I browse hatrack forums because I find the intelligent discussions here interesting, even if I may not agree with everything.
Several months ago there were a couple of threads on issue of male entitlement/nice guys. Today I discovered this illuminating and powerful essay that discusses these issues at length. It's by a writer named Scott Alexander whom I find hard to ideologically categorize but demonstrates here that he's a sharp and perceptive writer.
So, I read the article, and I found a couple of important mistakes he makes that I feel are made my many of the people in the MRA crowd, and should be pointed out:
1) First, and foremost, his analogy (between poor men and undersexed men) is flawed. Sex is not currency, nor is it something to be bartered, hoarded, traded, or sold.
2) Nice Guys are seldom mocked or despised because they're sad and lonely. Honest to God, if you were to post here talking about being sad and lonely, you would receive sympathy and support, and maybe dating advice if you solicited it. I know this because I've seen other people do it, and I can't think of any time on Hatrack I've seen someone mocked for not being romantically successful. In real life, my guy friends who aren't in relationships usually get sympathy from their female friends, as well as support and offers to try and set them up with other women. ("I know this girl, Carol, at work, I think she would absolutely love you...", etc.)
No, "Nice Guys" are derided for blaming their failure on women for "only liking jerks" and not recognizing what a great guy they are.
3) A large majority of nice, decent men (including the author of that article apparently) do in fact end up with nice, decent women. It takes some longer than others, and some never do, but you can't simply ignore the experience of the majority of the population. Likewise, most of the "Henrys" in the world lead shallow, miserable existences, and usually end up sad and lonely. There's also an assumption that the women that Henry was dating/marrying are the same women that the author would like to date/marry, or that Henry was somehow better off for doing so. I can say that women who go for guys like Henry are generally either very inexperienced (and therefore ignorant of the 15,000 warning signs), or are also horribly broken people who you probably wouldn't be able to form a healthy relationship with, nor want to once the "magic" of being in a sexual relationship wears off. Believe it or not, there are far worse things than being a virgin.
4) The numbers he quotes that show that higher IQ in men correspond to fewer sexual encounters/losing your virginity as a later age are true. What he fails to mention is the same is true for higher IQ in women. Being more selective about which mate you choose and having fewer sexual partners is hardly a bad thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I notice Mr. Alexander has closed his comments thread how dare he stifle debate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so there's this place i go to called hatrack, see
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
some times it is this surreal comedy show of the world's most inane things
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i like this one part about it that some people figured out a long time ago that you can just make a bunch of accounts if you're totally obsessed about something and want to keep coming back and totally pretending you're totally a new person
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's great because pretty much nobody ever learns. it doesn't matter if you've pretty much totally proven that you're literally just flat-out insane and obsessive about something and got banned for it
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
just make a new account and be all like "oh hey guys! this is an interesting subject you are talking about. female erotic capital,"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it literally doesn't even matter that you have on multiple accounts spammed the forum with literal hate speech, like literally even just straight up classified by groups like the SPLC, hate speech towards a specific minority, which has been motivated rather callously by a neurotic interest and obsession with it
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it doesn't matter if you have multiple times in the past literally just even made the forum a hostile environment towards women and on multiple occasions on multiple accounts refused to let those subjects go when asked by a moderator
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's a two-pronged thing. first, traditionally, a new account doing the same thing as your last 16 accounts was, bizarrely, no matter what, given some sort of benefit of the doubt, like it had to conclusively prove that it was you (even when it was obviously you)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
just as long as you didn't outright admit that you were totally that user who has been banned multiple times you could do it over and over again
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and then, and this was the best totally bestest part, you could totally just bait so many users into discussion again just like usual. you could put up a front of pissery and be all like "obviously you just want to stifle dissent and that is why you accuse me of being this former user, clearly you don't want to address my various screeds about how women are inferior creatures that need to be commanded by men"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like they just totally go for it over and over. i mean it's not the best deal in the whole world because even though you can have a little fun dicking around on some obscure forum, you're still a really tragic figure who will probably never overcome your various neuroses and obsessions with women and when you look at the whole picture and the surrogate mother thing, it's just really undeniably tragic, it's pathological
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but nobody can deny that the way that the forum responds is just hi-laaaaaaaaaaar-ious, it's always something you can go back and do for a lark
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but that all changed
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
THE DAY THE FIRE NATION ATTACKED
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the aristocrats
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Oh hi Sam.
Would you believe my response is mostly engineered in a way to try and get Clive to use the phrase "female erotic capital"? It seems, like Dr. Strangelove's arm, no matter how hard he tries to suppress it it invariably pops back up again.
Why do I do this you ask? Well, because it's fun, and I figure other people might enjoy discussing it too. Now you've gone and scared him away.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i do not disagree that there is plenty of entertainment to be had in it like there is to be had in poking practically any pathological grab-bag of crazy, or aggressively trying to hammer down the story of their deserving banishment. so, i have some good news: i am pretty sure i haven't scared him away. this is not something he can resist. so our desires are compatible
and yes by now "female erotic capital" is the freebie on the Clive bingo card
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, I appreciate your game, Dogbreath, but it's pretty unsporting, ain't it? He has either proven completely incapable of avoiding reference to feminine sexuality as a commodity, or he has done so masterfully enough that he has gone unnoticed!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Its 2014, doesn't the forum have some kind of IP tracker/blocker service? He's bound to run out of computers eventually
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Now you've gone and scared him away.
Don't get my hopes up!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Its 2014, doesn't the forum have some kind of IP tracker/blocker service? He's bound to run out of computers eventually
If anything, the fact that its 2014 makes it more difficult. He can request new dynamically assigned ip addresses from his ISP. He can go through Tor, he can go through VPNs. There are many ways of circumventing ip address-based bans.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hey, I appreciate your game, Dogbreath, but it's pretty unsporting, ain't it? He has either proven completely incapable of avoiding reference to feminine sexuality as a commodity, or he has done so masterfully enough that he has gone unnoticed!
Well, the article he posted literally compares a man in poverty to s man who doesn't have as much sex as he would like, and goes on for quite a bit about this "injustice", so yeah...
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Even banning an IP can be a problem, since you can end up banning everyone behind a particular proxy server, or using a public computer. On a site like this the chances of affecting other people who want to use the forum is relatively low, but given how easy the ban is to circumvent, it's not a worthwhile tactic even if the risk is low, IMO.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
objects in mirror: Just one question, why are you using a proxy IP address every time you log in?
It's certainly possible you have a legitimate reason for doing so.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually *would* have liked to talk about this article in a non-Clive context.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: objects in mirror: Just one question, why are you using a proxy IP address every time you log in?
It's certainly possible you have a legitimate reason for doing so.
A shocking twist!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which one, Raymond? The original?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Its 2014, doesn't the forum have some kind of IP tracker/blocker service? He's bound to run out of computers eventually
If anything, the fact that its 2014 makes it more difficult. He can request new dynamically assigned ip addresses from his ISP. He can go through Tor, he can go through VPNs. There are many ways of circumventing ip address-based bans.
In fact most ISPs use dynamic IP addresses for the average user by default. You have to request a static IP and it will usually cost you most. My IP address usually changes every couple weeks or so. I would guess that someone else probably ends up with my old IP address and they just rotate IP addresses around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Raymond,
I guess my first beef with the article is the comparison it starts out with: economic success and romantic or sexual success. Both of them are human efforts so I think there is going to be some connection, of course. You can connect sex and/or romance and/or money to so many things since they're so fundamental to the whole 'being a human being' schtick we've all got going. How is sex like sculpting? How is getting a good job like being a good cook?
