Principia Discordia

Quote
I debated whether or not to share this story.

And then I debated whether or not to put it on Tumblr...but I decided it was important.  Because in my own way, I can (unfortunately) point out exactly what is wrong with men when they don't realize how hard it is to be a woman.  How we do not have equal opportunities and freedoms in everyday life.  How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what we go through on a daily basis just trying to live our lives.

http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story

Thanks for sharing, Net.  People need to see this shit.

That post genuinely surprised me. And scared me. Maybe because it's probably less common in Norway, partly because it's a less patriarchal society and partly because talking to people on the train is rare.

A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

The attitude that it's okay for men to be assholes, women just need to learn how deal with it and, if necessary, defend themselves is part of the problem, not a solution.

 :aaa:

I really, really wish this shocked me  :sad:

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 06, 2012, 12:51:51 PM
I really, really wish this shocked me  :sad:

That'd be nice, wouldn't it?

Glad somebody took the time to sit down and write it out.

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 11:25:47 AM
Thanks for sharing, Net.  People need to see this shit.

I found it to be very well written and yeah, necessary for it to be shared.

Definitely, well written and well worth the read. The screamer with the bike is a bit of an extreme case, but by no means uncommon sadly.  The description of the daily harassment is pretty much dead on with similar conversations and observations I've had. Thanks Net.

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 12:32:19 PM

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

The attitude that it's okay for men to be assholes, women just need to learn how deal with it and, if necessary, defend themselves is part of the problem, not a solution.

It's certainly not ok for men to act like this, but I think it is fair to say that women should learn to defend themselves.  So should men.  Everyone should know basic defense skills.

Having said that... the first couple situations are grotesque and barbaric, but I can't say they surprised me... the bicycle man, however, was a different matter.  Ladies, please enlighten me, is that sort of berserk behavior common?  He sounded more genuinely mentally ill to me, than just a run-of-the-mill male asshole... am I wrong?

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

How would self-defense or knife-handling skills prevent her from being repeatedly verbally harassed?

Should she wear a sign that says "I KNOW KUNG FU" and twirl a butterfly knife while she reads her book?

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 01:27:29 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 12:32:19 PM

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

The attitude that it's okay for men to be assholes, women just need to learn how deal with it and, if necessary, defend themselves is part of the problem, not a solution.

It's certainly not ok for men to act like this, but I think it is fair to say that women should learn to defend themselves.  So should men.  Everyone should know basic defense skills.

Having said that... the first couple situations are grotesque and barbaric, but I can't say they surprised me... the bicycle man, however, was a different matter.  Ladies, please enlighten me, is that sort of berserk behavior common?  He sounded more genuinely mentally ill to me, than just a run-of-the-mill male asshole... am I wrong?

Quite likely he was off his rocker.

However, the simple fact remains that, if you're female, you never know if the random guy who walks into a near empty public transport and decides to sit next to you is going to lose his shit if you don't give him the attention he wants.

It's considered OKAY for a man to interrupt a woman who's obviously engaged in a book, because conversation with him is rated more important than a solitary activity.  He "just wanted to talk," and if she turns him down, she's being "rude," at best.

When I'm on the bus, I wear earphones, even if I'm not listening to music.  Tends to cut down on the interruptions when I'm trying to read...  But, even if you're not really aware you're doing it, as a lone female, you're always aware of who's getting close to your personal space, and doing a quick threat assessment. 

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 01:27:29 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 12:32:19 PM

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

The attitude that it's okay for men to be assholes, women just need to learn how deal with it and, if necessary, defend themselves is part of the problem, not a solution.

It's certainly not ok for men to act like this, but I think it is fair to say that women should learn to defend themselves.  So should men.  Everyone should know basic defense skills.

Having said that... the first couple situations are grotesque and barbaric, but I can't say they surprised me... the bicycle man, however, was a different matter.  Ladies, please enlighten me, is that sort of berserk behavior common?  He sounded more genuinely mentally ill to me, than just a run-of-the-mill male asshole... am I wrong?

Speaking from experience, all the defence skills in the world don't necessarily make you feel safer when alone with someone who has a foot and 100 pounds on you.  :|

And, unfortunately... while not everyday occurrences, situations like this aren't what I would call uncommon, either.

No, self defense skills won't make you feel safer against anyone larger than you, and they won't stop assholes from beginning unrequested conversations... but they are still handy to have.

And no Luna, it's not considered OK for a man to interrupt a woman who's obviously engaged in a book, but people obviously do it anyway.  People tend to do what they think they can get away with.  The shitty thing is most of these guys likely think they are doing nothing wrong.

You know, every so often you'll see a piece about how disconnected people are, how no one is friendly anymore, how you can have an entire train full of people, each plugged in to their iPod, or laptop, never even acknowledging anyone else's presence, isolating themselves from the world, and isn't it a shame, and how enjoyable it can be to simply strike up a conversation with a stranger, you might learn something new, or make a good friend, and modern technology is to blame for letting people shut themselves off from the world.

And then you read something like this.

Word.

Read an interesting essay from porn star Stoya yesterday where she was saying, by and large, that she is treated more respectfully at porn conventions than she is by men on the street... which is sort of... something?

Content blocked by nannywall.

I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

X-posting reply from FaceSpace where I saw this 5 mins ago.

Having to deal with that bullshit from men is all kinds of not awesome.

That said, I have a hard time sometimes working out what's expected; the last three anecdotes I've read about 'if I'm reading and a guy comes up and talks to me...' have ended with

-"People seem to want to talk to you if you read so I like to read and hope someone starts a conversation"

then

-"I don't mind if you're talking about the content of the book, but don't just talk to me about 'what are you reading?'

and then

"If I'm reading DON'T TALK TO ME I'M AVOIDING YOU'.

So sometimes I do find it a bit unclear what's appropriate. That said, I suspect the public transport (ie, context) had a lot to do with it.

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 12:32:19 PM

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

The attitude that it's okay for men to be assholes, women just need to learn how deal with it and, if necessary, defend themselves is part of the problem, not a solution.

A better way to say this is that it is a woefully incomplete solution.  The other half of this solution is that every person has a moral responsibility to step in when a fellow human - regardless of gender - is being attacked or threatened.  Most predators don't want a fight, they want a victim.  If you don't feel capable of helping, that's what 911 is for.  A simple call to the police would have saved Kitty Genovese, for example, yet more than 200 people who heard her attack did nothing.

There's nothing I can do about most assaults, because I am not present.  However, I CAN have an effect if I happen to be present at the time, and there is no excuse for me or anyone else to walk on by, pretending nothing is happening.

Boohoo, I'm attractive and guys hit on me, life's tough.
BZZZT. Next.

Quote from: Chaser on September 06, 2012, 01:59:44 PM
Boohoo, I'm attractive and guys hit on me, life's tough.
BZZZT. Next.

Okay, we've heard from the Australian Guido delegation.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 01:57:38 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 12:32:19 PM

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

The attitude that it's okay for men to be assholes, women just need to learn how deal with it and, if necessary, defend themselves is part of the problem, not a solution.

A better way to say this is that it is a woefully incomplete solution.  The other half of this solution is that every person has a moral responsibility to step in when a fellow human - regardless of gender - is being attacked or threatened.  Most predators don't want a fight, they want a victim.  If you don't feel capable of helping, that's what 911 is for.  A simple call to the police would have saved Kitty Genovese, for example, yet more than 200 people who heard her attack did nothing.

There's nothing I can do about most assaults, because I am not present.  However, I CAN have an effect if I happen to be present at the time, and there is no excuse for me or anyone else to walk on by, pretending nothing is happening.

From what I've read, the problem in the Kitty Genovese story is that everyone assumed someone else was calling for help... or maybe I'm a hopeless optimist.

I don't personally think asking someone what they are reading on a train or bus is inherently a problem... it's the response these people come up with that is the problem.  If someone doesn't want to talk it shouldn't be an automatic response to assume they are an asshole.  They could have any number of reasons for not wanting to talk.

Oh, and just for the record, when I am on the subway reading someone almost always asks what I am reading too, and I ain't that cute.  People are nosy.

The correct term is in fact, muzza.
Come at me, muzzas <3

Quote from: Chaser on September 06, 2012, 02:02:34 PM
The correct term is in fact, muzza.
Come at me, muzzas <3

Run along now, the adults are talking.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:01:25 PM

From what I've read, the problem in the Kitty Genovese story is that everyone assumed someone else was calling for help... or maybe I'm a hopeless optimist.

After-the-fact excuses.  People didn't want to "get involved".  Because, you know, it's a major interruption of your evening to make a 3 minute call.  And when the attacker RETURNED and the attack resumed (fatally), STILL nobody called.

Quote
I don't personally think asking someone what they are reading on a train or bus is inherently a problem... it's the response these people come up with that is the problem.  If someone doesn't want to talk it shouldn't be an automatic response to assume they are an asshole.  They could have any number of reasons for not wanting to talk.

Yes, like they're reading a book.  I get pissy when someone tries chatting at me in an airport if I'm reading a book, whereas I am more than happy to chat if I'm not.

QuoteOh, and just for the record, when I am on the subway reading someone almost always asks what I am reading too, and I ain't that cute.  People are nosy.

People are nosy.  Or bored.  Or lonely.  Or sometimes they're creepy.  To me, it's an annoyance.  To other people, it may feel threatening.

Quote from: Chaser on September 06, 2012, 01:59:44 PM
Boohoo, I'm attractive and guys hit on me, life's tough.
BZZZT. Next.

No, I think those who are capable of discussing legitimate issues might keep doing so for a bit. Thanks for your valuable input.

Quote from: Chaser on September 06, 2012, 02:02:34 PM
The correct term is in fact, muzza.
Come at me, muzzas <3

No, it's "guido".  Not as in "Italian", but as in "COME AT ME, BRAH DO YOU EVEN LIFT CHECK OUT MY TAN FIST PUMP" argle bargle.  Add in a bit of /b/ type last-decade studied callousness, and then flip it all upside down...Australian Guido.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:01:25 PM
From what I've read, the problem in the Kitty Genovese story is that everyone assumed someone else was calling for help... or maybe I'm a hopeless optimist.

Possibly.  But diffusion of responsibility does also take place when it is clear that no-one else is intervening.  Everyone waits for someone else to do something, and the longer nothing happens, the more likely people are going to think "well, it's not my responsibility to intervene.  Look at everyone else, standing around doing nothing.  Why don't they do something?"

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
X-posting reply from FaceSpace where I saw this 5 mins ago.

Having to deal with that bullshit from men is all kinds of not awesome.

That said, I have a hard time sometimes working out what's expected; the last three anecdotes I've read about 'if I'm reading and a guy comes up and talks to me...' have ended with

-"People seem to want to talk to you if you read so I like to read and hope someone starts a conversation"

then

-"I don't mind if you're talking about the content of the book, but don't just talk to me about 'what are you reading?'

and then

"If I'm reading DON'T TALK TO ME I'M AVOIDING YOU'.

So sometimes I do find it a bit unclear what's appropriate. That said, I suspect the public transport (ie, context) had a lot to do with it.

It seems quite clear to me.

If someone clearly asserts that they do not want to talk with you, move the fuck on.

What's so murky and difficult about that?

Quote from: Cain on September 06, 2012, 02:08:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:01:25 PM
From what I've read, the problem in the Kitty Genovese story is that everyone assumed someone else was calling for help... or maybe I'm a hopeless optimist.

Possibly.  But diffusion of responsibility does also take place when it is clear that no-one else is intervening.  Everyone waits for someone else to do something, and the longer nothing happens, the more likely people are going to think "well, it's not my responsibility to intervene.  Look at everyone else, standing around doing nothing.  Why don't they do something?"

So they Tweet about in instead.

Quote from: Cain on September 06, 2012, 02:08:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:01:25 PM
From what I've read, the problem in the Kitty Genovese story is that everyone assumed someone else was calling for help... or maybe I'm a hopeless optimist.

Possibly.  But diffusion of responsibility does also take place when it is clear that no-one else is intervening.  Everyone waits for someone else to do something, and the longer nothing happens, the more likely people are going to think "well, it's not my responsibility to intervene.  Look at everyone else, standing around doing nothing.  Why don't they do something?"

There was an old movie about early pilots, called Waldo Pepper.  The crash scene at the barnstorming was a perfect illustration of that behavior, though I don't recommend it to people who don't have a stomach for awful horror.

Re: Kitty, the original article was a beat up.

What happened was that 38 or so people heard SOME PART of the assault, or saw something. This relates to Bystander Effect which is well discussed here ;http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/we_are_all_bystanders (along with most the relevant experiements I know relating to the effect)

Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

For Roger, the content.

Quote
I debated whether or not to share this story.

And then I debated whether or not to put it on Tumblr...but I decided it was important.  Because in my own way, I can (unfortunately) point out exactly what is wrong with men when they don't realize how hard it is to be a woman.  How we do not have equal opportunities and freedoms in everyday life.  How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what we go through on a daily basis just trying to live our lives.

So here goes.

I often ride the Metro when I commute from North Hollywood to Long Beach in order to save money.  I bring a book, pointedly wear a ring on my ring finger to imply I'm married (I'm not) and keep to myself.  

Without fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes.  The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows.  Sometimes an overly friendly arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in close to talk to me as if we are old friends.  Without fail, the man or boy in question will lean to close and ask me

What are you reading?

Is that a good book?

What's that book about?


This serves the double purpose of getting my attention and trapping me in a conversation.  If I stop reading the book I enjoy to talk to you, random stranger, you hit on me or just stay way too close to me.  If I tell you to leave me alone, you get mad at me.  Because I somehow, as a woman, owe you conversation.

Tonight when I boarded the train in Long Beach at 10:30pm, it started up right away.  I was not on the train more than three minutes before three boys who looked eighteen sat in the row behind me and leaned over the seats into my personal space, close enough to breathe on me.  The one with his arm draped over onto the back of my seat asked me—surprise— "what are you reading?"  I went through my usual routine.  I told them loudly and firmly that I wanted to be left alone to read my book.  They got angry.  I was told "Why are you going to be like that?  I just wanted to talk!"  His friends start laughing at me and they don't move, telling me come on! and why are you gonna be like that? until I tell them to leave me the fuck alone, stand up, and move to the front of the car near the three other people on the train, a couple and a business man in a suit.  They spend the next two stops shouting at me from the back of the car, alternating between trying to sound flirtatious and making fun of me, shouting "I bet she's reading Stephanie Meyer!  I bet she's reading Twilight or some shit!  You reading Twilight or some shit?"

They exit the train at the next stop, and I'm relieved.  The train is going out of service at the next station, so we all exit to board a new train to Los Angeles.  As we board, the business man steps aside to let me go through the door first and asks me if those guys were bothering me.  I say yes, that it happens all the time, and he tells he'll beat them up for me if they come back.  He is a nice person who talks to me like I'm a human being instead of a walking pair of tits, and I make a mental note:  This is how a real man talks to a woman on a train.

The business man and the couple exit our new Blue Line train an exit or so later, and I think my night is ending on a good note.  A seemingly normal man enters the train with his bicycle.  At this point I am three rows from the front of the car, another man was sitting near the back of the car, and the rest of the car is empty.  Bicycle Man walks halfway down the row, and settles into the seat directly opposite me.  Perfect, I think.  Twice in one night.

It's not the first time I've been bothered multiple times.  As such, I'm still amped from the teenagers on the first train.  So when this man leans across the aisle into my personal space and asks me, yes, what are you reading, I assertively but calmly tell him to please leave me alone, I am reading.  The man stands up, moving to the front and muttering angrily over his shoulder that it isn't his fault I'm pretty.

Yes.  Exactly that.  I am the bad person in this situation because somehow this is all my fault.  I started this by being attractive.  I am making a mental note to bitch about this to my friends later.  I go so far as to write it down so I know I'm remembering it properly.  

It is at this exact moment I realize Bicycle Man is not taking it well.  The seemingly annoying but normal man a moment before is now talking to himself, becoming agitated.  In my years of being bothered by total strangers, I have learned how to hold a book and seem to be reading while taking in everything around me.  He is glaring at me, and says out loud in an angry baby talk voice "PLEASELEAVEMEALONEI'MREADING.  PLEASE LEAVE ME ALOOOONE."

Then he's up out of his seat and things go from bad to worse.  He begins pacing back and forth in front of his bike, alternating between screaming something about his mother being dead and calling me a slut, a hoe, a bitch.  I am frozen in place.  There is one other person in the car, and I'm not sure if trying to change seats will draw more attention to me or less. I trust my instincts and show no fear, doing my best to appear to be calmly reading my book, never once looking up to acknowledge the abuse he's hurling at me.  There are four stops left until we reach the main downtown station where there are lights and security officers.  Those four stops are virtually abandoned, and I have no guarantee that leaving to wait for another train won't motivate him to leave the train as well, leaving us potentially alone at a metro station platform just outside of Compton.  I'm frozen in place, trying to plan what I'm going to do if he decides to take all this rage directly to me.  I'm ready to kick him, scream, make enough noise that he panics and flees.  

At this point he's punching the walls and doors of the train, screaming at me.  He stares me full in the face and screams

SUCK MY DICK, BITCH

YOU BITCH

YOU STUPID BITCH

YOU GODDAMN HO

IF I HAD A GUN I'D SHOOT YOU

I WOULD FUCKING KILL YOU BITCH

This went on for two stops.  No one came to see what was happening.  The man in the last row was as frozen as I was.  I'm not angry he didn't come to my defense.  He was smaller, older, and frailer-looking than I was.  Again, I was worried if I got up, I would be turning my back on him to walk down the aisle.  In the state he was in, I had no guarantee it wouldn't get physical, and I had more physical strength with my back to the window and feet in kicking position where I was.  If he had chosen to assault me, I would only be making it easier for him by standing up and putting myself directly in his path.  On and on, over and over, he screamed at me, screamed at his dead mother, screamed at me again.

The moment we reached the downtown station, I was out the door and down the stairs.  I still had to catch a connecting train to North Hollywood, and made sure there was no sign of Bicycle Man before I entered the car.  That's when I finally starting shaking, and almost threw up.  By the time I exited the Red Line and reached my car I could barely breathe and my heart was pounding out of my chest.  Even now, in my own home, my hands are still shaking and for some reason the stress has made my back muscles feel cold and numb.  From all the tension, I can only assume.  I can't eat anything, I still feel like I'm going to vomit, and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't cried so much, so hard I still have the headache.

So when people (men) want to talk about "legitimate" forms of assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to ignore the bad behavior of men, I want them to be forced to feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than being female and not wanting to share.  

I just wanted to read my book.
It's not my fault I'm pretty.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Quote from: Net on September 06, 2012, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
X-posting reply from FaceSpace where I saw this 5 mins ago.

Having to deal with that bullshit from men is all kinds of not awesome.

That said, I have a hard time sometimes working out what's expected; the last three anecdotes I've read about 'if I'm reading and a guy comes up and talks to me...' have ended with

-"People seem to want to talk to you if you read so I like to read and hope someone starts a conversation"

then

-"I don't mind if you're talking about the content of the book, but don't just talk to me about 'what are you reading?'

and then

"If I'm reading DON'T TALK TO ME I'M AVOIDING YOU'.

So sometimes I do find it a bit unclear what's appropriate. That said, I suspect the public transport (ie, context) had a lot to do with it.

It seems quite clear to me.

If someone clearly asserts that they do not want to talk with you, move the fuck on.

What's so murky and difficult about that?

Reread, yo.

Talking about starting conversations, not 'what should I do if she tells me to fuck off'. I have a fairly good idea what to do if someone tells me to fuck off.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:12:35 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Yes, the people most likely to intervene seem to be people whose jobs have conditioned them to get involved in such situations - police, paramedics, firefighters etc (in my personal experience - no dount there are some other jobs too).  While education certainly can help overcome the diffusion of responsibility, it cannot necessarily help with the "avoid conflict" effect.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2012, 02:12:32 PM
For Roger, the content.

Quote
I debated whether or not to share this story.

And then I debated whether or not to put it on Tumblr...but I decided it was important.  Because in my own way, I can (unfortunately) point out exactly what is wrong with men when they don't realize how hard it is to be a woman.  How we do not have equal opportunities and freedoms in everyday life.  How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what we go through on a daily basis just trying to live our lives.

So here goes.

I often ride the Metro when I commute from North Hollywood to Long Beach in order to save money.  I bring a book, pointedly wear a ring on my ring finger to imply I'm married (I'm not) and keep to myself. 

Without fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes.  The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows.  Sometimes an overly friendly arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in close to talk to me as if we are old friends.  Without fail, the man or boy in question will lean to close and ask me

What are you reading?

Is that a good book?

What's that book about?


This serves the double purpose of getting my attention and trapping me in a conversation.  If I stop reading the book I enjoy to talk to you, random stranger, you hit on me or just stay way too close to me.  If I tell you to leave me alone, you get mad at me.  Because I somehow, as a woman, owe you conversation.

Tonight when I boarded the train in Long Beach at 10:30pm, it started up right away.  I was not on the train more than three minutes before three boys who looked eighteen sat in the row behind me and leaned over the seats into my personal space, close enough to breathe on me.  The one with his arm draped over onto the back of my seat asked me—surprise— "what are you reading?"  I went through my usual routine.  I told them loudly and firmly that I wanted to be left alone to read my book.  They got angry.  I was told "Why are you going to be like that?  I just wanted to talk!"  His friends start laughing at me and they don't move, telling me come on! and why are you gonna be like that? until I tell them to leave me the fuck alone, stand up, and move to the front of the car near the three other people on the train, a couple and a business man in a suit.  They spend the next two stops shouting at me from the back of the car, alternating between trying to sound flirtatious and making fun of me, shouting "I bet she's reading Stephanie Meyer!  I bet she's reading Twilight or some shit!  You reading Twilight or some shit?"

They exit the train at the next stop, and I'm relieved.  The train is going out of service at the next station, so we all exit to board a new train to Los Angeles.  As we board, the business man steps aside to let me go through the door first and asks me if those guys were bothering me.  I say yes, that it happens all the time, and he tells he'll beat them up for me if they come back.  He is a nice person who talks to me like I'm a human being instead of a walking pair of tits, and I make a mental note:  This is how a real man talks to a woman on a train.

The business man and the couple exit our new Blue Line train an exit or so later, and I think my night is ending on a good note.  A seemingly normal man enters the train with his bicycle.  At this point I am three rows from the front of the car, another man was sitting near the back of the car, and the rest of the car is empty.  Bicycle Man walks halfway down the row, and settles into the seat directly opposite me.  Perfect, I think.  Twice in one night.

It's not the first time I've been bothered multiple times.  As such, I'm still amped from the teenagers on the first train.  So when this man leans across the aisle into my personal space and asks me, yes, what are you reading, I assertively but calmly tell him to please leave me alone, I am reading.  The man stands up, moving to the front and muttering angrily over his shoulder that it isn't his fault I'm pretty.

Yes.  Exactly that.  I am the bad person in this situation because somehow this is all my fault.  I started this by being attractive.  I am making a mental note to bitch about this to my friends later.  I go so far as to write it down so I know I'm remembering it properly. 

It is at this exact moment I realize Bicycle Man is not taking it well.  The seemingly annoying but normal man a moment before is now talking to himself, becoming agitated.  In my years of being bothered by total strangers, I have learned how to hold a book and seem to be reading while taking in everything around me.  He is glaring at me, and says out loud in an angry baby talk voice "PLEASELEAVEMEALONEI'MREADING.  PLEASE LEAVE ME ALOOOONE."

Then he's up out of his seat and things go from bad to worse.  He begins pacing back and forth in front of his bike, alternating between screaming something about his mother being dead and calling me a slut, a hoe, a bitch.  I am frozen in place.  There is one other person in the car, and I'm not sure if trying to change seats will draw more attention to me or less. I trust my instincts and show no fear, doing my best to appear to be calmly reading my book, never once looking up to acknowledge the abuse he's hurling at me.  There are four stops left until we reach the main downtown station where there are lights and security officers.  Those four stops are virtually abandoned, and I have no guarantee that leaving to wait for another train won't motivate him to leave the train as well, leaving us potentially alone at a metro station platform just outside of Compton.  I'm frozen in place, trying to plan what I'm going to do if he decides to take all this rage directly to me.  I'm ready to kick him, scream, make enough noise that he panics and flees. 

At this point he's punching the walls and doors of the train, screaming at me.  He stares me full in the face and screams

SUCK MY DICK, BITCH

YOU BITCH

YOU STUPID BITCH

YOU GODDAMN HO

IF I HAD A GUN I'D SHOOT YOU

I WOULD FUCKING KILL YOU BITCH

This went on for two stops.  No one came to see what was happening.  The man in the last row was as frozen as I was.  I'm not angry he didn't come to my defense.  He was smaller, older, and frailer-looking than I was.  Again, I was worried if I got up, I would be turning my back on him to walk down the aisle.  In the state he was in, I had no guarantee it wouldn't get physical, and I had more physical strength with my back to the window and feet in kicking position where I was.  If he had chosen to assault me, I would only be making it easier for him by standing up and putting myself directly in his path.  On and on, over and over, he screamed at me, screamed at his dead mother, screamed at me again.

The moment we reached the downtown station, I was out the door and down the stairs.  I still had to catch a connecting train to North Hollywood, and made sure there was no sign of Bicycle Man before I entered the car.  That's when I finally starting shaking, and almost threw up.  By the time I exited the Red Line and reached my car I could barely breathe and my heart was pounding out of my chest.  Even now, in my own home, my hands are still shaking and for some reason the stress has made my back muscles feel cold and numb.  From all the tension, I can only assume.  I can't eat anything, I still feel like I'm going to vomit, and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't cried so much, so hard I still have the headache.

So when people (men) want to talk about "legitimate" forms of assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to ignore the bad behavior of men, I want them to be forced to feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than being female and not wanting to share. 

I just wanted to read my book.
It's not my fault I'm pretty.

Thanks.  And again, it's all about getting involved.  The older man could have called or texted the police with the information about what train he was on.  Judging from where they were, this would have had little effect, but it's better than sitting there paralyzed.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:12:35 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Yeah, that's valid.

The case in study though, not at my link, the one in a book called Opening Skinner's Box (really good intro to basic psychology ideas) basically said that when people were sat down and told

THIS IS BYSTANDER SYNDROME

IF SOMEONE IS IN TROUBLE THEY NEED HELP

WHEN SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE IS YOU

And there were measurable effects on behaviour.

Re, your point on better conditioning, I only scanned the article I linked but they seem to refer back to people who have had others break out of bystander role for them (for example, a girl saved from the Holocaust) being more likely to break out of bystander role themselves.

Quote from: Cain on September 06, 2012, 02:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:12:35 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Yes, the people most likely to intervene seem to be people whose jobs have conditioned them to get involved in such situations - police, paramedics, firefighters etc (in my personal experience - no dount there are some other jobs too).  While education certainly can help overcome the diffusion of responsibility, it cannot necessarily help with the "avoid conflict" effect.

Mostly people trained to react, I'd think.  Most times I've seen people get involved - even in non-threatening situations - it turned out that they were ex-military, off-duty cops, etc.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:18:10 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:12:35 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Yeah, that's valid.

The case in study though, not at my link, the one in a book called Opening Skinner's Box (really good intro to basic psychology ideas) basically said that when people were sat down and told

THIS IS BYSTANDER SYNDROME

IF SOMEONE IS IN TROUBLE THEY NEED HELP

WHEN SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE IS YOU

And there were measurable effects on behaviour.

Re, your point on better conditioning, I only scanned the article I linked but they seem to refer back to people who have had others break out of bystander role for them (for example, a girl saved from the Holocaust) being more likely to break out of bystander role themselves.

I'm going to find that book.

Quote from: Cain on September 06, 2012, 02:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:12:35 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Yes, the people most likely to intervene seem to be people whose jobs have conditioned them to get involved in such situations - police, paramedics, firefighters etc (in my personal experience - no dount there are some other jobs too).  While education certainly can help overcome the diffusion of responsibility, it cannot necessarily help with the "avoid conflict" effect.

OK I understand this.

Reacting to a heart attack or a fire is a very different beast to a screaming human.

It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:21:13 PM

Quote from: Cain on September 06, 2012, 02:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:12:35 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Yes, the people most likely to intervene seem to be people whose jobs have conditioned them to get involved in such situations - police, paramedics, firefighters etc (in my personal experience - no dount there are some other jobs too).  While education certainly can help overcome the diffusion of responsibility, it cannot necessarily help with the "avoid conflict" effect.

OK I understand this.

Reacting to a heart attack or a fire is a very different beast to a screaming human.

I don't think so, actually.  It's not the given situation that people avoid, it's any situation.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

I'm very aware that if a man strikes up a conversation with me, he most likely doesn't want to come off like a creep...  But, the simple fact is, odds are he's probably going to creep me out.  The main thing is that men need to understand the point of view of the person they're talking to... and respect the fact that, as much as he may want her attention, the fact that she doesn't want to give it is trump.

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:27:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

I'm very aware that if a man strikes up a conversation with me, he most likely doesn't want to come off like a creep...  But, the simple fact is, odds are he's probably going to creep me out.  The main thing is that men need to understand the point of view of the person they're talking to... and respect the fact that, as much as he may want her attention, the fact that she doesn't want to give it is trump.

Ok, but realistically... how do we teach this?  And I'm not being facetious here... I'm genuinely curious how we intend to educate adult men on this matter?

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:27:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

I'm very aware that if a man strikes up a conversation with me, he most likely doesn't want to come off like a creep...  But, the simple fact is, odds are he's probably going to creep me out.  The main thing is that men need to understand the point of view of the person they're talking to... and respect the fact that, as much as he may want her attention, the fact that she doesn't want to give it is trump.

It goes beyond that.  It requires the person to understand that you don't have the right to intrude on someone's space.  If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:32:11 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:27:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

I'm very aware that if a man strikes up a conversation with me, he most likely doesn't want to come off like a creep...  But, the simple fact is, odds are he's probably going to creep me out.  The main thing is that men need to understand the point of view of the person they're talking to... and respect the fact that, as much as he may want her attention, the fact that she doesn't want to give it is trump.

Ok, but realistically... how do we teach this?  And I'm not being facetious here... I'm genuinely curious how we intend to educate adult men on this matter?

