Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Coito ergo sum]

Being aware of the constant possibililty of violence is different from "shaking in [my] boots." If I'm in an elevator, and a guy I feel weird about (for any reason-- I don't question gut instinct anymore, though I used to when I was younger and thought it was more important to be nice and non-judgmental)
--Anyway, guy steps on, I'll often act like "Oh, this is my stop," and get out, and wait for another elevator. No fear, just awareness and action.

Fair enough. Anyone, not just women, can encounter someone they feel uncomfortable around, and move away.

I check out the look of streets before I walk down them by myself. Lots of shops open? Lots of pedestrians? Then okay. Looks like a wasteland? Keep walking another block or two before I make the turn. Again-- not shaking in my boots, just making assessments and acting on them.

Weird guy gets on the subway? (Huge range of what might qualify a guy as weird-- I go by my gut, and my gut might not be fair.) I might casual-like change my seat to be closer to other women, or change cars.

I remeber when I was 25 or so, in grad school, which was in lower Manhattan, coming home from a late night working until 5 in the morning. I decided it wasn't right that I should feel afraid to walk the street by myself just because I was a young woman. I had no money for a cab, so I headed for the subway.

I saw a group of kids-- early teens, it looked like, riding their bikes up the sidewalk toward me. They had their hoodies pulled up around their faces. I saw them, and they frightened me a bit. But I thought, "Come on-- I'm just being age-ist and racist-- that's just a bunch of boys having fun on their bikes, and it's cold out."

As they rode past me, each one smacked me in the face.

I ran to the subway, stayed in view of the ticket-taker's booth, rode home near a subway door so I could hop off the train if I needed to fast, and made it home.

But that was a stupid risk I took, all because I was trying not to be sexist, racist, age-ist, or overly fearful. I'm lucky all they did was smack me in the face-- that they didn't turn around and follow me down in to the subway.

So yeah, now my assessments aren't always fair. Some nice guys probably get smeared in my mind.

Too fucking bad. I'm more concerned with saving my skin. And they'll survive a woman not being nice to them.

What you've described is not peculiar to women. When I'm in the city I take care to not go down certain streets, and that sort of thing. I recall being in the city as a young first year in college, and I was walking alone. A guy walking toward me had a hoodie on and was walking alone toward me. I tried to act like we were just two guys passing each other, but he grabbed my jacket, asked me if I wanted to get shot, and fished through my pockets for my wallet and valuables (which I had not brought with me, luckily).

After that, I was more careful, and realized it's not smart to walk alone in the city when you can help it. All the same precautions you mention taking are taken by men too. It's just basic awareness. None of that seems to bear much of a relation to the discomfort that one might feel at an atheist/skeptic convention, though.

[hadespussercats]

Being aware of the constant possibililty of violence is different from "shaking in [my] boots." If I'm in an elevator, and a guy I feel weird about (for any reason-- I don't question gut instinct anymore, though I used to when I was younger and thought it was more important to be nice and non-judgmental)
--Anyway, guy steps on, I'll often act like "Oh, this is my stop," and get out, and wait for another elevator. No fear, just awareness and action.

Fair enough. Anyone, not just women, can encounter someone they feel uncomfortable around, and move away.

I check out the look of streets before I walk down them by myself. Lots of shops open? Lots of pedestrians? Then okay. Looks like a wasteland? Keep walking another block or two before I make the turn. Again-- not shaking in my boots, just making assessments and acting on them.

Weird guy gets on the subway? (Huge range of what might qualify a guy as weird-- I go by my gut, and my gut might not be fair.) I might casual-like change my seat to be closer to other women, or change cars.

I remeber when I was 25 or so, in grad school, which was in lower Manhattan, coming home from a late night working until 5 in the morning. I decided it wasn't right that I should feel afraid to walk the street by myself just because I was a young woman. I had no money for a cab, so I headed for the subway.

I saw a group of kids-- early teens, it looked like, riding their bikes up the sidewalk toward me. They had their hoodies pulled up around their faces. I saw them, and they frightened me a bit. But I thought, "Come on-- I'm just being age-ist and racist-- that's just a bunch of boys having fun on their bikes, and it's cold out."

As they rode past me, each one smacked me in the face.

I ran to the subway, stayed in view of the ticket-taker's booth, rode home near a subway door so I could hop off the train if I needed to fast, and made it home.

But that was a stupid risk I took, all because I was trying not to be sexist, racist, age-ist, or overly fearful. I'm lucky all they did was smack me in the face-- that they didn't turn around and follow me down in to the subway.

So yeah, now my assessments aren't always fair. Some nice guys probably get smeared in my mind.