But when you start digging too deep on it, the comparison starts to crumble PDQ. Some of the same skills that might make one successful in romance or in having sex with desirable partners will be helpful in getting a good job, of course. Vice versa. Some of the results of having a good job will help, and vice versa as well. Then there's his beef with 'something this objectionable could only be from the 'social justice movement'' which seems like it simply means 'anytime someone is complaining about something in a way I don't like'.
Then there's the problem of how the first place he goes when he talks about the plight of the nice single guy is serial domestic wifebeaters. You can see how flawed his premise is right from the start. 'Henry clearly has no problems with women'. Well, I think Detroit is a city that has nearly 1,000,000 people in it, certainly more than a half a million people in it. So, no, in fact a man with five ex wives is not at all necessarily someone who 'clearly has no problem with women'. The very fact that he is a serially violent spouse at least begs the question (to me, it shouts it) that there is some serious pre-selection going on. The writer of this article doesn't even consider this question.
Most people don't know 'a Henry', either. Most people don't even know someone who has been married nearly half a dozen times, still less beaten all of their spouses.
The No True Scotsman complaint is, finally, a valid complaint in the article. It takes him quite awhile to get to one, but he does get there eventually. I think it's one that's worthy of discussion. The trouble is, if he's going to complain of that argument being used against him in defense of feminists, he's certainly going to be facing an uphill battle speaking out about Nice Guys and MRA types.
There was certainly some ugliness in the Jezebel article linked within his piece. I can only say that it doesn't excuse it to point out that it *might* be worthwhile to consider just what that sort of animosity is in response to. It cannot be simply the delight women (and their male toadies) take in scorning the awkward.
He then rejects completely the idea that there are nice guys who are shy, and there are nice guys who feel entitled to sex because they are (in their own estimation) nice. This is a pretty absurd premise, in my opinion. He then goes for broke likening it to racism, as he did to domestic violence earlier.
Bottom line? Anyone can complain about being single. Happens all the time. But frankly, unless someone is going to preface their complaints with 'I'm venting, and don't want anything other than a listener and some sympathy', then they should not be surprised when people-whether it's in person or online-remark on their complaints and offer input.
I could go on, but at the root of it I think the article is stitched together flawed premises and weak defenses and attacks. I also don't believe that every single date he has asked for has laughed at him-though if it were true? Maybe try not asking out quite so many assholes.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I actually *would* have liked to talk about this article in a non-Clive context.
See my reply to it (first reply in the thread) - I responded to the article, not to Clive. I'd happily discuss it with you if you want.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I also don't believe that every single date he has asked for has laughed at him-though if it were true? Maybe try not asking out quite so many assholes.
*nods* Even in my most awkward years in high school, which is when people are supposedly at their meanest socially, I never got laughed at for asking a girl out. Plently of awkward, uncomfortable rejections, yes. Laughter, no. If as an adult he's being laughed at by every girl he asks out, then there's something seriously wrong here.
As I was writing this, I realized I know some people who tend to laugh or chuckle when they're nervous or uncomfortable. Maybe he's mistaking this for mockery?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I didn't have time to thoroughly read the whole article, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it Raymond.
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: S1) First, and foremost, his analogy (between poor men and undersexed men) is flawed. Sex is not currency, nor is it something to be bartered, hoarded, traded, or sold.
The idea he’s explaining is someone’s reaction to having fundamental needs/desires unmet. The second part of your sentence is prescribing a moral “should” which is the only thing “to be” can mean in that context. Anyway, maybe sex (I wonder why you zero in on that aspect of relationships instead of referencing romantic relationships as a whole) should not be bartered, sold, or bought but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
quote: 2) Nice Guys are seldom mocked or despised because they're sad and lonely. Honest to God, if you were to post here talking about being sad and lonely, you would receive sympathy and support, and maybe dating advice if you solicited it. I know this because I've seen other people do it, and I can't think of any time on Hatrack I've seen someone mocked for not being romantically successful. In real life, my guy friends who aren't in relationships usually get sympathy from their female friends, as well as support and offers to try and set them up with other women. ("I know this girl, Carol, at work, I think she would absolutely love you...", etc.)
No, "Nice Guys" are derided for blaming their failure on women for "only liking jerks" and not recognizing what a great guy they are.
Or they simply feel frustrated by seeing real abrasive jerks have no problem getting relationships while they themselves are lonely and find themselves attacked for complaining by feminists and some folk who see the world through a gynocentric lens.
quote:3) A large majority of nice, decent men (including the author of that article apparently) do in fact end up with nice, decent women. It takes some longer than others, and some never do, but you can't simply ignore the experience of the majority of the population. Likewise, most of the "Henrys" in the world lead shallow, miserable existences, and usually end up sad and lonely. There's also an assumption that the women that Henry was dating/marrying are the same women that the author would like to date/marry, or that Henry was somehow better off for doing so. I can say that women who go for guys like Henry are generally either very inexperienced (and therefore ignorant of the 15,000 warning signs), or are also horribly broken people who you probably wouldn't be able to form a healthy relationship with, nor want to once the "magic" of being in a sexual relationship wears off. Believe it or not, there are far worse things than being a virgin.
Perhaps giving hope and lending your ear and giving sympathetic advice is what nice guys who complain want to, and need to, hear, but that's not what they've been getting from feminist circles as the article explains. Instead, there is typically viturative cackling at their plight, as if, by daring to complain in the first place, they show that they brought their problems upon themselves and deserve their misery.
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I notice Mr. Alexander has closed his comments thread how dare he stifle debate.
After 1200+ comments he has every right to close the comments.
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: stuff
Who did what now?
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Raymond,
I guess my first beef with the article is the comparison it starts out with: economic success and romantic or sexual success. Both of them are human efforts so I think there is going to be some connection, of course. You can connect sex and/or romance and/or money to so many things since they're so fundamental to the whole 'being a human being' schtick we've all got going. How is sex like sculpting? How is getting a good job like being a good cook?
You need shelter, adequate calories, clothing and other items, all of which are basic needs and require a 40 hour job to provide for yourself adequately in our culture. The first man mentioned in the article is deprived because he has to sacrifice too much to get these needs met (he works two jobs, doesn't get time off, etc). It isn't that two random human experiences are being compared but that the idea of romantic deprivation (and complaints it might provoke) is being analogized to another form of deprivation which might also might make a person complain.
[ September 04, 2014, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: objects in mirror ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by objects in mirror:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: stuff
Who did what now?
don't worry your ugly little head over it. so tell us about female erotic capital, fascinating totally new poster
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
Man, what is your problem. It's as if you people were the victims of some traumaitizing trolling. It's not right to be so suspicious and hateful towards every new poster who possibly disagrees with the forum on some socio-political issues.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yo dude already hit that part of the playbook
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you could put up a front of pissery and be all like "obviously you just want to stifle dissent and that is why you accuse me of being this former user, clearly you don't want to address my various screeds about how women are inferior creatures that need to be commanded by men"
even your playing dumb is dumb, get some new material
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: objects in mirror: Just one question, why are you using a proxy IP address every time you log in?
It's certainly possible you have a legitimate reason for doing so.