Locally, and by peer pressure. 

Yeah I guess it would have to be.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:32:11 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:27:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

I'm very aware that if a man strikes up a conversation with me, he most likely doesn't want to come off like a creep...  But, the simple fact is, odds are he's probably going to creep me out.  The main thing is that men need to understand the point of view of the person they're talking to... and respect the fact that, as much as he may want her attention, the fact that she doesn't want to give it is trump.

Ok, but realistically... how do we teach this?  And I'm not being facetious here... I'm genuinely curious how we intend to educate adult men on this matter?

If I'm inclined to do it (which is rare, it happens on the way to work when I've got a lot of shit on my mind already, or on the way home, when I'm too fucking tired to bother), the response to, "I just wanted to be nice" could be, "well, it isn't nice to interrupt somebody when they're reading."  This, however, is giving them the conversation they want.  Counterproductive.

I may print out a couple copies of this and tuck them into the back of my kindle... and pass over a copy when that question gets asked.

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:38:04 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:32:11 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:27:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

I'm very aware that if a man strikes up a conversation with me, he most likely doesn't want to come off like a creep...  But, the simple fact is, odds are he's probably going to creep me out.  The main thing is that men need to understand the point of view of the person they're talking to... and respect the fact that, as much as he may want her attention, the fact that she doesn't want to give it is trump.

Ok, but realistically... how do we teach this?  And I'm not being facetious here... I'm genuinely curious how we intend to educate adult men on this matter?

If I'm inclined to do it (which is rare, it happens on the way to work when I've got a lot of shit on my mind already, or on the way home, when I'm too fucking tired to bother), the response to, "I just wanted to be nice" could be, "well, it isn't nice to interrupt somebody when they're reading."  This, however, is giving them the conversation they want.  Counterproductive.

I may print out a couple copies of this and tuck them into the back of my kindle... and pass over a copy when that question gets asked.

Why on Earth would you think that's the response men want?

If I start a conversation, my motivation is, you know, to have the other person like me. Not everyone thrives on negative attention.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: Net on September 06, 2012, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
X-posting reply from FaceSpace where I saw this 5 mins ago.

Having to deal with that bullshit from men is all kinds of not awesome.

That said, I have a hard time sometimes working out what's expected; the last three anecdotes I've read about 'if I'm reading and a guy comes up and talks to me...' have ended with

-"People seem to want to talk to you if you read so I like to read and hope someone starts a conversation"

then

-"I don't mind if you're talking about the content of the book, but don't just talk to me about 'what are you reading?'

and then

"If I'm reading DON'T TALK TO ME I'M AVOIDING YOU'.

So sometimes I do find it a bit unclear what's appropriate. That said, I suspect the public transport (ie, context) had a lot to do with it.

It seems quite clear to me.

If someone clearly asserts that they do not want to talk with you, move the fuck on.

What's so murky and difficult about that?

Reread, yo.

Talking about starting conversations, not 'what should I do if she tells me to fuck off'. I have a fairly good idea what to do if someone tells me to fuck off.

That seems like a minor point that doesn't really address the issues laid out in the article. People have different expectations and different levels of social savvy—you can't possibly know for sure whether someone will want to talk with you or not unless you actually try to talk with them.

That said, a general idea in nonverbal communication is that eye contact tends to be a key indicator of whether a person wishes to open a line of communication with you. If someone doesn't give you sustained eye contact, they probably don't want to talk. Eye contact also is a mediator of discussions, if I remember correctly you "pass off" whose turn it is to talk by looking at them, and generally don't give eye contact while it's your turn.

Of course these things are loose guides, and not hard and fast rules. But again, this is besides the point. This woman had issues with the sense of entitlement displayed in the not taking no for an answer, invading her personal space, and varying levels of verbal abuse in response to being respectfully brushed off.

Placid, I think context is also important.  Usually, public transportation is not considered a prime pick-up spot, and most people want to be left the fuck alone.  There are probably better locations to try to get a woman to like you by interrupting her when she's reading.  The beach, perhaps?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2012, 02:49:57 PM
Placid, I think context is also important.  Usually, public transportation is not considered a prime pick-up spot, and most people want to be left the fuck alone.  There are probably better locations to try to get a woman to like you by interrupting her when she's reading.  The beach, perhaps?

Or a coffee shop.  And the important thing is that there's no crime in attempting a conversation.  The problem happens when the attempt is rebuffed, and the person continues the attempt.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:42:37 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:38:04 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:32:11 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 02:27:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

I'm very aware that if a man strikes up a conversation with me, he most likely doesn't want to come off like a creep...  But, the simple fact is, odds are he's probably going to creep me out.  The main thing is that men need to understand the point of view of the person they're talking to... and respect the fact that, as much as he may want her attention, the fact that she doesn't want to give it is trump.

Ok, but realistically... how do we teach this?  And I'm not being facetious here... I'm genuinely curious how we intend to educate adult men on this matter?

If I'm inclined to do it (which is rare, it happens on the way to work when I've got a lot of shit on my mind already, or on the way home, when I'm too fucking tired to bother), the response to, "I just wanted to be nice" could be, "well, it isn't nice to interrupt somebody when they're reading."  This, however, is giving them the conversation they want.  Counterproductive.

I may print out a couple copies of this and tuck them into the back of my kindle... and pass over a copy when that question gets asked.

Why on Earth would you think that's the response men want?

If I start a conversation, my motivation is, you know, to have the other person like me. Not everyone thrives on negative attention.

They want attention.  They want a conversation.  "What are you reading" is an attempt to start a conversation, any response at all, while not the one they want, is still a response, and a percieved opening to continue that conversation.

Sure, many guys would back off... but those would be the ones generally bright enough not to interrupt a person already absorbed in a book in the first place.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2012, 02:49:57 PM
Placid, I think context is also important.  Usually, public transportation is not considered a prime pick-up spot, and most people want to be left the fuck alone.  There are probably better locations to try to get a woman to like you by interrupting her when she's reading.  The beach, perhaps?

Or a coffee shop.  And the important thing is that there's no crime in attempting a conversation.  The problem happens when the attempt is rebuffed, and the person continues the attempt.

This...  Damn near every time I declined to get into a conversation, I got grumbles and pissy attitude, even when they stop trying to push the conversation. 

Hell, even sticking earphones on doesn't stop all of them.  I've had men I don't know tap me on the arm to get my attention when I ignore the first couple of questions about what I'm reading... and get all offended at a snapped "do NOT touch me."

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2012, 02:49:57 PM
Placid, I think context is also important.  Usually, public transportation is not considered a prime pick-up spot, and most people want to be left the fuck alone.  There are probably better locations to try to get a woman to like you by interrupting her when she's reading.  The beach, perhaps?

Yeah absolutely. I threw that in at the end of that post (that the context - public transport - probably had a lot to do with it.)

I guess I was making the point that it can be hard for men to pick up on the 'rules' sometimes as there can be contradictions of what's considered 'obviously' appropriate. In retrospect, possibly a bit of a threadjack, so excuse me.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2012, 02:49:57 PM
Placid, I think context is also important.  Usually, public transportation is not considered a prime pick-up spot, and most people want to be left the fuck alone.  There are probably better locations to try to get a woman to like you by interrupting her when she's reading.  The beach, perhaps?

Or a coffee shop.  And the important thing is that there's no crime in attempting a conversation.  The problem happens when the attempt is rebuffed, and the person continues the attempt.

Yeah, absolutely, agreed.

I'm not sure Hoopla's being too pessimistic. Our culture really does train men to consider themselves entitled to female attention (Cracked had a pretty good piece with some good points on this (http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html)) and I doubt the attitude of the older parts of the population can be significantly changed in any way. Individual men, sure, but not adult men as a whole. This goes way too deep. It's a matter of assumptions, expectations – the kind of thing people aren't usually conscious of.

So yes, we need to create a lot of social pressure to change this, but I don't think we can expect that pressure to re-educate adults, only to make them a little more scared of being pieces of shit because of the repercussions.

Quote from: VERBL on September 06, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Individual men, sure, but not adult men as a whole. This goes way too deep. It's a matter of assumptions, expectations – the kind of thing people aren't usually conscious of.

That's why I say it has to be done locally, with peer pressure.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 01:46:08 PM
No, self defense skills won't make you feel safer against anyone larger than you, and they won't stop assholes from beginning unrequested conversations... but they are still handy to have.

And no Luna, it's not considered OK for a man to interrupt a woman who's obviously engaged in a book, but people obviously do it anyway.  People tend to do what they think they can get away with.  The shitty thing is most of these guys likely think they are doing nothing wrong.

Getting interrupted while reading on public tranportation is pretty 50/50 for me, women do it too: 'OH HI, YOU LIKE TO READ? I DON'T READ MUCH MY DAUGHTER LOVES TO READ THOUGH THAT'S HER IN THIS PICTURE AND THIS OTHER ONE IS MY SON IN LAW AND THIS IS MY GRANDBAYBEE..."  :x :x :x

But yeah, men do it for shitty reasons.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 05:09:15 PM

Quote from: VERBL on September 06, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Individual men, sure, but not adult men as a whole. This goes way too deep. It's a matter of assumptions, expectations – the kind of thing people aren't usually conscious of.

That's why I say it has to be done locally, with peer pressure.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here. I'm just saying that I see no reason for optimism regarding significant change on a large scale.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: Net on September 06, 2012, 02:08:59 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
X-posting reply from FaceSpace where I saw this 5 mins ago.

Having to deal with that bullshit from men is all kinds of not awesome.

That said, I have a hard time sometimes working out what's expected; the last three anecdotes I've read about 'if I'm reading and a guy comes up and talks to me...' have ended with

-"People seem to want to talk to you if you read so I like to read and hope someone starts a conversation"

then

-"I don't mind if you're talking about the content of the book, but don't just talk to me about 'what are you reading?'

and then

"If I'm reading DON'T TALK TO ME I'M AVOIDING YOU'.

So sometimes I do find it a bit unclear what's appropriate. That said, I suspect the public transport (ie, context) had a lot to do with it.

It seems quite clear to me.

If someone clearly asserts that they do not want to talk with you, move the fuck on.

What's so murky and difficult about that?

Reread, yo.

Talking about starting conversations, not 'what should I do if she tells me to fuck off'. I have a fairly good idea what to do if someone tells me to fuck off.

If you're on a commute and you see the same person over and over again, it might be appropriate to make eye contact and smile, or otherwise register recognition.

If you're on a commute and someone is holding a book but stops reading to smile and make eye contact, it might be appropriate to strike up a conversation.

If you're on a commute and someone you've never seen before is reading a book and does not pause to look up and smile, leave them alone.

If you're on a commute and someone you've seen before is reading a book and does not pause to look up and smile, leave them alone.

These are basic social skills. Making eye contact and smiling is an invitation for more interaction in any setting.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 02:22:06 PM
It seems like this kind of thing can only change by the way we teach young men how to interact with women... the adult men at this point are probably a lost cause... or am I being a hopeless pessimist?

I think you're being a pessimist.  Most people don't want to be the creep.  Most people don't want to be the coward who stands by.  They just don't know how not to be those things.

This.

Although I'll note that women/females are encouraged to be polite, sweet, and friendly at all times, even when we're uncomfortable, so make sure you read their expression carefully. But if they make contact first, you're probably good.

Quote from: VERBL on September 06, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
I'm not sure Hoopla's being too pessimistic. Our culture really does train men to consider themselves entitled to female attention (Cracked had a pretty good piece with some good points on this (http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html)) and I doubt the attitude of the older parts of the population can be significantly changed in any way. Individual men, sure, but not adult men as a whole. This goes way too deep. It's a matter of assumptions, expectations – the kind of thing people aren't usually conscious of.

So yes, we need to create a lot of social pressure to change this, but I don't think we can expect that pressure to re-educate adults, only to make them a little more scared of being pieces of shit because of the repercussions.

And also, this. I do think culture is changing among the very young, at least in some regions, and possibly more widely thanks to the Internet.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 06, 2012, 06:06:32 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 01:46:08 PM
No, self defense skills won't make you feel safer against anyone larger than you, and they won't stop assholes from beginning unrequested conversations... but they are still handy to have.

And no Luna, it's not considered OK for a man to interrupt a woman who's obviously engaged in a book, but people obviously do it anyway.  People tend to do what they think they can get away with.  The shitty thing is most of these guys likely think they are doing nothing wrong.

Getting interrupted while reading on public tranportation is pretty 50/50 for me, women do it too: 'OH HI, YOU LIKE TO READ? I DON'T READ MUCH MY DAUGHTER LOVES TO READ THOUGH THAT'S HER IN THIS PICTURE AND THIS OTHER ONE IS MY SON IN LAW AND THIS IS MY GRANDBAYBEE..."  :x :x :x

But yeah, men do it for shitty reasons.

Women do it too, but guaranteed, unless they're mentally ill, if you say "I'm sorry, I really want to read my book" they WILL apologize, maybe be embarrassed, and leave you alone. They won't get angry at you for rebuffing them, which men almost always will. As if you're wrong for not wanting to talk to them. It's like they feel insulted... I've had many, many guys say "Oh, so I'm not as interesting as a book". It's like I just stabbed them in the penis and called them undesirable. Women generally don't act personally rejected when you tell them you'd rather read, but guys seem to feel wounded and rejected, even put down. And they want an explanation. They'll ask if it's for homework, for a work assignment, or some other reading I have to do. They'll act like they want reassurance that it's not really that I would rather read a book than talk to them. What makes it scary is that you never know when you'll get one with anger issues, who'll go off on you and call you names.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 07:15:02 PM
Although I'll note that women/females are encouraged to be polite, sweet, and friendly at all times, even when we're uncomfortable, so make sure you read their expression carefully. But if they make contact first, you're probably good.

Fuck, yes. I HATE that conditioning. I have a bad, bad case of it, and I've been working for much of my adult life, but especially in the last three years, to overcome it.

Girls are conditioned from birth, not only by their parents but by the social contract, to BE NICE. This is why we care so much about being liked. A huge part of what society perceives as our basic human value is wrapped up in BEING NICE. It is astonishingly hard to overcome this; I've seen women have massive, shaking, sweating, adrenaline-fueled anxiety attacks about just the idea of saying no to someone who asks them to do something they don't want to do.

Thanks for posting this, Net.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 06, 2012, 07:46:00 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 07:15:02 PM
Although I'll note that women/females are encouraged to be polite, sweet, and friendly at all times, even when we're uncomfortable, so make sure you read their expression carefully. But if they make contact first, you're probably good.

Fuck, yes. I HATE that conditioning. I have a bad, bad case of it, and I've been working for much of my adult life, but especially in the last three years, to overcome it.

Girls are conditioned from birth, not only by their parents but by the social contract, to BE NICE. This is why we care so much about being liked. A huge part of what society perceives as our basic human value is wrapped up in BEING NICE. It is astonishingly hard to overcome this; I've seen women have massive, shaking, sweating, adrenaline-fueled anxiety attacks about just the idea of saying no to someone who asks them to do something they don't want to do.

One of the reasons I married my wife is because she knows when NOT to be nice.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 06, 2012, 07:41:29 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 06, 2012, 06:06:32 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2012, 01:46:08 PM
No, self defense skills won't make you feel safer against anyone larger than you, and they won't stop assholes from beginning unrequested conversations... but they are still handy to have.

And no Luna, it's not considered OK for a man to interrupt a woman who's obviously engaged in a book, but people obviously do it anyway.  People tend to do what they think they can get away with.  The shitty thing is most of these guys likely think they are doing nothing wrong.

Getting interrupted while reading on public tranportation is pretty 50/50 for me, women do it too: 'OH HI, YOU LIKE TO READ? I DON'T READ MUCH MY DAUGHTER LOVES TO READ THOUGH THAT'S HER IN THIS PICTURE AND THIS OTHER ONE IS MY SON IN LAW AND THIS IS MY GRANDBAYBEE..."  :x :x :x

But yeah, men do it for shitty reasons.

Women do it too, but guaranteed, unless they're mentally ill, if you say "I'm sorry, I really want to read my book" they WILL apologize, maybe be embarrassed, and leave you alone. They won't get angry at you for rebuffing them, which men almost always will. As if you're wrong for not wanting to talk to them. It's like they feel insulted... I've had many, many guys say "Oh, so I'm not as interesting as a book". It's like I just stabbed them in the penis and called them undesirable. Women generally don't act personally rejected when you tell them you'd rather read, but guys seem to feel wounded and rejected, even put down. And they want an explanation. They'll ask if it's for homework, for a work assignment, or some other reading I have to do. They'll act like they want reassurance that it's not really that I would rather read a book than talk to them. What makes it scary is that you never know when you'll get one with anger issues, who'll go off on you and call you names.

True.

Another one I've gotten from men OVER AND OVER (the stupid ones) is "you've got it upside down" or some other variation of "you can't read".

The equivalent of "you're an illiterate retard" is supposed to be a PICKUP LINE?

WTF kind of response do they expect? (Other than "fuck off."  :lol: ) "Teehee, you're so witty, let me put down this boring old book while you ask me a bunch of questions that are none of your fucking business about what I do and if I'm married and when and where you can fuck me!"

"Fuck off" is WAY more fun.  :lulz:

QuoteI've had many, many guys say "Oh, so I'm not as interesting as a book".

Most people, regardless of gender, are actually much less interesting than a book.

The kind of books I read, anyway, I can't speak for the great train-riding masses.

See, now if this was an altercation between two men most people would recognize the other is bullying and being a total dick. Yet with women it's just the way you do things, apparently.

A lot of guys just don't realize that they aren't the first one's to try and talk to them about what is probably eventually sex. The trouble is, if you give women enough breathing room they're as eager for sex as anyone else.

But when you step out of your door to get the mail and someone offers you pork pie, and then you go down to the gym and someone offers you pork pie, and your boss subtly offers you pork pie for lunch, and you get an offer for pork pie when you pick your car up from the shop, you damned well don't want any god damned pork pie when you get off of work. It doesn't matter if you like pork pie or not.

Bless Alty's post.

Pork pies are pretty great, though.

Hats off to that.

Quote from: Alty on September 06, 2012, 08:05:19 PM
See, now if this was an altercation between two men most people would recognize the other is bullying and being a total dick. Yet with women it's just the way you do things, apparently.

A lot of guys just don't realize that they aren't the first one's to try and talk to them about what is probably eventually sex. The trouble is, if you give women enough breathing room they're as eager for sex as anyone else.

But when you step out of your door to get the mail and someone offers you pork pie, and then you go down to the gym and someone offers you pork pie, and your boss subtly offers you pork pie for lunch, and you get an offer for pork pie when you pick your car up from the shop, you damned well don't want any god damned pork pie when you get off of work. It doesn't matter if you like pork pie or not.

Thanks, Alty, I love this post.

I'll take it a bit further, though...  It's not just that I'm being offered something, it's the goddamn attitude that I should be GRATEFUL that it's being offered, should drop whatever it is I'm doing to avidly pursue it, and how DARE I let such a golden opportunity pass by? 

Shit, I've gotten THAT bullshit attitude from guys I KNOW.  (This sort of bullshit removes you from my friend list...  If you're my buddy, and I'm currently unattached, a polite pass is a compliment, even if I'm not interested, and I'll do my damned best not to crush your ego when I turn you down...  but, get pissy about it and act like I OWED you anything because you took time out of your busy schedule to hit me up, then fuck you very much, get lost.)

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 08:28:28 PM

Quote from: Alty on September 06, 2012, 08:05:19 PM
See, now if this was an altercation between two men most people would recognize the other is bullying and being a total dick. Yet with women it's just the way you do things, apparently.

A lot of guys just don't realize that they aren't the first one's to try and talk to them about what is probably eventually sex. The trouble is, if you give women enough breathing room they're as eager for sex as anyone else.

But when you step out of your door to get the mail and someone offers you pork pie, and then you go down to the gym and someone offers you pork pie, and your boss subtly offers you pork pie for lunch, and you get an offer for pork pie when you pick your car up from the shop, you damned well don't want any god damned pork pie when you get off of work. It doesn't matter if you like pork pie or not.

Thanks, Alty, I love this post.

I'll take it a bit further, though...  It's not just that I'm being offered something, it's the goddamn attitude that I should be GRATEFUL that it's being offered, should drop whatever it is I'm doing to avidly pursue it, and how DARE I let such a golden opportunity pass by? 

Shit, I've gotten THAT bullshit attitude from guys I KNOW.  (This sort of bullshit removes you from my friend list...  If you're my buddy, and I'm currently unattached, a polite pass is a compliment, even if I'm not interested, and I'll do my damned best not to crush your ego when I turn you down...  but, get pissy about it and act like I OWED you anything because you took time out of your busy schedule to hit me up, then fuck you very much, get lost.)

There's also the idea that all pork pies are interchangable.

We usually have a PARTICULAR pork pie in mind. We might even be on our way to GET some awesome and succulent pork pie. Doesn't mean we want to be bothered with some flyblown McPorkpie on the way.

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 08:28:28 PM

Quote from: Alty on September 06, 2012, 08:05:19 PM
See, now if this was an altercation between two men most people would recognize the other is bullying and being a total dick. Yet with women it's just the way you do things, apparently.

A lot of guys just don't realize that they aren't the first one's to try and talk to them about what is probably eventually sex. The trouble is, if you give women enough breathing room they're as eager for sex as anyone else.

But when you step out of your door to get the mail and someone offers you pork pie, and then you go down to the gym and someone offers you pork pie, and your boss subtly offers you pork pie for lunch, and you get an offer for pork pie when you pick your car up from the shop, you damned well don't want any god damned pork pie when you get off of work. It doesn't matter if you like pork pie or not.

Thanks, Alty, I love this post.

I'll take it a bit further, though...  It's not just that I'm being offered something, it's the goddamn attitude that I should be GRATEFUL that it's being offered, should drop whatever it is I'm doing to avidly pursue it, and how DARE I let such a golden opportunity pass by? 

Shit, I've gotten THAT bullshit attitude from guys I KNOW.  (This sort of bullshit removes you from my friend list...  If you're my buddy, and I'm currently unattached, a polite pass is a compliment, even if I'm not interested, and I'll do my damned best not to crush your ego when I turn you down...  but, get pissy about it and act like I OWED you anything because you took time out of your busy schedule to hit me up, then fuck you very much, get lost.)

Women: you're not supposed to actually want sex, you fucking whore, but by God you'd better be grateful when sex is offered to you, you fucking bitch.

(Insert massive, only partially on-topic thread about "friendzoning" here.)

Because women/females are like vending machines and kindness coins get you laid.

Except sometimes the coin-slot is a bit too tight and you have to use a meanness coin to even be able to insert your kindness coin. (cf. "negging")

It's like I said...Everyone wants to be adored, but they want to be adored by the people they adore.  These people are not interchangeable.

That's why "the friend" exists, as Nigel has said (in a different way).

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Sure, men get harassed and assaulted by weirdos on public transport. Why? What are they expecting of you? Are they after your wallet or your phone number? Are they groping you? Do they follow you when you get off the train/bus/etc.?

Does it matter why?

Absolutely. If it's the same reasons why, then, yes, you'd be correct. But I don't think they are the same reasons.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:55:15 AM
Does it matter why?

This.

Jumped is jumped, whether they're trying to fuck you or not.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7226/hooplapopcorn.jpg)

Quote from: Hoopla on September 07, 2012, 06:10:48 AM
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7226/hooplapopcorn.jpg)

I know this face... who is this?!

Quote from: Hoopla on September 07, 2012, 06:10:48 AM
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7226/hooplapopcorn.jpg)

Nice.  :lulz: are you eating...


PILLZ HERE?

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 06:19:34 AM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 07, 2012, 06:10:48 AM
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7226/hooplapopcorn.jpg)

Nice.  :lulz: are you eating...


PILLZ HERE?

POPCORN!  pink popcorn.

That's me, Signora  and Net, sorry for threadjacking...

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
Absolutely. If it's the same reasons why, then, yes, you'd be correct. But I don't think they are the same reasons.

Do physical assaults for some reasons hurt less than physical assaults for other reasons? Which reasons cause the most painful assaults?

You DO realize that what you're saying is absolutely ridiculous, right?

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:18:57 PM

Quote from: Cain on September 06, 2012, 02:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:12:35 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 06, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Also it covers something important; educating people against bystander effect is evidenced to reduce the prevalence.

Unfortunately, people are conditioned to avoid conflict, so education can only have a limited effect.  You don't fight conditioning with well-reasoned arguments, you fight it by using other conditioning as a lever.

Yes, the people most likely to intervene seem to be people whose jobs have conditioned them to get involved in such situations - police, paramedics, firefighters etc (in my personal experience - no dount there are some other jobs too).  While education certainly can help overcome the diffusion of responsibility, it cannot necessarily help with the "avoid conflict" effect.

Mostly people trained to react, I'd think.  Most times I've seen people get involved - even in non-threatening situations - it turned out that they were ex-military, off-duty cops, etc.

The people I used to hang out with as a teenager were probably the exception, but none of them or their families were from any of those backgrounds and they always stepped up when something was happening. One of them ran up and tried to knock some other kids out of the way of an oncoming car. He didn't make it in time - three people were killed - and he probably has back problems to this day for his trouble since he ended up getting knocked back by the car, but he knows he didn't stand there with his finger in his ass. Every time I've had the correct reaction, I can credit it to having been around these people. If you SEE people do it, you can lose that inhibition.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

I both agree and disagree with this post. I agree that men are far more likely to be assaulted in public than women are, and also that humans are largely ignorant shitheads. However, I disagree that the scenario linked to in the OP has nothing to do with sexism, or with the entitlement many men seem to have to women's time and attention.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

Yeah, because if something also happens to men, even if it is arguably for different reasons, then it's not a feminist issue anymore.

LOL okay.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:38:25 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

Yeah, because if something also happens to men, even if it is arguably for different reasons, then it's not a feminist issue anymore.

LOL okay.

OK then, by that logic every single thing ever is a feminist issue. Including crazy people on the subway. Am I the only one that didn't miss the part of the story where the guy was OBVIOUSLY CRAZY? I don't know if you guys have just never been in a city or something, but crazy people harass other people on the subway every single day. Reading that story and perceiving it as an example of an otherwise normal guy who is just a dick to women who don't talk to him takes some cognitive dissonance that I'm not capable of.

This thread reeks of "Feminism: The Uniform", which is no less dreary and tiresome than any other "-ism: The Uniform".

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

I think I'm going to put my two cents in.

Femininjas, you have a strong point that women are expected to endure convo on the bus with dudes and girls who want to fuck you at some point.

Ech and peeps who have expressed this sentiment only not word for word, you also have a point in that A) this kind if thing happens to everyone, regardless of gender, and for the most part reasons, and also that people (you include yourself or already do) should do something if anyone is in trouble.

Ech, you spoke of the person in the park who targeted men to rape, and how you couldn't stand to live like that re: that's how women always have to think/feel.

I think this argument is based out of misconceptions and not knowing when to change filters, and having an "either/or" argument. This should really be looked through several lends and examined carefully through each, or not,  depending on what you want your discussion to include because for the most part of can be applied to a number of apt filters.

One thing you have to remember though is that the writer is writing through a specific lens, namely patriarch isn't anyone's friend or the like. Your best interpretation and conclusions drawn will be the one which you apply the same lens. Changing lenses around would most def provide a lot of insight

And finally, a lot of ladies who use the sexism argument for an issue like this are viewing it through that lens as a default. It isn't that we're trying to make everything about feminism (mine, anyway) it's that this is our defense mechanism.

What I'm getting ay is everyone who isn't feeling flexible should at least try on a few other lenses. It's what were supposed to be moderately good at as disco spags, yes?

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

Yeah basically what Nigel said.

Also, ECH, am I the only one that didn't miss the part of the story where the OP is approached, harassed, and/or propositioned on at least 50% of her commutes?

QuoteWithout fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes.  The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows.  Sometimes an overly friendly arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in close to talk to me as if we are old friends.  Without fail, the man or boy in question will lean to close and ask me

What are you reading?
Is that a good book?
What's that book about?

This serves the double purpose of getting my attention and trapping me in a conversation.  If I stop reading the book I enjoy to talk to you, random stranger, you hit on me or just stay way too close to me.  If I tell you to leave me alone, you get mad at me.  Because I somehow, as a woman, owe you conversation.

As Nigel said, crazy bike dude is a fucking extreme example, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it happens in a hundred little ways to a significant number of women every single day.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

Well yeah, but none of that has anything to do with the story this thread is based on. I mean, if we're at the point where ANYTHING unpleasant that ever happens becomes a misogynist act if it happens between a man and a woman, then I guess I just don't see the point of any of it. I thought that Feminism was something you used to try to counteract ACTUAL REAL power imbalance and inequality between genders. Equating the story in the OP to feminism seems to me no different than, say, reading an account of a fight between two men on a bus and deciding that it's due to racism solely because one combatant was white and one was black.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:56:57 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

Well yeah, but none of that has anything to do with the story this thread is based on. I mean, if we're at the point where ANYTHING unpleasant that ever happens becomes a misogynist act if it happens between a man and a woman, then I guess I just don't see the point of any of it. I thought that Feminism was something you used to try to counteract ACTUAL REAL power imbalance and inequality between genders. Equating the story in the OP to feminism seems to me no different than, say, reading an account of a fight between two men on a bus and deciding that it's due to racism solely because one combatant was white and one was black.

You know, there are multiple instances in this very thread of people describing why the cultural and societal expectations placed on women, and the entitlement men feel to a woman's time and attention no matter how she may feel about it, are indicative of an "actual real power imbalance and inequality between genders". Just because you don't want to acknowledge it doesn't mean it's not there.

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:55:56 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

Yeah basically what Nigel said.

Also, ECH, am I the only one that didn't miss the part of the story where the OP is approached, harassed, and/or propositioned on at least 50% of her commutes?

QuoteWithout fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes.  The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows.  Sometimes an overly friendly arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in close to talk to me as if we are old friends.  Without fail, the man or boy in question will lean to close and ask me

What are you reading?
Is that a good book?
What's that book about?

This serves the double purpose of getting my attention and trapping me in a conversation.  If I stop reading the book I enjoy to talk to you, random stranger, you hit on me or just stay way too close to me.  If I tell you to leave me alone, you get mad at me.  Because I somehow, as a woman, owe you conversation.

