Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Robert_S]

So, how to deal with the awkward moment when a man with a car has been talking to you and it's time to leave? The guy doesn't want to be rude by not offering, and you don't want to be rude by bringing up safety concerns.

[Gallstones]

So, how to deal with the awkward moment when a man with a car has been talking to you and it's time to leave? The guy doesn't want to be rude by not offering, and you don't want to be rude by bringing up safety concerns.

Except that he would have expected me to have driven myself there, unless my walking happened to come up for some reason.

I would say "No thank you" and tell him why. I don't play coy and I have no problem being rude. If that is how it is taken, too bad. He is not entitled to greater respect for his feelings than I am for mine. My loyalty is to myself. And there is nothing unreasonable about that.

If he is only offering because it is polite to do so, then I would be uncomfortable because he is only asking to be polite--out of some kind of social obligation. In which case it would be obvious that there could be nothing more than conversation at an event. We go our separate ways; as would probably occur anyway.

I don't want offers made out of a sense of obligation.
I don't accept offers out of a sense of obligation on my part either.





Fourthousand.

[Robert_S]

So, how to deal with the awkward moment when a man with a car has been talking to you and it's time to leave? The guy doesn't want to be rude by not offering, and you don't want to be rude by bringing up safety concerns.

Except that he would have expected me to have driven myself there, unless my walking happened to come up for some reason.

I would say "No thank you" and tell him why. I don't play coy and I have no problem being rude. If that is how it is taken, too bad. He is not entitled to greater respect for his feelings than I am for mine. My loyalty is to myself. And there is nothing unreasonable about that.

If he is only offering because it is polite to do so, then I would be uncomfortable because he is only asking to be polite--out of some kind of social obligation. In which case it would be obvious that there could be nothing more than conversation at an event. We go our separate ways; as would probably occur anyway.

I don't want offers made out of a sense of obligation.
I don't accept offers out of a sense of obligation on my part either.





Fourthousand.

I often offer rides that I'm fairly sure will be turned down, but in every case I would be happy to give the ride, be a complete gentleman and not expect anything to come of it. I never bat an eye when it is turned down and quickly move on to something else if there is an "er.. I um..." type of response.

It just seems like the right thing to do.

[Gallstones]

I believe most people try to be nice, and try to do the right thing when they can, in the manner in which they are able.

Even me.

[Robert_S]

Most of the time, yes.

Oh by the way, the point that post was: Why would an offer of a ride make you uncomfortable if a "no" was accepted without so much as an "why not?"

[Gallstones]

I don't want offers [that are] made out of a sense of obligation.

Am I missing something?
Am I being criticized?

[Robert_S]

I don't want offers [that are] made out of a sense of obligation.

Am I missing something?
Am I being criticized?

You're not missing anything. I'm just kinda out of it from the heat.
I'm not criticizing you or anything you're saying. I'm trying to get a clearer understanding of where you're coming from when it comes to these situations and not doing well

[Robert_S]

Oops...

[Cormac]

... If and when I have a daughter, I'll teach her about life, and I'll teach her that there are assholes and how to recognise them, and I'll teach her to deal with them. But I would hope that I don't instil in her anxiety and fears beyond those necessary to manage ordinary social interactions.

Cormac, your wording sounds a bit as if you assume that nobody else will teach her about "assholes" and therefore she would not get in contact with information that would create "fears beyond those necessary". Yet, my experience of how girls/women and boys/men "in the know" (who also are decent human beings) behave indicates that people talk to each other about personal traumatic / scary experiences or such experiences that they have heard of. One gets warned about certain clubs and neighborhoods, and certain individuals and groups - "I would not go there alone, did you not hear what happened to..." ; "Make sure you tell them not to accept that invitation - X overheard Y and Z discussing lacing the punch with..." ; "His parties are dangerous - last time around it was bloody near that they would have started a fire, my brother had to get his hand seen to and it still hurts like hell..." ; "It was really embarrassing - she just happened to be there, and because the cops found weed, everyone was hauled to the station, and her mom screamed like a foghorn..."

To be clear:

1. I don't have a daughter, but would love one
2. If I had a daughter, I would try to help her to develop a sense of proportion and open-mindedness
3. I'd explain to her about how easily statistics can be twisted and exagerated, particularly by the media and by interest groups, to inflate controversy and fear.

But, I have no notion that she would not get most of her knowledge about the world from her own experience. This is the reality of life.

Please note, I come from a family of seven children. Three boys and four girls. My mother is a teacher by profession, and when she was a young professional, she came under massive pressure from other women to retire as soon as she had had her first child. This pressure came exclusively from women, both religious and lay. My mother, quite rightly, completely ignored them, and even fought them when necessary. She worked as long as she wanted.