WOw Mr. Blackblade, I find it curious that you would ask me this publicly on the forum and feed the frenzy of the troll hunters rather than just asking me via email. If you did that, I would have told you that I use this service (Tor browser) because I have been previously hacked.
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: yo dude already hit that part of the playbook
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you could put up a front of pissery and be all like "obviously you just want to stifle dissent and that is why you accuse me of being this former user, clearly you don't want to address my various screeds about how women are inferior creatures that need to be commanded by men"
even your playing dumb is dumb, get some new material
"omg I've anticipated that you would get upset by my provocations god you're dumb lololol"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yes. now tell us more about these females fascinating totally new user
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
don't forget to skirt around and be selectively questioning/attentive to the fact that pretty much everyone is calling you "clive" hmm i wonder what is up with that
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's not right to be so suspicious and hateful towards every new poster who possibly disagrees with the forum on some socio-political issues.
New posters who join only to speak on the pet issue of a former odious troll in a tone that matches him with perfect pitch are rightfully met with suspicion. Feigned outrage doesn't really quell that.
Consider MRA an Advanced Topic for established forum members only.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
y r yu so hostile 2 new mebars
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was an MRA "conference" here in Detroit recently that had a pretty decent turnout. From what I understand, it wasn't an anti-women hate fest, but it was still a missed opportunity to talk about honest to goodness issues and problems facing men and boys.
It's too bad too, there are things that desperately need attention and don't really have a forum for discussion at the national level.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah it would always be nice to talk about, like, how specifically discriminatory lots of patterns of child support / custody hearings go and how it is specifically negative effecting for children
but instead you find yourself talking to someone who literally asserts that they want to move to India because they are one of the only nations that appropriately yokes the ~females~ in appropriate units
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by objects in mirror:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: objects in mirror: Just one question, why are you using a proxy IP address every time you log in?
It's certainly possible you have a legitimate reason for doing so.
WOw Mr. Blackblade, I find it curious that you would ask me this publicly on the forum and feed the frenzy of the troll hunters rather than just asking me via email. If you did that, I would have told you that I use this service (Tor browser) because I have been previously hacked.
I actually appreciate being called Mr. BlackBlade, that kind of made me smile just a little.
I didn't realize asking you why you use a proxy server is somehow throwing you to the dogs, but your reaction to the question is somewhat curious.
You don't seem especially surprised that I knew you were using a proxy, almost like you already knew I was the moderator around here.
Posted by objects in mirror (Member # 13207) on :
Yes, I gathered that you were the mod from my time browsing the forum.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, the people you are likely going to be talking to on these pet issues of yours (women and why they are bitches, that is) already made you. The denial doesn't fool anyone, and in the off chance a less familiar poster wanders in, they'll be linked easily enough to dozens of other posts that bear a remarkable similarity to yours and draw the same conclusions.
Whereas if you simply ignore the 'offensive' accusations-geeze, you've even got *BlackBlade* prodding at you a bit, which considering his saintly attitude towards courtesy is saying something!-you'll get farther in discussing your pet issues.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by objects in mirror: Anyway, maybe sex (I wonder why you zero in on that aspect of relationships instead of referencing romantic relationships as a whole)
Because a relationship without a sexual component (whether that means actually having intercourse, or hugging/kissing/cuddling/petting or other sexual activities with the mutual intention of eventually having intercourse (after marriage or later on)) is, well, a friendship. And friendship with women is something most "Nice Guys" detest. Actually, that's one of the primary identifiers of "Nice Guys" is complaining about being "friend zoned", as if friendship with a woman is something undesirable or insulting.
So yes, the author of the article is talking about sex, and you're talking about sex too. Disguising it as being about "romance" is disingenuous. When he talks about the desire to be in a romantic relationship, he's talking about a sexual relationship.
That doesn't mean all he's interested in is having intercourse and cares nothing about the other aspects of a relationship, or even the other more subtle aspects of sexuality. It means that sex is the key aspect missing from his current relationships with women, and this is what he feels to be unfair.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Scott *is* bitter about Feminism for various reasons and it comes through in essay a lot. He's often a bit uncharitable and mean, which I don't like.
But the Ferrett is very pro-feminist. His point in the essay is that feminists should be more understanding of guys who are struggling with how to get a date while navigating a lot of complex emotions and morals. He also bends over backwards saying that he's *not* saying that this is more important than feminist issues, that it's totally worth some dudes feeling awkward and scared to create a culture where women are safe, where people don't get raped. That entitlement is bad.
But that just because one person/people's problems are *really bad*, doesn't mean you shouldn't be sympathetic to people who's problems are less bad, but still real.
The Ferrett had this one simple point, and most of the article was caveats to make it clear that he wasn't attacking anyone. And the comments were FULL of vitriol, of people assuming the worst about The Ferrett and about the hypothetical people he was defending *just* off of a stereotype, completely ignoring his point.
Yes, entitled people exist, yes the Nice Guy stereotype is real (and common), and it's a problem that needs to be addressed. But Scott's basic point is that Feminists often direct a *lot* of anger at person based on the vaguest of internet comments, before they've learned *anything* about their situation.
Now, it's not a Feminist's job to learn the life the story of every person on the internet and help the or treat them compassionately. But it *is* really simple to *not* heap tons of vitriol upon a person when they say something that vaguely pattern matches to a stereotype.
This is bad behavior, it makes it harder to talk about the real issues. This is the behavior that Scott is trying to call people on.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
So a woman who is experiencing sexism's problems are really bad, but she's still supposed to be showing compassion to a dude who is acting out because he is experiencing problems that are less bad, and that acting out is not only making it clear that he is not showing compassion for her but also in fact part of her problem?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I read the Slatestar article about the same time I read this essay by The Ferrett:
Scott *is* bitter about Feminism for various reasons and it comes through in essay a lot. He's often a bit uncharitable and mean, which I don't like.
But the Ferrett is very pro-feminist. His point in the essay is that feminists should be more understanding of guys who are struggling with how to get a date while navigating a lot of complex emotions and morals. He also bends over backwards saying that he's *not* saying that this is more important than feminist issues, that it's totally worth some dudes feeling awkward and scared to create a culture where women are safe, where people don't get raped. That entitlement is bad.
But that just because one person/people's problems are *really bad*, doesn't mean you shouldn't be sympathetic to people who's problems are less bad, but still real.
The Ferrett had this one simple point, and most of the article was caveats to make it clear that he wasn't attacking anyone. And the comments were FULL of vitriol, of people assuming the worst about The Ferrett and about the hypothetical people he was defending *just* off of a stereotype, completely ignoring his point.
Yes, entitled people exist, yes the Nice Guy stereotype is real (and common), and it's a problem that needs to be addressed. But Scott's basic point is that Feminists often direct a *lot* of anger at person based on the vaguest of internet comments, before they've learned *anything* about their situation.
Now, it's not a Feminist's job to learn the life the story of every person on the internet and help the or treat them compassionately. But it *is* really simple to *not* heap tons of vitriol upon a person when they say something that vaguely pattern matches to a stereotype.
This is bad behavior, it makes it harder to talk about the real issues. This is the behavior that Scott is trying to call people on.
That is outrageous. I can understand how someone might disagree with that guy, but I can't understand how anyone would feel justified in disagreeing with him angrily.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: So a woman who is experiencing sexism's problems are really bad, but she's still supposed to be showing compassion to a dude who is acting out because he is experiencing problems that are less bad, and that acting out is not only making it clear that he is not showing compassion for her but also in fact part of her problem?
