As a non-rich, heterosexual, almost-middle-aged white man, I've had it pretty good.  I've never thought to look over my shoulder to make sure I wasn't being trailed by a potential rapist.  It has never even occurred to me.  I've never received rape threats from people who didn't like what I'd written.  I've never had my concerns summarily dismissed as silly or ridiculous or invalid, at least in a sexist sort of way.  No, I've always swimmed in the waters of male, white privilege, and I acknowledge that, though I have worked hard, studied hard, to achieve more than my lower-class upbringing would seem to allow, I have, at many points in my life, benefitted from being male and white.  I never chose to have privilege, and I could not get rid of it if I wanted to, but I recognize that I have certain privileges based on my essential characteristics being valued more highly in my culture than other possible characteristics.  

It is not difficult for me to imagine the world in which Rebecca Watson lives, she being bold enough to express her views and concerns, views and concerns that don't exactly make her a darling in a Christ-haunted culture that counts atheists among the most untrustworthy, objectionable people.  On top of that, she is a woman who endures rape-threats and objectification probably on a daily basis, and yet she keeps going, a testament to her strength and determination.  

I find a lot to admire about Rebecca Watson, and indeed, I would love to get a beer with her and get to know her (but not at 4 am in an elevator to be sure).  The following should be read with all of that in mind. 

I do object to the vilification of men based on  essential characteristics, an ad hominem attack that adds nothing to the discourse.  I don't understand why it is acceptable in feminist circles to employ those sorts of attacks, and I find it quite troubling that such seems to be par for the course in those circles.   It seems to me that arguments should be addressed for what they are, rather than attacking them based on who wrote them.  What I now see as Dawkins' unbelievably bad argument about Watson's response in her now infamous video stands on its on as fallacious.  It would be fallacious no matter who wrote it.    

So, in many ways, after thinking about this issue, I've softened my stance toward Ms. Watson and I understand her point-of-view much better than I did in July.  

The following is the original post that shows my initial reaction to this controversy.  

Original Post:

I’ve found myself fascinated by last week’s non-controversial controversy that was reported by Tracy Clark-Flory over on big Salon about Richard Dawkins and Rebecca Watson.  For those who need a primer, I hesitantly recommend Clark-Flory’s write up despite her calling Richard Dawkins a “dick” (apparently completely unaware that she is using sexist terminology and thereby undercutting her feminist position). 

Once primed, you may want to follow the discourse via Watson’s video blog on youtube that started it all (and you may want to skip to the 4:00 mark unless you are interested in the various conferences she has attended), and then go over to PZ Myer’s wonderful blog Pharyngula and look for Dawkins’ offending comments that so ticked off Ms. Watson that she issued this post in which she stated that she would no longer avail herself of Dawkin’s very important work. 

I’m not a woman, nor am I Johnny Depp, so the experience of being hit on is quite foreign to me.  It has never happened to me, yet I can imagine that attractive women have to fend off that kind of “sexualizing” on a daily basis, and I must grant that, at least where Ms. Watson is concerned, it is a hardship.  I think I understand what women like Rebecca Watson want: They want to be taken seriously.  They want their ideas to count, and they want their sexual personas to count less than their intellectual personas.  If the shoe was on the other foot, if I was continually “sexualized” and never taken seriously as a human being with emotions, ideas, aspirations – if I was continually valued only for my sexiness – well, I wouldn’t like that.  And, as I understand it, such is common in the experience of women.  Their primary value is their sexuality, not their minds.  Watson is right to fight against that, to work to carve out a place in her community in which women and their ideas are taken seriously. 

But, here’s the rub.  For so many so-called feminists like Ms. Watson and Tracy Clark-Flory, making those arguments isn’t enough.  Men must be demonized in the process.  To illustrate that point, please take the time to read this screed by Ms. Watson in which she impugns Dawkins for being a “wealthy old heterosexual white man!”  As soon as I read it, I could no longer take Watson seriously because her brand of feminism loathes all things masculine, white, and heterosexual (and affluent, apparently).  In her world, it is okay to strike out against a man in such a way (and again, never realizing that she fundamentally undercuts her own position for gender equity).  Her’s isn’t a pro-woman position as much as it is an anti-man position, which, I hate to tell you, is misandry. 

Reading further into Ms. Watson’s rhetoric, I am struck with her ideology of victimization, her reluctance to accept responsibility for her own choices.  She didn’t decide to become an anti-male-style feminist.  That position was foisted upon her.  She had no choice.  She didn’t choose to boycott Dawkins.  It was Dawkin’s rather benign criticism that forced her to take that position.  Further, she claims that she was forced to take her anti-male positions based on the most extreme representation of masculinity: Anonymous hate mail threatening rape. 