All four of my sisters were much better students than the boys. All four are professionally qualified - one doctor, one lawyer, two chartered accountants (one of whom also has a postgrad in IT).

None of my sisters put up with bullshit from anyone, and that is as it should be.

If I had a daughter, I'd be delighted if she grew up as independently minded, clever, and self-possessed as my sisters.

I am not a misogynist.

And BTW, I grew up and have studied in neighborhoods / at campuses that would never have been considered really dangerous by the police or in official statistics - but there were wilder groups and less trustworthy individuals, and people warned each other. I hope you would not try to stop your daughter from participating in this kind of peer teaching of street smarts? And yet, at the same time, she could get quite scared, because hearing even one personal story about a sexual assault is pretty goddam horrible. I've listened to half a dozen women and a couple of men over these last 20 odd years (in ordinary life situations, not in any professional setting), most but not all assaulted, raped and/or molested by a male perpetrator, some as children and some as adults, and those stories were utterly terrible to hear. Most would not speak about it sober - some had to be very drunk to even mention it.

I am not arguing that people shouldn't be careful, or pay attention to the experiences of others.

I studied and taught martial arts for many years. I taught self-defence to women and men for all of my college years. A core part of martial arts training is situational awareness, and learning to recognise the warning signs and extricating oneself from the risk before it materialises.

I'll teach all my children about this. This, again, won't replace the fact that most of their learning will happen outside the home.

In light of those stories, and the anguish that these people clearly felt years, even decades afterwards (some had not spoken to anyone before they spoke to me - my having worked in a mental hospital seemed to be a part of what prompted these discussions) and the fact that not one of the alleged perpetrators had been reported or prosecuted, and some were with fairly high likelihood repeat offenders, has made me very, very wary and extremely aware of my surroundings at all times. I am especially wary of any individuals or groups who appear to be capable of outrunning or overpowering me, and there is an unfair biological imbalance at play there: about 30-40 % of all men that I meet qualify as individuals, whereas at most 10 % of women do, as I am tall and wear runnable shoes at all times. Therefore, I am statistically more likely to be wary of men than of women.

Sure, but the problem here is about assessment of risk. It seems to me that you are overstating the risk. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I have yet to see the statistic on the risk that the average person has of being sexually assaulted. Sexual assault has yet to be defined in this thread. I have yet to see the statistic on the risk that the average person has of being raped.

The point I'm making here, and I'm not trying to trivialise the issue, is that people often over-estimate risk beyond what is warranted. This is akin to being terrified of and airplane crash, but not concerned about crossing the road, where for argument's sake, the latter is more risky.

The situation and context will adjust the level of risk up or down from the average risk faced by a person in any social interaction.

For example, walking through a park in a bad area, at night, on your own would carry more risk than attending a conference during the day. (This is not to say that assaults don't happen at the latter, just that the overall risk may be less).

So, for me, the level of threat awareness should be appropriate to the moment. This doesn't mean that I expect people to be all happy-clappy to meet each other, or that a person should drop all defences, but that a person doesn't need to view ALL men as rapists.

This isn't to say that I think the average person who attends at Atheist/Skeptic events is less likely to be a rapist than any other human being. I think that to suggest otherwise would be naive.

Quite frankly I do not give a flying fuck if an ordinary decent guy feels offended by my or any woman's (or man's) caution or us speaking or writing about our fears and our strategies. Why should I? If I have to choose between either my life / health being at risk or your feelings maybe getting offended, I will choose "selfishly" / "unkindly" every time and not think twice about it.

Fine. I agree. There is no right not to be offended in this world.

But there is a quid pro quo. Based on similar justifications as those you offer, I don't have to be solicitous to a persons anxiety or fear, and neither do I have to pay any attention whatsoever to a person's body language. I am free to approach and say hello, or (if I were crass enough), to bluntly ask them to have sex. I don't have to be concerned that the other persons feelings might be offended, and I can choose to be selfish and insensitive and not think twice about it.

After all, I do not give a flying fuck about e.g. a Christian feeling offended by my or someone else's criticism of creotards or fundamentalists, and the argument is very similar: "But I am a Christian and I would never say / do that! Your prejudice offends me and all decent Christians, and only makes it more difficult for religious people and secularists to get along!" Well tough - that's life, too.

Agreed. I do think that there is no right not to be offended.

This doesn't mean that I can't tell you what I feel in relation to this topic.

It is funny how you are arguing so strongly in favour of special treatment for your feelings, but are quite happy to ride roughshod over someone elses.

I am happy with this though, because this is my point. Why should I care at all about the feelings of the person sitting in the corner, glaring at everyone who glances her way?

As for if there is real reason for women's suspicions, Nicholas Groth's "Men Who Rape" (part of my nursing course literature, psychiatry module) is a solid classic from 1979, and David Lisak et al. more recent research considering the undetected rapists is chilling, to put it mildly.