I don't think Raymond is quite saying this. I think he would agree that if the man is acting out in a way that contributes to the problem(s) that the women are experiencing, he deserves their criticism.
I think what Raymond is saying is a bit more specific and limited -
That not all things that share features with misogynistic behavior patterns are also misogynistic behavior patterns. e.g. some guys can complain about not being able to get a date without exemplifying the "Nice Guy" syndrome, or a guy saying it is difficult to navigate dating/hookups while making an effort not to violate any boundaries doesn't mean that he thinks he's got the short end of the stick relative to women.
That it's okay to be sympathetic to such problems - it's not the same as defending the other behavior. (It's not the same as defending the Nice Guys, or the guys who think bothering with this consent stuff just ruins everything.)
That being sympathetic to such problems isn't cause for condemnation by social justice advocates.
I think I mostly agree with that, but I think it's still tone deaf and unlikely to work when such things are positioned this way. Instead of "You can/should have sympathy for this guy", I think it should be positioned like "We need to find ways to teach guys to navigate these situations not only ethically but also practically."
That being said, I don't think The Ferrett's blog post received a LOT of vitriol. It received some agreement, some disagreement, and some sort of dismissive comments, and one angry response that I noticed. Overall, I think the discussion was healthy and balanced. Although I suppose it's possible that other vitriolic comments were deleted or are buried in the threading (I hate that kind of threading) where I didn't read deep enough.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
What is the worst thing these men experience? Internet mocking? Lack of sex? Certainly not great things I'll admit.
But women regularly suffer abuse, assault, and even death at the hands of men who felt entitled to their bodies. The last shooting as a scant few months ago and the perpetrator's videos show a deep well of misogyny and entitlement, and I'd say more than a few Nice Guy tendencies like his lament at still being a virgin, not being noticed, etc, which turned into all women are bitches and I'll sure show them good.
Demanding compassion of internet feminists in light of this may be asking just a little bit much.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As I understand it, Raymond isn't "demanding compassion."
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Now, it's not a Feminist's job to learn the life the story of every person on the internet and help the or treat them compassionately ...
He's asking for apathy or indifference.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I was oversimplifying a bit for effect. I haven't seen the behavior being discussed "in the wild," so to speak, but I certainly don't think everyone who is lamenting not being able to get a date is a misogynist. I do think it's tone deaf at this point to take women to task for it in this sort of article. Not that you can't take issue with specific women reacting poorly, I think calling individuals on their actions is fine. But to do it in a general way stikes of the whole mote/log in the eye thing, and is mostly just going to make people roll their eyes and react like I did above.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As I understand it, Raymond isn't "demanding compassion."
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Now, it's not a Feminist's job to learn the life the story of every person on the internet and help the or treat them compassionately ...
He's asking for apathy or indifference.
Which gets into the troublesome history of women being told to keep their mouths shut. Why should only men get to go off half-cocked on people they don't understand and not women?
Everyone should be more understanding towards everyone else. But as long as there are vastly more men being assholes towards women on the internet than the reverse, calling women out on it specifically looks like a double standard.
Which sounds like I'm saying you can't critise women as a group for anything until there is equality, which is not my intent. I just think this particular area is not one where it's warrented.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Compassion and sympathy seem to be what Ferrett is arguing for specifically in his article.
I'm sorry, women are not obligated to make flirting encounters less awkward. Communicating with humans is difficult for everyone. Making it a feminist thing is disingenuous to the overall human experience.
Frankly the few comments I saw to the article didn't seem all that hurtful. There was discussion about how to fix the issue without putting pressure on women, which ferrett didn't act particularly interested in doing.
[ September 05, 2014, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I'm sorry, women are not obligated to make flirting encounters less awkward.
Geez, had I known that, I could have saved myself years of angst! I am way on the undesirable end of Clive's attractiveness scale and if I had could find a way to monetize all the guilt and strategizing I have spent on turning down men (okay and some women) without hurting their feelings or being awkward, I could frikkin retire!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I just think this particular area is not one where it's warrented.
It's ok. I probably agree with this narrowly. I'm pretty apathetic to the issue
I just thought there was a mis-interpretation of what Raymond said and it doesn't seem to me that Raymond is acting under a double standard either.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But the Ferrett is very pro-feminist. His point in the essay is that feminists should be more understanding of guys who are struggling with how to get a date while navigating a lot of complex emotions and morals.
So, I read the article, and I'm wondering - how exactly should they be more understanding?
We were watching TV tonight and I saw an episode of Friends where Monica and Phoebe are strategizing about how to turn down a guy without coming off as a bitch. This is something women actually do frequently attempt to be very understanding about, and discuss and plan out how to go about doing it. Partly out of compassion and sympathy for the man being rejected, and partly because of the fear of an angry or even violent response, or of being called a bitch, slut, etc.
There is actually a tremendous amount of social pressure put on women to be polite and kind when turning down a man's sexual advances (thus the frequent "you're a really wonderful guy and I don't want to ruin our friendship, let's just be friends" line rather than the more honest but more likely to lead to hostility "I am not interested"), and women who don't attempt to be as kind and considerate as possible are frequently punished, by being labeled "heartless", "bitchy", "whore", or sometimes even being sexually or physically assaulted or even murdered to "teach her a lesson."
So perhaps you can see how a woman might be a little frustrating with being told she needs to be more understanding?
Whereas men are subject to little or none of this pressure in return. We're as free to be direct and forward as we wish when turning down sexual advances from women, with comparatively few women complaining about being "friendzoned" or calling guys jerks or assholes for telling them no. Think about the last time you got asked out, did you go to great lengths to find a way to let her down gently, or just say "Oh, um, no. Sorry."
All that goes to say, this isn't really a male-female, female-male, or male-male or female-female problem, it's a universally human, and extends to the awkwardness and anxiety related to rejection in general. I have nothing by sympathy for people who suffer social anxiety, especially with something as fun and exciting as flirting. And I don't think anger is really a healthy or justified response to being flirted with, so long as it's in a appropriate context. (party or bar good, work bad) But I think it's also important to realize that being flirted with can also cause anxiety, especially if it's from someone who is overbearing or socially awkward, and that a mutual understanding of the other's anxiety and attempts to relieve the tension are greatly appreciated.
I guess I should say I don't think someone should be blamed or be the target of anger or ridicule for making a pass at someone in a polite and non-aggressive manner. I actually discussed this point with you before when I defended the guy Rebecca Watson publicly ridiculed. Though ironically, you disagreed with me. (Not that anyone else really agreed with me either. I'm actually happy you've apparently changed your mind, and you'll find I actually agree with you for the most part. ) I think it's a good thing for people of all sexes and gender identities to talk about things that make them anxious and uncomfortable in situations like this, because that leads to greater understanding and makes everyone happier. I feel like calling women "bitches" for politely turning down your advances, or calling men "weirdos" or "creepers" for politely flirting with you in a non-aggressive manner is not conducive to furthering that dialogue.
I more of a "when you do this, I feel this" dialogue is less likely to get a lot of flak than a "you should do this" or "you need to be more this".
I also know what it's like to be dismissed or written off because you may seem similar to a MRA/"Nice Guy, and it can be extremely frustrating. Recently a friend of mine was going off on Facebook about a fashion article, written by a woman, who interviewed 10 random guys asking them one thing they didn't like about their wife's fashion choice and then published it. It was a stupid article with something like "10 things real men hate about your fashion choices" or something, and she was attacking the guys in the article, saying (paraphrasing) "what right do they have to tell women how to dress themselves!" and complaining about how men feel so entitled to control what women wear.
