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

[Chaser]

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.

[Placid Dingo]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Juana]

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.

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.

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.

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  ) 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.

[Juana]

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?

[Chaser]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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?

[Luna]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Luna]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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".

[Juana]

Ah. Sorry, guys. When I've used "you" I've tended to mean a generalized 'you'. I'll try to keep that in mind.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Verbal Mike]

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.