As Nigel said, crazy bike dude is a fucking extreme example, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it happens in a hundred little ways to a significant number of women every single day.

You say extreme example, I say completely wrong example that is so far off-base that it's dumb to even use it for illustrative purposes because it obviously seems to be obscuring whatever point is actually being made.

"This happens in usually benign but incredibly pervasive and demoralizing ways all the damn time" is far more effective at advancing the message than "OMG CRAZY MAN SCREAMING ON LA METRO = OPPRESSION BY THE PATRIARCHY!"

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:59:56 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:56:57 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

Well yeah, but none of that has anything to do with the story this thread is based on. I mean, if we're at the point where ANYTHING unpleasant that ever happens becomes a misogynist act if it happens between a man and a woman, then I guess I just don't see the point of any of it. I thought that Feminism was something you used to try to counteract ACTUAL REAL power imbalance and inequality between genders. Equating the story in the OP to feminism seems to me no different than, say, reading an account of a fight between two men on a bus and deciding that it's due to racism solely because one combatant was white and one was black.

You know, there are multiple instances in this very thread of people describing why the cultural and societal expectations placed on women, and the entitlement men feel to a woman's time and attention no matter how she may feel about it, are indicative of an "actual real power imbalance and inequality between genders". Just because you don't want to acknowledge it doesn't mean it's not there.

You either didn't read my posts or you're trying to goad me, since there's no way that anything I said could be reasonably interpreted that way. Especially since I, y'know, directly acknowledged the very real imbalance in a post you seem to be trying to use as evidence that I don't acknowledge the imbalance.

I also still STRENUOUSLY object to the previous implication that because I am a man I am not qualified to so much as have an opinion as to whether something is or is not relevant to feminism.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 07:11:41 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

How did you get that from my post? Or from anything I've posted? The whole point of the dialogue is culture change, in multiple ways, including outgrowing the "be nice" conditioning (culturally, not just individually) AND outgrowing the reinforcement and acceptance of male entitlement (culturally, not just individually).

And while it would be nice to imagine that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", the reality we live in is that having anger directed at us does have an effect, both psychologically and physiologically. Stress hurts.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 05:09:15 PM

Quote from: VERBL on September 06, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Individual men, sure, but not adult men as a whole. This goes way too deep. It's a matter of assumptions, expectations – the kind of thing people aren't usually conscious of.

That's why I say it has to be done locally, with peer pressure.

I get this. And I see how it could work,
But I also see that aggressive accusations to the effect of "something's wrong with YOU because you don't want to talk to me" are symptoms of insecurity, and so if yet another person added on to the "just leave her alone, dude," the subject would simply devolve further and go "well fuck ALL OF YOU something's wrong with ALL OF YOU." it could push them further into their delusion of entitlement.
Digging in their heels, and all that.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 07:04:16 AM
I also still STRENUOUSLY object to the previous implication that because I am a man I am not qualified to so much as have an opinion as to whether something is or is not relevant to feminism.

Dunno ifthis was aimed at me. Kind.day o. And out here. If it wad, I was implying the opposite. You have an awesome and rare lens in you dissection repertoire a lot of guys don't.

Also I was remind.song everyone that you guys are basically on the same page but with different lenses.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 07:19:48 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 07:04:16 AM
I also still STRENUOUSLY object to the previous implication that because I am a man I am not qualified to so much as have an opinion as to whether something is or is not relevant to feminism.

Dunno ifthis was aimed at me. Kind.day o. And out here. If it wad, I was implying the opposite. You have an awesome and rare lens in you dissection repertoire a lot of guys don't.

Also I was remind.song everyone that you guys are basically on the same page but with different lenses.

Not at all. It was aimed squarely at Mrs. Paes.

Cool beans

People are crazy assholes about different things. Some people are crazy assholes about their politics or religion. Some people are crazy assholes about the Illuminati. Some people are crazy assholes about being entitled to women's interest.

But just because they're crazy assholes doesn't mean there isn't a SECOND problem involved, which is the spread of the ideology they are an asshole about.

Just like we don't say Ray Comfort is just an example of a crazy asshole and doesn't have anything to do with a deeper societal issue of dishonesty and denial of science and groupthink,
we can't say this crazy bicycle man is JUST a crazy asshole and doesn't reveal an issue of men thinking they're entitled to women's interest.

once again, i'm hoping my posts make any sense at all.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 07:28:10 AM
Cool beans

Even if you HAD been trying to say that, that sentiment would fall so far outside my (admittedly very limited) frame of reference for you that I would have erroneously interpreted it the other way. :lulz:

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

What's the problem? Are you reading those comments as contradictory? They're not.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:30:19 AM
People are crazy assholes about different things. Some people are crazy assholes about their politics or religion. Some people are crazy assholes about the Illuminati. Some people are crazy assholes about being entitled to women's interest.

But just because they're crazy assholes doesn't mean there isn't a SECOND problem involved, which is the spread of the ideology they are an asshole about.

Just like we don't say Ray Comfort is just an example of a crazy asshole and doesn't have anything to do with a deeper societal issue of dishonesty and denial of science and groupthink,
we can't say this crazy bicycle man is JUST a crazy asshole and doesn't reveal an issue of men thinking they're entitled to women's interest.

once again, i'm hoping my posts make any sense at all.

This. I don't see anyone in this thread saying that power imbalance between men and women is the only issue involved in the OP story, but it certainly seems to be one such issue. And if the women here are calling the crazy guy only "an extreme example" it sounds to me like this kind of thing might be a bit more common than us dudes would like to think (but ymmv). Sounds like "most cases are more mundane but yeah that kind of stuff happens and we have to deal with it". (If this is the case, ladies, kudos for having such awesomely metallic gonads.)

Like Epimethius wrote in his other post, insecurity seems to also be a big part of this equation, probably the state of mental health care in California is relevant too, etc etc., but the story still seems to highlight something most guys aren't aware of and many women are apparently confronted with daily. Seems to make a lot of sense to me as part of a feminist discussion.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:59:18 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 08:07:21 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:30:19 AM
People are crazy assholes about different things. Some people are crazy assholes about their politics or religion. Some people are crazy assholes about the Illuminati. Some people are crazy assholes about being entitled to women's interest.

But just because they're crazy assholes doesn't mean there isn't a SECOND problem involved, which is the spread of the ideology they are an asshole about.

Just like we don't say Ray Comfort is just an example of a crazy asshole and doesn't have anything to do with a deeper societal issue of dishonesty and denial of science and groupthink,
we can't say this crazy bicycle man is JUST a crazy asshole and doesn't reveal an issue of men thinking they're entitled to women's interest.

once again, i'm hoping my posts make any sense at all.

This. I don't see anyone in this thread saying that power imbalance between men and women is the only issue involved in the OP story, but it certainly seems to be one such issue. And if the women here are calling the crazy guy only "an extreme example" it sounds to me like this kind of thing might be a bit more common than us dudes would like to think (but ymmv). Sounds like "most cases are more mundane but yeah that kind of stuff happens and we have to deal with it". (If this is the case, ladies, kudos for having such awesomely metallic gonads.)

Like Epimethius wrote in his other post, insecurity seems to also be a big part of this equation, probably the state of mental health care in California is relevant too, etc etc., but the story still seems to highlight something most guys aren't aware of and many women are apparently confronted with daily. Seems to make a lot of sense to me as part of a feminist discussion.

The bolded is exactly what I mean. Yes, it's more common than you would imagine, though it's not usually expressed in that extreme a degree.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:15:53 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 07:11:41 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

How did you get that from my post? Or from anything I've posted? The whole point of the dialogue is culture change, in multiple ways, including outgrowing the "be nice" conditioning (culturally, not just individually) AND outgrowing the reinforcement and acceptance of male entitlement (culturally, not just individually).

And while it would be nice to imagine that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", the reality we live in is that having anger directed at us does have an effect, both psychologically and physiologically. Stress hurts.

Not from your post, I quoted because I was riffing on the socially sanctioned male entitlement bit. And I agree, it still exists, but nowhere NEAR the extent it used to. We're under no obligation to put up with the harassment and assaults we used to be expected to swallow as recently as the 70's - early 80's.

But I'm seeing a pattern in this thread, and the one before it, and the one before that, (and again, this is NOT a Nigel thing  :lol: ) where we're supposed to be SO helpless and intimidated by men, and if anybody says "be assertive/carry a weapon/learn self defense etc." they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have the patience to wait for "dialogue" or whatever to somehow MAKE CREEPY PERVERTS GOOD AND NICE AND STOP BULLYING THE WOMEN. And if I give a rat's ass about anybody else, I wouldn't advise them to wait for this to happen either.

I understand phobias and trauma, and that some women JUST CAN'T. I JUST CAN'T walk on railroad trestles without being scared as fuck and freezing every few steps. I avoid them. I swam a river once to keep from walking on a goddamn trestle. It's irrational (unless it's a long trestle and a train might come before I can get across it) but that's how phobias are. Some women are like that with men. In that situation, somebody else needs to step up. In ANY situation that starts to escalate, somebody needs to step up, even if it's only by whipping out a phone and calling 911. But the expectation that it shouldn't even be suggested that ANY woman should have to get a backbone EVEN IF SHE'S CAPABLE OF DOING SO strikes me as southern belle stuff and it's been said a few times in these threads.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:59:18 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Makes sense. Figured the same, but figured I'd ask, because I don't think "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a healthy guideline. At least not for all persons and situations.

In regards to people earlier in the thread wondering how you can change these things.

During the PUA OM that never really got off the ground I remember someone created a Discordian Pick Up Artist blog with the hopes that it might turn in to something in the future. Why not make a project out of infiltrating Pick Up Artistry and inserting subversive feminist memes into it?

Of course youd have to be semi-sneaky about it, instead of framing it as "this is kinda disrespectful and degrading/threatening" you frame it as "this behavior is totally hyper beta and it sends signals to the womans ovaries that you have small testicles and causes her to friendzone you" or something really asinine like that.

Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on September 07, 2012, 08:23:49 AM
In regards to people earlier in the thread wondering how you can change these things.

During the PUA OM that never really got off the ground I remember someone created a Discordian Pick Up Artist blog with the hopes that it might turn in to something in the future. Why not make a project out of infiltrating Pick Up Artistry and inserting subversive feminist memes into it?

Of course youd have to be semi-sneaky about it, instead of framing it as "this is kinda disrespectful and degrading/threatening" you frame it as "this behavior is totally hyper beta and it sends signals to the womans ovaries that you have small testicles and causes her to friendzone you" or something really asinine like that.

Cool idea. Spreading the idea that treating another human being as another human being is true Alpha behavior.
Because it is.
Would have to avoid stating the implied conclusion that A true Pick-Up Artist isn't trying to Pick Up at all. At least in the beginning.

AFCs get friendzoned when their beta behaviour betrays a weak social frame.

And now I want to punch myself in the balls.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 08:15:17 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:15:53 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 07:11:41 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

How did you get that from my post? Or from anything I've posted? The whole point of the dialogue is culture change, in multiple ways, including outgrowing the "be nice" conditioning (culturally, not just individually) AND outgrowing the reinforcement and acceptance of male entitlement (culturally, not just individually).

And while it would be nice to imagine that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", the reality we live in is that having anger directed at us does have an effect, both psychologically and physiologically. Stress hurts.

Not from your post, I quoted because I was riffing on the socially sanctioned male entitlement bit. And I agree, it still exists, but nowhere NEAR the extent it used to. We're under no obligation to put up with the harassment and assaults we used to be expected to swallow as recently as the 70's - early 80's.

But I'm seeing a pattern in this thread, and the one before it, and the one before that, (and again, this is NOT a Nigel thing  :lol: ) where we're supposed to be SO helpless and intimidated by men, and if anybody says "be assertive/carry a weapon/learn self defense etc." they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have the patience to wait for "dialogue" or whatever to somehow MAKE CREEPY PERVERTS GOOD AND NICE AND STOP BULLYING THE WOMEN. And if I give a rat's ass about anybody else, I wouldn't advise them to wait for this to happen either.

I understand phobias and trauma, and that some women JUST CAN'T. I JUST CAN'T walk on railroad trestles without being scared as fuck and freezing every few steps. I avoid them. I swam a river once to keep from walking on a goddamn trestle. It's irrational (unless it's a long trestle and a train might come before I can get across it) but that's how phobias are. Some women are like that with men. In that situation, somebody else needs to step up. In ANY situation that starts to escalate, somebody needs to step up, even if it's only by whipping out a phone and calling 911. But the expectation that it shouldn't even be suggested that ANY woman should have to get a backbone EVEN IF SHE'S CAPABLE OF DOING SO strikes me as southern belle stuff and it's been said a few times in these threads.

I don't agree with your assessment, at all, but then I've felt most of my points have been largely ignored in these threads.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:27:02 AM

Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on September 07, 2012, 08:23:49 AM
In regards to people earlier in the thread wondering how you can change these things.

During the PUA OM that never really got off the ground I remember someone created a Discordian Pick Up Artist blog with the hopes that it might turn in to something in the future. Why not make a project out of infiltrating Pick Up Artistry and inserting subversive feminist memes into it?

Of course youd have to be semi-sneaky about it, instead of framing it as "this is kinda disrespectful and degrading/threatening" you frame it as "this behavior is totally hyper beta and it sends signals to the womans ovaries that you have small testicles and causes her to friendzone you" or something really asinine like that.

Cool idea. Spreading the idea that treating another human being as another human being is true Alpha behavior.
Because it is.
Would have to avoid stating the implied conclusion that A true Pick-Up Artist isn't trying to Pick Up at all. At least in the beginning.

Heres an idea. The current PUA model is basically the Leary model with only the second circuit. Strength-Weakness, Alpha-Beta. We could add the second dimension of the Leary model, Friendly-Unfriendly. We differentiate Postive-Alphaness(being respectful yet confident at the same time) from Negative-Alpha (Being a dickwad).

While Neg-Alpha behavior is needed in certain situations (particularly ones where you have a gun to your head), it tends to send bad signals to women. It DOES attract some women but they tend to be of the crazy Daddy-never-loved-me type. Pos-Alpha is the ideal mate, so in romance situations you want to project those traits.

PUA is already deeply infused with the "being nice = friendzoned" meme, so for the sake of subversion well have to emphasize the difference between Friendly Weakness(nice guys, the type who get friendzoned) and our Pos-Alpha concept.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:20:58 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:59:18 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Makes sense. Figured the same, but figured I'd ask, because I don't think "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a healthy guideline. At least not for all persons and situations.

We're not talking about all persons and situations, we're talking about hitting on total strangers on public transportation.

I think that in that particular situation, "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a VERY healthy guideline.

There's some guy out there, can't remember his name, who is basically doing that, with using PUA-type language to try to teach the kind of guys who are susceptible to PUA brainwashing how to be decent, happy, truly successful men. It's basically a real self-help book disguised as a PUA book.

God, I can only hope that somewhere along the line the whole "alpha" and "beta" thing gets dropped, or at least made fun of for being stupid and wrong.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:43:19 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:20:58 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:59:18 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Makes sense. Figured the same, but figured I'd ask, because I don't think "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a healthy guideline. At least not for all persons and situations.

We're not talking about all persons and situations, we're talking about hitting on total strangers on public transportation.

I think that in that particular situation, "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a VERY healthy guideline.

Agreed, but that detail wasn't in his post, and he was responding to posts about men talking to women, not specifically hitting on them.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:41:46 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 08:15:17 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:15:53 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 07:11:41 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 06:38:33 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:32:05 AM

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Oh, wait, sorry. Crazy people harassing other people on the friggin' Los Angeles Metro is TOTALLY a feminist issue, and I should be ashamed of my penis-having self for suggesting otherwise.

I've seen elderly men walking around with their eyes blacked and their teeth knocked out because somebody wanted their shoes or their wallet. I guess they don't count.

Wow, you guys are off on a serious tangent, and using some of that old strawman hyperbole to dismiss a legitimate feminist complaint about male entitlement, pushiness, and anger when it comes to getting attention from women.

Yes, there are assaults on men; man-on-man violence is a big problem. And yes, there are crazy people on the subway who will harass anybody. These things are true, and they are serious issues. However, using them to try to detract from the issue at hand is kinda lame. The reality is, a woman, especially a pretty, young woman, is likely to be approached literally dozens of times each day by a hopeful stranger trying to get laid, and because of our cultural structure, he doesn't even have to be crazy to feel justified in getting verbally abusive if she rebuffs him. So, yeah, bike guy was an extreme example, and a good illustration for that reason... but a shit ton of guys will just call you a bitch under their breaths, or continue to push for "a good reason" you don't want to talk to them, or behave in ways that are personally objectionable but socially sanctioned. I don't mean, once such encounter every six months, either... I mean, if you are an attractive young woman and you commute, you can expect to have at least one such encounter, usually more, every single day of your life. It's not just that it's threatening, it's that it's exhausting.

That should change.

But how "socially sanctioned" IS that stuff in a public place?

Some guy starts, we tell him to fuck off, he calls us bitches under his breath. His day is ruined, not ours. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

If he KEEPS calling us bitches, NOBODY wants to hear it. I've had guys thrown out of libraries, bars, and yes, off of buses. I'm sure you've done similar. "LOL I LAFFS HE CRIES".

Wasn't the point of feminism to make US stronger instead of acting like helpless little things who jes' cain't do nothin' cuz we warn't raised to be rude to menfolks?

How did you get that from my post? Or from anything I've posted? The whole point of the dialogue is culture change, in multiple ways, including outgrowing the "be nice" conditioning (culturally, not just individually) AND outgrowing the reinforcement and acceptance of male entitlement (culturally, not just individually).

And while it would be nice to imagine that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", the reality we live in is that having anger directed at us does have an effect, both psychologically and physiologically. Stress hurts.

Not from your post, I quoted because I was riffing on the socially sanctioned male entitlement bit. And I agree, it still exists, but nowhere NEAR the extent it used to. We're under no obligation to put up with the harassment and assaults we used to be expected to swallow as recently as the 70's - early 80's.

But I'm seeing a pattern in this thread, and the one before it, and the one before that, (and again, this is NOT a Nigel thing  :lol: ) where we're supposed to be SO helpless and intimidated by men, and if anybody says "be assertive/carry a weapon/learn self defense etc." they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have the patience to wait for "dialogue" or whatever to somehow MAKE CREEPY PERVERTS GOOD AND NICE AND STOP BULLYING THE WOMEN. And if I give a rat's ass about anybody else, I wouldn't advise them to wait for this to happen either.

I understand phobias and trauma, and that some women JUST CAN'T. I JUST CAN'T walk on railroad trestles without being scared as fuck and freezing every few steps. I avoid them. I swam a river once to keep from walking on a goddamn trestle. It's irrational (unless it's a long trestle and a train might come before I can get across it) but that's how phobias are. Some women are like that with men. In that situation, somebody else needs to step up. In ANY situation that starts to escalate, somebody needs to step up, even if it's only by whipping out a phone and calling 911. But the expectation that it shouldn't even be suggested that ANY woman should have to get a backbone EVEN IF SHE'S CAPABLE OF DOING SO strikes me as southern belle stuff and it's been said a few times in these threads.

I don't agree with your assessment, at all, but then I've felt most of my points have been largely ignored in these threads.

Wasn't trying to ignore anything and I'll go back and re-read, but yeah, these do turn into people talking past each other.

Also,  :lulz: Cain.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:41:46 AM
I don't agree with your assessment, at all, but then I've felt most of my points have been largely ignored in these threads.

I'm sad to hear you felt that, since I've definitely been paying a lot of attention to your points and I get the impression that a lot of us have (but obviously not all of us.) If you had specific people in mind who have been ignoring your points, I for one would appreciate not being sweepingly generalized with them. :/

Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on September 07, 2012, 08:42:08 AM
Heres an idea. The current PUA model is basically the Leary model with only the second circuit. Strength-Weakness, Alpha-Beta. We could add the second dimension of the Leary model, Friendly-Unfriendly. We differentiate Postive-Alphaness(being respectful yet confident at the same time) from Negative-Alpha (Being a dickwad).

While Neg-Alpha behavior is needed in certain situations (particularly ones where you have a gun to your head), it tends to send bad signals to women. It DOES attract some women but they tend to be of the crazy Daddy-never-loved-me type. Pos-Alpha is the ideal mate, so in romance situations you want to project those traits.

PUA is already deeply infused with the "being nice = friendzoned" meme, so for the sake of subversion well have to emphasize the difference between Friendly Weakness(nice guys, the type who get friendzoned) and our Pos-Alpha concept.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:48:16 AM
There's some guy out there, can't remember his name, who is basically doing that, with using PUA-type language to try to teach the kind of guys who are susceptible to PUA brainwashing how to be decent, happy, truly successful men. It's basically a real self-help book disguised as a PUA book.

It's really cool that someone's doing that, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have a blog doing it as well, although it might hurt the person who has to write it.
I have to confess though, as a (late-)teenager I read a lot of PUA guide material, which fortunately I was too timid to put into practice (except for stuff that I could use for actual positive correction of my social interaction in general, rather than "pick ups".) I recall very clearly that the stuff I read often emphasized on the practical level paying close attention to facial expression and body language; on the philosophical/justification level, the rhetoric was a bit creepy but often emphasized that women want sex just as much as men do but social conventions and conditioning stop them from expressing that, and that the PUA stuff is a way to fix that situation.

I obviously understand now that it's kind of the opposite of a way to "fix it", and that the whole project is essentially a coordinated assault on women, one for which emphatic consent of the target is a means but not an end. But what I'm getting at here is that these materials and the way of thinking involved in them does try to be somewhat sex-positive and not overtly rape-oriented*; so I can actually see a modified, feminist version of the philosophy coming across as an improved version, more palatable to both user and target. Basically, the PUA philosophy is already littered with anchors for positive, non-asshole/creep/rapist thinking, so there's something to build on there.

*I'm pretty sure I just missed or half-consciously avoided the really rape-oriented stuff. There was a scandal in Israel a couple of years ago when a student of a PUA school publicly boasted on the school's forum about a clear-cut case of rape he committed, and his instructors and classmates applauded him. :vom:
There was a viral campaign looking for the victim so the piece of shit could be taken to court, I wonder what happened with that.

Quote from: Luna on September 06, 2012, 12:32:19 PM

Quote from: :regret: on September 06, 2012, 12:13:54 PM
A typical male reply would be:
Take some self-defence classes.
or
Learn to handle a knife.

The attitude that it's okay for men to be assholes, women just need to learn how deal with it and, if necessary, defend themselves is part of the problem, not a solution.

My attitude is that it's not okay for men to be assholes. It's not okay for women to be assholes either but, a lot of them (men and women) are. I advocate learning to deal with it. the alternatives would seem to be either, stay at home and never go outside or something about it shouldn't be this way and sucks and nobody understands and we all need to talk about it and shit.

Actually, that last one isn't a solution but it's a depressingly common one despite that.

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

Quote from: Signora Paesior on September 07, 2012, 06:06:32 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 05:34:22 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 06, 2012, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 06, 2012, 01:54:31 PM
I dunno, I get what she's saying but really, I'd get harrassed like that too on the LA Metro.

Sure, but not quite in the same way. If you're reading and indicate no interest in the person trying to talk to you, they'd probably back off, yeah? Women/females can't bank on that.

Nope. I've had plenty of yahoos who push the conversation. TBH, I think that lumping this sort of thing under the blanket of feminism is doing feminism a disservice. This is just another piece of evidence that humans are largely ignorant shitheads regardless of gender. And before anyone trots out the "yeah, but it's SCARY when it happens to me!" trope, I've got $5 that says that if you break down the statistics of who gets assaulted by men on public transit and cross-reference with percentage of ridership by gender, you'll find that I'm WAY WAY WAY more likely to be physically assaulted by some jerkoff on the bus/train/whatever than you are.

Oh, well if you say it's not relevant to feminism...

Um.

I'm fucking done here.  We've already had this conversation 3 times.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 07, 2012, 12:53:53 PM
My attitude is that it's not okay for men to be assholes. It's not okay for women to be assholes either but, a lot of them (men and women) are. I advocate learning to deal with it. the alternatives would seem to be either, stay at home and never go outside or something about it shouldn't be this way and sucks and nobody understands and we all need to talk about it and shit.

Actually, that last one isn't a solution but it's a depressingly common one despite that.

p3nt, that's all well an good in a purely intellectual discussion, but these discussions and positions taken on them actually affect how people act and how they understand the situation. The more people put the burden on the victim to defend themselves rather than on society to try and correct the situation, well, the likelier victims are to blame themselves and for people not to feel responsible for the behavior of those around them and possibly themselves. So while your position makes sense in and of itself, its effect in discourse is detrimental.
I'm guessing this is why some people react so badly to it.

The way I read the OP is that the crazy guy was a capstone. 

If you re-read the first part, she talks about how she's always hit on when she's on the subway, and gives an example of three teenage boys who not only interrupt her to hit on her, but then start taunting her when she moves away from them.  She repeats that this is a common, ubiquitous experience, and it's stressful and draining and depressing.

So when the crazy guy does his thing, sure it's crazy, but (for her) it stripped away the thin veneer of whatever civility remains, and was a crystallization of every previous experience.  This, to her, was the pure expression of a man's entitlement and hatred of a woman's empowerment.  Yes, he was crazy, but his actions were also identical to the non-crazy teens from the previous train, only even more uncensored.  So I can see, in her stressed-out mindstate, she would create a continuum between the almost-innocent pick up attempts through the more aggressive "hey girl, whachoo doin readin" all the way to the batshit insanity of crazy guy.

Because even if he's crazy, his actions were the same as the others'.

Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 02:30:43 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 07, 2012, 12:53:53 PM
My attitude is that it's not okay for men to be assholes. It's not okay for women to be assholes either but, a lot of them (men and women) are. I advocate learning to deal with it. the alternatives would seem to be either, stay at home and never go outside or something about it shouldn't be this way and sucks and nobody understands and we all need to talk about it and shit.

Actually, that last one isn't a solution but it's a depressingly common one despite that.

p3nt, that's all well an good in a purely intellectual discussion, but these discussions and positions taken on them actually affect how people act and how they understand the situation. The more people put the burden on the victim to defend themselves rather than on society to try and correct the situation, well, the likelier victims are to blame themselves and for people not to feel responsible for the behavior of those around them and possibly themselves. So while your position makes sense in and of itself, its effect in discourse is detrimental.
I'm guessing this is why some people react so badly to it.

This bit, I think is the reason I personally react so badly to it. Because I really can't see past it being complete bullshit. But I ain't going to get a bug in my ass about it. Having intelligent discourse about whatever really doesn't have any effect on me one way or another so have at it. I'm dropping the fuck out this thread before it devolves into trolling for trolling's sake, tho.

Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on September 07, 2012, 08:23:49 AM
In regards to people earlier in the thread wondering how you can change these things.

During the PUA OM that never really got off the ground I remember someone created a Discordian Pick Up Artist blog with the hopes that it might turn in to something in the future. Why not make a project out of infiltrating Pick Up Artistry and inserting subversive feminist memes into it?

Of course youd have to be semi-sneaky about it, instead of framing it as "this is kinda disrespectful and degrading/threatening" you frame it as "this behavior is totally hyper beta and it sends signals to the womans ovaries that you have small testicles and causes her to friendzone you" or something really asinine like that.

http://erisianarts.wordpress.com/

Mysteries company is called 'Venusian Arts', it's a parody of that.

I never did anything with it.

PM me for user name + password (or sift through O:MF)

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 07, 2012, 02:42:35 PM
The way I read the OP is that the crazy guy was a capstone. 

If you re-read the first part, she talks about how she's always hit on when she's on the subway, and gives an example of three teenage boys who not only interrupt her to hit on her, but then start taunting her when she moves away from them.  She repeats that this is a common, ubiquitous experience, and it's stressful and draining and depressing.

So when the crazy guy does his thing, sure it's crazy, but (for her) it stripped away the thin veneer of whatever civility remains, and was a crystallization of every previous experience.  This, to her, was the pure expression of a man's entitlement and hatred of a woman's empowerment.  Yes, he was crazy, but his actions were also identical to the non-crazy teens from the previous train, only even more uncensored.  So I can see, in her stressed-out mindstate, she would create a continuum between the almost-innocent pick up attempts through the more aggressive "hey girl, whachoo doin readin" all the way to the batshit insanity of crazy guy.

Because even if he's crazy, his actions were the same as the others'.

Yes, pretty much completely this.

One thing I find disheartening is when the women on the forum recognize the situation as merely an extreme case of crap they experience all the time, but a guy or two HAS to announce that crazy guy is just crazy and his behavior is way off the charts and inapplicable and men get harrassed by crazy people on public transportation too. It really reinforces the feeling of being unheard AND of not being understood, because crazy bike guy's behavior is an extreme expression of something totally ordinary that we see all the time.

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.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:52:50 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:43:19 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:20:58 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:11:35 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:59:18 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 07:22:13 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss.

but

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2012, 02:51:12 PM
there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

???

In fact, let's just get rid of those quotes and see if it makes any more sense to you this way:

If you can't tell when someone would be okay with the idea of talking with you, best to give it a miss, but there's no crime in attempting a conversation.

I realize they can fit together.
I guess I'm looking for an explanation of the first in light of the second. Why is it best not to try a conversation, if there's nothing wrong with doing so?

I don't know if it's what Roger means, but the way I read it is that you should try to exercise normal courtesies, like trying to read body language for signs of interest, and not intruding when the other person seems uninterested. However, if you misread the situation, it's not like being a social retard is punishable by law; the worst that'll happen is that the other person will think you're rude or annoying.

Makes sense. Figured the same, but figured I'd ask, because I don't think "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a healthy guideline. At least not for all persons and situations.

We're not talking about all persons and situations, we're talking about hitting on total strangers on public transportation.

I think that in that particular situation, "when in doubt, refrain from interaction" is a VERY healthy guideline.

Agreed, but that detail wasn't in his post, and he was responding to posts about men talking to women, not specifically hitting on them.

How did you manage to read his post outside of the context of this thread?  :?

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.

I finally read this story, because honestly the thread title didn't appeal to me.