I posted a reply saying that (again paraphrasing), seeing how it was an article written by a woman for women, and that they probably didn't publish any of the guys who replied saying "that's her business, not mine", a better question would be "why do we still promote and consume media that gives men power over women?"
Her response was completely livid, telling me I had no idea about the patriarchy, that I was a sexist pig, that I was "obviously very closed minded", etc. Which really stung, since I put a lot of thought into what I wrote, and I felt like she entirely aimed past me to attack some sexist strawman version of me, simply because I was a man.
Likewise, I am actually a fairly kind, polite, soft spoken person, and I genuinely enjoy being friends with women. Until a few years ago, it was extremely difficult initiating friendship because so many women my age are leery of "Nice Guys" who try to use friendship and kindness to weasel their way into her pants. So ironically, I had a much easier time getting dates than I did getting actual female friends, and I sometimes had to affect a someone more rude and insensitive attitude at first so as not to be mistaken for a "Nice Guy." It can be exhausting.
[ September 06, 2014, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think we actually basically agree.
The behavior I was talking about was not women turning down men, in real life, who are asking them out (creepily or no, it's hard to deal with)
Instead, I was talking about people who hear someone say "Man, I'm a nice guy, why can't I get dates?" and then immediately jump on them for being Nice Guys™ or MRA folk, making all kinds of assumptions without bothering to learn more about them.
(FYI, I do feel bad for the guy who asked Rebecca Watson out by this point, not because of her calling him out, which I thought was as respectful as could possibly be done while making a public service announcement, but because it blew up into this giant internet controversy that probably still haunts him.
I think he made a slight mistep and she politely called him out for the benefit of others. The people I'm most critical there are the people who started launching vitriol at her.)
Basically, I'm anti-people-launching-vitriol-at-each-other.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh, important thing to note: I feel bad for Guy-Who-Asked-Out-Rebecca-Watson. I feel *way* worse for Rebecca Watson, who got tons of vitriol lobbed at her, death threats and more.
Which is Ferrett's point. Someone can have something way worse than another person, and you can still be respectful of the issues both of them face.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I suppose I could see the trouble for GWASRW if he was called out by name. Was he? I can't find anything that says he was. Did he ever come forward on his own?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (FYI, I do feel bad for the guy who asked Rebecca Watson out by this point, not because of her calling him out, which I thought was as respectful as could possibly be done while making a public service announcement, but because it blew up into this giant internet controversy that probably still haunts him.
So, this is honestly what I found to be very frustrating in that thread as well. Apparently you (and everyone else involved) only saw the video and never bothered reading anything she wrote about him somewhat later on. (In that comment thread for the video and later) I know this because I directly quoted a couple of things she said about him and you straight up told me "she never actually said that." She did. And well before there was much controversy or vitirol. To believe she was being polite and respectful as possible simply isn't true, but I didn't care about politeness and respect, honestly. I cared about some of the rather absurd claims she made about the guy. (Saying that him asking her out was him threatening her, calling him a potential rapist, etc. Seriously, just read what she actually said to garner Dawkin's response)
But anyway, the reason I brought it up is The Ferret's blog is *exactly* about this sort of situation. I'm not sure what other interpretation you had of it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I suppose I could see the trouble for GWASRW if he was called out by name. Was he? I can't find anything that says he was. Did he ever come forward on his own?
No, I don't think he was ever identified. (I could be wrong)
Honestly, I don't care about how rude or kind she was to some guy. She should feel no obligation to be nice to someone who hits on her, just because. And so long and she doesn't publish his name, ditto for talking about him online.
It was the things she ridiculed him for, and then extended to all men, that I had an issue with. Much has been made about the elevator, and a PSA saying "women usually don't like being hit on in enclosed spaces, no matter how polite or nonthreatening you are" is something I think should be obvious to most guys, and important for others to hear. And if that was her message, than I would completely agree with it.
Her actual message was actually pretty sexist and unreasonable, and one that I think most people who defended her didn't actually take the time to read. I won't get into it here (I spent a long time getting into it in the other thread), but it's one that not only justifies profiling (which is sometimes necessary), but then places blame and anger for the fear caused by that profiling on the person being profiled. (which is frankly ridiculous)
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I don't remember any of her replies being like you describe.
I don't see her saying or implying that every man is evil. She keeps her complains focused on people's horrible behavior.
This situation reminds me of whats-his-face (I don't care to google his name, because he doesn't deserve the notoriety, thanks) who murdered his (male) roommates and a few other people because he couldn't get a date. Men, remembering rejection, kept projecting themselves in his shoes, not reading *what actually happened*, and that, in additional to being seriously mentally ill, the guy was a horrible human being, full stop.
[ September 08, 2014, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Eh, it's been 3 years, I'm not too motivated in digging up old quotes again. She didn't say all men are evil, but she did say all men are potential rapists, and that justifed treating them a certain way. Which is what led to the disussion about similarly saying "all blacks are potential muggers, so it's their fault I feel scared every time I see one."
FWIW, I don't really sympathize with the guy who hit on her, nor care about how or why she rejected him. He's responsible for his own feelings, and I trust (or hope, I guess) he was able to handle himself like an adult. (I say this because he was by her account very polite and instantly backed off, so I certainly hope he handled it well anyway.)
I usually argue rather harshly against men (here or otherwise) who try and place responsibility for their feelings or blame for their rejection on women. (much like the murderer you mentioned) At the time, I felt RW was trying to place responsibility and blame for her feelings on men. She seems to have backed away from this position since then, which is fine. A lot of my thinking has changed too. So I guess you could say "I'm in favor of not making assumptions about people, and of taking responsibility for one's own feelings and actions." Being called names or having people assume you're "easy" because you look or dress a certain way sucks. Being called a rapist or having people assume you're threatening because you're big and male also sucks. Not nearly as much, and with far less chance of violence, but it still sucks.
And honestly, with the amount of hatred and sexism she's been subjected to, I honestly don't blame RW for her views or consider them very out of line. It's a small mote compared to the giant planks of some of the jerks she's had to deal with, and not one I think I'd be interested in confronting her with, given the chance. (I'd probably be more like "OMG, thank you so much for your courage and hard work over the past few years", she has done quite a bit to give women a voice in the skeptic community)
Also, I'm not sure why you're comparing the elevator guy to the murderer? Or maybe there's something I'm not seeing?
[ September 08, 2014, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
(If it's not absolutely clear, I think the rape/death threats, etc. she recieved in response to her article are absolutely reprehensible and horrid, and I don't think they are in any way warrented or justified. At all.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Eh, it's been 3 years, I'm not too motivated in digging up old quotes again. She didn't say all men are evil, but she did say all men are potential rapists, and that justifed treating them a certain way.
I suspect she wasn't saying every man has the possibility of becoming a rapist but that any man could be a rapist.
