How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what women go through

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I will defend to the death the right to be confrontational, and I am not about softening the message, but I have to point out that most of the time, confrontation and stereotyping ("You People" language is stereotyping, make no mistake) simply opens the door to being stereotyped and dismissed in turn as "having a chip on your shoulder", and when the problem we're dealing with involves centuries of being dismissed ingrained into the culture, that's really, really counterproductive.

Confrontation can be a really useful tool when you're aiming to shame someone or to force them to acknowledge bad behavior, but a terrible tool when you're trying to show them your point of view.

Stereotyping is pretty much never a useful tool.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

while I accept the notion that men can't experience the problem, experiencing the problem does NOT necessarily mean that the person experiencing it understands it.

Sooo this.
This is the reason men have to be part of the feminist discussion – while for the sake of not being assholes we need to take care to give women's perspective a lot of room in said discussion.

About divisive language: it's true that the "we" and "you" language is highly counterproductive, but I've personally just been making an effort to see past it and refuse to get worked up because of it. This is doable when you're aware of what that kind of language can do. I still wouldn't advocate this as a solution (even though it could be, in principle) for precisely the reason I wouldn't argue that the solution to harassment is for women to get better at defending themselves.

A point well-made, sir.

[Verbal Mike]

I will defend to the death the right to be confrontational, and I am not about softening the message, but I have to point out that most of the time, confrontation and stereotyping ("You People" language is stereotyping, make no mistake) simply opens the door to being stereotyped and dismissed in turn as "having a chip on your shoulder", and when the problem we're dealing with involves centuries of being dismissed ingrained into the culture, that's really, really counterproductive.

Confrontation can be a really useful tool when you're aiming to shame someone or to force them to acknowledge bad behavior, but a terrible tool when you're trying to show them your point of view.

Stereotyping is pretty much never a useful tool.

This seems to me like a perfect example of non-conformity leading to marginalization (see my thread from earlier today). I bet men who get confrontational are less likely to be taken less seriously for it than women; a woman getting confrontational is being non-conformist and hence, just as you describe, have her opinion discarded for "having a chip on her shoulder". A guy getting confrontational is just normal, and scary, hence to be taken seriously.

[Epimetheus]

Nigel is bang on about what I was talking about, Epi.

Ok. Thanks Nigel.

As far as "talking to" vs. "hitting on", why would you strike up a conversation with a strange girl on public transportation, and would you do it with a strange guy who was engrossed in a book? Believe me, you may think you're just "being nice" and "making conversation", but a woman is going to assume you're hitting on her, and whatever your conscious justifications for your motivation in talking to her, I suspect that 99% of the time your unconscious motivations are sex.

Personally? I'm interested in connecting with people - yes, I'd talk to a guy just as quick as to a girl - and sex is an outside possibility that usually goes unconsidered, like the possibility that I'll eventually go rock-climbing with them. It's not as if I expect everyone I talk to to become either my best friend or my lover.
But I guess you know better than I do what I secretly want.
I understand someone having a standoffish reaction based on repeated harassment like the OP story describes. I wouldn't say a second word to someone if they don't wanna be bugged.
But I don't think the generalization is fair - even in the OP story she names men bystanders who seem like good, upstanding and respectful people. If they had been the ones to strike up conversation, are they still just wanting to get into her pants?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

And Verbl, I appreciate that you have been reading my posts. Please note that I said "I feel" and "most" and "for the most part".

I feel like ECH and Stella, among others, are ignoring my posts and replying to Garbo and SP, as if they own feminism and represent everyone, although Stella has been quoting my posts, making it even more confusing when she argues with things I didn't say.

Here I go quoting you again, apologies.

I don't feel that I own feminism, and I didn't mean it to come off like that. I seldom view personal interactions through a feminist grid, i.e., large scale legal issues like reproductive rights I would approach from a feminist angle, but if some guy was fucking with me on a bus, I'd be pragmatic - feminism would be a kind of abstraction at the moment and not really relevant. I see it as one monkey making a dominance display and this monkey has to fling a little shit to make him back off. Not saying this is the One True Way, just that it works for me.

[Luna]

You're missing the point gloriously, Epi.

Situation:  Woman is sitting on a bus/train, obviously engaged in reading a book.  Man sits down next to her, even though the rest of the bus/train is all but empty, and interrupts her reading to strike up a conversation.

What has happened, here, regardless of the end result he is trying to achieve (often to get into her pants), is that he has ranked what HE wants (conversation, end result undetermined, with her) as more important than what SHE wants (quiet enjoyment of her book).

This is rude.

If she makes the point that she wishes to be left alone, she does not deserve to be harassed.  She does not deserve to be called a "frigid bitch" under the guy's breath, or to hear, "I just wanted to TALK."  She does not deserve to be made afraid that he is going to follow her off the bus/train and continue to attempt to force his attention upon her.  She deserves a, "sorry, didn't mean to intrude," and for him to move the hell away from her.

If people can't come to an agreement up to THAT point, then I'm thinking the conversation is FUBAR.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Okay, I'm getting on board with Cain on this...I stated what was bugging me down in Verbl's thread (the whole bit about having to accept an unequal part in a struggle for equality), and it has been ignored.  I'm done with this shit.  Congratulations, I am now marginalized...And isn't that what this shit is really all about?

This is all bullshit.  It's no fucking different than the Rotary Club.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

WTF, I wasn't done with that post.