Either the people in Los Angeles are the absolute dregs of society, which I won't argue, or this is made up. I've commuted on trains A LOT. Between Providence and Boston, and Long Island and Manhattan, even the local RIPTA buses which I take often to go to school and not ONCE has ANYONE ever tried to talk to me in a manner I felt uncomfortable with. I've worn weird ass club wear, I've worn Star Wars costumes, I've been dressed up, dressed down, reading, sleeping, staring off into space, writing, what have you, and I can't recall anyone ever hitting on me or giving me a hard time because I have tits. I get accosted more walking down the street by myself at night than I ever did using mass transit.

Again, it could be a local thing, obviously people are less social and commute A LOT here in the Northeast versus California, or she wrote this as a "WAAAAH I GET NO RESPECT BECAUSE I'M A GIRL!" No, fuck that shit. Where the FUCK is the conductor? Are those trains that understaffed? I've been on subways crowded to the point where you have no choice BUT to touch the person next to you and I've never been groped. Earbuds, woman. Instant ignore, instant ability to choke a bitch.

I do feel bad for her, but at the same time, I feel like she should be more proactive in reporting these actions to someone, and anyone reading this SHOULD be aware that this behavior may be occurring and to also do their part.

Two things.  First, sharing another, excellent article on the topic:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/its-really-time-for-the-harassment-to-end/

Second...  Why are folks so determined to label this a feminist issue?  It isn't...  It may very well be an issue that feminists are interested in, however, this is a "some people are assholes" issue.  Turning this into a pissing match over whether it's something that JUST happens to one group of people and not others, or whether as bad or worse things happen, too, is pretty fucking counterproductive.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 03:51:32 PM
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.

Yeah, and my apologies for that. I wasn't intentionally ignoring your points (almost all of which I either agree with or don't have an informed opinion on), I just get tunnel vision when some asshole in a uniform starts preaching at me. I think I'm'a go start my own feminism thread exploring some of my thoughts on the matter so that I won't have to worry about being an inadvertent dick in threads where some people are actually interested in a productive discussion and not just using some bullshit appeal to authority fallacy to alienate anyone whose perspective differs from theirs.

Is there a bit of a cultural difference thing going on too, in terms of common behavior?

I asked a female friend 'does it suck to always be approached by guys', and her reply was that most women were very very rarely approached by men (except when they're drunk, and then it does suck).

Just asking because the above seems contradicted by what's been said about women finding themselves constantly approached by men who feel entitled to attention.

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
Two things.  First, sharing another, excellent article on the topic:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/its-really-time-for-the-harassment-to-end/

Second...  Why are folks so determined to label this a feminist issue?  It isn't...  It may very well be an issue that feminists are interested in, however, this is a "some people are assholes" issue.  Turning this into a pissing match over whether it's something that JUST happens to one group of people and not others, or whether as bad or worse things happen, too, is pretty fucking counterproductive.

it's a douchebaggery issue. IMO.

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 mean cultural differences as in, is it coomn in California, but not so much elsewhere.

An American sleazeball at a music festival once told me that Aussies are really timid with girls which is why I wonder.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 04:23:35 PM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 03:51:32 PM
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.

Yeah, and my apologies for that. I wasn't intentionally ignoring your points (almost all of which I either agree with or don't have an informed opinion on), I just get tunnel vision when some asshole in a uniform starts preaching at me. I think I'm'a go start my own feminism thread exploring some of my thoughts on the matter so that I won't have to worry about being an inadvertent dick in threads where some people are actually interested in a productive discussion and not just using some bullshit appeal to authority fallacy to alienate anyone whose perspective differs from theirs.

Thanks ECH.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 07, 2012, 04:28:15 PM
Is there a bit of a cultural difference thing going on too, in terms of common behavior?

I asked a female friend 'does it suck to always be approached by guys', and her reply was that most women were very very rarely approached by men (except when they're drunk, and then it does suck).

Just asking because the above seems contradicted by what's been said about women finding themselves constantly approached by men who feel entitled to attention.

I am sure there must be cultural differences based on location, and probably big city vs. small city differences as well. Because if all experiences are the same, your friend's anecdote makes all the rest of us liars.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:30:29 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:57:48 AM
Absolutely. If it's the same reasons why, then, yes, you'd be correct. But I don't think they are the same reasons.

Do physical assaults for some reasons hurt less than physical assaults for other reasons? Which reasons cause the most painful assaults?

You DO realize that what you're saying is absolutely ridiculous, right?

I never said it hurt less. Jeez. I also didn't initially turn it into assaults. That was you.
I *am* going to note that the OP talked about harassment and, y'know, disrespectful treatment, rather than actual physical assaults. Sure, you're more likely to be actually hit, but I don't think the trigger for repeated harassment is going to be that you refused to give creepers your attention.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 06:56:57 AM
Well yeah, but none of that has anything to do with the story this thread is based on. I mean, if we're at the point where ANYTHING unpleasant that ever happens becomes a misogynist act if it happens between a man and a woman, then I guess I just don't see the point of any of it. I thought that Feminism was something you used to try to counteract ACTUAL REAL power imbalance and inequality between genders. Equating the story in the OP to feminism seems to me no different than, say, reading an account of a fight between two men on a bus and deciding that it's due to racism solely because one combatant was white and one was black.

Did you read the OP? If you did, you're not listening. The actions of the harassers are NOT things you, or any other male, can expect to be repeatedly subjected to, every fucking day. That makes it a feminist issue.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 07:04:16 AM
I also still STRENUOUSLY object to the previous implication that because I am a man I am not qualified to so much as have an opinion as to whether something is or is not relevant to feminism.

That has been repeatedly debunked. The only thing you don't get to do is define what feminism means to women and females, any more than white people get to tell the Black community what black empowerment means to them.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 08:15:17 AM
Not from your post, I quoted because I was riffing on the socially sanctioned male entitlement bit. And I agree, it still exists, but nowhere NEAR the extent it used to. We're under no obligation to put up with the harassment and assaults we used to be expected to swallow as recently as the 70's - early 80's.

But I'm seeing a pattern in this thread, and the one before it, and the one before that, (and again, this is NOT a Nigel thing  :lol: ) where we're supposed to be SO helpless and intimidated by men, and if anybody says "be assertive/carry a weapon/learn self defense etc." they're BLAMING THE VICTIM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't have the patience to wait for "dialogue" or whatever to somehow MAKE CREEPY PERVERTS GOOD AND NICE AND STOP BULLYING THE WOMEN. And if I give a rat's ass about anybody else, I wouldn't advise them to wait for this to happen either.

I understand phobias and trauma, and that some women JUST CAN'T. I JUST CAN'T walk on railroad trestles without being scared as fuck and freezing every few steps. I avoid them. I swam a river once to keep from walking on a goddamn trestle. It's irrational (unless it's a long trestle and a train might come before I can get across it) but that's how phobias are. Some women are like that with men. In that situation, somebody else needs to step up. In ANY situation that starts to escalate, somebody needs to step up, even if it's only by whipping out a phone and calling 911. But the expectation that it shouldn't even be suggested that ANY woman should have to get a backbone EVEN IF SHE'S CAPABLE OF DOING SO strikes me as southern belle stuff and it's been said a few times in these threads.

I feel like this is kind of aimed at me. I never said anything that was intended to be construed as Southern Belle-ness. Learning to defend yourself, etc. IS a good idea in general. It just shouldn't be because women and females are more socially vulnerable than men and have to be prepared to defend themselves against the kind of men who would take advantage of that.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 03:51:32 PM
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.

I kind of feel like my points are either not getting through or are being misconstrued because I don't think SP and I are saying anything different than you or Pix.
A general question: what exactly am I doing wrong here?

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 07, 2012, 04:53:23 PM
I mean cultural differences as in, is it coomn in California, but not so much elsewhere.

An American sleazeball at a music festival once told me that Aussies are really timid with girls which is why I wonder.

Maybe.
And I lold. Probably because I was on the Gold Coast last week. Plenty of weekend heroes out and about, so I'mma have to disagree with festival boy.

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
Two things.  First, sharing another, excellent article on the topic:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/its-really-time-for-the-harassment-to-end/

Second...  Why are folks so determined to label this a feminist issue?  It isn't...  It may very well be an issue that feminists are interested in, however, this is a "some people are assholes" issue.  Turning this into a pissing match over whether it's something that JUST happens to one group of people and not others, or whether as bad or worse things happen, too, is pretty fucking counterproductive.

It's a feminist issue in the sense that it has components of patriarchy, in the form of the culturally-reinforced common sense of entitlement many men feel toward women's attention,  combined with the cultural expectation that women "be nice", which is commonly reinforced by the social expectation that it's acceptable to "punish" a woman who isn't nice by verbally shaming her.

Are you saying that the fact that there are other harassment issues means it's invalid to discuss certain types of harassment from a gender equality perspective?

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 05:08:21 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
Two things.  First, sharing another, excellent article on the topic:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/its-really-time-for-the-harassment-to-end/

Second...  Why are folks so determined to label this a feminist issue?  It isn't...  It may very well be an issue that feminists are interested in, however, this is a "some people are assholes" issue.  Turning this into a pissing match over whether it's something that JUST happens to one group of people and not others, or whether as bad or worse things happen, too, is pretty fucking counterproductive.

It's a feminist issue in the sense that it has components of patriarchy, in the form of the culturally-reinforced common sense of entitlement many men feel toward women's attention,  combined with the cultural expectation that women "be nice", which is commonly reinforced by the social expectation that it's acceptable to "punish" a woman who isn't nice by verbally shaming her.

Are you saying that the fact that there are other harassment issues means it's invalid to discuss certain types of harassment from a gender equality perspective?

Not at all.  I'm saying that arguing about whether a particular issue is a "feminist" issue or not detracts from the discussion of the issue.

I'm saying that making anybody else feel like they don't have anything to contribute to the discussion because he's male (whether that was the intended result or not) does not help resolve the issue.  Cutting off ANY point of view is, IMHO, almost always counterproductive.

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 05:13:48 PM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 05:08:21 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
Two things.  First, sharing another, excellent article on the topic:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/its-really-time-for-the-harassment-to-end/

Second...  Why are folks so determined to label this a feminist issue?  It isn't...  It may very well be an issue that feminists are interested in, however, this is a "some people are assholes" issue.  Turning this into a pissing match over whether it's something that JUST happens to one group of people and not others, or whether as bad or worse things happen, too, is pretty fucking counterproductive.

It's a feminist issue in the sense that it has components of patriarchy, in the form of the culturally-reinforced common sense of entitlement many men feel toward women's attention,  combined with the cultural expectation that women "be nice", which is commonly reinforced by the social expectation that it's acceptable to "punish" a woman who isn't nice by verbally shaming her.

Are you saying that the fact that there are other harassment issues means it's invalid to discuss certain types of harassment from a gender equality perspective?

Not at all.  I'm saying that arguing about whether a particular issue is a "feminist" issue or not detracts from the discussion of the issue.

I'm saying that making anybody else feel like they don't have anything to contribute to the discussion because he's male (whether that was the intended result or not) does not help resolve the issue.  Cutting off ANY point of view is, IMHO, almost always counterproductive.

Ah, I misread you. I totally agree with you.

Also, that was an excellent article, I think that anyone who is interested in this topic would benefit from giving it a read.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 05:18:32 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 05:13:48 PM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 05:08:21 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
Two things.  First, sharing another, excellent article on the topic:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/its-really-time-for-the-harassment-to-end/

Second...  Why are folks so determined to label this a feminist issue?  It isn't...  It may very well be an issue that feminists are interested in, however, this is a "some people are assholes" issue.  Turning this into a pissing match over whether it's something that JUST happens to one group of people and not others, or whether as bad or worse things happen, too, is pretty fucking counterproductive.

It's a feminist issue in the sense that it has components of patriarchy, in the form of the culturally-reinforced common sense of entitlement many men feel toward women's attention,  combined with the cultural expectation that women "be nice", which is commonly reinforced by the social expectation that it's acceptable to "punish" a woman who isn't nice by verbally shaming her.

Are you saying that the fact that there are other harassment issues means it's invalid to discuss certain types of harassment from a gender equality perspective?

Not at all.  I'm saying that arguing about whether a particular issue is a "feminist" issue or not detracts from the discussion of the issue.

I'm saying that making anybody else feel like they don't have anything to contribute to the discussion because he's male (whether that was the intended result or not) does not help resolve the issue.  Cutting off ANY point of view is, IMHO, almost always counterproductive.

Ah, I misread you. I totally agree with you.

Also, that was an excellent article, I think that anyone who is interested in this topic would benefit from giving it a read.

I appreciate that you asked for clarification.  I'm stupidly overtired, and may not be expressing myself as clearly as I'd like.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:06:02 PM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 03:51:32 PM
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.

I kind of feel like my points are either not getting through or are being misconstrued because I don't think SP and I are saying anything different than you or Pix.
A general question: what exactly am I doing wrong here?

I think that some of the language you tend to use is very divisive; a lot of "us" and "them" language. Try making it more inclusive, avoid framing things in language like "we" and "you", and use gender-neutral language as often as possible because it helps enhance objectivity.

I especially advise against the "we" and "you" language. You tend to do it a lot, and it automatically puts the men you're talking to on the other side of the fense, in the "you" category. It can be useful and effective language, but not when you're describing shitty behavior and generalizing to include the person you're talking to in that category.

Contrast and compare:

"A lot of guys don't get it; they'll sit next to a pretty girl on a train and assume that because they want to strike up a conversation, the other person is somehow obliged by the rules of public courtesy to oblige, and if she doesn't, they act as if she's being rude".

"Guys don't get it; you'll sit next to a pretty girl a train and assume that because you want to strike up a conversation, we're somehow obliged by the rules of public courtesy to oblige, and if we don't, you act as if we're being rude".

Ah. Sorry, guys. When I've used "you" I've tended to mean a generalized 'you'. I'll try to keep that in mind.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 05:32:58 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 05:06:02 PM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 03:51:32 PM
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.

I kind of feel like my points are either not getting through or are being misconstrued because I don't think SP and I are saying anything different than you or Pix.
A general question: what exactly am I doing wrong here?

I think that some of the language you tend to use is very divisive; a lot of "us" and "them" language. Try making it more inclusive, avoid framing things in language like "we" and "you", and use gender-neutral language as often as possible because it helps enhance objectivity.

I especially advise against the "we" and "you" language. You tend to do it a lot, and it automatically puts the men you're talking to on the other side of the fense, in the "you" category. It can be useful and effective language, but not when you're describing shitty behavior and generalizing to include the person you're talking to in that category.

Contrast and compare:

"A lot of guys don't get it; they'll sit next to a pretty girl on a train and assume that because they want to strike up a conversation, the other person is somehow obliged by the rules of public courtesy to oblige, and if she doesn't, they act as if she's being rude".

"Guys don't get it; you'll sit next to a pretty girl a train and assume that because you want to strike up a conversation, we're somehow obliged by the rules of public courtesy to oblige, and if we don't, you act as if we're being rude".

THIS.

It's the "You People" syndrome.  No matter WHAT you're saying, it's offensive and makes peoples' hackles go up.

For example:

"This is a really nice house."

vs

"You People have a nice place."

See what I mean? 

Add to that the deliberate confrontationalism by Signora Paesior, and you get a train wreck.  I'm not dogging SP, by the way, as I have been told on occasion that I am confrontational myself (I suspect my critics may be lying, though, as they are asshats)...But it seems as if she joins the conversation with the intent of slapping the dogshit out of someone, rather than trying to convey an idea.

If you can't discuss an idea without getting confrontational or butthurt, then YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IDEA.  This is why I frequently fly off the handle.  Difference is, I KNOW I don't understand this particular idea very well, and 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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:41:54 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: VERBL on September 07, 2012, 06:02:19 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 05:41:54 PM
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.

:lulz: A point well-made, sir.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 06:03:10 PM
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 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33203.0.html)). 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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 01:50:35 PM
Nigel is bang on about what I was talking about, Epi.

Ok. Thanks Nigel.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 03:52:24 PM
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?

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 03:51:32 PM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Chaser on September 07, 2012, 04:50:27 PM
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  :lol: ), 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.

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 08:25:55 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 08:28:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
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.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 08:33:24 PM

Quote from: Chaser on September 07, 2012, 04:50:27 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 08:48:53 PM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:55:57 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 08:48:53 PM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
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. 

Quote from: Cain on September 07, 2012, 08:49:04 PM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 08:33:24 PM

Quote from: Chaser on September 07, 2012, 04:50:27 PM
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.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:36:24 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 08:25:55 PM
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.

The whole point of the original article...  A woman being approached by a stranger, particularly in a place where she can't immediately escape, such as public transportation, thanks to having to have dealt with this crap multiple times, is going to assume he's just going to make unwanted advances... particularly because he has ALREADY made an unwanted demand on her attention.

Watch people, sometimes.  If they are approaching a stranger in a public place, they want something.  A cigarette, a light, change for the bus...  a phone number.

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 09:13:19 PM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:36:24 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 08:25:55 PM
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.

The whole point of the original article...  A woman being approached by a stranger, particularly in a place where she can't immediately escape, such as public transportation, thanks to having to have dealt with this crap multiple times, is going to assume he's just going to make unwanted advances... particularly because he has ALREADY made an unwanted demand on her attention.

Watch people, sometimes.  If they are approaching a stranger in a public place, they want something.  A cigarette, a light, change for the bus...  a phone number.

Yes. In trains, bus stations, etc. people tend to be in "don't fuck with me" bubbles. It's an "I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone" thing. If you just want a light or some info, your best opener is "Excuse me...". Your whole demeanor should say "I am inoffensive and I'll go away soon". It's NOT a place to "meet people".

Women tend to sit with other women when they can, too, so people DON'T fuck with them. The "safety in numbers" thing.

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 09:13:19 PM
The whole point of the original article...  A woman being approached by a stranger, particularly in a place where she can't immediately escape, such as public transportation, thanks to having to have dealt with this crap multiple times, is going to assume he's just going to make unwanted advances... particularly because he has ALREADY made an unwanted demand on her attention.

Maybe unwanted, but from the stranger's point of view, merely uninvited. All first attempts to meet someone are uninvited. That's the point. You don't know if it's wanted until you try (excepting obvious body language/ expression).
Again, I was responding specifically to what Nigel said/asked. I see the problems with the men's behaviors in the article and I would have to be an idiot not to.

I do get a hunch I'm missing something but for the life of me, looking thoroughly and repeatedly, I can't see what it is. So forgive me if I require some persistence :/

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Yes. In trains, bus stations, etc. people tend to be in "don't fuck with me" bubbles. It's an "I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone" thing. If you just want a light or some info, your best opener is "Excuse me...". Your whole demeanor should say "I am inoffensive and I'll go away soon". It's NOT a place to "meet people".

Weird...every time I rode the bus I was hoping someone would spark up conversation with me. Do I need therapy?

Let's try this...

Swiping this from a totally different thread, this is JUST as unacceptable behavoir...

Quote from: Richter, Baron von on September 07, 2012, 06:31:37 PM
No one will ever know what it's like to be aggressively hit on by a tanked guidette at 10PM on Saturday while trying to pick up a fucking pizza.  I just wanted my damn food, and not have to weather her lewd suggestions that I "make it happen" from this spray tanned gucci skinned duckfacer.  It is not my fault that she got booted from all the "nice" restaurants in her excessively imbibed attempts to mate, and thinks that an unshaven bespectacled 30 year old in a warsaw pact coat looks like a reasonable idea.

It is, however, a fuckload less frightening for Richter to be aggressively hit on by this bimbo than it would be for ME, had it been me picking up my pizza, to be hit on by some drunk man.

While Richter might, reasonably, been concerned that she'd follow him home and fling herself at door, I promise you, whatever *I* would be worried about concerning a drunk following ME out into the parking lot is a hell of a lot scarier.

What we're trying to get across here... Well, while I can't say I speak for all of the women here, and can't say we've ALL  had to deal with this, so, what *I* am trying to get across, here, is that an uninvited contact can, for a woman, be fucking scary, regardless of the intent, because of the bullshit assholes who came before said contact.

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 09:37:11 PM
Let's try this...

Swiping this from a totally different thread, this is JUST as unacceptable behavoir...

Quote from: Richter, Baron von on September 07, 2012, 06:31:37 PM
No one will ever know what it's like to be aggressively hit on by a tanked guidette at 10PM on Saturday while trying to pick up a fucking pizza.  I just wanted my damn food, and not have to weather her lewd suggestions that I "make it happen" from this spray tanned gucci skinned duckfacer.  It is not my fault that she got booted from all the "nice" restaurants in her excessively imbibed attempts to mate, and thinks that an unshaven bespectacled 30 year old in a warsaw pact coat looks like a reasonable idea.

It is, however, a fuckload less frightening for Richter to be aggressively hit on by this bimbo than it would be for ME, had it been me picking up my pizza, to be hit on by some drunk man.

While Richter might, reasonably, been concerned that she'd follow him home and fling herself at door, I promise you, whatever *I* would be worried about concerning a drunk following ME out into the parking lot is a hell of a lot scarier.

What we're trying to get across here... Well, while I can't say I speak for all of the women here, and can't say we've ALL  had to deal with this, so, what *I* am trying to get across, here, is that an uninvited contact can, for a woman, be fucking scary, regardless of the intent, because of the bullshit assholes who came before said contact.

Makes sense. Then I have a question. In the case that a man was merely interested in meeting another human being, as I claim to be, how would he have to act in order for there to be any consideration of actually befriending him? Or is that out the window, period?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 08:48:53 PM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
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.

Will you stop with this? It basically comes across as "if those two people won't play the way I want them to play, then I'm not playing with anyone".

Also, I replied to your post, first message on this page. I didn't quote, just talked about some of the points you raised.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 09:45:50 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 09:37:11 PM
Let's try this...

Swiping this from a totally different thread, this is JUST as unacceptable behavoir...

Quote from: Richter, Baron von on September 07, 2012, 06:31:37 PM
No one will ever know what it's like to be aggressively hit on by a tanked guidette at 10PM on Saturday while trying to pick up a fucking pizza.  I just wanted my damn food, and not have to weather her lewd suggestions that I "make it happen" from this spray tanned gucci skinned duckfacer.  It is not my fault that she got booted from all the "nice" restaurants in her excessively imbibed attempts to mate, and thinks that an unshaven bespectacled 30 year old in a warsaw pact coat looks like a reasonable idea.

It is, however, a fuckload less frightening for Richter to be aggressively hit on by this bimbo than it would be for ME, had it been me picking up my pizza, to be hit on by some drunk man.

While Richter might, reasonably, been concerned that she'd follow him home and fling herself at door, I promise you, whatever *I* would be worried about concerning a drunk following ME out into the parking lot is a hell of a lot scarier.

What we're trying to get across here... Well, while I can't say I speak for all of the women here, and can't say we've ALL  had to deal with this, so, what *I* am trying to get across, here, is that an uninvited contact can, for a woman, be fucking scary, regardless of the intent, because of the bullshit assholes who came before said contact.

Makes sense. Then I have a question. In the case that a man was merely interested in meeting another human being, as I claim to be, how would he have to act in order for there to be any consideration of actually befriending him? Or is that out the window, period?

In what situation?  Makes all the difference in the world.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 07, 2012, 07:31:23 AM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 07:28:10 AM
Cool beans

Even if you HAD been trying to say that, that sentiment would fall so far outside my (admittedly very limited) frame of reference for you that I would have erroneously interpreted it the other way. :lulz:

:lulz:

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 09:45:50 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 09:37:11 PM
Let's try this...

Swiping this from a totally different thread, this is JUST as unacceptable behavoir...

Quote from: Richter, Baron von on September 07, 2012, 06:31:37 PM
No one will ever know what it's like to be aggressively hit on by a tanked guidette at 10PM on Saturday while trying to pick up a fucking pizza.  I just wanted my damn food, and not have to weather her lewd suggestions that I "make it happen" from this spray tanned gucci skinned duckfacer.  It is not my fault that she got booted from all the "nice" restaurants in her excessively imbibed attempts to mate, and thinks that an unshaven bespectacled 30 year old in a warsaw pact coat looks like a reasonable idea.

It is, however, a fuckload less frightening for Richter to be aggressively hit on by this bimbo than it would be for ME, had it been me picking up my pizza, to be hit on by some drunk man.

While Richter might, reasonably, been concerned that she'd follow him home and fling herself at door, I promise you, whatever *I* would be worried about concerning a drunk following ME out into the parking lot is a hell of a lot scarier.

What we're trying to get across here... Well, while I can't say I speak for all of the women here, and can't say we've ALL  had to deal with this, so, what *I* am trying to get across, here, is that an uninvited contact can, for a woman, be fucking scary, regardless of the intent, because of the bullshit assholes who came before said contact.

Makes sense. Then I have a question. In the case that a man was merely interested in meeting another human being, as I claim to be, how would he have to act in order for there to be any consideration of actually befriending him? Or is that out the window, period?

Do it in a social milieu - a club, a party, facebook, someplace people go with the INTENT of socializing. Not public transportation.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 09:48:59 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 08:48:53 PM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
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.

Will you stop with this? It basically comes across as "if those two people won't play the way I want them to play, then I'm not playing with anyone".

Also, I replied to your post, first message on this page. I didn't quote, just talked about some of the points you raised.

Here's my problem, Nigel:  I consider PD to be a collection of the best people I know.  If they think I must be marginalized to take part, then what are the odds that anyone else will be any different?

I realize that it looks like I am overreacting.  I probably am.  However, this shit has been bugging me since the first blow up, back on the 19th or 20th of last month, and now we're back on it, and the scabs have been torn off.

I do appreciate your response, and I said so in the thread in which I was ranting.

What I don't appreciate is that the two people who told me that I must be subordinate have blown it off completely.  Is it unreasonable to be this pissed off?  Probably, and I'll probably be over it in an hour or so...But right now, I AM feeling incredibly bent out of shape, as two people I respect and admire on most issues have decided that my concerns are not valid enough to address on this issue.  I was talked around, the same way you were this morning.  I don't consider that acceptable behavior for myself, and I don't see the need to tolerate it from others. 

But yeah, you're right, and I'll stop.  It IS a bad place to stop, though.

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 09:45:50 PM

Quote from: Luna on September 07, 2012, 09:37:11 PM
Let's try this...

Swiping this from a totally different thread, this is JUST as unacceptable behavoir...

Quote from: Richter, Baron von on September 07, 2012, 06:31:37 PM
No one will ever know what it's like to be aggressively hit on by a tanked guidette at 10PM on Saturday while trying to pick up a fucking pizza.  I just wanted my damn food, and not have to weather her lewd suggestions that I "make it happen" from this spray tanned gucci skinned duckfacer.  It is not my fault that she got booted from all the "nice" restaurants in her excessively imbibed attempts to mate, and thinks that an unshaven bespectacled 30 year old in a warsaw pact coat looks like a reasonable idea.

It is, however, a fuckload less frightening for Richter to be aggressively hit on by this bimbo than it would be for ME, had it been me picking up my pizza, to be hit on by some drunk man.

While Richter might, reasonably, been concerned that she'd follow him home and fling herself at door, I promise you, whatever *I* would be worried about concerning a drunk following ME out into the parking lot is a hell of a lot scarier.

What we're trying to get across here... Well, while I can't say I speak for all of the women here, and can't say we've ALL  had to deal with this, so, what *I* am trying to get across, here, is that an uninvited contact can, for a woman, be fucking scary, regardless of the intent, because of the bullshit assholes who came before said contact.

Makes sense. Then I have a question. In the case that a man was merely interested in meeting another human being, as I claim to be, how would he have to act in order for there to be any consideration of actually befriending him? Or is that out the window, period?

You are putting your desire to make friends with strangers on the bus ahead of other people's desire and right to not be pestered on their morning commute. That's either creepy, or retarded, take your pick.

Join some clubs, find some activity groups if you want to make friends. Go to parties. Don't try to make friends with strangers on the bus. You know who wants to make friends with strangers on the bus? Retarded people. Think about it.

I already mentioned exceptions to this. If you see the same person over and over again on the bus, and they start to greet you, then shit, strike up a conversation.

It's not wrong to hope for strangers to strike up conversation on the bus; note that Stella said "people tend to be in "don't fuck with me" bubbles." "Tend to be in" is not "are always in". But if you are seriously so socially hard up that you're putting a lot of hope into meeting people on a bus ride, you REALLY need to find some social outlets.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 09:56:04 PM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 09:48:59 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 08:48:53 PM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
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.

Will you stop with this? It basically comes across as "if those two people won't play the way I want them to play, then I'm not playing with anyone".

Also, I replied to your post, first message on this page. I didn't quote, just talked about some of the points you raised.

Here's my problem, Nigel:  I consider PD to be a collection of the best people I know.  If they think I must be marginalized to take part, then what are the odds that anyone else will be any different?

I realize that it looks like I am overreacting.  I probably am.  However, this shit has been bugging me since the first blow up, back on the 19th or 20th of last month, and now we're back on it, and the scabs have been torn off.

I do appreciate your response, and I said so in the thread in which I was ranting.

What I don't appreciate is that the two people who told me that I must be subordinate have blown it off completely.  Is it unreasonable to be this pissed off?  Probably, and I'll probably be over it in an hour or so...But right now, I AM feeling incredibly bent out of shape, as two people I respect and admire on most issues have decided that my concerns are not valid enough to address on this issue.  I was talked around, the same way you were this morning.  I don't consider that acceptable behavior for myself, and I don't see the need to tolerate it from others. 

But yeah, you're right, and I'll stop.  It IS a bad place to stop, though.

Like I said to ECH in PM, if it's a couple of specific people you're pissed at, call them out for their specific behavior or lack of acknowledgement. When you don't, it has the effect, from my perspective, of lumping us all together under a "You People", and then I feel like my contributions are being dismissed along with theirs. Which, to be honest, hurts my feelings.

AMB and Nigel, thank you, I get it now. And Luna, I don't think I need to inquire further, thanks.

Last week on the bus crazy guy with shaved head who talks to himself started asking me about apple for some reason, we had a long chat about them. I'd never bemoan a random person talking to me on the bus, there are some desperately lonely people in this city.