All men are potential rapists which is why when you get a in car with a man you don't know well you should keep your purse/bag in your hands and make note of where the door locks and handles are. Why you never leave your drink unattended. Why you have an exit strategy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods* It's a good idea to always be aware of potential threats to your personal safety. All men are also potential muggers, kidnappers, and serial killers. (In decreasing order of probability)
There's absolutely no problem with making choices - premeditated or intuitive - for the sake of enhancing your own personal security. Or even with respectfully letting people know "hey, when you do things like this, it makes me feel nervous or uncomfortable." (which is her intent in her original video, I think, and I have no problem with) What crosses the line is when it turns into anger at a man for (unintentionally) causing discomfort, or when they treat a man doing perfectly harmless, socially normal things as an assault in and of itself.
What had bothered me 3 years ago was RW linking to (and agreeing with) an article written by a woman who talked about how immensely uncomfortable she felt with men saying hello or smiling (friendly smiles, not lecherous ones) at her in public. Because all men were potentially rapists, she felt extremely uncomfortable with any man initiating social contact with her, and felt men needed to realize this and stop speaking to her in public. At least the ones she found intimidating.
By that logic, since all black men are potentially muggers, and some white men feel extremely uncomfortable being in enclosed spaces with black men, black men should really use seperate restrooms.
So I think there's a fine line between two distinct ideas that gets confused - both by those of us who read these articles, and even by people who write these articles. And that line is whether or not you take responsibility for your own feelings.
Just because I might hurt a person's feelings by rejecting her/his sexual advances doesn't mean I should feel obligated to be as polite and thoughtful as possible when rejecting her, and it certainly mean I should sleep with her to avoid offending her. Though it would be decent of me not to be a jerk about it, at the end of the day, I'm not responsible for her feelings.
And just because someone might feel nervious, say, being in the same cab as me doesn't mean I should feel obligated to get out and take another one, to avoid hurting his feelings or making him feel uncomfortable. Nor does it mean I shouldn't smile and say "hi!" If he doesn't want to talk to me, or wants to take another cab, that's his own business, and I won't hold it against him.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Also, I'm not sure why you're comparing the elevator guy to the murderer? Or maybe there's something I'm not seeing?
I'm comparing the reactions to the two incidents. In both cases, people jumped to emphasize due to memories of bad times asking out women, completely ignoring that both of these cases had their own pathologies.
For example, with GWAORW, the "How dare she mock him for putting himself out there it's sooo hard being a man camp" (including Dawkins) almost never retold the story and retained that it happened at 4 am or that it happened in an elevator , or that GWAORW had been listening to her bar conversation, presumably for a few hours (she never says if was at her table or eavesdropping), never saying anything until he follows her into the elevator . It's all about the asking out part.
With the murderer, many people also jumped back to their own issues with women and made him an everyman, ignoring how abnormal (and flat out evil) this guy was based on his internet postings. Yet, one thing I saw posted was that people in a body-building forum (ostensibly an alpha male place by that logic) told him he had a horrible horrible negative attitude (re: why do ugly poor minorities with lousy cars have girlfriends while I, rich white guys whose parents bought me a fancy car, do not?) and he should try being nice to people. There were lots of men and women who interjected with "No! Not normal! Here's some evidence!" , but people who used the opportunity to say "I know how he feels, asking out women and getting is hard".
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: What had bothered me 3 years ago was RW linking to (and agreeing with) an article written by a woman who talked about how immensely uncomfortable she felt with men saying hello or smiling (friendly smiles, not lecherous ones) at her in public. Because all men were potentially rapists, she felt extremely uncomfortable with any man initiating social contact with her, and felt men needed to realize this and stop speaking to her in public. At least the ones she found intimidating.
That sounds like an article you can often read on xojane. It's largely a place where people vent. Often self-absorbed venting, but if you want to get a feel for how other people feel, it's useful.
As a woman, I've gotten some really weird small talk from strangers. I've been told to smile. Recently, I walked into a building to find two men sitting on a bench, who remarked to me that the door I just opened to enter the building must have been really heavy based on the way I opened it (????), or after pulling off to the side of the bike path (not far from the local homeless-meth-party hangout) because my computer magnet was no longer registering my speed (a 2-second adjustment) some guy walked up to me and opened with "I can fix your bike for you". I don't think I was polite in any of those situations. I'm from New England and I HATE random people trying to smalltalk with me (apparently southerners hate it when people don't do this. I don't do fake friendly. Sorry). All of these people probably thought they were friendly. I found all the all the interactions disturbing, jarring (because I was lost in thought and didn't see the person until they said something), very condescending, and I suspect none of them would have approached me at all if I were a man. Two out of the three were potentially homeless, and the guys on the bench were old. I can't really say what I would have done if they were all strapping young lads. I think I would have been *more* angry with the door comment, and the smile one-- I wad not comfortable given the original people a middle finger, though int retrospect, they'd earned it. As for the bike thing, saying "hi" and asking me what was wrong with my bike is probably a better approach then declaring that they could fix it for me by way of introduction.
WIth these kinds of interactions, the bad stuff really stays with you. Anyway, you probably don't get a lot of this from people, and every minority group (Asians, Muslims, Women, Hispanics Blacks, jews, Gays/Lesbians) has their own special version of things people say that are well-meant, but nevertheless slightly offensive that few outside the group ever hear about or witness.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, I can see why you don't like the article, but I get where RW and the writer are coming from.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I'm comparing the reactions to the two incidents.
Ah, ok.
quote:Yet, one thing I saw posted was that people in a body-building forum (ostensibly an alpha male place by that logic) told him he had a horrible horrible negative attitude (re: why do ugly poor minorities with lousy cars have girlfriends while I, rich white guys whose parents bought me a fancy car, do not?) and he should try being nice to people.
It was the bodybuilding.com forums. I post there occasionally. (Never in the Misc. forum, just mostly discussions/questions about different workouts and supplements) it is, IMO, the best fitness site in the world, and it has a pretty significant number of female posters and moderators. (A lot more than Hatrack does, number wise and percentage wise. Then again, it's Female Bodybuilding forum alone is much larger/more active than Hatrack, so...)
Anyway, I wanted to chime in and say that gym rats get a pretty bad rap from all sides in these debates, and it's not really justified. I spend an hour and a half every weeknight at the gym, and my buddies I work out with are some of the nicest, sweetest, most sensitive and respectful men you'll ever meet. Big guys get accused of being the "Alphas" who "horde female erotic capital" or such nonsense by the Nice Guys, while also being what a lot of the "Alpha Male" TRP-esque losers *want* to be. Most of them lack the necessary discipline, and a lot of the dudebros who do come in spend most of their time doing curls in the squat rack (sacrilege!) while grunting loudly, or flexing in the mirror. They can be identified by their bad form, disproportionately large arms, bird chests, and chicken legs. Ed Hardy shirts are a dead giveaway, too.
Which isn't to say there aren't some straight up narcissistic assholes and losers who are serious lifters, either. But we're not bad people for the most part.
quote:As a woman, I've gotten some really weird small talk from strangers. I've been told to smile. Recently, I walked into a building to find two men sitting on a bench, who remarked to me that the door I just opened to enter the building must have been really heavy based on the way I opened it (????), or after pulling off to the side of the bike path (not far from the local homeless-meth-party hangout) because my computer magnet was no longer registering my speed (a 2-second adjustment) some guy walked up to me and opened with "I can fix your bike for you". I don't think I was polite in any of those situations. I'm from New England and I HATE random people trying to smalltalk with me (apparently southerners hate it when people don't do this. I don't do fake friendly. Sorry). All of these people probably thought they were friendly. I found all the all the interactions disturbing, jarring (because I was lost in thought and didn't see the person until they said something), very condescending, and I suspect none of them would have approached me at all if I were a man. Two out of the three were potentially homeless, and the guys on the bench were old. I can't really say what I would have done if they were all strapping young lads. I think I would have been *more* angry with the door comment, and the smile one-- I wad not comfortable given the original people a middle finger, though int retrospect, they'd earned it. As for the bike thing, saying "hi" and asking me what was wrong with my bike is probably a better approach then declaring that they could fix it for me by way of introduction.
