addressed to a fictitious islamic woman, Muslima. The letter basically admonished her to stop complaining about the sexism she suffers in the muslim world, because it pales in comparison to Watson’s elevator experience in Western society. Personally, I liked his post because the satire reminded us of the more extreme examples of sexism that are so rampant throughout the world. I surmise that he probably intended it as a defense of Kirby’s perspective at the conference, since he was sitting right next to Watson when she departed from the panel’s program to instead criticize Kirby’s earlier remarks. And let’s also remember that in his own presentation on their panel, Dawkins stated the opinion that ridicule can prove an effective tool to hit a point home.
Subsequent posts quickly revealed that Dawkin’s irony was completely lost on several bloggers, especially Watson herself. Their outrage reminded me of the way religious believers reacted to his likewise tongue-in-cheek description of Yahweh in The God Delusion: they deemed it not at all funny, shrill, aggressive, insensitive, sacrilege, dismissive, if not downright offensive. Satire evidently is rendered null and void when it hits too close to home, no matter the audience.
Sadly, Watson herself is now leading that outrage. She has posted a blog titled “The Privilege Delusion," in which she labels him a “wealthy old heterosexual white man,” calls for his condemnation, and proposes a universal boycott of his work among her followers:

So many of you voiced what I had already been thinking: that this person who I always admired for his intelligence and compassion does not care about my experiences as an atheist woman and therefore will no longer be rewarded with my money, my praise, or my attention. I will no longer recommend his books to others, buy them as presents, or buy them for my own library. I will not attend his lectures or recommend that others do the same. There are so many great scientists and thinkers out there that I don’t think my reading list will suffer.
Despite the fact that I’ve seen hundreds of comments from those of you who plan to do the same, I’m sure Dawkins will continue to be stinking rich until the end of his days. But those of us who are humanists and feminists will find new, better voices to promote and inspire, and Dawkins will be left alone to fight the terrible injustice of standing in elevators with gum-chewers.

Indeed, she subsequently gathered and posted a long list of vitriolic letters to Dawkins from among those who agree with her.
Now that is truly “over the top.” Perhaps Dawkins might need to turn down his “satire” dial, but Watson most definitely needs to adjust her “ego” dial: it is set way too high!
In my opinion, Dawkins was not —as Watson and her supporters assert— telling her to “be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him.” He was simply attempting to remind us —like Kirby— of how such an incident is truly minor in comparison with the much more horrendous plight of other women in this world.
Because this is my opinion, will Watson, et. al., also accuse me of being an “old heterosexual white man”? Probably. Unfortunately. Sadly. But I am by no means “stinking rich,” so at least that description doesn’t apply.

Addendum 1 (7/8/11):
I am very happy to report that a video of Paula Kirby’s panel is now available on YouTube: “Women Atheists.mp4”.
During her presentation, Kirby did, indeed, mention the injustices suffered by muslim women, but at no time did she state that there is “no sexism” among atheists. What she actually said was that, in her “years of being part of all this,” she has “seen nothing to suggest” that “women are being deliberately held back by the men in the movement” of atheism. That is a very different assertion than what Watson claimed she said, and in no way constitutes an “argument from ignorance” and an “argument from privilege.” Does Watson feel that she has been “held back” from participating fully in the atheist movement by male advocates? If so, that is not what she addressed in her rebuttal to Kirby! Instead, she gave a rambling description of the sexual harassment, sexist e-mails, and misogynous threats that she has experienced in her blog and in person —from atheists and non-atheists alike.
I really enjoyed Kirby’s presentation and would highly recommend it, including her responses in the Q&A session at the end!

Addendum 2 (7/9/11):
I was delighted to discover that Paula Kirby has posted a follow-up response to the criticisms that Watson, et. al., have leveled against her. You can find it here. I stand in awe of her mature reasoning and persuasive eloquence. It is well worth a read! We are extremely fortunate to count a person of Kirby’s caliber among us in the atheist movement.

Addendum 3 (7/20/11):
I was most curious to read a comment about this “Elevatorgate” incident, in which the blogger pointed out that, by law, bars and pubs in Ireland must close their doors by 1:00am. I decided to do a bit of googling to verify if that claim was, in fact, valid. Apparently it is. Among the many sites I found, here is what just one of them states about the drinking laws in Ireland:

Opening Hour

Closing time midweek is 11.30pm with half hour drinking up time.
Closing time on Friday and Saturday nights is 12.30am with half hour drinking up time.

Every pub shuts on Good Friday and Christmas Day. Alcohol cannot be purchased anywhere on these days.
Most nightclubs with a full bar will serve drink until about 2.30am.

This information is worrisome. The O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel apparently does not have a nightclub, only its “Winner’s Bar.” Yet even if I am mistaken about that, I have a hard time imagining that conference attendees were still partying there an hour and a half later —let alone three hours later!— than the legal “drinking up time” on weekends would allow.
Could Watson simply have been confused about the hour, and it was really only 1:00am rather than 4:00am? Or could it be that this is just one of other details in her story that are exaggerated and questionable?
Perhaps I am too much of a skeptic, but this last contradiction raises a red flag of doubt for me that the incident even occurred. At this point, unless and until the blanks I have specified above are filled, my default conclusion has to be that Watson made the whole story up, simply to bolster her assertation that —unlike Kirby— she speaks from a “position of underprivilege.” Much ado about nothing? Sigh....