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:05:51 PM
Last week on the bus crazy guy with shaved head who talks to himself started asking me about apple for some reason, we had a long chat about them. I'd never bemoan a random person talking to me on the bus, there are some desperately lonely people in this city.

You sir are a saint.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 10:00:29 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 09:56:04 PM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 09:48:59 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 08:48:53 PM

Quote from: Epimetheus on September 07, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
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.

Will you stop with this? It basically comes across as "if those two people won't play the way I want them to play, then I'm not playing with anyone".

Also, I replied to your post, first message on this page. I didn't quote, just talked about some of the points you raised.

Here's my problem, Nigel:  I consider PD to be a collection of the best people I know.  If they think I must be marginalized to take part, then what are the odds that anyone else will be any different?

I realize that it looks like I am overreacting.  I probably am.  However, this shit has been bugging me since the first blow up, back on the 19th or 20th of last month, and now we're back on it, and the scabs have been torn off.

I do appreciate your response, and I said so in the thread in which I was ranting.

What I don't appreciate is that the two people who told me that I must be subordinate have blown it off completely.  Is it unreasonable to be this pissed off?  Probably, and I'll probably be over it in an hour or so...But right now, I AM feeling incredibly bent out of shape, as two people I respect and admire on most issues have decided that my concerns are not valid enough to address on this issue.  I was talked around, the same way you were this morning.  I don't consider that acceptable behavior for myself, and I don't see the need to tolerate it from others. 

But yeah, you're right, and I'll stop.  It IS a bad place to stop, though.

Like I said to ECH in PM, if it's a couple of specific people you're pissed at, call them out for their specific behavior or lack of acknowledgement. When you don't, it has the effect, from my perspective, of lumping us all together under a "You People", and then I feel like my contributions are being dismissed along with theirs. Which, to be honest, hurts my feelings.

Yeah, you're right.  I should have acknowledged you in the post in THIS thread, as well as in that thread, as chances are good you wouldn't see the acknowledgement in that thread before the butthurt in this thread.  Or words to that effect.

As for the Garbo and SP, I've spoken my piece, and I don't think there's any real chance that there's any mistaking what I was talking about.  I'm stopping the train, though, as you suggested.  I don't think it's the best idea, but it's better than harping on it all day.

How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

Roger, sorry about that. I've been coming back on and off since you first posted that and mulling it over. I'm probably just being slow, but I'm not understanding the concern, exactly. I'm probably missing something, but I've re-read the thread from OP to your post and then up to your thank-you to Nigel like twice, and I can't figure it out.

edited for clarity.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

Roger, sorry about that. I've been coming back on and off since you first posted that and mulling it over. I'm probably just being slow, but I'm not seeing the concern, exactly. I'm probably missing something, but I've re-read the thread from OP to your post and then up to your thank-you to Nigel like twice, and I can't figure it out.

About the time I registered to this site I came about a hairs breath away from being that guy. Unless someone is flashing their knob, grabbing, or shitting themselves I think the bus example is a bad one.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

Roger, sorry about that. I've been coming back on and off since you first posted that and mulling it over. I'm probably just being slow, but I'm not seeing the concern, exactly. I'm probably missing something, but I've re-read the thread from OP to your post and then up to your thank-you to Nigel like twice, and I can't figure it out.

I was referring back to a few comments made in the patriarchy thread, in which it was made clear to me that I can be "allies" but not an equal in any struggle for equality.

When this was objected to by myself and others, we were laughed at, and something about "FUCK YOU FOR EXCLUDING ME" - alongside a whole bunch of other appeal to ridicule shit - was said (among other things), mostly by Signora Paesior, but also in part by you.

That got under my skin pretty badly, but I let it drop with the rest of the conversation.  Then these threads started, and it came back to the surface.  I figured out what bothered me about the whole thing, which was the patent absurdity of the idea that:

"You must take a subordinate/second-class role in this fight for equality."

Say that a few times, see if it sounds funny.  Then ask yourself what the fuck was going through your head (to a small degree) and SP's head (to a large degree).  Fuck that, I already have a pretty good idea of what was going through SP's head, and a notion of what was going through yours.

Unfortunately, the train has stopped and my opinion is for the moment fixed...IE, I'm too fucking angry to be rational about this.  Maybe later.  Or maybe I shouldn't have dropped the subject the first time around, because I tend to stew over things, sometimes.

Who said what where now?

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 10:37:14 PM
Who said what where now?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 10:24:45 PM
I was referring back to a few comments made in the patriarchy thread,

I'd thought we'd resolved that already. I'm sorry, Roger. Let me know if you want to talk about it later?

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 10:37:14 PM
Who said what where now?

Like month ago, there was a discussion about men's place in feminism. SP and I were arguing that men ought to let women lead the movement when dealing specifically women's issues. It sort of spiraled out from there.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:40:58 PM
I'd thought we'd resolved that already. I'm sorry, Roger. Let me know if you want to talk about it later?

We resolved part of it (the man tears thing, for example).  The parts we didn't resolve were:

1.  The idea of anyone leading, and the implicit idea of subordination, which is the problem, not a solution.

2.  The braying mockery from Signora Paesior, and the lack of anything said about it, and in fact some agreement with it.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 10:24:45 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

Roger, sorry about that. I've been coming back on and off since you first posted that and mulling it over. I'm probably just being slow, but I'm not seeing the concern, exactly. I'm probably missing something, but I've re-read the thread from OP to your post and then up to your thank-you to Nigel like twice, and I can't figure it out.

I was referring back to a few comments made in the patriarchy thread, in which it was made clear to me that I can be "allies" but not an equal in any struggle for equality.

When this was objected to by myself and others, we were laughed at, and something about "FUCK YOU FOR EXCLUDING ME" - alongside a whole bunch of other appeal to ridicule shit - was said (among other things), mostly by Signora Paesior, but also in part by you.

That got under my skin pretty badly, but I let it drop with the rest of the conversation.  Then these threads started, and it came back to the surface.  I figured out what bothered me about the whole thing, which was the patent absurdity of the idea that:

"You must take a subordinate/second-class role in this fight for equality."

Say that a few times, see if it sounds funny.  Then ask yourself what the fuck was going through your head (to a small degree) and SP's head (to a large degree).  Fuck that, I already have a pretty good idea of what was going through SP's head, and a notion of what was going through yours.

Unfortunately, the train has stopped and my opinion is for the moment fixed...IE, I'm too fucking angry to be rational about this.  Maybe later.  Or maybe I shouldn't have dropped the subject the first time around, because I tend to stew over things, sometimes.

It gets compared to white people who support black people trying to be "leadership", or "define it" or whatever. There's a hierarchy being implied when there shouldn't even be a hierarchy, or if there is one, it should be horizontal. I don't think any of the guys here are trying to be the "face" of feminism any more than I have delusions of being Malcolm X. Doesn't mean I can't participate or I don't get any input, I've never been treated like that. I've never been told to shut up or butt out when I invited a black person to sit at my table while the yahoos were giving us the stinkeye, or shut some asshole down for telling race jokes.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 10:47:00 PM
2.  The braying mockery from Signora Paesior, and the lack of anything said about it, and in fact some agreement with it.

She is very disingenuous as to the parts she will comment on or respond to. To be perfectly honest I feel she is a shit stirrer, sorry signor.

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:50:44 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 10:47:00 PM
2.  The braying mockery from Signora Paesior, and the lack of anything said about it, and in fact some agreement with it.

She is very disingenuous as to the parts she will comment on or respond to. To be perfectly honest I feel she is a shit stirrer, sorry signor.

She ignores me in these threads.  :lol:

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:50:44 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 10:47:00 PM
2.  The braying mockery from Signora Paesior, and the lack of anything said about it, and in fact some agreement with it.

She is very disingenuous as to the parts she will comment on or respond to. To be perfectly honest I feel she is a shit stirrer, sorry signor.

That's the opinion I'm starting to form...I'm also thinking there's maybe a bit of rather nasty malice there, too.  However, I think it might be a bad idea for me to develop and maintain a conclusion today, so I'll hold off for the time being.

How do you quantify somebody's contribution, anyway? I wouldn't marginalize Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice4.html).

Signora has been extremely disingenuous. The appeal to authority at ECH was pointlessly exclusive.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:01:55 PM
Signora has been extremely disingenuous. The appeal to authority at ECH was pointlessly exclusive.

THIS.

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:24:30 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

About the time I registered to this site I came about a hairs breath away from being that guy. Unless someone is flashing their knob, grabbing, or shitting themselves I think the bus example is a bad one.

I agree at this point.  It would seem to me that the article is more about social fear and the bit at the end:

QuoteSo when people (men) want to talk about "legitimate" forms of assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to ignore the bad behavior of men, I want them to be forced to feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than being female and not wanting to share. 

I just wanted to read my book.

It's not my fault I'm pretty.

is intentionally inflammatory, mildly ego-centric, and misses the actual cause of the violent outburst.
Dude was on the edge, almost certainly mentally ill.  That it manifested as a horrible exaggeration of unfortunate (but IN NO WAY uniform) social norms is beside the point to me.  It is also possible, just possible, that the story is "based on a true story" and intended to draw people to a blog and insert a political quip.

I believe from personal experience that introversion is among the worst of all social defenses. If she's pretending to read to avoid contact with males that she is so certain are only interested in (her) sexuality then is seems like an anxiety issue. 

The complaint is not invalid.  Women are OFTEN harassed in situations where exit is not an immediate option. Some of the toughest chicks I know are masters of getting past that and seeing what these folks are into. Then telling them to go away if appropriate.

That last line was her echoing crazy bike guy, who said "It's not my fault you're pretty." Not egocentric, a good, punchy ending that ties up her story and enforces her point.

And

QuoteSo when people (men) want to talk about "legitimate" forms of assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to ignore the bad behavior of men, I want them to be forced to feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than being female and not wanting to share.

I just wanted to read my book.

It's not my fault I'm pretty.

I'm curious about who these people are who consider some forms of assault "legitimate", advise girls to be nice to strangers (can you picture anyone telling their daughters that???), say to "give men the benefit of the doubt" when they try to pick you up on a train, etc.

Does her whole social circle consist of Ryan and Akin?

I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGSI'm curious about who these people are who consider some forms of assault "legitimate", advise girls to be nice to strangers (can you picture anyone telling their daughters that???), say to "give men the benefit of the doubt" when they try to pick you up on a train, etc.

I genuinely want to know where she gets the idea that this is the norm.

Well, the whole "be nice" training does start pretty early, and I have heard guys say that chicks they hit on and who turned them down ought to have given them a chance. A lot of that which you wouldn't tell your daughter is really prevalent in TV, and Nigel made a really good comment about how people learn how to act from watching others, and connected tgat to why tv is so popular, and how many stupid, asinine primetime shows are there where there is a girl the male lead is interested in and the audience is made to ask "Augh, when is she going to give him a chance? They'd make a great couple!"

It's everywhere, but if you don't watch TV or some kinds of movies, you don't really catch it that much.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:14:11 PM
That last line was her echoing crazy bike guy, who said "It's not my fault you're pretty." Not egocentric, a good, punchy ending that ties up her story and enforces her point.

I agree. As I said way early in this thread this was extremely well written, but she chose that means to tie it up.  to reinforce the bike guy and underscore the problem of even the idea of "legitimate assault", no doubt. 

I remember well your post about lenses of perception and just re-read it.  I won't quote for brevity, but is it just possible that the lenses she has on are distorting her picture of over all reality? Lenses go both ways and the picture she drew in the article seems able to readily draw people into her perspective. I'm trying to see the picture with my own and come to an understanding of whether or not the author had an agenda or if this was an accurate picture that I can base opinions on.

Yes, the lenses you look through can fuck up your vision pretty badly, if you don't switch them out from time to time.

I would say that the picture she painted was clear and correct. She was only talking about her experiences, mostly, and I get what she meant about making people deal with what she deals with when she feels like she is told she ought to be nice and give a guy a chance. If you are asking if I think she's blowing it out of proportion for ulterior motives, well, I can't answer that and don't understand the point of asking it.

Or maybe, are her lenses fucking with her perceptions? Maybe, but sometimes people keep lenses on too long to protect themselves. O had a whole big thing about lenses and survival, but I forgot it.

Fair enough. I'm still musing about the article. As for my own lenses they can get me a little paranoid when it comes to other people's intentions.  I'll never know about her motivations, but it stands as a great article.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 08, 2012, 12:02:24 AM
Or maybe, are her lenses fucking with her perceptions? Maybe, but sometimes people keep lenses on too long to protect themselves. O had a whole big thing about lenses and survival, but I forgot it.

I encourage you to attempt to write (or is it re-write) it!

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 11:30:24 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGSI'm curious about who these people are who consider some forms of assault "legitimate", advise girls to be nice to strangers (can you picture anyone telling their daughters that???), say to "give men the benefit of the doubt" when they try to pick you up on a train, etc.

I genuinely want to know where she gets the idea that this is the norm.

Maybe she's exaggerating to make a point, maybe not. You could write her and ask! Don't forget to be entirely yourself and share with the rest of the class.  :evil:

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:40:23 PM
Well, the whole "be nice" training does start pretty early, and I have heard guys say that chicks they hit on and who turned them down ought to have given them a chance. A lot of that which you wouldn't tell your daughter is really prevalent in TV, and Nigel made a really good comment about how people learn how to act from watching others, and connected tgat to why tv is so popular, and how many stupid, asinine primetime shows are there where there is a girl the male lead is interested in and the audience is made to ask "Augh, when is she going to give him a chance? They'd make a great couple!"

It's everywhere, but if you don't watch TV or some kinds of movies, you don't really catch it that much.

The Ross and Rachel trope? I have a hard time force-fitting that to a pervert on a train.

The general expectation is that it's your perogative not to want anything to do with someone, and you have an obligation to speak up. If you file sexual harassment on your boss, that's the first thing they're going to ask you, whether you told him to stop. I had a situation in Massachusetts where a state police officer used to come in where I worked and harass me. I told him I wasn't interested but he just kept it up, and when I contacted Internal Affairs and they came and interviewed me (admittedly it WAS intimidating, I didn't feel comfortable being as rude with him as I would be with a civilian, but I still had recourse), that was the first thing they asked me, if I'd told him "no".

I never saw him again and I still have the letter saying he'd been dealt with.  :)

Not only do other women admire you when you shut down a weirdo in a public place, MEN (other than the weirdo) love it. You've got the full support of the village compound.  :lol:

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 07, 2012, 08:48:16 AM
There's some guy out there, can't remember his name, who is basically doing that, with using PUA-type language to try to teach the kind of guys who are susceptible to PUA brainwashing how to be decent, happy, truly successful men. It's basically a real self-help book disguised as a PUA book.

God, I can only hope that somewhere along the line the whole "alpha" and "beta" thing gets dropped, or at least made fun of for being stupid and wrong.

I'm only this far in this thread so I apologize if you've all move past this topic but I figured I'd mention anyway that....

David Deida's book The Way of the Superior Man takes a more spiritual approach to this in the improve yourself to make you more appealing to others, self-help sort of way.  Definitely NOT the PUA stuff as it's commonly known. 

And, believe it or not, David DeAngelo's more recent stuff is more or less doing exactly what Prince Glittersnatch is describing. 

I do know that blog you're talking about, Nigel, and it's pretty good.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 12:16:52 AM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:40:23 PM
Well, the whole "be nice" training does start pretty early, and I have heard guys say that chicks they hit on and who turned them down ought to have given them a chance. A lot of that which you wouldn't tell your daughter is really prevalent in TV, and Nigel made a really good comment about how people learn how to act from watching others, and connected tgat to why tv is so popular, and how many stupid, asinine primetime shows are there where there is a girl the male lead is interested in and the audience is made to ask "Augh, when is she going to give him a chance? They'd make a great couple!"

It's everywhere, but if you don't watch TV or some kinds of movies, you don't really catch it that much.

The Ross and Rachel trope? I have a hard time force-fitting that to a pervert on a train.

The general expectation is that it's your perogative not to want anything to do with someone, and you have an obligation to speak up. If you file sexual harassment on your boss, that's the first thing they're going to ask you, whether you told him to stop. I had a situation in Massachusetts where a state police officer used to come in where I worked and harass me. I told him I wasn't interested but he just kept it up, and when I contacted Internal Affairs and they came and interviewed me (admittedly it WAS intimidating, I didn't feel comfortable being as rude with him as I would be with a civilian, but I still had recourse), that was the first thing they asked me, if I'd told him "no".

I never saw him again and I still have the letter saying he'd been dealt with.  :)

Not only do other women admire you when you shut down a weirdo in a public place, MEN (other than the weirdo) love it. You've got the full support of the village compound.  :lol:

Whether or not you can fit that trope in, they can. In their eyes, they are the Ross, and the Rachel who rejects them is being a frigid bitch.

Your story had a happy ending, but a lot of others don't. I don't even know what your last sentence means, because in my experience most people get weirded out in general if someone says someone else makes them uncomfortable.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 08, 2012, 12:31:32 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 12:16:52 AM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:40:23 PM
Well, the whole "be nice" training does start pretty early, and I have heard guys say that chicks they hit on and who turned them down ought to have given them a chance. A lot of that which you wouldn't tell your daughter is really prevalent in TV, and Nigel made a really good comment about how people learn how to act from watching others, and connected tgat to why tv is so popular, and how many stupid, asinine primetime shows are there where there is a girl the male lead is interested in and the audience is made to ask "Augh, when is she going to give him a chance? They'd make a great couple!"

It's everywhere, but if you don't watch TV or some kinds of movies, you don't really catch it that much.

The Ross and Rachel trope? I have a hard time force-fitting that to a pervert on a train.

The general expectation is that it's your perogative not to want anything to do with someone, and you have an obligation to speak up. If you file sexual harassment on your boss, that's the first thing they're going to ask you, whether you told him to stop. I had a situation in Massachusetts where a state police officer used to come in where I worked and harass me. I told him I wasn't interested but he just kept it up, and when I contacted Internal Affairs and they came and interviewed me (admittedly it WAS intimidating, I didn't feel comfortable being as rude with him as I would be with a civilian, but I still had recourse), that was the first thing they asked me, if I'd told him "no".

I never saw him again and I still have the letter saying he'd been dealt with.  :)

Not only do other women admire you when you shut down a weirdo in a public place, MEN (other than the weirdo) love it. You've got the full support of the village compound.  :lol:

Whether or not you can fit that trope in, they can. In their eyes, they are the Ross, and the Rachel who rejects them is being a frigid bitch.

Your story had a happy ending, but a lot of others don't. I don't even know what your last sentence means, because in my experience most people get weirded out in general if someone says someone else makes them uncomfortable.

You never told some horndog in a bar to fuck off and had everybody else laugh at that?

No, I don't go to bars.

And a bar is not what I'd consider a community.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 07, 2012, 10:47:00 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:40:58 PM
I'd thought we'd resolved that already. I'm sorry, Roger. Let me know if you want to talk about it later?

We resolved part of it (the man tears thing, for example).  The parts we didn't resolve were:

1.  The idea of anyone leading, and the implicit idea of subordination, which is the problem, not a solution.

2.  The braying mockery from Signora Paesior, and the lack of anything said about it, and in fact some agreement with it.

2. I don't remember that at all. Maybe I'll go dig through the thread for it.

1. I can get behind that.

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:24:30 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

About the time I registered to this site I came about a hairs breath away from being that guy. Unless someone is flashing their knob, grabbing, or shitting themselves I think the bus example is a bad one.

I'm glad you didn't go down that road, but just because you're okay with random strangers striking up a conversation doesn't mean you should begrudge women who shut that down (because that's how you came across to me). You're less socially vulnerable than a woman, and women are constantly aware of that vulnerability.

All women?

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 12:49:27 AM
All women?

I shouldn't think so.

How about just leaving it up to the individual if they want to talk or not, WITHOUT the need for an explanation: "I'm a woman, I'm more vulnerable", etc.

Nobdody owes anybody an explanation. You want to be left alone, or you want to talk. Your business.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 08, 2012, 12:52:07 AM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 12:49:27 AM
All women?

I shouldn't think so.

I mean my wife can throw down HARD.  It's one of those reasons why I married her. 

Burns,

Knows a strong person when he sees em.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 12:55:56 AM
How about just leaving it up to the individual if they want to talk or not, WITHOUT the need for an explanation: "I'm a woman, I'm more vulnerable", etc.

Nobdody owes anybody an explanation. You want to be left alone, or you want to talk. Your business.

That rings better to my ears/eyes

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 07, 2012, 11:08:44 PM

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:24:30 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

About the time I registered to this site I came about a hairs breath away from being that guy. Unless someone is flashing their knob, grabbing, or shitting themselves I think the bus example is a bad one.

I agree at this point.  It would seem to me that the article is more about social fear and the bit at the end:

QuoteSo when people (men) want to talk about "legitimate" forms of assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to ignore the bad behavior of men, I want them to be forced to feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than being female and not wanting to share. 

I just wanted to read my book.

It's not my fault I'm pretty.

is intentionally inflammatory, mildly ego-centric, and misses the actual cause of the violent outburst.
Dude was on the edge, almost certainly mentally ill.  That it manifested as a horrible exaggeration of unfortunate (but IN NO WAY uniform) social norms is beside the point to me.  It is also possible, just possible, that the story is "based on a true story" and intended to draw people to a blog and insert a political quip.

I believe from personal experience that introversion is among the worst of all social defenses. If she's pretending to read to avoid contact with males that she is so certain are only interested in (her) sexuality then is seems like an anxiety issue. 

The complaint is not invalid.  Women are OFTEN harassed in situations where exit is not an immediate option. Some of the toughest chicks I know are masters of getting past that and seeing what these folks are into. Then telling them to go away if appropriate.

...

this is the kind of second-guessing and denial of someone else's experience that I was talking about.

It also seems to ignore the likelihood that the particular form that the man's expression of mental illness took was, in itself, shaped by a culture of entitlement. His entire outburst revolves around it.

I find it odd that you find it so unbelievable, and that much more disheartened. If I had a nickel for every "fuck you, bitch!" or similar sentiment... usually given simply because I don't engage... I'd be able to buy an Ipad, at least.  :lol:

I'm not even going to touch your "pretending to read" comment. That's beyond condescending.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 07, 2012, 06:23:53 AM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 06:19:34 AM

Quote from: Hoopla on September 07, 2012, 06:10:48 AM
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7226/hooplapopcorn.jpg)

Nice.  :lulz: are you eating...


PILLZ HERE?

POPCORN!  pink popcorn.

That's me, Signora  and Net, sorry for threadjacking...

No need to apologize, people usually return to the issues if they really want to.

Yes, all women are more socially vulnerable to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not an individual can take care of herself and everything to do with the general society's opinion of women and females as a whole.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Ditto.

It's like a lot of people want to simply discredit the chick telling the story, rather than the harder task of facing the social structure that creates an environment conducive for that kind of encounter.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 11:30:24 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGSI'm curious about who these people are who consider some forms of assault "legitimate", advise girls to be nice to strangers (can you picture anyone telling their daughters that???), say to "give men the benefit of the doubt" when they try to pick you up on a train, etc.

I genuinely want to know where she gets the idea that this is the norm.

Aren't you always telling us how awful Seguin is? You can probably start on that by looking outside. Go to Wal-Mart. Turn on the TV.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
Yes, all women are more socially vulnerable to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not an individual can take care of herself and everything to do with the general society's opinion of women and females as a whole.

That just seems like over generalization. I do understand from everything I've read over the past month or so. Thing is, you could say the same thing about men in some respects but, it too would also be an over generalization.


Nigel, can you expound on what you mean by 'culture of entitlement'?

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 01:03:36 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 11:30:24 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGSI'm curious about who these people are who consider some forms of assault "legitimate", advise girls to be nice to strangers (can you picture anyone telling their daughters that???), say to "give men the benefit of the doubt" when they try to pick you up on a train, etc.

I genuinely want to know where she gets the idea that this is the norm.

Aren't you always telling us how awful Seguin is? You can probably start on that by looking outside. Go to Wal-Mart. Turn on the TV.

I don't even get it HERE. I had everybody behind me on the library pervert incident, which I've probably related here a couple of times. Nobody ever gave me a hard time for telling anybody to fuck off and I don't even know how many times I've done it here. A lot.

In fact, it's arguably just the opposite, if I was to tolerate every Tom, Dick and Harry walking up and trying to fuck me, I'd probably get slut shamed. Not that that's the right way to handle somebody with boundary issues, but it does happen to messed up women in small towns.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 01:09:31 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
Yes, all women are more socially vulnerable to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not an individual can take care of herself and everything to do with the general society's opinion of women and females as a whole.

That just seems like over generalization. I do understand from everything I've read over the past month or so. Thing is, you could say the same thing about men in some respects but, it too would also be an over generalization.


Nigel, can you expound on what you mean by 'culture of entitlement'?

The only men who are socially vulnerable are vulnerable because of how their intersectionality (for a lack of a better term) works out. A gay guy is vulnerable because he's gay. A MoC is vulnerable because he's a PoC. A disabled man is vulnerable because he's disabled. A poor guy is vulnerable because he's poor. His sex and gender have nothing to do with his vulnerability.

Women on the other hand, are. Go re-read the previous feminism threads for a look, but also think about the bullshit the Republicans are pulling regarding women's and reproductive rights this year. Or take a look at what's being done to Kristen Steward (your opinion of her specifically isn't important, but she got caught cheating and it's ruining her career, whereas if she were a man, it wouldn't). Or "Elevatorgate (http://bigthink.com/focal-point/attention-space-cadets-do-not-proposition-women-in-the-elevator)", the blow-up in the atheist community a year or so ago where a gal objected to being objectified and about half the atheist community proceeded to flip out at her (and there were rape and death threats made to her).
All of these are examples of women's social vulnerability.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 01:09:31 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
Yes, all women are more socially vulnerable to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not an individual can take care of herself and everything to do with the general society's opinion of women and females as a whole.

That just seems like over generalization. I do understand from everything I've read over the past month or so. Thing is, you could say the same thing about men in some respects but, it too would also be an over generalization.


Nigel, can you expound on what you mean by 'culture of entitlement'?

I already have so many times that I don't have it in me. I don't feel well. I'll see if I can muster it up tomorrow.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 01:15:13 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 01:03:36 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 11:30:24 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGSI'm curious about who these people are who consider some forms of assault "legitimate", advise girls to be nice to strangers (can you picture anyone telling their daughters that???), say to "give men the benefit of the doubt" when they try to pick you up on a train, etc.

I genuinely want to know where she gets the idea that this is the norm.

Aren't you always telling us how awful Seguin is? You can probably start on that by looking outside. Go to Wal-Mart. Turn on the TV.

I don't even get it HERE. I had everybody behind me on the library pervert incident, which I've probably related here a couple of times. Nobody ever gave me a hard time for telling anybody to fuck off and I don't even know how many times I've done it here. A lot.

In fact, it's arguably just the opposite, if I was to tolerate every Tom, Dick and Harry walking up and trying to fuck me, I'd probably get slut shamed. Not that that's the right way to handle somebody with boundary issues, but it does happen to messed up women in small towns.

I have a hard time believing that Seguin doesn't have issues with sexism and male entitlement, and cultural condonement such as people looking the other way when a guy rapes or beats  his lady, but if it really is that much more enlightened than the rest of the country it could be a small-town microculture thing.

I also can't help but think that all these guys "walking up and trying to fuck" you also somewhat betrays that the problem is alive and well in Seguin.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 01:00:53 AM

Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 07, 2012, 11:08:44 PM

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:24:30 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

About the time I registered to this site I came about a hairs breath away from being that guy. Unless someone is flashing their knob, grabbing, or shitting themselves I think the bus example is a bad one.

I agree at this point.  It would seem to me that the article is more about social fear and the bit at the end:

QuoteSo when people (men) want to talk about "legitimate" forms of assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to ignore the bad behavior of men, I want them to be forced to feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than being female and not wanting to share. 

I just wanted to read my book.

It's not my fault I'm pretty.

is intentionally inflammatory, mildly ego-centric, and misses the actual cause of the violent outburst.
Dude was on the edge, almost certainly mentally ill.  That it manifested as a horrible exaggeration of unfortunate (but IN NO WAY uniform) social norms is beside the point to me.  It is also possible, just possible, that the story is "based on a true story" and intended to draw people to a blog and insert a political quip.

I believe from personal experience that introversion is among the worst of all social defenses. If she's pretending to read to avoid contact with males that she is so certain are only interested in (her) sexuality then is seems like an anxiety issue. 

The complaint is not invalid.  Women are OFTEN harassed in situations where exit is not an immediate option. Some of the toughest chicks I know are masters of getting past that and seeing what these folks are into. Then telling them to go away if appropriate.

...

this is the kind of second-guessing and denial of someone else's experience that I was talking about.

It also seems to ignore the likelihood that the particular form that the man's expression of mental illness took was, in itself, shaped by a culture of entitlement. His entire outburst revolves around it.

I find it odd that you find it so unbelievable, and that much more disheartened. If I had a nickel for every "fuck you, bitch!" or similar sentiment... usually given simply because I don't engage... I'd be able to buy an Ipad, at least.  :lol:

I'm not even going to touch your "pretending to read" comment. That's beyond condescending.

Yeah, I just went over the article again and appear to have had a data fuckup in my head about the "pretending to read." She was pretending to perhaps be married.

QuoteI bring a book, pointedly wear a ring on my ring finger to imply I'm married (I'm not) and keep to myself. 

I think it got mixed in with something in the thread about similar behavior, but can't go looking for it right now. I have to go soon, or I would.
I didn't mean it like she couldn't read. My bad.  :oops:
She still seems pre-occupied with the problem though.

It is not that I find the story unbelievable.  It think it is most likely true.  It seems frankly tame compared to the badness that goes on in the world. 

The thing about a mentally ill person is that the outburst would have happened under any presentation of the appropriate stress.  That it manifested THIS way surely is a picture of an equally sick society.  I tried to put myself in his shoes just slightly and they are nasty so I'm not inclined to going there again.

I also nearly always second guess experiences related to me in print.  I have a need to see and hear, preferably first hand, to avoid the tendency.  Paranoia... is a nasty habit of mine and I'm working on it.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 01:29:23 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 01:15:13 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 01:03:36 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 07, 2012, 11:30:24 PM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you are arguing, Stella, or why you are trying to make her look stupid or wrong. She is neither.