WIth these kinds of interactions, the bad stuff really stays with you. Anyway, you probably don't get a lot of this from people, and every minority group (Asians, Muslims, Women, Hispanics Blacks, jews, Gays/Lesbians) has their own special version of things people say that are well-meant, but nevertheless slightly offensive that few outside the group ever hear about or witness.
So, a few years back I went from living in Japan to living in the Philippines, then back in Japan for a while in the space of a year. Which is a pretty major culture shock.
In Japan, people are generally very polite and reserved. You don't talk to people in the streets, and you generally avoid even prolonged eye contact. Touching is almost completely taboo. People aren't necessarily unfriendly or mean, it's just their culture.
In the Philippines, everyone you see wants to talk to you. Lots of people would come up to me and touch me, or touch my hair, kids would run up and ask me for candy or money, and want to climb on me or play. Vendors yell at people from their stores, and might follow you and walk and talk with you for a while if they think you're even remotely interested. Having people touch your arm or back to get your attention is very common.
It was a pretty big shock, and difficult to get used to at first. But I adapted, and learned to appreciate both cultures for what they had to offer. Part of it is I always feel like sort of a stranger anywhere I go, so I've learned how to get along wherever I am, and I feel like a humbler and wiser person because of it.
Likewise, I took my wife (originally from Chicago) back to my hometown (a small town in Minnesota) for the first time last month. At the car rental place I chatted with the guy for about 5 minutes - about life, work, who we were seeing, what our plans were, how we met, etc. Then we got to the hotel and had the same conversation with the guy at the front desk. We went how to dinner, and talked to the waitress for about 10 minutes (she sat down at our table), and she told us a lot about her son who was in the Army, and how I reminded her of him, and about different places we should go when we were in town.
At that point she looked at me and said "wow, you sure know a lot of people here." It took me a second, then I had to explain I didn't know any of these people. It's just expected, anywhere you go, that you're going to talk for a little bit with the people you run into. I remember going to the store with my dad as a kid, and standing in the parking lot with him for half an hour as he talked to someone he met in the store. (FWIW, this isn't "fake friendliness." Some of us actually enjoy talking to other people)
I guess my point is, different people from different places have vastly different standards of what is polite/rude in social situations. In some places (like my home town), refusing to at least make eye contact, smile, and say "how's it going?" to someone who does the same would come off as rather rude and suspicious. In other places I've been, me doing so would seem forward. But travel has taught me not to judge or be offended by how other people socially interact, or to demand a certain kind of response from anyone else. I generally try and mirror the social norms of whatever culture I'm in, but I'm always going to be a friendly guy, and usually smile and say hi to everyone I meet. I never assume someone is being a bitch or asshole or whatever if they don't respond in kind, and appreciate the same benefit of the doubt. (There are many, many women who actively enjoy engaging strangers in conversation, or initiating conversation with strangers, so I don't think it's a very good example of male oppression)
quote:Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, I can see why you don't like the article, but I get where RW and the writer are coming from.
I can see where they're coming from too, and frankly, if I was RW and had experienced all the things she's experienced, I doubt I would be as patient or charitable as she is. I don't think I really have the right answer to this issue, or that there really is a right answer other than "be kind and respectful to everyone you meet", but I really enjoy conversations like this. I feel talking these issues through does nothing but deepen my understanding of gender-relation issues, as well as help me understand my own views, prejudices, and assumptions that I would otherwise take for granted. I look at how much better of an understanding I have of these problems than I did just a few years ago, and how conversations like this have made me a better husband and a better person in general, and I want to say I really appreciate you guys taking the time to have these discussions.
I really like one thing that RW said, about sunlight being the best disinfectant. You look at the guys who do all these horrible things (like the shooter you mentioned), and usually you find a community of insular, like minded people who help perpetuate and reinforce negative ideas. From a bunch of frat boys who tell their bro that it's totally ok to get a girl drunk and take advantage of her, to TRP and PUAs in general talking about how women really just want to be treated badly. I really hope, if nothing else, Sa'eed's trolling here has helped soften or moderate his views, though unfortunately I think we don't have nearly as much an effect as other forums he visits.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Dogbreath, I mean this as gently as possible, because I know you are a good guy and are on the side of the angels. But what you are doing with relating your experiences in different cultures as a man is discounting theamazeeaz's experience. Yes, people are different in different cultures, and it takes some time to adjust to them. The stuff she is talking about, like the guy saying he can fix her bike for her, is on a completely different level. Because in the Philippines, those people were going to come up and talk to you and touch you whether you were a man or a woman, right? And the people in Japan were going to not make eye contact just the same. But if you were a woman, in Japan you also would have gotten groped on the subway by someone not making eye contact with you.
The way people, both men and women, treat men and women is different. Women you don't know aren't likely to tell another woman to smile or to grope them, but they are likely to be more respectful to a man and to value his time more. But the way some men treat unaccompanied women they don't know -- and the unaccompanied part is important, because if you are walking with a woman you are not seeing how she is treated when she's walking alone -- is vastly different from the stuff you're talking about. And I live in Minnesota, and for my job I spend several weeks a year traveling in small town MN, ND, and SD. Yes, people make more small talk there. But it is not the same as how many men seem to think women are there, in public spaces, just for their benefit. And them wanting us to stop and engage with them, on a perfectly harmless level, is more important than whatever we're doing, wherever we're going, or if we happen to be listening to music or on the phone at the time. (I have seriously had men try to talk to me when I'm on the phone, and be upset that I won't stop my phone call, presumably with someone I know, to talk to them, a complete stranger.)
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:(I have seriously had men try to talk to me when I'm on the phone, and be upset that I won't stop my phone call, presumably with someone I know, to talk to them, a complete stranger.)
Same. I've also been followed down the street. I've had guys talk to me at the library when I'm sitting down and obviously reading a book (why won't you talk to me? you're so pretty. Come on, just smile at me.). I've been called a cow when crossing the street. I've had my butt smacked by a guy on a bike while crossing the street. I've had guys yell "suck my dick" as they drive past...
It goes on and on and on. And my experience is not unique. If anything, I'd say I've gotten a lot less harassment than other women I know. And all of that has occurred in the US, some in a city, some in small towns, but all within the culture I grew up in. And all of it was because I'm a woman.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hrm. I reread Dogbreath's post, and while I can't deny a slew of biases and lack-of-experiences, I don't see how his remarks were discounting theamazeeaz's experiences. I could see it clearly, I think, if he made a connection that I didn't see him make. Something like, "I travelled between the Phillipines and Japan...radically different expectations...and therefore people ought not to complain when someone in their own culture has unfair expectations."
Heck, he even remarked that while he personally doesn't object to random socializing, he didn't think it was valid to be irritated with someone who did. Just that it might be a cultural expectation in a given area.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, do you think I (or the article I referrenced) was talking about harrassment? Or that I was trying to deny harrassment exists? I mean, hell, I've dealt with sexual harrassment too - I've had my butt grabbed and sexual comments made by strangers, especially when I was a waiter in college. I've been followed and beaten up, had people threaten to rape me, had people threaten to kill me, and I think it's a little presumptuous to talk about "lack of experience." My post had nothing to do with that. It's about engaging in conversation with strangers.