Too fucking bad. I'm more concerned with saving my skin. And they'll survive a woman not being nice to them.

What you've described is not peculiar to women. When I'm in the city I take care to not go down certain streets, and that sort of thing. I recall being in the city as a young first year in college, and I was walking alone. A guy walking toward me had a hoodie on and was walking alone toward me. I tried to act like we were just two guys passing each other, but he grabbed my jacket, asked me if I wanted to get shot, and fished through my pockets for my wallet and valuables (which I had not brought with me, luckily).

After that, I was more careful, and realized it's not smart to walk alone in the city when you can help it. All the same precautions you mention taking are taken by men too. It's just basic awareness. None of that seems to bear much of a relation to the discomfort that one might feel at an atheist/skeptic convention, though.

Well, you're a man who practices situational awareness. That's good.

As a general rule, do you feel the need to practice it when a woman approaches you?

[Bella Fortuna]

^^^ Indeed, this. Anyone can be accosted as you both describe but it's rarely women doing the accosting.

[Gallstones]

I see absolutely no reason for men to change ordinary behaviour, or for society to impose restraints on men's ordinary behaviour, because someone feels anxiety or discomfort. Life happens.

The ordinary behavior of some men is to be boorish, rude, demanding and aggressive.
If that shoe doesn't fit, then when I as a person ask such men to either stop or stay away, then I don't mean you.

I think there is a disconnect in the argument here. Nobody is saying women can't ask whoever they don't wan to interact with to "stop or go away." A guy might come up to you in the most polite way possible, and be the most unthreatening person ever, and you might just not want to talk to him for some arbitrary reason or no reason at all. Send him packing, and heck - be rude as fuck to the guy if you want to - say "get the flying fuck out of here you neo-maxi-zoon-dweebie! You suck ass!" Such is your absolute right.

Uh, I think you overlooked my other post.

In the post of mine you quoted I intentionally mentioned a shoe and whether it fit. I think you missed that.

What I was doing was illustrating that we have two different arguments here.

1. Whether it is sexual objectification, misogynistic, harassing, and/or threatening to a woman to be approached by a man in the first place.

2. Whether men ought to take no for an answer AFTER they have been told "no - go away."

You seem to be focusing on the latter, which I think nobody disagrees with. I stated it in extreme form, suggesting that your "no go away" is justified by your mere whim, and has nothing to do with how nice or mean the guy is. You might not like his look, or you might simply not want to be bothered by anyone. So, you say "go away" - and his job is to go away. Nothing can stop him from feeling resentful or pissed off. That's his fucking problem.

With regard to item 1, however, a guy doesn't know your answer to the question "can I buy you a drink" until you answer it. And, whether you set your own risk tolerance or not, he can't know what your risk tolerance is until he asks the question. So, you may not want guys to say "care to come up to my room for coffee" or "can I buy you a drink," but, other than a blanket rule that men can never ask those things in the first place, what are men to do?

I have already, in the linked post, explained what I think and what I do and why.
This shoe you present--it doesn't fit me.
You keep applying some state of mind or way of being to me, and I am saying you can't do that, that is not me.
And then I bother to tell you what my state of mind is and what my state of being is--related to the topic-- and it is not getting through.

BTW, you fucked up the quotes.

[Ronja]

To a certain extent your expectations are going to color your experiences. I've been to a few atheist events alone and have never felt uncomfortable - other than my usual shyness. Once I got over that, I met lots of people, made plenty of friends, and had a great deal of fun - and yes, there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

Though I'll be curious how men will be responding to me at atheist events now that I've lost a lot of weight...I was at Home Depot a few days ago and was quite taken aback at all the men who were offering to help me, when before they pretty much ignored me. Thing is, now that I'm in shape and stronger, I don't need the help like I did when I was heavier and out of shape.

It's something in our natures. Pretty girls get more help from men than less pretty girls. Pretty girls learn to play on this, and will often get men to do things for them.

"our natures" - of whom are you speaking?

I wonder, seeing as a non-trivial number of boys/men go when a capable-enough girl/woman plays dumb or helpless and a non-trivial number of pretty girls/women get seriously fed up with the kind of cultural memes/expectations that you describe - to the extent that they cut their hair short and/or gain weight, start wearing baggy army surplus clothes or go goth or medieval, train martial arts and/or play with computers (or whatever it takes in their environment to create a "geeky", not-obviously-hot image). I know I did, and I was certainly not alone in my high school or gymnasium. Of my class (year) of 150 students, we were at least 30 if not 50 self-selected "geek" girls - over half of the girls played down their looks to some extent and emphasized their academic and/or athletic and/or musical/artistic/other serious interest side. And we moved in groups or pairs (though so did the cheerleader types). After that, nursing school was a real relief in this sense - few enough of us seriously cared what the others looked like, so we felt free to look like ourselves.