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGSI'm curious about who these people are who consider some forms of assault "legitimate", advise girls to be nice to strangers (can you picture anyone telling their daughters that???), say to "give men the benefit of the doubt" when they try to pick you up on a train, etc.

I genuinely want to know where she gets the idea that this is the norm.

Aren't you always telling us how awful Seguin is? You can probably start on that by looking outside. Go to Wal-Mart. Turn on the TV.

I don't even get it HERE. I had everybody behind me on the library pervert incident, which I've probably related here a couple of times. Nobody ever gave me a hard time for telling anybody to fuck off and I don't even know how many times I've done it here. A lot.

In fact, it's arguably just the opposite, if I was to tolerate every Tom, Dick and Harry walking up and trying to fuck me, I'd probably get slut shamed. Not that that's the right way to handle somebody with boundary issues, but it does happen to messed up women in small towns.

I have a hard time believing that Seguin doesn't have issues with sexism and male entitlement, and cultural condonement such as people looking the other way when a guy rapes or beats  his lady, but if it really is that much more enlightened than the rest of the country it could be a small-town microculture thing.

I also can't help but think that all these guys "walking up and trying to fuck" you also somewhat betrays that the problem is alive and well in Seguin.

Well yeah, Seguin is fucked up, there's nothing enlightened about it.  :lulz:

I luck out with the telling people to fuck off stuff because it puts me on the Madonna end of their little Whore-Madonna spectrum. No illusions about that.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 01:27:32 AM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 01:09:31 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
Yes, all women are more socially vulnerable to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not an individual can take care of herself and everything to do with the general society's opinion of women and females as a whole.

That just seems like over generalization. I do understand from everything I've read over the past month or so. Thing is, you could say the same thing about men in some respects but, it too would also be an over generalization.


Nigel, can you expound on what you mean by 'culture of entitlement'?

I already have so many times that I don't have it in me. I don't feel well. I'll see if I can muster it up tomorrow.

It's cool, don't worry about it.  I just went to lay down and it came back to me.  I was in a "duhhhhh' zone when I asked that.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 01:48:40 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 01:27:32 AM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 01:09:31 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
Yes, all women are more socially vulnerable to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not an individual can take care of herself and everything to do with the general society's opinion of women and females as a whole.

That just seems like over generalization. I do understand from everything I've read over the past month or so. Thing is, you could say the same thing about men in some respects but, it too would also be an over generalization.


Nigel, can you expound on what you mean by 'culture of entitlement'?

I already have so many times that I don't have it in me. I don't feel well. I'll see if I can muster it up tomorrow.

It's cool, don't worry about it.  I just went to lay down and it came back to me.  I was in a "duhhhhh' zone when I asked that.

Cool. :)

Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

OK, sure, ta.

All it is is that 'frequently' or 'often' isn't drawing a clear understanding in my head.

Also I'm getting the impression that what's being generally said is this;

There shouldn't be anything wrong with approaching someone who doesn't look like they want to be left alone if you're willing to disengage if asked.

However, its more complex in practice because women experience aggressive reactions from men being asked to leave them be, and anticipate the possibility of such a reaction.


Is this more or less the consensus?

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

About that often ^

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 03:53:19 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

About that often ^

So literally every time (or almost every time) you're out unaccompanied in public you're approached by men you don't know? Is that what you're saying?

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:55:24 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 03:53:19 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

About that often ^

So literally every time (or almost every time) you're out unaccompanied in public you're approached by men you don't know? Is that what you're saying?

That's true for me. I've already said as much.

Yep.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:55:24 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 03:53:19 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

About that often ^

So literally every time (or almost every time) you're out unaccompanied in public you're approached by men you don't know? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.
And this is NOTHING on when I was 12-25.

I'm rather curious about the other players in this scenario.  Seeing that they're all men and that it's the consensus of this board that a man can't really speak for women when it comes to feminist issues I'll instead speak to the issues that seem to be surrounding the men and their roles in the scene.

1.  The bicyclist guy.  He was screaming about his mother.  I think we should address this point as it seems to really play into the foundations by which men base their relationships with women.  Now I'm not about to psychoanalyze this guy but I don't think we should dismiss that after she rejected him, all of a sudden the scene becomes about his mother!  I'm not looking to shift blame anywhere here, but I am curious as to how much of this attitude--where a guy feels the need to call a woman a bitch under his breath after some seemingly apparent rejection--stems from deeply rooted mommy issues.  I'm wonder if issues like these manifest from a lack of a father resulting in an over-dependence on mom or similar family structural factors. 

2.  The old frail guy at the back of the car.  There seems to be this sort of unspoken protector role a guy must assume when a 'damsel is in distress' (to quote the corresponding mythological cliche).  Granted, the guy here didn't react in that manner but if I were in his shoes, I'd have felt that archetype arise inside me as I'm sure old frail guy did.  I might have even acted upon it.  I'm not sure that that unspoken role on men does either sex any good as it seems to pigeonhole both .  Take for example a man with a flat tire on the side of the road vs. a woman with a flat tire.  More men will stop for a woman than for a man, right?  Is it wrong to say that a female in need is attractive whereas a man in need is repulsive?  This, to me, seems to illustrate a greater disconnect between men and women.

3. The group of boys.  This looks like that typical pressure to perform.  These boys, after not getting any action, felt the need to demonstrate their false power in front of each other because it's absolutely HORRIBLE to appear weak in front of other boys.  The worst thing in the world is to be considered a 'pussy' or a 'girl' or a 'faggot' in front of each other.  These boys HAD to act that way because the alternative is to confront their own internal shame at the fact that they are cowards inside.  Violence doesn't come from a feeling of real power, it comes from a feeling of powerlessness.

Before you say it, I'm by no means excuse anybody's behavior in this scene.  I really want to explore the root causes of these situations rather than looking at the surface reactions and superficially say, well there's another poor victim of a male dominated society. There's much more going on here--my heart goes out to the woman because it makes me sick to know that we men have all this potential and yet act in these ways.  *She shouldn't be the one to have to face the brunt of these issues.

When it comes down to it, I'm not sure that men really have as much power as it might seem.  That is to say, if one defines power as the ability to control one's own life. 

*ETA

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:57:22 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:55:24 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 03:53:19 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

About that often ^

So literally every time (or almost every time) you're out unaccompanied in public you're approached by men you don't know? Is that what you're saying?

That's true for me. I've already said as much.

Thanks for those replied, and apologies for missing the bolded.

I think Aus has a very different culture; for all the macho bullshit embedded in it, talking to girls I know the consensus is that unless you're somewhere serving alcohol generally men won't approach you. That's regarding this area (regional QLD) and Brisbane (City/Metro).

Also been told anecdotaly that Oz women who've gone to America have found American men more pushy and assertive. On top of my American guy telling me Aussie men are 'too reserved', and that the stories I'm getting from people here don't match up with what women I know tell me, I'm going to work off the assumption that there's a culture difference between Oz and US regarding men and women.

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:01:55 PM
Signora has been extremely disingenuous. The appeal to authority at ECH was pointlessly exclusive.

Not gonna lie, that got me wrapped around the axle pretty bad. And that's not easy to do. And I feel that, in my subsequent anger and what I wrote about that subject, I wasn't clear enough in distinguishing that when I was talking about how I felt when being talked to on the subject by Garbo or SP, I don't think Garbo intends to come off that way. I think SP definitely does, and I'm taking her lack of any cogent response to me about this as evidence.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:55:24 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 03:53:19 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

About that often ^

So literally every time (or almost every time) you're out unaccompanied in public you're approached by men you don't know? Is that what you're saying?

You have to actually meet Nigel in person to understand the phenomenon.  She's smoking hot, funny, smart, and batshit insane.

I can see how that would occasionally be a collection of drawbacks.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 12:45:41 AM

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:24:30 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

About the time I registered to this site I came about a hairs breath away from being that guy. Unless someone is flashing their knob, grabbing, or shitting themselves I think the bus example is a bad one.

I'm glad you didn't go down that road, but just because you're okay with random strangers striking up a conversation doesn't mean you should begrudge women who shut that down (because that's how you came across to me). You're less socially vulnerable than a woman, and women are constantly aware of that vulnerability.

Horseshit, Unless your Busess are WAAAY worse then ours there is no danger or vulnrability involved other then a waste of your time.
If it was a DANGEROUS person chances are they would follw you off the bus without ever speaking to you which has happened to my fiance

Garbo, you seem to see danger and hostility in every place you go. If that example had been at a bar I would agree completely.
I agree that some women are more vulnrable, I disagree that this vulnrability is universal, the bus is a conetious issue for me because there is a reason the crazies always come to talk to me:
I'm generally the only one on the bus not wearing earphones or staring at a phone. I hate the insular nature of it and I believe EVERYONE on the bus should be making the effort and talking to each other, men, women and fence sitters alike.

I think I might have missed Signora's appeal-to-authority/ECH thing - what thread was that in?

And an interesting metaphor came to mind when I was reading Burns's post just now. Typical socialization of boys seems to be a climbing race to manhood, where your peers (of all genders) are the only permissible ladder. Boys get in the habit of stepping all over people, and some don't seem to kick that habit even after they've already reached the finishing line. Or maybe a lot of us are just never sure we've ever even reached it, and keep climbing just to make sure.

I'm not so sure if that is really true overall, certainly on anindividual basis you see that happen.  I think most kids today are socialized, in America anyway, to climb the ladder to achieve the American Dream, but in my experience it is more about the individual bettering themselves and growing and utilizing skills.  I don't agree with the idea that we are all socializing our kids to climb the ladder at the expense of others.

Yeah, it was a bit of a sweeping generalization. What I have in mind is a certain aspect of a certain stereotypical style of boy/man socialization, which I think while prevalent certainly isn't the only thing going on, or even going on at all everywhere. Does seem to me to be at least part of the picture in most places I'm familiar with in any way.

What comes to my mind isn't necessarily the stepping on others but more a general violence in which boys are expected to participate in--especially for status.

Hmm, maybe, though I think with the rise of the internet we have seen a certain glorification of certain kinds of violence amongst females, though that generally is a female on female violence.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:45:07 PM
Hmm, maybe, though I think with the rise of the internet we have seen a certain glorification of certain kinds of violence amongst females, though that generally is a female on female violence.

Jesus. If I get reamed for what I said and this idiotic crap gets a pass, I'm going to go burn a woman in effigy on my lawn.

RWHN, who do you think is doing the glorifying of wman-on-woman violence? Do you think it might be.....men?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 08, 2012, 07:38:45 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:55:24 AM

Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 08, 2012, 03:53:19 AM

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 03:41:44 AM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 08, 2012, 03:38:45 AM
Nigel, I wasn't calling anyone a liar so hopefully that's not what you got from my previous question.


If I can ask a question of the females;

How often in a day/week would you say you're approached by men you don't know. Specifically disregarding drunk guys at pubs/clubs. Just out of curiosity.

It might be helpful to append this question with "and how often are you out in public alone".

About that often ^

So literally every time (or almost every time) you're out unaccompanied in public you're approached by men you don't know? Is that what you're saying?

You have to actually meet Nigel in person to understand the phenomenon.  She's smoking hot, funny, smart, and batshit insane.

I can see how that would occasionally be a collection of drawbacks.

Aw, thanks! :)  :oops:

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2012, 03:44:35 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:45:07 PM
Hmm, maybe, though I think with the rise of the internet we have seen a certain glorification of certain kinds of violence amongst females, though that generally is a female on female violence.

Jesus. If I get reamed for what I said and this idiotic crap gets a pass, I'm going to go burn a woman in effigy on my lawn.

RWHN, who do you think is doing the glorifying of wman-on-woman violence? Do you think it might be.....men?

I didn't see it or I might  have said something.

RWHN has to take the contrarian view on this... I rarely find anything he has to say substantive or worth replying to, he's a pot-stirrer at best. Remember, this is the guy who in another thread outright denied that men have an advantage over women in this society.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2012, 03:44:35 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:45:07 PM
Hmm, maybe, though I think with the rise of the internet we have seen a certain glorification of certain kinds of violence amongst females, though that generally is a female on female violence.

Jesus. If I get reamed for what I said and this idiotic crap gets a pass, I'm going to go burn a woman in effigy on my lawn.

RWHN, who do you think is doing the glorifying of wman-on-woman violence? Do you think it might be.....men?

Well sure, but there is also some tacit approval from women as well, particularly when it is young girls involved, a sort of "girls will be girls" attitude, and I don't believe for a second it is only men who post, spread, and promote these "smack down" videos you see on Youtube and Facebook.  Women are guilty as well. 


And that's my point, instead of pointing fingers at genders, how about we just focus on ALL of the asshats who condone this shit, instead of making it a feminist issue, because this kind of thing does transcend that.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 08, 2012, 04:04:59 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2012, 03:44:35 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 08, 2012, 02:45:07 PM
Hmm, maybe, though I think with the rise of the internet we have seen a certain glorification of certain kinds of violence amongst females, though that generally is a female on female violence.

Jesus. If I get reamed for what I said and this idiotic crap gets a pass, I'm going to go burn a woman in effigy on my lawn.

RWHN, who do you think is doing the glorifying of wman-on-woman violence? Do you think it might be.....men?

I didn't see it or I might  have said something.

RWHN has to take the contrarian view on this... I rarely find anything he has to say substantive or worth replying to, he's a pot-stirrer at best. Remember, this is the guy who in another thread outright denied that men have an advantage over women in this society.

Eh, no, your memory is rather clouded, what I said was that oppression in society is more akin to class these days than gender.  There are white men who live in the poor neighborhoods I work in who are from generational poverty who will never be able to crawl out of it.  And there are plenty of women who are born into situations with significant more opportunity available, but neither have anything to do with their gender.


Now, take a man and a woman from the same rung on the class ladder, sure, the man will tend, on average, to have more doors open.  But class is a much more powerful determinent in today's America.

Quote from: VERBL on September 08, 2012, 01:51:06 PM
I think I might have missed Signora's appeal-to-authority/ECH thing - what thread was that in?

And an interesting metaphor came to mind when I was reading Burns's post just now. Typical socialization of boys seems to be a climbing race to manhood, where your peers (of all genders) are the only permissible ladder. Boys get in the habit of stepping all over people, and some don't seem to kick that habit even after they've already reached the finishing line. Or maybe a lot of us are just never sure we've ever even reached it, and keep climbing just to make sure.

Art imitates life.

(http://youoffendmeyouoffendmyfamily.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Mean-Girls-image-292x300.jpg)

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 08, 2012, 07:19:19 AM

Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 07, 2012, 11:01:55 PM
Signora has been extremely disingenuous. The appeal to authority at ECH was pointlessly exclusive.

Not gonna lie, that got me wrapped around the axle pretty bad. And that's not easy to do. And I feel that, in my subsequent anger and what I wrote about that subject, I wasn't clear enough in distinguishing that when I was talking about how I felt when being talked to on the subject by Garbo or SP, I don't think Garbo intends to come off that way. I think SP definitely does, and I'm taking her lack of any cogent response to me about this as evidence.

I really don't mean to come off that way. I'm trying to make sure I don't do so in the future.

Quote from: Faust on September 08, 2012, 09:11:49 AM
Garbo, you seem to see danger and hostility in every place you go. If that example had been at a bar I would agree completely.
I agree that some women are more vulnrable, I disagree that this vulnrability is universal, the bus is a conetious issue for me because there is a reason the crazies always come to talk to me:
I'm generally the only one on the bus not wearing earphones or staring at a phone. I hate the insular nature of it and I believe EVERYONE on the bus should be making the effort and talking to each other, men, women and fence sitters alike.

You belong to the dominant group. People who are not part of the dominant group (women, queers, PoC, etc.) are living in a place that is hostile and sometimes dangerous to us. The social vulnerability of women has been hashed and rehashed like a million times here already, so I'm not going to debate with you on this. You're not listening anyway.
Women and females have good reasons for trying to avoid conversations with strange men in certain kinds of situations (and the bus is one of them). I'm all for reconnecting with other people, but I think that could be done in ways that won't leave an entire class of people uncomfortable.

Quote from: Faust on September 08, 2012, 08:55:55 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 12:45:41 AM

Quote from: Faust on September 07, 2012, 10:24:30 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 07, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
How blessed he was that you would take the time to talk to him, Faust.

About the time I registered to this site I came about a hairs breath away from being that guy. Unless someone is flashing their knob, grabbing, or shitting themselves I think the bus example is a bad one.

I'm glad you didn't go down that road, but just because you're okay with random strangers striking up a conversation doesn't mean you should begrudge women who shut that down (because that's how you came across to me). You're less socially vulnerable than a woman, and women are constantly aware of that vulnerability.

Horseshit, Unless your Busess are WAAAY worse then ours there is no danger or vulnrability involved other then a waste of your time.
If it was a DANGEROUS person chances are they would follw you off the bus without ever speaking to you which has happened to my fiance

I don't use the bus if I can help it, mostly because the buses here are expensive and slow, so I have no idea how the local ones are. But I'm gonna point out that the OP is about being harassed and treated disrespectfully by strange men who think they have the right to try to force their attention on her when she's expressed no interest and then treat her like shit for refusing them.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 08, 2012, 05:11:41 AM
I'm rather curious about the other players in this scenario.  Seeing that they're all men and that it's the consensus of this board that a man can't really speak for women when it comes to feminist issues I'll instead speak to the issues that seem to be surrounding the men and their roles in the scene.

1.  The bicyclist guy.  He was screaming about his mother.  I think we should address this point as it seems to really play into the foundations by which men base their relationships with women.  Now I'm not about to psychoanalyze this guy but I don't think we should dismiss that after she rejected him, all of a sudden the scene becomes about his mother!  I'm not looking to shift blame anywhere here, but I am curious as to how much of this attitude--where a guy feels the need to call a woman a bitch under his breath after some seemingly apparent rejection--stems from deeply rooted mommy issues.  I'm wonder if issues like these manifest from a lack of a father resulting in an over-dependence on mom or similar family structural factors. 

2.  The old frail guy at the back of the car.  There seems to be this sort of unspoken protector role a guy must assume when a 'damsel is in distress' (to quote the corresponding mythological cliche).  Granted, the guy here didn't react in that manner but if I were in his shoes, I'd have felt that archetype arise inside me as I'm sure old frail guy did.  I might have even acted upon it.  I'm not sure that that unspoken role on men does either sex any good as it seems to pigeonhole both .  Take for example a man with a flat tire on the side of the road vs. a woman with a flat tire.  More men will stop for a woman than for a man, right?  Is it wrong to say that a female in need is attractive whereas a man in need is repulsive?  This, to me, seems to illustrate a greater disconnect between men and women.

3. The group of boys.  This looks like that typical pressure to perform.  These boys, after not getting any action, felt the need to demonstrate their false power in front of each other because it's absolutely HORRIBLE to appear weak in front of other boys.  The worst thing in the world is to be considered a 'pussy' or a 'girl' or a 'faggot' in front of each other.  These boys HAD to act that way because the alternative is to confront their own internal shame at the fact that they are cowards inside.  Violence doesn't come from a feeling of real power, it comes from a feeling of powerlessness.

Before you say it, I'm by no means excuse anybody's behavior in this scene.  I really want to explore the root causes of these situations rather than looking at the surface reactions and superficially say, well there's another poor victim of a male dominated society. There's much more going on here--my heart goes out to the woman because it makes me sick to know that we men have all this potential and yet act in these ways.  *She shouldn't be the one to have to face the brunt of these issues.

When it comes down to it, I'm not sure that men really have as much power as it might seem.  That is to say, if one defines power as the ability to control one's own life. 

*ETA

1. It might be mommy issues for that guy, but I think it's a society teaching men that they have a right to female attention on a broader scale. No one likes it when they're denied what they think is rightfully theirs.

2. That makes sense, I think.

3. Sounds about right.

Maybe not, but they try to exercise what power they do have to insult or degrade the person who gave them their current sad.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 11:35:17 PM
You belong to the dominant group. People who are not part of the dominant group (women, queers, PoC, etc.) are living in a place that is hostile and sometimes dangerous to us. The social vulnerability of women has been hashed and rehashed like a million times here already, so I'm not going to debate with you on this. You're not listening anyway.
Women and females have good reasons for trying to avoid conversations with strange men in certain kinds of situations (and the bus is one of them). I'm all for reconnecting with other people, but I think that could be done in ways that won't leave an entire class of people uncomfortable.

You are a bigot or presumptuous. My sexuality gets me lumped in as a queer in world that is hostile, in which I am labelled a queer because of the way I dress and look and I STILL think you are living in a deluded dreamland that sees everything as hostile. But thats just it, you presume the world is out to get you and use an ideology to hide and justify that unreasonable fear.

I'm sorry that I made assumptions. I ought to know better. That's my fault. But you are, nevertheless, white and a cis male, yes? That right there still puts you into the dominant group in two very important ways (I think I've said this before, but one's sex/gender, race, and class are the three biggest determiners of how your life will go and how others will treat you).
It's not fear, it's wariness. Jesus. If I thought everything was out to get me, I'd never go anywhere except to therapy or something. Can we not derail this further?

Quote from: Faust on September 08, 2012, 11:50:46 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 11:35:17 PM
You belong to the dominant group. People who are not part of the dominant group (women, queers, PoC, etc.) are living in a place that is hostile and sometimes dangerous to us. The social vulnerability of women has been hashed and rehashed like a million times here already, so I'm not going to debate with you on this. You're not listening anyway.
Women and females have good reasons for trying to avoid conversations with strange men in certain kinds of situations (and the bus is one of them). I'm all for reconnecting with other people, but I think that could be done in ways that won't leave an entire class of people uncomfortable.

You are a bigot or presumptuous. My sexuality gets me lumped in as a queer in world that is hostile, in which I am labelled a queer because of the way I dress and look and I STILL think you are living in a deluded dreamland that sees everything as hostile. But thats just it, you presume the world is out to get you and use an ideology to hide and justify that unreasonable fear.

Garbo is really focused on the "danger" element; personally, I rarely feel actually threatened on the bus, but I often feel intruded upon, disrespected, insulted, or denigrated. I am polite to others, including people who talk to me when I don't want to have a conversation with a stranger. I believe that everyone is entitled to being treated with basic respect, and that nobody else, with the exception of their children, is entitled to their time and attention.

If ECH was reading a book and a random strange guy tried to strike up a conversation, and ECH didn't feel like having one and said "Sorry, I just want to read my book", if the guy responded with "Oh, you're too good to talk to me?" or "So I'm not as interesting as a book?" or "Right... stuck-up dick!" it's highly likely that he's a crazy person. That's weird behavior.

On the other hand, if the same interaction happens with me instead of ECH, it just becomes another commonplace interaction. It's demoralizing, dehumanizing, and tiresome to be treated like that on a regular basis, and it's reflective of some pretty icky social issues.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 12:11:44 AM
I'm sorry that I made assumptions. I ought to know better. That's my fault. But you are, nevertheless, white and a cis male, yes? That right there still puts you into the dominant group in two very important ways (I think I've said this before, but one's sex/gender, race, and class are the three biggest determiners of how your life will go and how others will treat you).
It's not fear, it's wariness. Jesus. If I thought everything was out to get me, I'd never go anywhere except to therapy or something. Can we not derail this further?

:showus:
Just shove people into whatever hole you want! It's Feminism™, ladies and gentlemen!

What the fuck does that even mean, Alty? That there's a dominant group is straight up fact, Alty. That it's determined a lot by race, gender/sex, and class is also straight up fact. There are certain factors no one can control that puts them into those boxes or holes or whatever. It someone looks white, then they're going to be treated white. If someone looks like a man, they'll be treated as a man. If someone dresses middle or upper class, they'll be treated as such. That's how it works, no ^TM about it.


Yes, I do tend to get a little caught up in the danger aspect, but I generally don't feel very threatened either. It's not like I walk through the day on the edge or something (although I'm aware I may have made it appear to be so), just something I'm aware of in certain kinds of situations (not something I think of while in the supermarket, but something I think of when I'm walking back home in the dark from the store).

Quote from: Alty on September 09, 2012, 12:30:07 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 12:11:44 AM
I'm sorry that I made assumptions. I ought to know better. That's my fault. But you are, nevertheless, white and a cis male, yes? That right there still puts you into the dominant group in two very important ways (I think I've said this before, but one's sex/gender, race, and class are the three biggest determiners of how your life will go and how others will treat you).
It's not fear, it's wariness. Jesus. If I thought everything was out to get me, I'd never go anywhere except to therapy or something. Can we not derail this further?

:showus:
Just shove people into whatever hole you want! It's Feminism™, ladies and gentlemen!

The privileges still exist, even if the level of respect/privilege one receives is countered by anti-privileges, if that makes sense. If someone is white and male, the white male privilege points still exists for them, even if they are poor and gay... if that makes any sense. It makes no sense at all to deny that.

Say the default is 20 social privilege points. Subtract two points each for any of the following: gay, trans, female, brown, poor, disabled. Subtract one point each for fat or ugly. So, if you're white and male, but also poor and gay, you have sixteen social privilege points. A poor gay brown woman has twelve.

This is a horribly oversimplistic way of trying to describe it, but any description is going to be oversimplistic, by necessity.

Class is a bigger factor these days than gender.

Mhm. A well off white gal is gonna have more privilege than a poor white dude.



I think no one's explain privilege and I know I personally keep throwing it around, and it looks like we might be talking about this soon so I'mma do it here real quick: privilege exists in a society that gives privileges and status to certain kinds of people, not for anything that they did but for what they are (white, a man, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle or upper class, etc.). Most people have some sort of privilege and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's just what is. Privilege compounds itself, both for good and for ill. A wealthy cis white heteroseuxal man has waaaaaaaaaaaay more privilege and is better treated than a poor queer transwoman of color (again, this is nothing either party can control and neither party should be ashamed of it, It just is).
Anyone got anything to add or correct?

Seems kinda pointless given that each person has a different combination of factors going for them whether it is class, race, sex, orientation, body type, etc.  Given all that, what's the damned point of it all? 

What seems kind of pointless?

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 12:58:32 AM
Mhm. A well off white gal is gonna have more privilege than a poor white dude.



I think no one's explain privilege and I know I personally keep throwing it around, and it looks like we might be talking about this soon so I'mma do it here real quick: privilege exists in a society that gives privileges and status to certain kinds of people, not for anything that they did but for what they are (white, a man, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle or upper class, etc.). Most people have some sort of privilege and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's just what is. Privilege compounds itself, both for good and for ill. A wealthy cis white heteroseuxal man has waaaaaaaaaaaay more privilege and is better treated than a poor queer transwoman of color (again, this is nothing either party can control and neither party should be ashamed of it, It just is).
Anyone got anything to add or correct?

That seems like a pretty concise explanation.

I think I had a privilege thread around here somewhere once upon a time. It can be hard to remember, but most of us have some kind of advantage or privilege... something that gave us an edge of some kind. In my case it's having highly educated parents.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:09:19 AM
What seems kind of pointless?

This whole thread of the conversation.  The privilege discussion.  It revolves around blanket generalizations that don't really exist when you start examining reality.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 12:44:19 AM
What the fuck does that even mean, Alty? That there's a dominant group is straight up fact, Alty.

Let's just reframe this.  I'm going to be more blatant, but just to show you what it comes across as...

"You People are part of the dominant group.  You People are therefore either tyrants or rapists, or potential tyrants or rapists."

If that's really how you see all CIS/straight guys, then you're being part of the problem.  Either we are what we DO, or we are what we are born as...And if you believe the latter, then there is no difference in your thought processes from those of Pat Robertson.

Also, if I'm stuck being a bad guy¹ in the eyes of my friends, based on accidents of my birth, then what the fuck am I supposed to do?

I'm getting more than a little tired of this constant shit.  I'm tired of hearing about this privilege shit, I'm tired of being told that I'm automatically suspect because of my skin color, my identity, my gender, and my orientation.

I have done nothing to any of you.  I am not responsible for 10,000 years of patriarchy.  I am responsible for ME and MY actions, and if you can't see that, then we have nothing to talk about.




¹  Every member of an oppressive class must themselves be oppressive, either actively or passively, right?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 01:32:11 AM
Also, if I'm stuck being a bad guy¹ in the eyes of my friends, based on accidents of my birth, then what the fuck am I supposed to do?

I'm getting more than a little tired of this constant shit.  I'm tired of hearing about this privilege shit, I'm tired of being told that I'm automatically suspect because of my skin color, my identity, my gender, and my orientation.

I have done nothing to any of you.  I am not responsible for 10,000 years of patriarchy.  I am responsible for ME and MY actions, and if you can't see that, then we have nothing to talk about.




¹  Every member of an oppressive class must themselves be oppressive, either actively or passively, right?

All of this.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 12:58:32 AM
I think no one's explain privilege and I know I personally keep throwing it around, and it looks like we might be talking about this soon so I'mma do it here real quick: privilege exists in a society that gives privileges and status to certain kinds of people, not for anything that they did but for what they are (white, a man, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle or upper class, etc.). Most people have some sort of privilege and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's just what is. Privilege compounds itself, both for good and for ill. A wealthy cis white heteroseuxal man has waaaaaaaaaaaay more privilege and is better treated than a poor queer transwoman of color (again, this is nothing either party can control and neither party should be ashamed of it, It just is).
Anyone got anything to add or correct?

You are not to blame, or are you suspect for the privileges given to your group, Roger. Privilege does not seek to demonize anyone, just to explain certain social phenomena.


Specifically related to your footnote, Rog, no. If you try to act in a way that doesn't oppress anyone (basically, don't be an asshole and do what you've been doing regarding not tolerating bullshit), than you're not being an oppressor, actively or passively.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 01:16:43 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:09:19 AM
What seems kind of pointless?

This whole thread of the conversation.  The privilege discussion.  It revolves around blanket generalizations that don't really exist when you start examining reality.

Um, they do exist. Do you deny that white people are treated differently as a group than PoC? Heterosexuals than queers? Men than women? Poor than middle/upper class?
Also, what makes sociology interesting is the differences and how they play out for individual people.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:50:18 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 01:16:43 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:09:19 AM
What seems kind of pointless?

This whole thread of the conversation.  The privilege discussion.  It revolves around blanket generalizations that don't really exist when you start examining reality.

