Post
by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:00 pm
On this "harassment at atheist conference" issue, I find that the loose use of language by the Skepchicks seems to create a lot of confusion.
They like to use very general terms like "harassment" and "not safe" and things like that. And, the examples they give are unwanted come ons and occasionally unwanted touching, but they are rarely, if ever, specific as to exactly what happened.
There was one example by a Ms. Miller who was linked through Watson's article in the OP, who describes her encounter with a drunk British man who was apparently hitting on her at the convention, and he wouldn't stop. His breath smelled of wine, which Ms. Miller did not like at all. We are told that when the guy's inappropriate behavior was brought to TAM organizers' attention, they got the guy away from her.
One would think that such an event would be seen as a very good handling of an inappropriate come-on. However, it is cited by Watson as one of the examples of what's wrong with atheist conferences. She cites it as an example of what is all-to-common.
To me, it boils down to, based on the description we're given, is how seriously we are to take some drunk British guy hitting on a girl who didn't like him. According to Watson, not only is this inappropriate - it makes the conferences "unsafe" for women.