The following might shed some more light on the discomfort of being a woman in a small minority, surrounded by men (hades' role-playing-game experience really rang a bell):

At my engineering college, the girls who are freshmen in my program (computer science and engineering) look very much alike the girls who are freshmen in the information networks program, but by the time they are sophomores, the looks have differentiated radically. The Info ladies, who constitute pretty exactly 50 % of each year's students, still dress in skirts, also mini-skirts (those who feel like that style), wear make-up and high(ish) heels, colorful clothes, dye their hair etc. whereas over half of the ladies who started in our program (where women constitute 5-10 % of each year's students) have donned the "geek uniform" of blue-grey-black-brown, wear only jeans/trousers and sneakers/sensible shoes, keep their hair mousy colored, lank or tucked away in a simple ponytail etc. And a few of them have left for good. It is really saddening to watch - especially as I have experienced that period, too - an aching, daily experience of being "the other, the weird", being stared at all the time simply because I am there, and struggling daily to "fit in", to be "one of the guys" - which of course is not really possible.

Regarding attraction:

For me personally, any boy/man (or girl/woman) who showed more interest in my body (or my family background or the "coolness" of my personal possessions, or rather lack thereof) than my thoughts and interests felt as a real bore, usually sooner than later. If (s)he did not care about my thoughts, if we did no communicate on the exchange-of-ideas / learning-from-each-other level, I was not interested. Rationale: my brain may stay sharp until ripe old age, if I don't get unlucky with Alzheimer's or the like - whereas my body's youthfulness certainly wouldn't last (yup, I was horribly rational in my teens and twenties, at least with some things). Therefore, a person who was more interested in bodies than brains would be a very poor long-time bet, IMO (and no, I did not differentiate between "interesting-for-a-short-relationship" and "interesting-as-a-life-long-companion" - I only had "interesting", and then the rest was up to luck, timing, working on the relationship etc).

[Gallstones]

...you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance.

Good article Seraph. Thank you for the link.

What I don't get, is why this is an issue. Everyone, women and men both, set their own risk tolerance. What, exactly, is that supposed to tell us?

Is it supposed to tell us when men can ask women out and how? How does a man know whether your risk tolerance is "Hey baby wanna fuck?" Or, "care to come up for coffee?" Or, perhaps - no contact from males at all unless introduced in traditional fashion by an older chaperone?

Sure, we all set our own risk tolerance. But, what, exactly does that mean? Maybe my risk tolerance is that any stranger talking to me unnerves me. Does that mean that the strangers that talk to me have necessarily done something wrong?

It is important to me to have it acknowledged because I have experienced resentment and hostility for turning men down as well as violence and assault. In my experience not every man is aware of something that is so obvious to most others.

What does it hurt you that a stranger on the internet decides to discuss it as an idea?

But, don't you see. You have every right to turn anyone down, but it's impossible for you to control their feelings.

I fucking know this. Where did I say I expected to be able to control anyone's feelings?

If they resent being turned down, then they resent being turned down. Who gives a fuck what they resent? And, what does that have to do with you having the right to set your risk tolerance? I mean - either a guy can walk up to you, say, in a bar and say "hi, can I buy your a drink," or he can't. He can't know until he asks the question whether that is within your "risk tolerance." If you say "no," then it's incumbent upon him to take no for an answer. If he is resentful, that's his problem. If he touches you, or badgers/harasses you, then call the cops. Nobody is allowed to touch/badger/harass other people - men or women.

What's the "something" you're referring to there?

Something = having standards, having the right to say no thank you or go away.

You may want to dismiss me, I expect you will, but I have been told on more than one occasion by many different men that I do not have the right to do these things. I have had their "interest" forced on me.

Please stop talking to me like I am an ignorant child who needs instruction on stranger danger. It is condescending. I know well what is acceptable and what is not and what to do about behavior that is not. And BTW, things are not nearly as simplistically handled as you assume they are.

It doesn't hurt me that a stranger on the internet decides to discuss it as an idea - where did I say I was hurt? I'm merely engaging in the discussion. It doesn't hurt me that Christians make arguments and have discussions on the internet either, but I participate in those discussions and I often think they're way off base....too.

So we needed another thread to talk about the same thing?
Quite frankly you--and I do mean you personally--seem a bit obsessed about the whole thing. You insert sarcastic references in threads that have nothing to do with this topic.

I get it, you don't think there is really a problem and that some of us are just paranoid and selfish.