Um, they do exist. Do you deny that white people are treated differently as a group than PoC? Heterosexuals than queers? Men than women? Poor than middle/upper class?
Also, what makes sociology interesting is the differences and how they play out for individual people.

In answer to your questions, yes "some"


You can talk to 10 different white males and find ten different life scenarios, some that are better off than white women, some that are much worse than some white women, better/worse than some PoC women.  That's my issue, you seem to be implying "alls" where there should be "somes".

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:44:25 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 12:58:32 AM
I think no one's explain privilege and I know I personally keep throwing it around, and it looks like we might be talking about this soon so I'mma do it here real quick: privilege exists in a society that gives privileges and status to certain kinds of people, not for anything that they did but for what they are (white, a man, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle or upper class, etc.). Most people have some sort of privilege and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's just what is. Privilege compounds itself, both for good and for ill. A wealthy cis white heteroseuxal man has waaaaaaaaaaaay more privilege and is better treated than a poor queer transwoman of color (again, this is nothing either party can control and neither party should be ashamed of it, It just is).
Anyone got anything to add or correct?

You are not to blame, or are you suspect for the privileges given to your group, Roger. Privilege does not seek to demonize anyone, just to explain certain social phenomena.


Specifically related to your footnote, Rog, no. If you try to act in a way that doesn't oppress anyone (basically, don't be an asshole and do what you've been doing regarding not tolerating bullshit), than you're not being an oppressor, actively or passively.

Jenn would never put up with that shit, even if I wanted to be that way...And I can't imagine a world without her. 

Neither should any of you for that matter.  Because then it would just be, you know, me and 7.3 Bn people.  All alone.  With nobody watching.  Heeee

Good.

That sounds rather lonely. We'll have to try not to.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 01:54:14 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:50:18 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 01:16:43 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:09:19 AM
What seems kind of pointless?

This whole thread of the conversation.  The privilege discussion.  It revolves around blanket generalizations that don't really exist when you start examining reality.

Um, they do exist. Do you deny that white people are treated differently as a group than PoC? Heterosexuals than queers? Men than women? Poor than middle/upper class?
Also, what makes sociology interesting is the differences and how they play out for individual people.

In answer to your questions, yes "some"


You can talk to 10 different white males and find ten different life scenarios, some that are better off than white women, some that are much worse than some white women, better/worse than some PoC women.  That's my issue, you seem to be implying "alls" where there should be "somes".

It's never ONE factor that determines how someone's life goes. Being a white dude is not the recipe for success (although it sure as fuck helps) or happiness (because even people who fit into the dominant group 100% are not always happy people). What class do those dudes come from? Are they queer? Are they able-bodied? There's other factors (as well as just shit luck) that can affect those dudes' lives, aside from whiteness. It's just that that and their sex/gender puts them in the racial and sex/gender privileged categories. That doesn't mean they can't be on the underprivileged in class or able or whatever other categories.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 09, 2012, 12:20:06 AM

Quote from: Faust on September 08, 2012, 11:50:46 PM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 08, 2012, 11:35:17 PM
You belong to the dominant group. People who are not part of the dominant group (women, queers, PoC, etc.) are living in a place that is hostile and sometimes dangerous to us. The social vulnerability of women has been hashed and rehashed like a million times here already, so I'm not going to debate with you on this. You're not listening anyway.
Women and females have good reasons for trying to avoid conversations with strange men in certain kinds of situations (and the bus is one of them). I'm all for reconnecting with other people, but I think that could be done in ways that won't leave an entire class of people uncomfortable.

You are a bigot or presumptuous. My sexuality gets me lumped in as a queer in world that is hostile, in which I am labelled a queer because of the way I dress and look and I STILL think you are living in a deluded dreamland that sees everything as hostile. But thats just it, you presume the world is out to get you and use an ideology to hide and justify that unreasonable fear.

Garbo is really focused on the "danger" element; personally, I rarely feel actually threatened on the bus, but I often feel intruded upon, disrespected, insulted, or denigrated. I am polite to others, including people who talk to me when I don't want to have a conversation with a stranger. I believe that everyone is entitled to being treated with basic respect, and that nobody else, with the exception of their children, is entitled to their time and attention.

If ECH was reading a book and a random strange guy tried to strike up a conversation, and ECH didn't feel like having one and said "Sorry, I just want to read my book", if the guy responded with "Oh, you're too good to talk to me?" or "So I'm not as interesting as a book?" or "Right... stuck-up dick!" it's highly likely that he's a crazy person. That's weird behavior.

On the other hand, if the same interaction happens with me instead of ECH, it just becomes another commonplace interaction. It's demoralizing, dehumanizing, and tiresome to be treated like that on a regular basis, and it's reflective of some pretty icky social issues.

It does reflect icky social issues, but I'm personally not demoralized by it. If some asshole bothers me and I can make him totally lose his shit, call me a cunt and more often that not get thrown out of whereever we happen to be without so much as raising my voice, it's kind of lulzy to me. Like a successful troll.  :lol:

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 02:09:47 AM
Good.

That sounds rather lonely. We'll have to try not to.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 01:54:14 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:50:18 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 01:16:43 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 01:09:19 AM
What seems kind of pointless?

This whole thread of the conversation.  The privilege discussion.  It revolves around blanket generalizations that don't really exist when you start examining reality.

Um, they do exist. Do you deny that white people are treated differently as a group than PoC? Heterosexuals than queers? Men than women? Poor than middle/upper class?
Also, what makes sociology interesting is the differences and how they play out for individual people.

In answer to your questions, yes "some"


You can talk to 10 different white males and find ten different life scenarios, some that are better off than white women, some that are much worse than some white women, better/worse than some PoC women.  That's my issue, you seem to be implying "alls" where there should be "somes".

It's never ONE factor that determines how someone's life goes. Being a white dude is not the recipe for success (although it sure as fuck helps) or happiness (because even people who fit into the dominant group 100% are not always happy people). What class do those dudes come from? Are they queer? Are they able-bodied? There's other factors (as well as just shit luck) that can affect those dudes' lives, aside from whiteness. It's just that that and their sex/gender puts them in the racial and sex/gender privileged categories. That doesn't mean they can't be on the underprivileged in class or able or whatever other categories.

I thought that we cited plenty of examples already in this and the Patriarchy thread that the issues encompassed both men and women together.  I'm not sure I'd refer to millions of men dying in war or  men taking on the--what is it-- more than 90% death-prone jobs a 'privilege'.  Calling shit like that privilege is a slap in the face and a perpetuation of the false sense of dominance that men have been sold into believing. 

In other words, I'm still skeptical.  Someone mentioned class earlier...that seems to make a lot more sense.

Yes, there are drawbacks to being a man, like the draft and fatality rates of certain kinds of jobs. They don't negate the existence of male privilege. It's not a false sense of dominance - it's an artificially created but very real system that gives men privilege over women. It's no where near as bad in the West as it used to be, but it still exists and still affects the lives of women and females. Women are "dominating" the conversation if they talk speak as much as men (http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/003/2/00328.HTML), the pink ghetto still exists (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002727003_kleiman08.html) (jobs that are traditionally women's jobs - teaching, secretarial work, etc. are dead end and don't pay well), it's extraordinarily difficult for a woman/female (who are below 35 or haven't had kids) to get a hysterectomy (men/males do not have jump through half the hoops a woman or female does to get fixed), and so on. We've beaten this topic into the ground, Burns. Yes, there are things that suck about being a man, but they are far and away fewer than the things that suck about being a woman or female. Men of the same class will do better than women of the same class. Women of higher class will do better than men of lower class. But sex and gender still play a role in every interaction.

But on the whole, men still have certain privileges and status that women do not, regardless of class or race or any other factor.

'Artificially created' or not it still isn't real autonomy.  It's a system where on the surface we tell everyone that it's male dominated but the shadow side contains actual, not artificial, issues. We're ALL fucked, in this Garbo, and just because men don't stand up and shout about it like the women are (thank god) finally doing doesn't make it more or less worse. 

I mean there's a part of me that feels that the fact that men don't speak up about it is worse because men are then fucked and don't even know it's happening.  Or they brush it off because "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" or whatever patriarchal garbage meme is being shoved down our throats.  I know, however, that to say one has it worse is just arbitrary based on individual point of view...so my reason tells me that mens' issues in this is, in fact, not worse than women's issues...its an aspect of the same buggery.

I'm not trying to convince you--I know damn well that I can't.  I've been sitting here reading these threads the past month or so and, while I feel like I've grown in some ways ... although a part of it just wasn't sitting right with me.  I think this is that part.

Also, I don't care if we've beat this in to the ground. It's not resolved.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 09, 2012, 04:00:14 AM
'Artificially created' or not it still isn't real autonomy.  It's a system where on the surface we tell everyone that it's male dominated but the shadow side contains actual, not artificial, issues. We're ALL fucked, in this Garbo, and just because men don't stand up and shout about it like the women are (thank god) finally doing doesn't make it more or less worse. 

You'll get no argument from me that it fucks everyone. Men might benefit in social and economic ways from it, but it's bad for men as people. In some ways, it limits men's ability to be an actual fucking human being because they have to live up to this very stupid idea of what being a man is, rather than letting them interpret the idea themselves (which yes, is an issue of personal autonomy).

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 09, 2012, 04:00:14 AM
I mean there's a part of me that feels that the fact that men don't speak up about it is worse because men are then fucked and don't even know it's happening.  Or they brush it off because "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" or whatever patriarchal garbage meme is being shoved down our throats.  I know, however, that to say one has it worse is just arbitrary based on individual point of view...so my reason tells me that mens' issues in this is, in fact, not worse than women's issues...its an aspect of the same buggery.

Is worse than what?

Could you rephrase the last part? I'm not entirely sure what you meant.

I'm just saying I don't think it's fair to say one has it worse than another when it's still affects both men and women just in different ways.  It's more of a 'this is because that is' situation that feeds right back into itself.

I think men, because of their nature (as probably also dictated by our patriarchal system) don't feel the need to speak up about the ways it affects them.  Men will take these death prone jobs or die in a war because of these ideas like 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.'

IOW, women speak up because their oppression is more overt, men don't speak up because their oppression is more covert. If a guy were to speak up, well then he's 'just being a pussy'.  And then nothing changes. 

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 01:32:11 AM
Also, if I'm stuck being a bad guy¹ in the eyes of my friends, based on accidents of my birth, then what the fuck am I supposed to do?

I'm getting more than a little tired of this constant shit.  I'm tired of hearing about this privilege shit, I'm tired of being told that I'm automatically suspect because of my skin color, my identity, my gender, and my orientation.

I have done nothing to any of you.  I am not responsible for 10,000 years of patriarchy.  I am responsible for ME and MY actions, and if you can't see that, then we have nothing to talk about.




¹  Every member of an oppressive class must themselves be oppressive, either actively or passively, right?

:horrormirth: Holy shit, I hope you can see the irony in that.

Also, "I'm tired of hearing about this privilege shit".

Is it so imperative to you to WIN this point against Garbo that you would, in total seriousness, say something like that? REALLY?

I think I'm done with this thread and this board. I don't need to read what anyone else has said; a great has fallen.

The problem is that it's impossible to talk about bigotry and oppression and people getting the short end of the stick unless you're willing to look at the flip side, which is privilege, and you HAVE to make generalizations when you're talking about the social scale, because... well, because you're talking about the social scale. If we can't have that conversation, we're stuck. And that's it.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 09, 2012, 04:35:21 AM
I'm just saying I don't think it's fair to say one has it worse than another when it's still affects both men and women just in different ways.  It's more of a 'this is because that is' situation that feeds right back into itself.

I think men, because of their nature (as probably also dictated by our patriarchal system) don't feel the need to speak up about the ways it affects them.  Men will take these death prone jobs or die in a war because of these ideas like 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.'

IOW, women speak up because their oppression is more overt, men don't speak up because their oppression is more covert. If a guy were to speak up, well then he's 'just being a pussy'.  And then nothing changes. 

Well, I'm going to.
Men are not denied very basic control over their bodies. Men are taken more seriously than women. Femmephobia. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lPjNhL5X4) Men are not socially conditioned to tolerate behavior from other people that make them uncomfortable. Rape culture. Women are discouraged from entering hard sciences and math and shuffled toward the pink ghetto from an early age. Women have a harder time getting jobs in general. Being compared to a woman or anything feminine is a grievous insult. Women must simultaneously be unwomanly ("she's not like the other girls") and feminine ("she looks like a man!"). Women's value hinges on their beauty (which hinges on the cultural standard of beauty at the time).
I'd say that's worse. Patriarchy is geared toward men; anyone who isn't a man is going to have it worse.

Ah. Yes, I agree with that and the next one.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 04:56:42 AM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 09, 2012, 04:35:21 AM
I'm just saying I don't think it's fair to say one has it worse than another when it's still affects both men and women just in different ways.  It's more of a 'this is because that is' situation that feeds right back into itself.

I think men, because of their nature (as probably also dictated by our patriarchal system) don't feel the need to speak up about the ways it affects them.  Men will take these death prone jobs or die in a war because of these ideas like 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.'

IOW, women speak up because their oppression is more overt, men don't speak up because their oppression is more covert. If a guy were to speak up, well then he's 'just being a pussy'.  And then nothing changes. 

Well, I'm going to.
Men are not denied very basic control over their bodies. Men are taken more seriously than women. Femmephobia. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lPjNhL5X4) Men are not socially conditioned to tolerate behavior from other people that make them uncomfortable. Rape culture. Women are discouraged from entering hard sciences and shuffled toward the pink ghetto from an early age. Women have a harder time getting jobs in general. Being compared to a woman or anything feminine is a grievous insult. Women must simultaneously be unwomanly ("she's not like the other girls") and feminine ("she looks like a man!"). Women's value hinges on their beauty (which hinges on the cultural standard of beauty at the time). Being compared to a woman (or anything feminine) is a grievous insult.

Ah. Yes, I agree with that and the next one.

I agree with everything you said...I can see it happening.  That's not really what I was getting at though.  I mean I can go and describe the covert ways that men are oppressed just as well as you described the overt ways women are. Maybe some of those are less overt, but w/e, not really my point.

If the next steps for us in this thread is to go in circles describing who has it worse then I'm going to end this here...this has happened enough on this board. I want to add that I do appreciate your tactful and detailed replies, though. :)

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 09, 2012, 04:45:29 AM
Also, "I'm tired of hearing about this privilege shit".

Is it so imperative to you to WIN this point against Garbo that you would, in total seriousness, say something like that? REALLY?

I think I'm done with this thread and this board. I don't need to read what anyone else has said; a great has fallen.

WHAT THE FUCK EVER.

Thanks for the communications, by the way.  Now I'm wrapped around the axle while hosting a party of about 20 people.  I enjoy shit like that.  I enjoy being told what a complete shit I am.

Do whatever the fuck you please.

And I am terribly fucking sorry that I went over the top with an argument that offends people's fucking religious sensibilities.

This place is a fucking toolbox.

I'm out.

I'd like to say that I wish it didn't seem like some people have taken "I see some problems with feminism as it's been explained to me, here's what they are" and turned it into "Because I see some problems with feminism as it's been explained to me, I'm going to reject it completely".

I mean, somebody show me a good idea that was perfect right off the bat. Are we looking for ways to refine the idea to make it more inclusive and effective or are we just looking for reasons to decide we don't have to bother with it at all?

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:13:42 AM
I'd like to say that I wish it didn't seem like some people have taken "I see some problems with feminism as it's been explained to me, here's what they are" and turned it into "Because I see some problems with feminism as it's been explained to me, I'm going to reject it completely".

I mean, somebody show me a good idea that was perfect right off the bat. Are we looking for ways to refine the idea to make it more inclusive and effective or are we just looking for reasons to decide we don't have to bother with it at all?

I don't what the fuck is going on right now, but it seems like my posts are being pruned and then reinterpreted that way in other threads.  For the record, the bold is exactly why I'm participating in this discussion. 

Me too. But now it seems like people are getting a case of RELIGION about it, which is fucking stupid.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO ACTUALLY DOESN'T THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD HAVE ACTUAL EQUAL RIGHTS IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE? IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO ACTUALLY THINKS THAT WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO MEN?

IF SO, RAISE YOUR HAND AND THEN GET THE FUCK OUT FOREVER.

If not, then perhaps we can drop the screeching and hysterical bullshit (NOTE: PEOPLE OF BOTH GENDERS ARE BEING HYSTERICAL. THIS IS NOT A COVERT INSULT TO WOMEN) and get the fuck back to figuring out effective ways of spreading the "all people should be treated as individuals and judged for WHO they are and not WHAT they are" meme.

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 09, 2012, 05:06:12 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 04:56:42 AM

Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 09, 2012, 04:35:21 AM
I'm just saying I don't think it's fair to say one has it worse than another when it's still affects both men and women just in different ways.  It's more of a 'this is because that is' situation that feeds right back into itself.

I think men, because of their nature (as probably also dictated by our patriarchal system) don't feel the need to speak up about the ways it affects them.  Men will take these death prone jobs or die in a war because of these ideas like 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.'

IOW, women speak up because their oppression is more overt, men don't speak up because their oppression is more covert. If a guy were to speak up, well then he's 'just being a pussy'.  And then nothing changes. 

Well, I'm going to.
Men are not denied very basic control over their bodies. Men are taken more seriously than women. Femmephobia. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lPjNhL5X4) Men are not socially conditioned to tolerate behavior from other people that make them uncomfortable. Rape culture. Women are discouraged from entering hard sciences and shuffled toward the pink ghetto from an early age. Women have a harder time getting jobs in general. Being compared to a woman or anything feminine is a grievous insult. Women must simultaneously be unwomanly ("she's not like the other girls") and feminine ("she looks like a man!"). Women's value hinges on their beauty (which hinges on the cultural standard of beauty at the time). Being compared to a woman (or anything feminine) is a grievous insult.

Ah. Yes, I agree with that and the next one.

I agree with everything you said...I can see it happening.  That's not really what I was getting at though.  I mean I can go and describe the covert ways that men are oppressed just as well as you described the overt ways women are. Maybe some of those are less overt, but w/e, not really my point.

If the next steps for us in this thread is to go in circles describing who has it worse then I'm going to end this here...this has happened enough on this board. I want to add that I do appreciate your tactful and detailed replies, though. :)

I'm no more interested in the Oppression Olympics than you are.
I think maybe we were talking past each other. I was talking about how being the actor in a oppressive system sucks less then being the one acted upon. What were you talking about?

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:23:18 AM
Me too. But now it seems like people are getting a case of RELIGION about it, which is fucking stupid.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO ACTUALLY DOESN'T THINK THAT WOMEN SHOULD HAVE ACTUAL EQUAL RIGHTS IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE? IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO ACTUALLY THINKS THAT WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO MEN?

IF SO, RAISE YOUR HAND AND THEN GET THE FUCK OUT FOREVER.

If not, then perhaps we can drop the screeching and hysterical bullshit (NOTE: PEOPLE OF BOTH GENDERS ARE BEING HYSTERICAL. THIS IS NOT A COVERT INSULT TO WOMEN) and get the fuck back to figuring out effective ways of spreading the "all people should be treated as individuals and judged for WHO they are and not WHAT they are" meme.

I'm all in favor of this. I do wanna note that to effectively spread that meme, we're gonna have to be willing to examine how we are treated unequally (for good or for ill) by the system, which will lead to some screeching, though.

I think he was talking about how in our current society, none of us (as in the people having this conversation) can really be considered "actors".

RWHN, in spite of the fact that he's saying it for all the wrong reasons, has a very good point about class being BY FAR the biggest "privilege chip", to the point that it may now be worth more than all of the others combined.

And I hope you see the irony in saying that you're not interested in playing the oppression olympics right before you say that you're talking about how it sucks less to be the actor in an oppressive system than to be the acted-upon in the context of a conversation in which some people are trying to raise the point that 99% of men are also acted upon by an oppressive system.

i made it to page 7 and ECH's comment and the subsequent shit storm i'm imagining probably happened after it.  good thread and I'll keep going and sorry if this is now old hat in the discussion.

I've been harassed by both men and women, on multiple occasions, in multiple countries.  Here in the states.

i was followed into a bathroom at a "gay" bar by a guy, who took the urinal next to me, in an empty bathroom of 6 urinals, told me i looked good or was well dressed.  i gave him a "wtf" look and said "uh.. thanks? " (i forget the details because of what happened next) and asked me what i was packing down there and leaned over to take a look at my dick.  i elbowed him in the face and probably would have done more if someone else hadn't walked in. 

i told this story to a long time friend of mine who is gay and he told me "you were in a gay bar, what did you expect? "

the implication being that going to a gay bar means you're obviously gay, and having someone check out your shit should be ok?   does not follow for "hetero" bars, why gay bars?

if anyone says it's because "if you're THERE then you must want to hook up" i have a long, laughing-at-you laugh that will follow.

when I was living in Mexico, i was walking down a side street to the local vet to get medicine for my dog.  the street passed by a local college and there  was a group of girls on the corner, talking, hanging, whatever.  as we passed them on the other side of the street the started "cat calling" me (i don't know what else to call it) yelling "guero guero ven aqui guero.  te quiero.  chingame. "  etc.  not only was it embarrassing, but i was going to get medicine for my dying dog and had no interest in talking to anyone.  they were still there when i made my way home, and it was the same scene.  in my experience, Latin women DO tend to chase men they want in a similar way that men in our culture chase women they want.  expansion on that could be its own thread.

in Belize, i was propositioned by a woman who claimed to be very rich, and told me if i came home with her that night, and came to see her a few times a year, that she'd take care of me the rest of my life.  she had just divorced her third husband, taken him for everything he owned, was rich, and had a grand daughter around my age she would introduce me to.  she was 70 if she was a day and it was clear she was not used to being told no by men at any point in her life. 

I'm going to finish the thread now, but those stories seemed relevant to tell, considering the theme up until this page that this is only an issue for women.  my apologies if that's been hashed out amongst the board by now.

I think what I'm getting at is that this discussion may be better served by finding a way to explain some of these concepts that doesn't require divisive language. Like it or not, if you're going to illustrate a difference that separates all of humanity roughly 50-50 AND you want to find an effective way of showing the 50% that you're not part of that this concept is good for their self-interests also, you're going to have to find a way to communicate with that 50% of humanity without coming off as divisive or inherently dominant within the context of any discussion or implementation of this concept. And if many of the guys HERE are having a problem with how this is being presented currently, you can imagine how it will play with the average joe.

But that's certainly not an insurmountable problem. And there's no reason that the things that people are getting hung up on have to be broached immediately and overtly in the social dialogue. If history has taught us anything, it's taught us that sometimes you have to use a little trickery to convince people to act in their own best interests.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:42:59 AM
I think he was talking about how in our current society, none of us (as in the people having this conversation) can really be considered "actors".

RWHN, in spite of the fact that he's saying it for all the wrong reasons, has a very good point about class being BY FAR the biggest "privilege chip", to the point that it may now be worth more than all of the others combined.

And I hope you see the irony in saying that you're not interested in playing the oppression olympics right before you say that you're talking about how it sucks less to be the actor in an oppressive system than to be the acted-upon in the context of a conversation in which some people are trying to raise the point that 99% of men are also acted upon by an oppressive system.

"Oppression Olympics" is "I have it worse than you do!" on an individual level. Which is not very productive, whereas discussing group experiences is. That's what I was talking about when I used the term and what I thought he was talking about, too.

I would disagree and say race, then class. But gender still plays a role on a society-wide level for all the reasons I outlined like three posts ago, and within race and class.

Whether or not a man is an oppressive actor depends on how he behaves. Misogynistic behavior is not limited to any 1% of men.

Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 09, 2012, 05:47:03 AM
i made it to page 7 and ECH's comment and the subsequent shit storm i'm imagining probably happened after it.  good thread and I'll keep going and sorry if this is now old hat in the discussion.

I've been harassed by both men and women, on multiple occasions, in multiple countries.  Here in the states.

i was followed into a bathroom at a "gay" bar by a guy, who took the urinal next to me, in an empty bathroom of 6 urinals, told me i looked good or was well dressed.  i gave him a "wtf" look and said "uh.. thanks? " (i forget the details because of what happened next) and asked me what i was packing down there and leaned over to take a look at my dick.  i elbowed him in the face and probably would have done more if someone else hadn't walked in. 

i told this story to a long time friend of mine who is gay and he told me "you were in a gay bar, what did you expect? "

the implication being that going to a gay bar means you're obviously gay, and having someone check out your shit should be ok?   does not follow for "hetero" bars, why gay bars?

if anyone says it's because "if you're THERE then you must want to hook up" i have a long, laughing-at-you laugh that will follow.

when I was living in Mexico, i was walking down a side street to the local vet to get medicine for my dog.  the street passed by a local college and there  was a group of girls on the corner, talking, hanging, whatever.  as we passed them on the other side of the street the started "cat calling" me (i don't know what else to call it) yelling "guero guero ven aqui guero.  te quiero.  chingame. "  etc.  not only was it embarrassing, but i was going to get medicine for my dying dog and had no interest in talking to anyone.  they were still there when i made my way home, and it was the same scene.  in my experience, Latin women DO tend to chase men they want in a similar way that men in our culture chase women they want.  expansion on that could be its own thread.

in Belize, i was propositioned by a woman who claimed to be very rich, and told me if i came home with her that night, and came to see her a few times a year, that she'd take care of me the rest of my life.  she had just divorced her third husband, taken him for everything he owned, was rich, and had a grand daughter around my age she would introduce me to.  she was 70 if she was a day and it was clear she was not used to being told no by men at any point in her life. 

I'm going to finish the thread now, but those stories seemed relevant to tell, considering the theme up until this page that this is only an issue for women.  my apologies if that's been hashed out amongst the board by now.

Ah, so you have a taste of what it's like to be a women or female. Welcome to the every day life of a significant portion of us.

*woman. wtf

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:48:31 AM
I think what I'm getting at is that this discussion may be better served by finding a way to explain some of these concepts that doesn't require divisive language. Like it or not, if you're going to illustrate a difference that separates all of humanity roughly 50-50 AND you want to find an effective way of showing the 50% that you're not part of that this concept is good for their self-interests also, you're going to have to find a way to communicate with that 50% of humanity without coming off as divisive or inherently dominant within the context of any discussion or implementation of this concept. And if many of the guys HERE are having a problem with how this is being presented currently, you can imagine how it will play with the average joe.

But that's certainly not an insurmountable problem. And there's no reason that the things that people are getting hung up on have to be broached immediately and overtly in the social dialogue. If history has taught us anything, it's taught us that sometimes you have to use a little trickery to convince people to act in their own best interests.

I don't know how you can talk about these things without words that are going to end up being divisive.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 05:54:31 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:42:59 AM
I think he was talking about how in our current society, none of us (as in the people having this conversation) can really be considered "actors".

RWHN, in spite of the fact that he's saying it for all the wrong reasons, has a very good point about class being BY FAR the biggest "privilege chip", to the point that it may now be worth more than all of the others combined.

And I hope you see the irony in saying that you're not interested in playing the oppression olympics right before you say that you're talking about how it sucks less to be the actor in an oppressive system than to be the acted-upon in the context of a conversation in which some people are trying to raise the point that 99% of men are also acted upon by an oppressive system.

"Oppression Olympics" is "I have it worse than you do!" on an individual level. Which is not very productive, whereas discussing group experiences is. That's what I was talking about when I used the term and what I thought he was talking about, too.

I would disagree and say race, then class. But gender still plays a role on a society-wide level for all the reasons I outlined like three posts ago, and within race and class.

Whether or not a man is an oppressive actor depends on how he behaves. Misogynistic behavior is not limited to any 1% of men.

OK, gotcha. I'm not sure I completely agree with you about some of that stuff, but I do at least understand what you're saying now. And I don't think that anything I disagree about is really relevant anyway, since we're both in agreement that, ultimately, women are not currently treated as being equal to men in many ways in western society.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 05:59:30 AM
*woman. wtf

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:48:31 AM
I think what I'm getting at is that this discussion may be better served by finding a way to explain some of these concepts that doesn't require divisive language. Like it or not, if you're going to illustrate a difference that separates all of humanity roughly 50-50 AND you want to find an effective way of showing the 50% that you're not part of that this concept is good for their self-interests also, you're going to have to find a way to communicate with that 50% of humanity without coming off as divisive or inherently dominant within the context of any discussion or implementation of this concept. And if many of the guys HERE are having a problem with how this is being presented currently, you can imagine how it will play with the average joe.

But that's certainly not an insurmountable problem. And there's no reason that the things that people are getting hung up on have to be broached immediately and overtly in the social dialogue. If history has taught us anything, it's taught us that sometimes you have to use a little trickery to convince people to act in their own best interests.

I don't know how you can talk about these things without words that are going to end up being divisive.

I think the trick would be to find a way to introduce these concepts, perhaps subtly or even subversively, into the dialogue before making the "reveal". That way, once someone has basically agreed with you in the abstract it becomes way more difficult for them to flip the switch back off and say something like "Oh, wait, you meant that was actually all about ME? And patriarchy/misogyny/privilege/whatever? Well nevermind, fuck all that shit!"

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 05:54:31 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:42:59 AM
I think he was talking about how in our current society, none of us (as in the people having this conversation) can really be considered "actors".

RWHN, in spite of the fact that he's saying it for all the wrong reasons, has a very good point about class being BY FAR the biggest "privilege chip", to the point that it may now be worth more than all of the others combined.

And I hope you see the irony in saying that you're not interested in playing the oppression olympics right before you say that you're talking about how it sucks less to be the actor in an oppressive system than to be the acted-upon in the context of a conversation in which some people are trying to raise the point that 99% of men are also acted upon by an oppressive system.

"Oppression Olympics" is "I have it worse than you do!" on an individual level. Which is not very productive, whereas discussing group experiences is. That's what I was talking about when I used the term and what I thought he was talking about, too.

Then it sounds like we're in agreement.

Quote
I would disagree and say race, then class. But gender still plays a role on a society-wide level for all the reasons I outlined like three posts ago, and within race and class.

Whether or not a man is an oppressive actor depends on how he behaves. Misogynistic behavior is not limited to any 1% of men.