Pooling data from four samples in which 1,882 men were assessed for acts of interpersonal violence, we report on 120 men whose self-reported acts met legal definitions of rape or attempted rape, but who were never prosecuted by criminal justice authorities. A majority of these undetected rapists were repeat rapists, and a majority also committed other acts of interpersonal violence. The repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each. The 120 rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child physical and sexual abuse. These findings mirror those from studies of incarcerated sex offenders (Abel, Becker, Mittelman, Cunningham-Rathner, Rouleau, & Murphy, 1987; Weinrott and Saylor, 1991), indicating high rates of both repeat rape and multiple types of offending. Implications for the investigation and prosecution of this so-called "hidden" rape are discussed.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/s ... 1/art00006

Researchers discovered that it was possible to gather accurate data from these men because they did not view
themselves as rapists. They shared the very widespread belief that rapists were knife-wielding men in ski masks who attacked strangers; since they did not fit that description, they were not rapists and their behavior was not rape. This has
allowed researchers to study the motivations, behaviors and background characteristics of these so-called “undetected rapists.”

http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cach ... 134841.pdf

These undetected rapists:
• are extremely adept at identifying “likely” victims, and testing prospective victims’ boundaries;
• plan and premeditate their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack, and to isolate them physically;
• use “instrumental” not gratuitous violence; they exhibit strong impulse control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission;
• use psychological weapons – power, control, manipulation, and threats – backed up by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns;
• use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.

http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/files ... _SHEET.pdf

This tells me nothing I didn't already know.

It tells us nothing about what the average threat is to the average person at any given time, or at specific times in specific contexts.

What it tells us is about rapists. And I'm aware of everything you point out above.

What it doesn't tell us is what proportion of men (and in fact women*) are rapists in different societies. This would be an important statistic, because it might illustrate for us what the actual threat is.

*A woman in Ireland was just sentenced to 16 years in prison for the rape and abuse of her children, and the sexual abuse was of her sons. Several women in Britain were jailed over the last couple of years in England for sexual abuse of children in playschools. Nuns have been widely implicated in the sexual abuse of children.

There is nothing ordinary about the kind of social interaction that this type of a person has in store for those unlucky enough to cross their path, and they are good at hiding behind a mask of decency - awaking trust or creating some kind of dependency or knocking out defenses (often literally and/or chemically). So to be safe, women (and men) need to be wary also of people who seem to be OK on the surface. To be successful, this requires a certain amount of paranoia, and communicating with others similarly paranoid and thus learning about strategies and tactics. Not all such communication will be tailored to your personal taste.

Yes, but again, what is the average threat, and what are the premises underlying that statistic?

Live with it.

You understand, that I don't really care how you or anyone else views the world. If I encountered someone as suspicious of my intentions in life, I'd feel a momentary sensation of surprise, and then I'd ignore her. Life is too short to deal with other people's neurosis, when I have no existing ties of friendship or family to them.

So, to be honest, I don't have to deal with it. I simply ignore anyone like that, as I don't want to waste my time.

[Cormac]

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.

What's your point?

Perhaps it's in reply to this sort of thing:

This article is a fucking prime example of the bullshit that has arisen in relation to these matters, and I suspect it is driven by a combination of:

1. Shrill sensationalist media
2. Bad statistics
3. Radical misandrist feminists

[snip]

I seriously doubt if the percentage of rapists amongst males is as high as she declares.

When you look at the statistical likelihood for a woman to be sexually assaulted and the fact that the vast majority of the perpetrators are seemingly ordinary men rather than some psycho breaking into a woman's home or ambushing them from a dark side alley, it makes sense for women to feel like they may well be accosted at atheist events. That is what much of Schrödinger's Rapist is about.

Seraph,

With all due respect, if you're going to rely on those links as supporting the assertion that such a high proportion of men are guilty of sexual assault, it is for you to first quote them, explain how they're relevant to the argument, and then provide the link.

Whoa, that's quite a twisting of the meaning of the data.
It isn't saying that "a high proportion of men are guilty..", it is saying a high proportion of girls and women are victims.

Because women are assaulted at all, even in large numbers or small, does not mean that you are assumed to have done any of it. But from our POV, it is a factor of valid concern.

Most assaults are perpetrated by and acquaintance/friend/family member. So, a man approaching "out of interest" and asking for a woman's company would fit that profile in a perfunctory way. Any woman with any sense of self preservation would at least think about the possibility and be looking for other clues.

OK, I can see what you mean. Fine. But that was not the thrust of my post.

I simply asked that rather than posting links to research, that she pulls the relevant pieces out, and makes her argument clearly. Simply adding links doesn't mean anything at all. (Ronja did it correctly in her response to me above).