[hadespussercats]

Ronja, I hear you. I don't have anything to add, but I wanted to say that.

You too, Gallstones.

[Ronja]

Ronja, I hear you. I don't have anything to add, but I wanted to say that.

Thanks

You too, Gallstones.

+1, and GS

[Gallstones]

The expectations that I have about people were taught to me, by people.
I didn't make them up.

[Geoff]

I would also like to see the detail behind her assertion that 1 in 6 women in America are sexually assaulted.

So would I. That would be, what, ~25 million assaults?

There was a BBC documentary a few years ago that quoted a figure for the UK of 1 in 200...I find that sort of ratio much more believable.

I'd be prepared to bet that 1/6 figure was promoted by a feminist organisation...

[Santa_Claus]

Go to an Atheist convention? I would rather lick Rum's Anus - before he had wiped.

[Coito ergo sum]

I fucking know this. Where did I say I expected to be able to control anyone's feelings?

I'm trying to figure out just what you're trying to say. It's important to you to have it acknowledged. O.k. It's acknowledged. I was trying to figure out what your point is beyond that, if any.

If they resent being turned down, then they resent being turned down. Who gives a fuck what they resent? And, what does that have to do with you having the right to set your risk tolerance? I mean - either a guy can walk up to you, say, in a bar and say "hi, can I buy your a drink," or he can't. He can't know until he asks the question whether that is within your "risk tolerance." If you say "no," then it's incumbent upon him to take no for an answer. If he is resentful, that's his problem. If he touches you, or badgers/harasses you, then call the cops. Nobody is allowed to touch/badger/harass other people - men or women.

What's the "something" you're referring to there?

Something = having standards, having the right to say no thank you or go away.

You may want to dismiss me, I expect you will, but I have been told on more than one occasion by many different men that I do not have the right to do these things. I have had their "interest" forced on me.

Well, those men are off base.

Please stop talking to me like I am an ignorant child who needs instruction on stranger danger. It is condescending. I know well what is acceptable and what is not and what to do about behavior that is not. And BTW, things are not nearly as simplistically handled as you assume they are.

I'm not talking to you like that. Why do you always make threads about you personally. This one is about women at atheist/skeptic events and whether they are made to feel uncomfortable and why. It's not about Gallstones and about assholes that assaulted you after you spurned there advances.

I don't assume simplicity. I'm just trying to make sense out of what people are saying. If you don't care to do that, fine. You're right - you get to set your own risk tolerance. Great.

It doesn't hurt me that a stranger on the internet decides to discuss it as an idea - where did I say I was hurt? I'm merely engaging in the discussion. It doesn't hurt me that Christians make arguments and have discussions on the internet either, but I participate in those discussions and I often think they're way off base....too.

So we needed another thread to talk about the same thing?

It's not the same thing.

Quite frankly you--and I do mean you personally--seem a bit obsessed about the whole thing.

Fascinated, yes. Very much fascinated. I've been clear on that from the get-go. If it's not something you're interested in, don't read the thread.

You insert sarcastic references in threads that have nothing to do with this topic.

Such as? I haven't intended to be sarcastic at all.

I get it, you don't think there is really a problem and that some of us are just paranoid and selfish.

I've never called anyone paranoid and selfish, and I don't think anyone has articulated, yet, what the problem is relative to women feeling uncomfortable at atheist events. Some, like you, post stuff about being assaulted and attempted rape, and assholes harassing you, but you and they don't connect that up to why a woman would feel uncomfortable at an atheist event. Are these things happening at atheist events? Does the fact that you were accosted somewhere else make you feel like you will be accosted at atheist events? What?

[Gallstones]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

[Gallstones]

I fucking know this. Where did I say I expected to be able to control anyone's feelings?

I'm trying to figure out just what you're trying to say. It's important to you to have it acknowledged. O.k. It's acknowledged. I was trying to figure out what your point is beyond that, if any.

If they resent being turned down, then they resent being turned down. Who gives a fuck what they resent? And, what does that have to do with you having the right to set your risk tolerance? I mean - either a guy can walk up to you, say, in a bar and say "hi, can I buy your a drink," or he can't. He can't know until he asks the question whether that is within your "risk tolerance." If you say "no," then it's incumbent upon him to take no for an answer. If he is resentful, that's his problem. If he touches you, or badgers/harasses you, then call the cops. Nobody is allowed to touch/badger/harass other people - men or women.

What's the "something" you're referring to there?

Something = having standards, having the right to say no thank you or go away.

You may want to dismiss me, I expect you will, but I have been told on more than one occasion by many different men that I do not have the right to do these things. I have had their "interest" forced on me.