I'm not sure there a really accurate ways of measuring this on a level that is not case-by-case.  I'm not sure that we really need to either. Same with class and racism.  I'm sure we can find compelling evidence for all three oppressions to be considered as "the worst¹."

Instead it seems to be more productive to go into the direction: 1. yes, there is a problem.  2. These are the root causes. 3. These are the corrective measures to reach our goals. 


^1. I really mean to say 'the most oppressive' when i say 'worst'

You can't really leave the other two out, because they're variables you have to take into account, too.

Doesn't the concept of kyriachy imply that out of class gender and race, different factors can be more or less important in different contexts.

It seems to me like a large part of the problem here is the problem I almost inevitably see crop up in discussions involving Privilege Theory.

There isn't a clear enough emphasis that privilege is something that happens to some people, not something they are doing.

Receiving privilege does not make someone "part of the problem" and in most cases, one could not divest oneself of a given form of privilege even if one tried.
Receiving privilege doesn't make you part of an oppressive class, it makes you part of a class that is favored in some way by society and/or culture.
Receiving privilege doesn't mean you can't have valid insights, but it does mean there's probably some different cognitive biases that are likely to be at play in your worldview than the cognitive biases likely to effect people who didn't receive that particular privilege.

Quote from: CorbeauEtRenard on September 09, 2012, 06:51:40 AM
It seems to me like a large part of the problem here is the problem I almost inevitably see crop up in discussions involving Privilege Theory.

There isn't a clear enough emphasis that privilege is something that happens to some people, not something they are doing.

Receiving privilege does not make someone "part of the problem" and in most cases, one could not divest oneself of a given form of privilege even if one tried.
Receiving privilege doesn't make you part of an oppressive class, it makes you part of a class that is favored in some way by society and/or culture.
Receiving privilege doesn't mean you can't have valid insights, but it does mean there's probably some different cognitive biases that are likely to be at play in your worldview than the cognitive biases likely to effect people who didn't receive that particular privilege.

It would have been nice if someone had explained this earlier, before "a great has fallen" or some such shit.

It's a little late now. 

To be honest, I could count the number of discussions I've been privy to about privilege theory that didn't run into that particular variety of mis-communication on one hand.

Unfortunately I've become really leery of becoming involved in discussions about the subject as a result.

I mean, the concept behind privilege theory seems sound to me, but the vocabulary causes so many misunderstandings and blowups. I don't like to think that the packaging can impair the concept like that, but it really does hurt the spread of the valuable meme that's in there underneath.

Quote from: CorbeauEtRenard on September 09, 2012, 07:21:28 AM
To be honest, I could count the number of discussions I've been privy to about privilege theory that didn't run into that particular variety of mis-communication on one hand.

Unfortunately I've become really leery of becoming involved in discussions about the subject as a result.

I mean, the concept behind privilege theory seems sound to me, but the vocabulary causes so many misunderstandings and blowups. I don't like to think that the packaging can impair the concept like that, but it really does hurt the spread of the valuable meme that's in there underneath.

I see nothing of value in any of these conversations.  I see mountains of butthurt, and until you came along, nobody doing a fucking thing to attempt to correct misconceptions.  I see people using this as a means to project their fears or merely use it as a club to beat people with.

Now I understand the concept, and I appreciate that, but I no longer have to urge to discuss it because the people I'd be discussing it have been more interested in clubbing people than they were in the idea imparting that information in the first place.

I'm not sure what to do if you see no point in these conversations, because I think they're important. Corbeau explained things I didn't and I'm sorry for that. And while I left things out, I did try to make sure I wasn't clubbing anyone.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 07:33:40 AM
I'm not sure what to do if you see no point in these conversations, because I think they're important.

Yeah, they're so fucking important that I got blasted with texts telling me what a complete shitbag I am, in the middle of a huge welcome home party I was throwing for a friend, trashing my mood to a degree that my guests noticed.  I spent the whole evening explaining to worried friends that I wasn't upset with them in any way or anything.

They're so fucking important that for the horrible crimes of A) knowing Alty, and B) going over the top¹, I am now a "so-called friend" of Nigel's.  I am also Archie Bunker reincarnated, if not Lester fucking Maddox.

Yes, this conversation has been important - in an extremely negative way - because it was more important to shout at people or accuse them of being "the problem" than it was to explain privilege theory in the first fucking place, at least until CorbeauEtRenard saw fit to do so.

It has in fact been so important that I have spent the last hour trying to decide if I want to bother with any of this shit anymore, feminism, privilege, or PD as a whole.  The subject is now fucking toxic as hell, and it's infecting everything.

Because it was more important to tell everyone how privileged they are, rather than explaining what that term meant.





¹  Because I totally want to molest 7.3 Bn people.  There's no way that was a joke or anything.  FFS.

In all fairness, I do recall an explanation of privilege being posted in an earlier thread, I think by Pixie.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 07:51:18 AM
In all fairness, I do recall an explanation of privilege being posted in an earlier thread, I think by Pixie.

I must have missed it.  There's only been about 3 million threads about this shit, all of which have turned into the same thing by page 3.

What I have learned:  Cain is right 169% of the time, and I should start paying more attention to what he says.

Also, in all fairness, though I understand how you feel and why you feel that way, try to remember that you're mad at one person, and PD has a whole lot of other people. So it would be easy for someone else to overreact in kind along the lines of "Oh, you're just here because of Nigel and if you and her have a falling out the rest of us are chopped liver, huh buddy?"

In short, this too shall pass.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 07:57:21 AM
Also, in all fairness, though I understand how you feel and why you feel that way, try to remember that you're mad at one person, and PD has a whole lot of other people. So it would be easy for someone else to overreact in kind along the lines of "Oh, you're just here because of Nigel and if you and her have a falling out the rest of us are chopped liver, huh buddy?"

In short, this too shall pass.

Yeah, I'll be over the whole rage thing in a few hours.  Apologies to everyone not involved.

That was Nigel? Dude, Nigel, what the fuck? 

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 07:58:58 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 07:57:21 AM
Also, in all fairness, though I understand how you feel and why you feel that way, try to remember that you're mad at one person, and PD has a whole lot of other people. So it would be easy for someone else to overreact in kind along the lines of "Oh, you're just here because of Nigel and if you and her have a falling out the rest of us are chopped liver, huh buddy?"

In short, this too shall pass.

Yeah, I'll be over the whole rage thing in a few hours.  Apologies to everyone not involved.

Apology accepted, though not needed. I try to stay far away from this type of stuff, but I feel bad for Roger, and the way this page has played out is fucked up. I wanna give the guy a hug.
And with that, I'm out of this thread.

I have an idea and it's open to criticism. It might help to rephrase how we talk about prejudices, so instead of referring to some nebulous entity like The Culture or The Society we talk about individuals; "most people" is I think more honest than "the culture," because culture isn't a solid block of One Ideology, it's an ocean or forest made up of tons of unique individuals each acting and believing in slightly or vastly different ways. Culture doesn't exist except in the minds of individual people, collectively. Saying "the culture" almost as if it's the whole population is misleading.

I think this also ties into Roger's idea about fixing the issue locally, with peer pressure. It focuses on the individual's wrongness rather than something outside of them.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 07:26:01 AM
I see nothing of value in any of these conversations.  I see mountains of butthurt, and until you came along, nobody doing a fucking thing to attempt to correct misconceptions.

I thought Garbo addressed them well here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33194.msg1206328.html#msg1206328), and then reiterated here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33194.msg1206350.html#msg1206350)...?

Sounds like a decent idea, epi.  No idea how to implement, though.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 12:11:44 AM
I'm sorry that I made assumptions. I ought to know better. That's my fault. But you are, nevertheless, white and a cis male, yes? That right there still puts you into the dominant group in two very important ways (I think I've said this before, but one's sex/gender, race, and class are the three biggest determiners of how your life will go and how others will treat you).
It's not fear, it's wariness. Jesus. If I thought everything was out to get me, I'd never go anywhere except to therapy or something. Can we not derail this further?

I've previously rejected your language of classification and am offended that once again you have applied it to me. Even by your definitions, no technically I am not. Make no further attempts to shoehorn me.

I find myself viewing everyone's posts in this thread as very valid, but at a loss in terms of putting it into words. As much as I want to disagree with the guy, RWHN makes some excellent points.

I think the problem is in generalizations—which in one sense are true, but in another sense gloss over the complexities of reality. When we talk about the former it seems to preclude the latter, and vice versa. Probabilistically speaking, cis white guys are the easily identifiable, everyday oppressor. But on the other hand, that can easily be seen as insulting to the cis white guys that have an obvious commitment to equality. It's less likely according to the probability, but still very real.

It's much harder to discern the insidious but also ever present effect of wealth/income inequality, in spite of it having a more encompassing and deterministic effect on one's privilege. Coming from a cis white male standpoint, I naturally gravitate to the economic class distinctions, as that is the most salient perception to me—it's what I was born into from middle class parents. What I'm subjected to is primarily class warfare. If I had been born female, the most salient perception from my everyday life would probably be the males of wide ranging socio-economic status, not just those born into wealth. What women are subjected to is primarily patriarchical bullshit.

Kyriarchy is a complicated mess of distinctions that we're not used to compiling, but a crucial challenge to sort through. Anyone who has participated in feminism/egalitarian threads even the slightest bit ought to be commended for grappling with an extremely difficult topic. Thank you for having the courage. This shit is fraught with hard to perceive bias and traumatic experiences so it's prone to fallout. But at the same time, it's fertile with getting beyond yourself and removing your head from your ass.

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 03:29:00 AM
But on the whole, men still have certain privileges and status that women do not, regardless of class or race or any other factor.

No, that's bullshit, not "regardless of class".  You can't tell me the white single Dad on welfare has some level of privilege over Nancy Pelosi.  That's just such an insanely stupid thing to suggest that it pretty much discredits any supposed authority you think you have on this subject.

Also fellas, it really IS okay to agree with me on other things even though we disagree on drugs.  I promise it won't sting too much.  ;)

Quote from: CorbeauEtRenard on September 09, 2012, 06:51:40 AM
It seems to me like a large part of the problem here is the problem I almost inevitably see crop up in discussions involving Privilege Theory.

There isn't a clear enough emphasis that privilege is something that happens to some people, not something they are doing.

Receiving privilege does not make someone "part of the problem" and in most cases, one could not divest oneself of a given form of privilege even if one tried.
Receiving privilege doesn't make you part of an oppressive class, it makes you part of a class that is favored in some way by society and/or culture.
Receiving privilege doesn't mean you can't have valid insights, but it does mean there's probably some different cognitive biases that are likely to be at play in your worldview than the cognitive biases likely to effect people who didn't receive that particular privilege.

A thousand times this.
I kind of thought this had already been pointed out, but I doubt any of us has a clear memory of more than a couple percent of this discussion by now anyhow.

I have to say though, this concept of all-pervasive memetic oppression – i.e. that it's not some concrete group of people doing the oppression but mainly everyone who isn't aware of it – seems to me very similar to (my understanding of) the concept of The Machine. So I'm kinda surprised how hard a time the concept has had getting traction in this discussion. And again, while I personally just make an effort to see past divisive language, I do think the divisive language is a big factor in this.

It's not men that oppress women. It's that people of all sexes and genders routinely participate in social and memetic systems that oppress everyone based on gender pigeonholes. The oppression is different for men and women. At this point I see no value at all in reiterating that "women have it worse". I personally happen to think it's true, but it's rhetorically pointless and counter-productive to make that the point of the discussion. The goal should be to identify forms of gender-based oppression and figure out how to counteract them. This is only possible on an individual level – you can't break The Machine or even directly change it, but you can locally tweak it in small ways, which over time can accumulate, possibly then become integrated in The Machine, and then possibly alleviate some of the oppression.

That said, because of men being a culturally privileged class, with a lot of culture catering towards some imaginary Typical White Straight Male, it's crucial to look specifically at how other groups, the biggest one being women, are oppressed. Not necessarily because "women have it worse", but because male privilege makes oppression of women either less visible to men (= men are usually not aware of the kind of stuff in the OP link) or seem natural and unavoidable (think of tropes like "women are better at X than at math/science/management" as an alternative to "women are kept from attaining important positions in society"). Insisting that "women have it worse" is just as counterproductive as insisting that "men have it just as bad".


Aside from all of that, the scientist in me is jarred by the insistence that no discussion of gender-based oppression take place without reference to other dimensions of oppression. (I'm talking about things like RWHN's reply to GARBO just now.) Throughout this discussion, we've repeatedly reached the point where everyone who's otherwise focussing on the oppression of women has to acknowledge that class is a huge factor in oppression as well. And class really is a huge factor, of course. But the discussion can be perfectly valid, and imho more in-depth and illuminating, when it abstracts away from other dimensions of oppression. Parallel discussions about race or class which abstract away from gender are valid and necessary as well. But when a big swathe of the population has a certain type of experience because of a common denominator, and the rest of the population does not have that type of experience and may not even be aware of it, you're not going to get a coherent view of anything by trying to take ALL factors into account all of the time. There are some things which suck about being a chick, some things that suck about being a dude, some things that suck about being a PoC, etc. By focussing on one of these you can get into the nitty-gritty and figure some possibly important details out; by insisting that every mention of oppression towards women be made relative to all other factors you're placing too high a hurdle for any kind of useful generalization to be made.

Generalizations are not avoidable. They have some nasty side-effects which you have to be aware of. They should not be used to pigeonhole individuals like GARBO just did to Faust, for example. But we humans cannot understand anything we don't already know without using it. Insisting that no generalization be used at all, even in a group like this one, highly aware of its ill effects, can come across as, and often functions as, a way to shut down the conversation altogether. (I know it's not intended this way, this just seems to me to be the impact it has.)

To me, one of the cool things about this discussion has been that all these discussions of specific and general aspects of gender-based oppression, especially the oppression of women, which I don't experience myself, have given me a better understanding of oppression in general, one which I can generalize and apply to other forms of oppression. Discussions of Kyriarchy/The Machine/intersectionality as a whole would be fascinating, but far more abstract and difficult to gain direct insights from, IMHO. And gender-focussed discussions, even female-focussed discussions, feed into that kind of discussion in a way that seems highly productive and well worth the time.

I honestly don't remember the last time I've found a discussion of any sort in any form as interesting and important as this one. ETA: Meaning the gender inequality threads in the past weeks here, taken together.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 11:57:36 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 03:29:00 AM
But on the whole, men still have certain privileges and status that women do not, regardless of class or race or any other factor.

No, that's bullshit, not "regardless of class".  You can't tell me the white single Dad on welfare has some level of privilege over Nancy Pelosi.  That's just such an insanely stupid thing to suggest that it pretty much discredits any supposed authority you think you have on this subject.

it's privilege of not privilege over.

Men are the baseline for normal, so there are things that work better for us, in terms of sexual and cultural norms.

Everyone has privleges.

White people can buy skin coloured bandaids that are actually skin coloured.

Men can be openly into sex without being shit on.

Middle class don't have to live day by day

Women are allowed to pay more attention to fasion

And so on. It doesn't have to be an amazing advantage to be privilege. It just has to be a little social reward for you bring lucky enough to fall in with a particular group.

The reason it comes up in discussion is because when we compare male privilege to female privilege it becomes clear that the male privleges are a bit better.

The problem I've seen with the gender/privilege discussion is that the generalization seems to be accompanied with a notion of "you haven't walked in our shoes".  And that,for me,where the generalization doesn't work.  If you want to talk broadly about gender inequality,that's one thing, but if it becomes used,inaccurately,as a cudgel against, in this case men,suggesting "you don't know what it's like", well that's a problem, and it doesn't work.  Because as I've pointed out, and will continue to point out, there are many,many men who are in less privileged positions in society compared to many,many women because of issues of class.


So sure,have the generalized gender inequality discussion,but maybe drop the "men don't know what it's like" part in termsof privilege because inmany cases it is a load of bullshit.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 12:40:49 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 11:57:36 AM

Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 09, 2012, 03:29:00 AM
But on the whole, men still have certain privileges and status that women do not, regardless of class or race or any other factor.

No, that's bullshit, not "regardless of class".  You can't tell me the white single Dad on welfare has some level of privilege over Nancy Pelosi.  That's just such an insanely stupid thing to suggest that it pretty much discredits any supposed authority you think you have on this subject.

it's privilege of not privilege over.

Men are the baseline for normal, so there are things that work better for us, in terms of sexual and cultural norms.

Everyone has privleges.

White people can buy skin coloured bandaids that are actually skin coloured.

Men can be openly into sex without being shit on.

Middle class don't have to live day by day

Women are allowed to pay more attention to fasion

And so on. It doesn't have to be an amazing advantage to be privilege. It just has to be a little social reward for you bring lucky enough to fall in with a particular group.

The reason it comes up in discussion is because when we compare male privilege to female privilege it becomes clear that the male privleges are a bit better.

For those men in a position in society to actually benefit from that privilege.  What about the poor guy who canonly get food onthe table and can't buy flesh colored band aids?  What about the skinny ugly white guy who is socially undesireable for sex?  You are talking theory,divided from reality.  The privilege is ther for some men to take advantage of but there are many, because of class, who could never dream to wield it.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 12:44:07 PM
The problem I've seen with the gender/privilege discussion is that the generalization seems to be accompanied with a notion of "you haven't walked in our shoes".  And that,for me,where the generalization doesn't work.  If you want to talk broadly about gender inequality,that's one thing, but if it becomes used,inaccurately,as a cudgel against, in this case men,suggesting "you don't know what it's like", well that's a problem, and it doesn't work.  Because as I've pointed out, and will continue to point out, there are many,many men who are in less privileged positions in society compared to many,many women because of issues of class.


So sure,have the generalized gender inequality discussion,but maybe drop the "men don't know what it's like" part in termsof privilege because inmany cases it is a load of bullshit.

So RWHN, in a discussion of class, women can claim to know what it's like to be in a non-privileged class even if they aren't in that class? Because being non-privileged in one way gives you perfect knowledge of being non-privileged in all other ways?

Bullshit. I don't know what it's like to be a woman, and I don't know what it's like to be destitute, because I'm a middle class man. I know what it's like to be oppressed, we all do, but I don't know what it's like to be oppressed for being a woman.

ETA quote.

And that's just it,there are so many layers and so many variables within groups whether it is gender, class, race, etc.  So it makes no sense, to me, to assume blanket privilege amongst ALL men because, no, not all men enjoy privilege.  It's just not true.

Let me give you another example.  I'm taking on this intern, he's a 40-something, very blue-collar, former trucker who is pursuing an Associates in drug&alcohol counseling.  He's been turned down for internships by many organizations in my area.  I have no doubt in my mind the reason he has been turned down is because he isn't fitting a mold.  If he was a 20-something female student, he would have been snatched up in an instant.  But because he's this big, blue-collar big-rig operator, nobody wants anything to do with him.  So I say again, privilege doesn't work for ALL men, AND, there are times when women enjoy privilege, my example being one small one.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 01:07:54 PM
And that's just it,there are so many layers and so many variables within groups whether it is gender, class, race, etc.  So it makes no sense, to me, to assume blanket privilege amongst ALL men because, no, not all men enjoy privilege.  It's just not true.

But you can be privileged in some ways and not in others -- that's what kyriarchy is all about. I am a white woman. I don't experience societal privilege on the basis of gender, but I do on the basis of my race. If we were discussing race, it would be disingenuous to say I'm not privileged because I experience oppression as a woman. I don't have gender privilege, but I have racial privilege. How those affect me depends entirely on the situation. There will be situations where I am better off than a black man (I can, for example, walk into a convenience store wearing a hoodie and be fairly safe in the assumption that I will not be assumed to be carrying a weapon) and there will be situations where that black man will be better off than me (he will not risk being passed over for a promotion because he has young children, for example).

There's actually a real disconnect with the way the word "privilege" is used in everyday speak and the way it's used in feminist/kyriarchy/etc discussions, and I think that might be part of the issue here (or not; I have skipped over parts of the thread). Privilege, in this context, doesn't mean "everything is good for you and you have no idea what suffering is", because that would be ridiculous.

How are you defining it?


It IS a loaded word, on a certain level, no matter how you define it.  If you tell some poor white dude on the corner he has privilege, regardless of how you are using it, he's probably going to laugh in your face and then go cry in a corner.  For me, it borders on offensive in that context.

Again, RWHN:

Quote from: CorbeauEtRenard on September 09, 2012, 06:51:40 AM
It seems to me like a large part of the problem here is the problem I almost inevitably see crop up in discussions involving Privilege Theory.

There isn't a clear enough emphasis that privilege is something that happens to some people, not something they are doing.

Receiving privilege does not make someone "part of the problem" and in most cases, one could not divest oneself of a given form of privilege even if one tried.
Receiving privilege doesn't make you part of an oppressive class, it makes you part of a class that is favored in some way by society and/or culture.
Receiving privilege doesn't mean you can't have valid insights, but it does mean there's probably some different cognitive biases that are likely to be at play in your worldview than the cognitive biases likely to effect people who didn't receive that particular privilege.

This seems like the best explanation of the concept so far, though it only makes sense in the context of a system of oppression where you can be privileged in one way and unprivileged in another way.


There also seems to be a confusion about two senses of "regardless" that comes up here. "Women are worse off, regardless of class" can mean class doesn't play a factor (which would be a stupid falsehood) OR it could mean "class being equal, women are worse off" or "taking only gender into account, women are worse off" or something like that, which is a vey different thing to say. Granted, "regardless" isn't usually used in the latter sense, so that can be a poor choice of words, but ignoring certain factors in order to focus on others is not only okay, it's sometimes necessary.

Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

All men enjoy the privleges that come with being men even if their overall situation is still worse than most peoples because of other factors.

Even if I'm a poor gay lady, I can still have white privilege by not having to put up with some if the crap other racial groups have. This isn't less true because many.many.people are better off than me

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

I think you're not getting this (at least in the way I understand it). Being poor doesn't cancel out gender inequality, it just causes it to be expressed in different ways. The other day a female friend remarked she's pretty sure gender inequality is worse the poorer the social group. (From her experience as a teacher, having contact with dozens of families over the years, from very different classes.)

And again, privilege isn't about enjoying anything. It's about being treated better, on some dimension, than some other group. You might be on the other end of the spectrum on some other dimension, the two things are separate and interact but, I emphasize, do not generally cancel each other out.

That said, this topic does have to be communicated in a way that acknowledges that it's Kyriarchy, not just Patriarchy. But practically everyone discussing Patriarchy here has acknowledged that, explicitly, many times.

I was trying to say earlier in this thread that what others call privilege comes with a shadow side that is far from enjoyable.  I mentioned that men dying in wars and and taking over 90% of death-prone jobs is a direct result of that privilege that folks in this thread are saying that men enjoy. I tried to say that men bought this notion that it's somehow a good position to be in...when in fact we've been hoodwinked into believing that the so called power and privilege that men do have is actually a covert form of oppression.  You might say that men have oppressed themselves, in some sense.

Exactly.

Quote from: VERBL on September 09, 2012, 12:17:28 PM

Quote from: CorbeauEtRenard on September 09, 2012, 06:51:40 AM
It seems to me like a large part of the problem here is the problem I almost inevitably see crop up in discussions involving Privilege Theory.

There isn't a clear enough emphasis that privilege is something that happens to some people, not something they are doing.

Receiving privilege does not make someone "part of the problem" and in most cases, one could not divest oneself of a given form of privilege even if one tried.
Receiving privilege doesn't make you part of an oppressive class, it makes you part of a class that is favored in some way by society and/or culture.
Receiving privilege doesn't mean you can't have valid insights, but it does mean there's probably some different cognitive biases that are likely to be at play in your worldview than the cognitive biases likely to effect people who didn't receive that particular privilege.

A thousand times this.
I kind of thought this had already been pointed out, but I doubt any of us has a clear memory of more than a couple percent of this discussion by now anyhow.

Not so!  Go ask Epi, the human fucking pilot fish.

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 02:22:42 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

All men enjoy the privleges that come with being men even if their overall situation is still worse than most peoples because of other factors.

Tell that to the poor whit guy who can't even get into the door for a job interview.  Or the intern I talked about who got passed over by many other places while his female classmates were already starting internships.  Yeah, that "privilege" is really doing wonders for him.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:36:44 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 02:22:42 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

All men enjoy the privleges that come with being men even if their overall situation is still worse than most peoples because of other factors.

Tell that to the poor whit guy who can't even get into the door for a job interview.  Or the intern I talked about who got passed over by many other places while his female classmates were already starting internships.  Yeah, that "privilege" is really doing wonders for him.

RWHN, not sure why you're doing this.  There is only one permissable answer and no permissable arguments or questions.  Meta discussion of this particular thread is possible, but discussion of the topic itself is not.

Quote from: VERBL on September 09, 2012, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

I think you're not getting this (at least in the way I understand it). Being poor doesn't cancel out gender inequality, it just causes it to be expressed in different ways. The other day a female friend remarked she's pretty sure gender inequality is worse the poorer the social group. (From her experience as a teacher, having contact with dozens of families over the years, from very different classes.)

And again, privilege isn't about enjoying anything. It's about being treated better, on some dimension, than some other group. You might be on the other end of the spectrum on some other dimension, the two things are separate and interact but, I emphasize, do not generally cancel each other out.

That said, this topic does have to be communicated in a way that acknowledges that it's Kyriarchy, not just Patriarchy. But practically everyone discussing Patriarchy here has acknowledged that, explicitly, many times.

It isn't about enjoying anything, it is about being treated better...


Please tell me that you understand that those two phrases are at odds with each other. 

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:38:10 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:36:44 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 02:22:42 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

All men enjoy the privleges that come with being men even if their overall situation is still worse than most peoples because of other factors.

Tell that to the poor whit guy who can't even get into the door for a job interview.  Or the intern I talked about who got passed over by many other places while his female classmates were already starting internships.  Yeah, that "privilege" is really doing wonders for him.

RWHN, not sure why you're doing this.  There is only one permissable answer and no permissable arguments or questions.  Meta discussion of this particular thread is possible, but discussion of the topic itself is not.

It's just sticking in my craw for reasons I've explained.  This high-level, generalized paradigm just doesn't work.  It doesn't jive with reality, at all.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:41:22 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:38:10 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:36:44 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 02:22:42 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

All men enjoy the privleges that come with being men even if their overall situation is still worse than most peoples because of other factors.

Tell that to the poor whit guy who can't even get into the door for a job interview.  Or the intern I talked about who got passed over by many other places while his female classmates were already starting internships.  Yeah, that "privilege" is really doing wonders for him.

RWHN, not sure why you're doing this.  There is only one permissable answer and no permissable arguments or questions.  Meta discussion of this particular thread is possible, but discussion of the topic itself is not.

It's just sticking in my craw for reasons I've explained.  This high-level, generalized paradigm just doesn't work.  It doesn't jive with reality, at all.

Neither does this discussion.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: VERBL on September 09, 2012, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

I think you're not getting this (at least in the way I understand it). Being poor doesn't cancel out gender inequality, it just causes it to be expressed in different ways. The other day a female friend remarked she's pretty sure gender inequality is worse the poorer the social group. (From her experience as a teacher, having contact with dozens of families over the years, from very different classes.)

And again, privilege isn't about enjoying anything. It's about being treated better, on some dimension, than some other group. You might be on the other end of the spectrum on some other dimension, the two things are separate and interact but, I emphasize, do not generally cancel each other out.

That said, this topic does have to be communicated in a way that acknowledges that it's Kyriarchy, not just Patriarchy. But practically everyone discussing Patriarchy here has acknowledged that, explicitly, many times.

It isn't about enjoying anything, it is about being treated better...


Please tell me that you understand that those two phrases are at odds with each other. 

Umm, yeah. Have you been reading what I'm writing? Because I keep saying it's about being treated better, too. And like I keep repeating, these distinctions take place on multiple dimensions on the same time. This point has been established, acknowledged, and repeated, several times within the last 24 hours and far more times within the last month. What are you waiting for me to say? Or for anybody to say? Nobody is claiming that the only form of privilege/oppression that exists is the gender-based kind. Nobody, as far as I can recall, is even saying it's the worst kind that exists. I and a few others here just insist that it does exist, and that it impacts women in ways that are not obvious to men. This does not come instead of any other aspect of the bigger picture, but it certainly seems to be part of it.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:43:36 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:41:22 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:38:10 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:36:44 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 02:22:42 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

All men enjoy the privleges that come with being men even if their overall situation is still worse than most peoples because of other factors.

Tell that to the poor whit guy who can't even get into the door for a job interview.  Or the intern I talked about who got passed over by many other places while his female classmates were already starting internships.  Yeah, that "privilege" is really doing wonders for him.

RWHN, not sure why you're doing this.  There is only one permissable answer and no permissable arguments or questions.  Meta discussion of this particular thread is possible, but discussion of the topic itself is not.

It's just sticking in my craw for reasons I've explained.  This high-level, generalized paradigm just doesn't work.  It doesn't jive with reality, at all.

Neither does this discussion.

Dude. If you don't want to be part of the discussion anymore that's your prerogative but how about not trying to derail it for everyone else with snark and butthurt? All you have to do is not click the thread.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 09, 2012, 05:07:16 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:43:36 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:41:22 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 09, 2012, 04:38:10 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 04:36:44 PM

Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 09, 2012, 02:22:42 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 09, 2012, 02:17:21 PM
Not if it is in a context where it alienates those who do not enjoy the privilege because of those other factors like class.  Especially if you want them to be allies or to just philosophically support your cause.

All men enjoy the privleges that come with being men even if their overall situation is still worse than most peoples because of other factors.

Tell that to the poor whit guy who can't even get into the door for a job interview.  Or the intern I talked about who got passed over by many other places while his female classmates were already starting internships.  Yeah, that "privilege" is really doing wonders for him.

RWHN, not sure why you're doing this.  There is only one permissable answer and no permissable arguments or questions.  Meta discussion of this particular thread is possible, but discussion of the topic itself is not.

It's just sticking in my craw for reasons I've explained.  This high-level, generalized paradigm just doesn't work.  It doesn't jive with reality, at all.

Neither does this discussion.

Dude. If you don't want to be part of the discussion anymore that's your prerogative but how about not trying to derail it for everyone else with snark and butthurt? All you have to do is not click the thread.

Point.

Baboonery over.