I’m not painting everyone with the same brush, but just trying to explain that since that is the usual case, it’s difficult to not be a little uneasy whenever a new person, who may be the nicest person ever, breaks the unspoken rule not to talk on the subway. Claiming that I’m saying everyone who talks on transit is mentally ill or a creep just for talking on transit is deliberately misunderstanding what I’ve said.
It’s pretty clear to me that she means he should do the latter.
I think you know what I mean.
Wouldn’t be asking if I did.
That this is “usually” the case (in your experience in the cities you’ve lived) is a sad observation Claire.
Sad that it is your experience, and sad if those who would chat with their neighbour on the bus felt that’s how they’d be regarded.Sadly, that’s my experience as well. Or at least that 95% of the time when I’m approached by a strange man, it’s with sexual interest, and usually not the Catholic kind. It’s also not uncommon to get rude or hostile responses for turning a guy down or not being responsive enough.That this is “usually” the case (in your experience in the cities you’ve lived) is a sad observation Claire.
On the flipside, guys often take responsiveness as an indicator of interest, so if a woman’s friendly or responsive just out of courtesy, it’s not uncommon for a guy to vent his frustration by calling her a flirt or a tease.
Exactly, and you can’t leave because you’re stuck on the bus or subway and then you have to worry about what if they follow you once you reach your stop. I was stuck on a packed greyhound bus for hours with a guy who wouldn’t leave me alone even though I was wearing an engagement ring and he then tried to get into my cab with me. I was all by myself in a strange state and had missed my connection and it was a frightening addition to an already stressful situation.
I mean no disrespect, but the tone works both ways. Doubtless there are men from whom any sort of tone will provoke a rude or hostile response as long as they don’t like the content, but for reasonably decent men I would expect a polite rebuff to not result in an impolite response. I would also not normally expect a hostile response from the average somewhat educated somewhat mannered man where there was not some form of ridicule or denial of his value as a person to set him in that sort of mood and take away the inhibition against uttering that kind of response.
That atrocious sort of completely ungentlemanly and just simply unmanly thing is a job for law enforcement. Zero tolerance there. I’ve always been appalled at how that stuff is tolerated just as long as no direct physical violence happens and then people wonder where all that violence comes from. But it starts earlier than a six-foot adolescent guy on the underground. It starts with a four-foot boy who is cooed over and found to be ‘cute’ and ‘sweet’ when he does that to three-foot girls. This is also part of what I spoke about earlier, i.e. some people unfortunately finding that sort of completely disgraceful conduct to actually be attractive, if not in itself, as it probably is not actually, then as some kind of display of virility or strength or courage or something else than the lack of self-control that it really is.
Part of the problem is that a lot of men will ignore a soft no. I’ve had a lot of guys who will ignore a polite “I’d like to read please” or other such response from a woman. In fact in my experience that has been the norm - that polite responses are seen as engaging and an invitation to continue, rather than an indication that I would like to be left alone. I’ve had a lot of guys who will persist unless told in no uncertain terms that they need to get lost already.
I’d hazard that it’s because most of the polite guys know that generally people do not want to engage in conversation on the bus, and so they’re the ones quietly reading the paper or doing something on their phones.
To be honest, and I’m pretty sure I would be seeing things at least a little differently if I were female myself and dealing with unwanted attention from that perspective, I register the ‘need to get lost already’ as somewhat of a disrespectful way of talking about fellow human beings (not that it isn’t, sadly, considered acceptable these days in large parts of American or European culture). I would also find the exact words ‘I’d like to read please’ to sound at least a little condescending if I came across them as a line of dialogue without specific information about the tone of voice or body language. There is, of course, nothing to strictly apologise or thank for in this sort of situation, but a ‘sorry’ (sorry to have to let you down) or ‘thank you’ (thank you but I have something else in mind) could go a long way in terms of finding a way to avoid a conversation gently.
And what exactly is wrong in someone trying to convince you? Is being exposed to a different opinion, view or desire a traumatizing experience the modern person should not ever have to contend with?
We shouldn’t have to thank men for attention we don’t want or apologize for rebuffing said attention. You seem to presume that a woman should be happy to receive any attention from any man, and that his feelings are more important than our sense of safety or comfort. It’s not patronizing to be blunt about disinterest: some men won’t get the message otherwise.