Well, those men are off base.

Please stop talking to me like I am an ignorant child who needs instruction on stranger danger. It is condescending. I know well what is acceptable and what is not and what to do about behavior that is not. And BTW, things are not nearly as simplistically handled as you assume they are.

I'm not talking to you like that. Why do you always make threads about you personally. This one is about women at atheist/skeptic events and whether they are made to feel uncomfortable and why. It's not about Gallstones and about assholes that assaulted you after you spurned there advances.

I don't assume simplicity. I'm just trying to make sense out of what people are saying. If you don't care to do that, fine. You're right - you get to set your own risk tolerance. Great.

It doesn't hurt me that a stranger on the internet decides to discuss it as an idea - where did I say I was hurt? I'm merely engaging in the discussion. It doesn't hurt me that Christians make arguments and have discussions on the internet either, but I participate in those discussions and I often think they're way off base....too.

So we needed another thread to talk about the same thing?

It's not the same thing.

Quite frankly you--and I do mean you personally--seem a bit obsessed about the whole thing.

Fascinated, yes. Very much fascinated. I've been clear on that from the get-go. If it's not something you're interested in, don't read the thread.

You insert sarcastic references in threads that have nothing to do with this topic.

Such as? I haven't intended to be sarcastic at all.

I get it, you don't think there is really a problem and that some of us are just paranoid and selfish.

I've never called anyone paranoid and selfish, and I don't think anyone has articulated, yet, what the problem is relative to women feeling uncomfortable at atheist events. Some, like you, post stuff about being assaulted and attempted rape, and assholes harassing you, but you and they don't connect that up to why a woman would feel uncomfortable at an atheist event. Are these things happening at atheist events? Does the fact that you were accosted somewhere else make you feel like you will be accosted at atheist events? What?

Because you won't or don't read my replies, because you don't understand what I am saying you would rather assume I have nothing to say and no interest in saying it so I should just go do something else?

You also keep minimizing and discrediting and discounting what it means to be sexually assaulted. It is not an abstract thing after the fact.

Not intended to be sarcastic at all--you? Really? Why the fondness for this after so many of your posts then?

What is being discussed here is exactly the same as the Watson thread.

I can't talk about this topic without it being personal to me---the fact that you can't understand that tells me a lot.

You want to know why a person might find some situations discomforting--I have been telling you.
We have articulated it. You aren't getting it.


Just fucking ignore me already.
I am not going to be told how to think or how to feel or what to say.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think there is a disconnect in the argument here. Nobody is saying women can't ask whoever they don't wan to interact with to "stop or go away." A guy might come up to you in the most polite way possible, and be the most unthreatening person ever, and you might just not want to talk to him for some arbitrary reason or no reason at all. Send him packing, and heck - be rude as fuck to the guy if you want to - say "get the flying fuck out of here you neo-maxi-zoon-dweebie! You suck ass!" Such is your absolute right.

Uh, I think you overlooked my other post.

In the post of mine you quoted I intentionally mentioned a shoe and whether it fit. I think you missed that.

What I was doing was illustrating that we have two different arguments here.

1. Whether it is sexual objectification, misogynistic, harassing, and/or threatening to a woman to be approached by a man in the first place.

2. Whether men ought to take no for an answer AFTER they have been told "no - go away."

You seem to be focusing on the latter, which I think nobody disagrees with. I stated it in extreme form, suggesting that your "no go away" is justified by your mere whim, and has nothing to do with how nice or mean the guy is. You might not like his look, or you might simply not want to be bothered by anyone. So, you say "go away" - and his job is to go away. Nothing can stop him from feeling resentful or pissed off. That's his fucking problem.

With regard to item 1, however, a guy doesn't know your answer to the question "can I buy you a drink" until you answer it. And, whether you set your own risk tolerance or not, he can't know what your risk tolerance is until he asks the question. So, you may not want guys to say "care to come up to my room for coffee" or "can I buy you a drink," but, other than a blanket rule that men can never ask those things in the first place, what are men to do?

I have already, in the linked post, explained what I think and what I do and why.

o.k. - seemed to me to be about something else, and not the issue women at atheist/skeptic events, but o.k. Enough said.

This shoe you present--it doesn't fit me.

I've presented no shoe.

You keep applying some state of mind or way of being to me, and I am saying you can't do that, that is not me.

What posts are you reading? Clearly not mine. I've not applied any state of mind or way of being to you at all.

And then I bother to tell you what my state of mind is and what my state of being is--related to the topic-- and it is not getting through.

Sometimes you make very little sense.

BTW, you fucked up the quotes.

Whatever.