Anyway. Your friends right mate. A train isn't a bar or a club. Dudes aren't firing off like loose cannons at randoms in a regular public environment.

Aite, it's probably just cause the chick who wrote the piece is a looker. I doubt the average female has to deal with THAT many advances from sleaze buckets on a train. Kind of beside the point but let's not get all fancy pants 'cultural differences' about this shit.

I don't think "looker" is the reason.

When I was in my 20's, my best friend was a woman who looked like Angelina Jolie with a D cup. It actually intimidated a lot of guys. They'd OGLE her, but they's HIT ON me, because I was more average looking and therefore deemed more "available".

I suspect it's more complex. EVERYBODY gets hit on (ask your grandmother  ), but she seems to be getting more than the average number of creeps. Maybe she sees them looking, shows signs of fear and intimidation, and they interpret that as being submissive and go into predator mode. I don't know.

[Epimetheus]

You're missing the point gloriously, Epi.

Situation:  Woman is sitting on a bus/train, obviously engaged in reading a book.  Man sits down next to her, even though the rest of the bus/train is all but empty, and interrupts her reading to strike up a conversation.

What has happened, here, regardless of the end result he is trying to achieve (often to get into her pants), is that he has ranked what HE wants (conversation, end result undetermined, with her) as more important than what SHE wants (quiet enjoyment of her book).

This is rude.

If she makes the point that she wishes to be left alone, she does not deserve to be harassed.  She does not deserve to be called a "frigid bitch" under the guy's breath, or to hear, "I just wanted to TALK."  She does not deserve to be made afraid that he is going to follow her off the bus/train and continue to attempt to force his attention upon her.  She deserves a, "sorry, didn't mean to intrude," and for him to move the hell away from her.

If people can't come to an agreement up to THAT point, then I'm thinking the conversation is FUBAR.

I agree with all of that. But it looks like you're making completely different points than what Nigel said in what I quoted, except maybe the rudeness of interrupting a person reading, which I definitely misread if that's what Nigel meant (I'll wait for her word on that, and apologize in advance if that's the case). She asked a question and I answered it, and she talked about assuming a man wants sex, and I responded to that.

[Epimetheus]

Okay, I'm getting on board with Cain on this...I stated what was bugging me down in Verbl's thread (the whole bit about having to accept an unequal part in a struggle for equality), and it has been ignored.  I'm done with this shit.  Congratulations, I am now marginalized...And isn't that what this shit is really all about?

This is all bullshit.  It's no fucking different than the Rotary Club.

How does one post being glossed over render a conversation bullshit? People don't have robotically precise attentions. We're fleshy bags; it's a wonder we can communicate at all. I've had my shit ignored (or at least not replied to - and there IS a difference there) plenty of times in PD threads. If the conversation still grips me, then I keep posting and trying to make my point. If it's not worth it, it's not worth it, but that's on me.
"This is all bullshit" Such is life, man.
Send us a postcard.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Send us a postcard.

I didn't say I was leaving PD.  I said I was leaving anything resembling an activist or involved role in feminism outside of my home and my workplace.

But fuck you anyway.

[Cain]

WTF, I wasn't done with that post.

Anyway. Your friends right mate. A train isn't a bar or a club. Dudes aren't firing off like loose cannons at randoms in a regular public environment.

Aite, it's probably just cause the chick who wrote the piece is a looker. I doubt the average female has to deal with THAT many advances from sleaze buckets on a train. Kind of beside the point but let's not get all fancy pants 'cultural differences' about this shit.

I don't think "looker" is the reason.

When I was in my 20's, my best friend was a woman who looked like Angelina Jolie with a D cup. It actually intimidated a lot of guys. They'd OGLE her, but they's HIT ON me, because I was more average looking and therefore deemed more "available".

It's also a classic PUA tactic: butter up the less good looking friends to get close to the target.  It's explicitly stated in such terms in more than a few books.  Douchebag extraordinaire "Mystery" popularized it, however.

[Epimetheus]

Send us a postcard.

I didn't say I was leaving PD.  I said I was leaving anything resembling an activist or involved role in feminism outside of my home and my workplace.

Still want a postcard.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Send us a postcard.

I didn't say I was leaving PD.  I said I was leaving anything resembling an activist or involved role in feminism outside of my home and my workplace.

Still want a postcard.

That's great, asshole.  From now on, I will take you every bit as seriously as you take me...Which is to say, not at all. 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

WTF, I wasn't done with that post.

Anyway. Your friends right mate. A train isn't a bar or a club. Dudes aren't firing off like loose cannons at randoms in a regular public environment.

Aite, it's probably just cause the chick who wrote the piece is a looker. I doubt the average female has to deal with THAT many advances from sleaze buckets on a train. Kind of beside the point but let's not get all fancy pants 'cultural differences' about this shit.

I don't think "looker" is the reason.

When I was in my 20's, my best friend was a woman who looked like Angelina Jolie with a D cup. It actually intimidated a lot of guys. They'd OGLE her, but they's HIT ON me, because I was more average looking and therefore deemed more "available".

It's also a classic PUA tactic: butter up the less good looking friends to get close to the target.  It's explicitly stated in such terms in more than a few books.  Douchebag extraordinaire "Mystery" popularized it, however.

Yes, there was a lot of that, too.
I think it's instinctive on some level, since there were functional illiterates doing the same thing and no PUA TV at the time.