Likewise, theamzeeeaz has had her own experiences, and I don't really see how my post is discounting her's at all. I was just expressing there's a bigger picture than that of all men who talk to women in public doing so with the intention of harassment - in many cultures in the norm. That doesn't discount the fact harassment still happens, no matter where you live. I would know. (And believe it or not I also have sisters and female friends and a wife, and listen to their experiences too)
[ September 09, 2014, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
No, I don't think you are trying to deny harrassment exists. But when you quote her post, then relate the experiences you do, it looks/sounds like you are trying to say that she just isn't understanding the culture she is in. I am bringing it up so you are aware of it, not because I think you are some kind of closet sexist or something.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I was just expressing there's a bigger picture than that of all men who talk to women in public doing so with the intention of harassment -
I would bet a great deal of money that a large percentage of men engaging in behavior that you would agree is harassment aren't "doing so with the intention of harassment." In their mind they're just being friendly and the problem is with the woman who doesn't react according to their script.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, I did not use the phrase "lack of experince," so I'm not sure why you put it in quotes. I am saying that if your post has nothing to do with hers, then quoting hers without saying that you are going off on a tangent from it makes it look like you are responding to it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: No, I don't think you are trying to deny harrassment exists. But when you quote her post, then relate the experiences you do, it looks/sounds like you are trying to say that she just isn't understanding the culture she is in. I am bringing it up so you are aware of it, not because I think you are some kind of closet sexist or something.
No, I think she's aware of the culture she's in. Her post was a response to mine about an article where a woman didn't think men should talk to or interact at all with women they didn't know in public. Her response, if I interpreted it correctly, was that in her culture public interaction isn't common, so men who do openly address her in public seem... odd, at best. Or even pushy or creepy.
I shared my experiences as well, and I don't think they contradict or discount theamazeeaz's experiences at all. I do think that it expands on it and places it in a larger context. I also think if, say, she or someone like her were to move somewhere where it's common to smile and say hello to people, say, on the same bus as you (which is what the lady in the original article was talking about, specifically), she might incorrectly assume it was harassment. And might take their bafflement at her not responding as being pushy. (People, when they feel they have been treated rudely, often roll their eyes and say "okay!" or "whatever!" or "fine!". Which is IMO ok. I think there's an obvious line crossed if you keep pushing ("why don't you smile honey?") or insult or demean the person you feel insulted you ("hmmmph. okay, whatever b****"))
I think, maybe, you're thinking of this as a debate and I'm treating it more like a conversation? I came from a culture very different from hers even though we're from the same country, and living in different cultures has given me a lot of respect for different ways of handling social interaction. I don't assume someone who is doesn't want to talk or even make eye contact is necessarily being rude, nor do I assume someone who is being (what seems to me) overly familiar or friendly is harassing me or being disrespectful. That doesn't mean I disagree with her experiences, or think they're any less real or valid. It just means I think my experiences have value too, and add depth to the discussion.
quote:I would bet a great deal of money that a large percentage of men engaging in behavior that you would agree is harassment aren't "doing so with the intention of harassment." In their mind they're just being friendly and the problem is with the woman who doesn't react according to their script.
Where then do you draw the line as far as what qualifies as harassment? That's not meant to be rhetorical, I'm interested since I'm not precisely sure myself.
So, here in Hawaii, people don't shake hands. Instead, if you're greeting someone of your sex, you hug, and if it's of the opposite sex, you kiss. Most women here kiss my cheek, others will briefly brush their lips against mine. This is normal, socially accepted behavior here, but in a place like, say, New York, it would seem odd at best, or overly familiar, or even a violation of personal space to kiss someone you just met.
There are some things that seem to be pretty cut-and-dry examples of harassment - yelling insults or sexual comments at women, for example. Calling women derogatory names. Implying someone is incompetent or less capable because they're a woman. (theamazeeaz's door example) Others may be socially acceptable but have some sexist undertones, like only holding doors for women, or going out of your way to give women special treatment. I think a good baseline is "would this same behavior be just acceptable directed towards a man as a woman?" If no, than it's harassment. If yes, then it's probably ok.
There are a few exceptions, and I think it just takes some common sense and communication to work out. For example, when I'm driving on base and see a man walking back from the store carrying a lot of stuff, I'll usually roll down my window and offer him a ride. I won't do this for a woman unless I know her. This isn't out of a dislike for women, but rather because I know almost all men will be grateful for the offer of a ride, and will usually say yes. Whereas most women are uncomfortable getting in cars with men they don't know, and me offering them the ride is just putting them in an awkward situation. But that's more of me being cognizant of existing sexual harassment and trying to avoid furthering it. In a perfect world where rape and violence against women don't exist, it would be perfectly fine and welcome, whereas yelling insults at women would still be just as vile.
quote:Also, I did not use the phrase "lack of experince," so I'm not sure why you put it in quotes.
It was in response to Rakeesh. I wasn't sure if he was referring to my lack of experience or his, but I figured I might as well cover my bases. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When I used the phrase, I was referring to my own lack of experience living in the United States as a woman. Trying to preacknowledge my own lack of experience with a given female's perspective on these matters (though I hope I can imagine to some extent, having talked about it).
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"preacknowledge"
Word of the day. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ain't it though? Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: When I used the phrase, I was referring to my own lack of experience living in the United States as a woman. Trying to preacknowledge my own lack of experience with a given female's perspective on these matters (though I hope I can imagine to some extent, having talked about it).
Well, to be honest, I don't have much experience living in the United States as a woman either. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: When I used the phrase, I was referring to my own lack of experience living in the United States as a woman. Trying to preacknowledge my own lack of experience with a given female's perspective on these matters (though I hope I can imagine to some extent, having talked about it).
Well, to be honest, I don't have much experience living in the United States as a woman either.
I'm sure you could at least draw a few parallels from your experience living as a woman in Europe, though. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So, I saw this recently. If you can get past the crappy narration, it's an interesting story, and I'm thinking about reading the book when I get the chance. Basically, a woman dressed as a man for 18 months and integrated herself into a male community, tried dating, working, etc. as a man. It's a pretty fascinating project, and it goes a lot into various myths or misconceptions. I do say I have to disagree with her assessment of male vs. female sexuality (I think it's more defined by personality rather than gender), but then again, I've never experienced sexuality as a woman.
I think Lyrhawn would find it pretty interesting too, as he's pretty interested in conversations discussing masculine identity issues.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Read the book years ago. Not as interesting as I'd hoped it would be but I remember not hating it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I am way on the undesirable end of Clive's attractiveness scale and if I had could find a way to monetize all the guilt and strategizing I have spent on turning down men (okay and some women) without hurting their feelings or being awkward, I could frikkin retire!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm actually happy you've apparently changed your mind, and you'll find I actually agree with you for the most part. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) I think it's a good thing for people of all sexes and gender identities to talk about things that make them anxious and uncomfortable in situations like this, because that leads to greater understanding and makes everyone happier. I feel like calling women "bitches" for politely turning down your advances, or calling men "weirdos" or "creepers" for politely flirting with you in a non-aggressive manner is not conducive to furthering that dialogue.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
or that it happened in an elevator