That’s not as simple to a polite woman, if the man’s attention is politely expressed. In fact, the opposite is fairly simple to a polite woman.
Of course not, there is no basis for that conclusion apart from presuming bad things about me in general or selecting the worst possible interpretation. All I’m saying is that she should not feel automatically attacked or demeaned by it because that’s simply unfounded, at that she shouldn’t feel free to be rude to him.
‘Sense of’, as opposed to ‘safety’ is key.
Yes, as Christians, regardless of which sex we happen to be, charity and especially lack of uncharity (such as rudeness) is more important than keeping our perfect sense of comfort.
What you have just said is quite patronizing already, and there is no need to be blunt when being direct would suffice.
So am I. Much closer than you think. And to more than one such person. Doesn’t change my opinion on the licence to be rude.
Yes, they do. But rudeness, as opposed to openness and firmness, is not necessary.
To be clear, the “convincing” here is that the guy will be trying to convince a woman that she should talk to him or entertain his advances once she’s already made it clear that she doesn’t want to entertain him at this particular time. So yes, at that point, I think the woman’s right to be left alone after she’s made clear that she isn’t interested trumps the guy’s romantic interest. Simply being in public doesn’t mean a woman ought to be expected to be available to whatever fellow wishes to hit on her. (For what it’s worth, this works both ways, although women are less likely to approach strange men than men are to approach strange women.)
Yes, it does trump it at that point. It always trumped it, actually, but my point is that having a right to demand something isn’t the same as having a right to act impolite about demanding it. For example we all have a right to be paid by our employers, which among other things means we shouldn’t really have to do much asking or be expected to do much thanking, we technically don’t even have to say ‘could I please get my pay cheque?’ or ‘thank you’ as I will maintain basic manners require us to say, but being loud and assertive etc. about wanting to be paid is not something we have a right to be from start or even after a minor delay. That right only starts when someone is very clearly trying to cheat us out of the pay. Does this analogy make sense to you?
Of course not. But simple conservation should not be presumed to spark from romantic interest (that would be too presuming), not every sort of discernible romantic interest is hitting on someone, and not being available for chit-chat is not the same as being rude about not being available.
I find it rude when women presume a man is interested just because they showed up or that a man should be interested just because they are (although I sympathize with the latter, as that is a more difficult situation for a woman to deal with, given how differently we are wired on some such things), but also when they presume romantic interest on the man’s part simply because there is interest on his part in conversation, i.e. that any sort of attention automatically means advances, or even that actual advances somehow mean the man has no human rights any more.
I’m sorry to once again go on the direct side, but my experience, also of recent company in this thread, is that some women feel a lot of need for ‘asserting herself’, something which is unfortunately a euphemism for being rather ruthless in making sure that one’s will is done. As for what is acceptable, it seems that as long as the interlocutor is male just about anything is acceptable. I will not reiterate my opinion on this, but I believe it’s pretty obvious it’s not particularly enthusiastic.
Unfortunately, as much as I’m familiar with the existence of patterns such as you mentioned, I am led to think the opposite based on my own experience: Men, especially in management or otherwise responsible positions, are expected to show self-control and even make sacrifices. In women, in turn, a lack of a sense of responsibility for exposing interlocutors to imperfectly controller anger or angst is much more tolerated, as is the making of a conscious decision to pursue one’s own interest to the detriment and exclusion of everyone else’s or of the collective interest, or to take certain liberties in conversation such as being blunt.
An even field would not be an issue. It starts being an issue when even starts to mean privileged. And when it is believed that it’s okay for a woman to go all-out for no. 1 and be loud and assertive about it or just go about subjecting the external world to her internal sense of comfort and acting rude when that doesn’t work, then it’s long past even and far into privileged territory.
No disagreement there.
The fundamental problem is this is the vibe me and some other women are getting from your posts - that women aren’t seen as the equal of men, but as a notch or two below, someone who has fewer rights and more obligations than a man would have.
Absolutely not. The opposite is true. Hence for example neither sex gets a special licence to treat the other badly, nor any special right to subject everything else to the maintenance of its perfect sense of comfort or to be rude because not everything that is being experienced is agreeable, and everybody can be expect to follow certain basic standards of politeness that’s preferably a notch above the coolest possible form of superficial civility that fails to mask disdain.