Ultimately, it comes down to this:  Dawkins did what no feminist of Watson’s ilk can tolerate:  He criticized her.  That's what academics do, by the way.  They assume a position of privilege from which to speak, and when they speak, they speak critically. Watson is no academic, and she is clearly out of her depth if all she can do in response to Dawkin's charge that she stop whining is to do more whining. And I can hear it now, the privilege criticism, as if those doing queer theory or feminist theory don't speak from a position of privilege, as if Dawkins should be pilloried for having something he never asked for in the first place. 

Much like some Southern Baptists who boycott Disney because Disney refuses to hate gay people, Ms. Watson boycotts Dawkins for having the audacity to . . . criticize her (and, apparently, for being white, male, and rich).  Slamming Dawkins for being white and heterosexual makes her seem petty and childish, which, ironically, was exactly the point Dawkins was making in his comments.  We are talking about Richard Dawkins, whose work is excellent (and for which I believe he deserved to get rich, but I digress).  If you want to come to a better understanding about science, about skepticism, then the work of Dawkins are among the very best.  That she has, like a spoiled child, excommunicated Dawkins, calls into question her motivations.  Does she want to further the causes humanism, skepticism, atheism, or does she want to stick it to Dawkins?  Or, does she want to use Dawkins’ fame to further how own need for attention and noteriety?  In her videos and posts she is very keen on numbers.  This video is my most watched, etc.  It makes me wonder.   She is also a name-dropper par excellence.  I was on a panel with RICHARD DAWKINS, she said.  No one would have heard of this controversy if Dawkins' name hadn't been attached to it.  

Ms. Watson is clearly building a platform, but what will she use that platform for? 

Update: Watson offers clarifications

Update: No Sense of Proportion

The whats-appropriate-in-an-elevator-at-4am has proved to be a hot topic on several blogs.   This post by Amanda Marcotte makes the point that men who talk to women in elevators at 4am share behavioral traits with rapists.  On the same blog, the tactic of stoking rape-fear to increase the odds of a "yes" is highlighted.  

The Marcotte pieces are particularly disproportionate, if not outright dishonest, with regard to what actually happened as described by Watson herself. In Marcotte's world, an invitation to coffee is nothing short of "predatory" and they man offering the coffee was "cornering" Ms. Watson and implying violence.  She goes on to compare the man who hit on Watson to a rapist by means of shared strategy.  Citing this piece, Marcotte notes that elevator guy shares three of these characteristics with rapists (she added the bold to highlight the shared characteristics):

• • 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.   

Apparently, for many many people, those comparisons, between being hit on and being raped, are salient, and in one sense I get it, and I actually learned a great deal about how some women feel in those kinds of situations from reading Marcotte.  I also think it is wrong and intellectually dishonest to lump in the guy who hit on Watson with rapists.  I believe Marcotte is guilty of creating a false analogy, which is a logical error in which shared characteristics are used to infer further comparisons.  To illustrate what I mean, I call on Dr. Phil, who provides 14 characteristics of serial killers.  I have highlighted in bold the characteristics that could  describe yours truly:

• Over 90 percent of serial killers are male
• They tend to be intelligent, with IQ's in the "bright normal" range.
• They do poorly in school, have trouble holding down jobs, and often work as unskilled laborers. [I did mediocre work in high school, held a ton of crappy jobs and hated all of them]
• They tend to come from markedly unstable families.
• As children, they are abandoned by their fathers and raised by domineering mothers.
• Their families often have criminal, psychiatric and alcoholic histories.
• They hate their fathers and mothers.
• They are commonly abused as children — psychologically, physically and sexually. Often the abuse is by a family member.
• Many serial killers spend time in institutions as children and have records of early psychiatric problems.
• They have high rates of suicide attempts.
• From an early age, many are intensely interested in voyeurism, fetishism, and sado-masochistic pornography. [I was interested in my uncle's Playboy collection at an early age. Does that count?]
• More than 60 percent of serial killers wet their beds beyond the age of 12
• Many serial killers are fascinated with fire starting. [when i was a kid I thought fire was very cool]
• They are involved with sadistic activity or tormenting small creatures. [when i was a kid, my cousins and I loved to throw cats into mud puddles to torment them.  Does that count?]

So, as you can see, I, with a little stretching, have 50% of the above characteristics.  Does that mean you need to call the cops and have them come search my basement? Nevermind that I haven't committed an act of violence on another person in my life.  Following Marcotte's logic, I'm a ticking timebomb. 

Marcotte and her disciples seem to have no sense of proportion.   They pounced on the rather benign incident of a nerd looking to get laid and turned him into a predatory criminal.   Sadly, I fear that for feminists of Marcotte's ilk, that's just a normal day at the office. 

Update:  Am I "derailing"?

 I enjoy criticism, and I always stand to be corrected, so I was particularly interested in the new comment below that accused me of making an "ignorant condemnation"by means of derailing the argument.  I may be.  What do you think, and in which ways am I derailing?