Not to be pedantic, but a stranger approaching would be the lower threat, wouldn't it? Given that most assaults and rapes are carried out by acquaintances, friends, and family members? Surely, by the logic being applied here, the more you get to know someone, the more suspiciously you should treat them?

[Cormac]

RE thread argument part one: Would I go to an atheist/skeptics event?
Yes

Alone?
Yes

Would I be uncomfortable?
No


Would I go to a science fiction or fantasy themed event?
No
I think they are lame.

The role playing and dressing up in costume = lame.


These are the events that interest me and the ones I do go to or would go to:
Gun shows
Reptile shows
Demolition derby
Art or fashion
Theater and concerts (anything with live music)

Sports

• Hockey
  Horse racing
  Rodeo
  Baseball

Would I go to any of these alone?
Yes

Would I be uncomfortable going alone?
No


Would I be uncomfortable engaging in conversation with men at any of these events?
No

Would I be uncomfortable exchanging phone numbers with a man I met at one of these events?
No

Would I be uncomfortable if a man I met at one of these events wanted to walk or drive me home*?
Yes.


*I walk by choice. I would not accept a ride.
Also, I don't want some guy I just met and don't know to know where I live.




There are many variables to these situations that could lead me to be more relaxed or more wary.

This makes complete sense to me.

[Cormac]

So, how to deal with the awkward moment when a man with a car has been talking to you and it's time to leave? The guy doesn't want to be rude by not offering, and you don't want to be rude by bringing up safety concerns.

Except that he would have expected me to have driven myself there, unless my walking happened to come up for some reason.

I would say "No thank you" and tell him why. I don't play coy and I have no problem being rude. If that is how it is taken, too bad. He is not entitled to greater respect for his feelings than I am for mine. My loyalty is to myself. And there is nothing unreasonable about that.

If he is only offering because it is polite to do so, then I would be uncomfortable because he is only asking to be polite--out of some kind of social obligation. In which case it would be obvious that there could be nothing more than conversation at an event. We go our separate ways; as would probably occur anyway.

I don't want offers made out of a sense of obligation.
I don't accept offers out of a sense of obligation on my part either.





Fourthousand.

I'd be perfectly happy in this circumstance to have the offer of a lift in my car refused, and to be told exactly why. It would make sense to me.

(Incidentally, we say lift over here, because "ride" implies something completely different! If I asked a woman I barely knew if she fancied a ride, I would expect to be told to piss off).

[Atheist-Lite]

Not everyone is socially aware and 'cultural evolution/raising consciousness' is a work in constant progress (hopefully progressive). It is obvious there are those who are going to behave in less mature ways and this should inform the way atheist conventions are designed. Bringing in heavy 'boring' subject matters towards the end or later parts of a conference will siphon away the less mature, allowing the more sensitive to debate the issues and exit the event with people of similar maturity (hopefully similar). On a smaller scale. A review of minutes always worked when I was a member of some unnamed communist movement in my misguided youth....ideal for small meetings where conspirators for genuine social change need privacy away from the standard assortment of idiots, sociopaths and lechers. Most would wander away to the bar just leaving the 'social engineers' behind after minutes.

[Cormac]

Not everyone is socially aware and 'cultural evolution/raising consciousness' is a work in constant progress (hopefully progressive). It is obvious there are those who are going to behave in less mature ways and this should inform the way atheist conventions are designed. Bringing in heavy 'boring' subject matters towards the end or later parts of a conference will siphon away the less mature, allowing the more sensitive to debate the issues and exit the event with people of similar maturity (hopefully similar). On a smaller scale. A review of minutes always worked when I was a member of some unnamed communist movement in my misguided youth....ideal for small meetings where conspirators for genuine social change need privacy away from the standard assortment of idiots, sociopaths and lechers. Most would wander away to the bar just leaving the 'social engineers' behind after minutes.

You were a goddamned commie? How did McCarthy miss you!

[Atheist-Lite]

Not everyone is socially aware and 'cultural evolution/raising consciousness' is a work in constant progress (hopefully progressive). It is obvious there are those who are going to behave in less mature ways and this should inform the way atheist conventions are designed. Bringing in heavy 'boring' subject matters towards the end or later parts of a conference will siphon away the less mature, allowing the more sensitive to debate the issues and exit the event with people of similar maturity (hopefully similar). On a smaller scale. A review of minutes always worked when I was a member of some unnamed communist movement in my misguided youth....ideal for small meetings where conspirators for genuine social change need privacy away from the standard assortment of idiots, sociopaths and lechers. Most would wander away to the bar just leaving the 'social engineers' behind after minutes.

You were a goddamned commie? How did McCarthy miss you!

I hid under his bed. He'd never suspect me hiding amongst his wank mags.