How to Stop Being a Nice Guy. Thoughts?

[Xantippe]

When a bunch of different women are all saying that they feel harassed and/or unsettled when pestered by random guys on public transportation, maybe it’s time to reconsider instead of telling them to get over it. In my experience, it’s almost universal that women are creeped out and uneasy when strange men won’t leave them alone on the bus. Don’t be dismissive.

I asked my husband his thoughts and he said that if a girl says no and that she’s busy, wait a week and try again, but after the third time, take the hint and move on. And not to bother people on public transportation because girls will think you’re a creep or weirdo.

So much to catch up with!

I’ve heard a very good rule, which is–don’t persist with people who can’t escape you because of their position.

For example, the bus or subway is a no-no, because the person is literally trapped in a metal tube with you and can’t leave. Likewise, beware of putting a coffee shop worker, waitress, or retail worker in an awkward position. They are obligated by their jobs to be in the coffee shop, restaurant or store and be nice to you. Do not take inappropriate advantage of this situation.

 

[DarkLight]

So much to catch up with!

I’ve heard a very good rule, which is–don’t persist with people who can’t escape you because of their position.

For example, the bus or subway is a no-no, because the person is literally trapped in a metal tube with you and can’t leave. Likewise, beware of putting a coffee shop worker, waitress, or retail worker in an awkward position. They are obligated by their jobs to be in the coffee shop, restaurant or store and be nice to you. Do not take inappropriate advantage of this situation.

This doesn’t just go for romantic interest.

One of my pet peeves as a retail worker was people who would ask religious questions while I was on the job. Not cool - I could neither tell them to mind their own business nor properly defend my own views as needed.

 

[Xantippe]

This doesn’t just go for romantic interest.

One of my pet peeves as a retail worker was people who would ask religious questions while I was on the job. Not cool - I could neither tell them to mind their own business nor properly defend my own views as needed.

Yep.

 

[Xantippe]

The stranger coming down the footpath in the dark is one thing. The persistent guy at the bus stop is another. And the guy (call him Chevy) in the office down the corridor who’s worked here for a few years, socialises with the team, seems respected and liked…and now shows an interest in “me”…is a different context again. Declining his offer of a movie is not akin to a “no means no” situation. * Sure he might ask again. And that’s fine. **Both parties guage where the line is to be drawn.

---

The “rapey” interpretation of Chevy’s words: "Some of the best things that have happened to some people have happened over their initial objections, by their own words. " did not arise for me till somebody pointed it out. The interpretation likely to be placed on the words certainly is influenced by circumstances and one’s personal nature. I think the innocuous interpretation is by far the more widely applicable (and evidently his meaning).

Apologies for not being caught up with the thread, but I really have to object to the part I bolded.

“No” does not require two people’s agreement. If Aunt Suzie offers me a slice of pie, I don’t need her permission to say no to it. If Trish invites me to a movie, I don’t need her permission to say no. If Steve offers to walk me to my apartment (and that idea creeps me out), I don’t need to get his permission to say no. If Bob from accounting makes a lewd suggestion, I don’t need permission from him to say no. Etc.

 

[Xantippe]

Location or timing definitely matters. For an extreme example, stopping a woman who’s walking by herself on a dark street at night is unlikely to produce positive results, and highly likely to creep her out. (Honestly, I doubt a larger guy stopping a smaller man on a dark street at night would be all that welcomed either.) More generally, bothering someone who’s obviously doing something else is quite likely to annoy people.

At some level, a guy’s** desire to have a romantic relationship doesn’t override a woman’s desire to be left alone. If it annoys 90 women out of 100 and works on 1 woman out of 100, that’s probably not a good idea**

Right.

 

[Xantippe]

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.**

For more context, I have sometimes found women’s reaction to men’s interest to be rather not on the polite or respectful side, which I would describe as taking an unusual amount of liberty with the man. In the vast majority of case there is of course no conscious and premeditated intention on the woman’s part to be cruel, derogatory or derisive. I am sure they feel awkward and don’t immediately know how to find the right words that are not uncharitable but still achieve their intended purpose. But this sort of natural empathy/sympathy for not being a perfect communicator is something that both sexes should be receiving, not just one. Awkwardness or lack of communication training or perfect self-control as an excuse should work both ways.

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.

(I would even go as far as saying that it starts when people start using or tolerating words such as ‘sexy’ — what sort of compliment is that? — although not when strangers approach strangers for conversation, even without the hope of perhaps impressing someone as potential romantic material, for lack of a better term, or if they ask again some time after already being rebuffed once. That bridge would be unfair to make.)

1. That kind of reasonably well-mannered guy is not both a) riding the subway or bus and b) bothering women on the bus and subway.

That’s pretty much the point of what AClaire11 has been saying–the unspoken rule in the Northeastern US is to leave strangers alone on transit. Anybody who violates that rule is–by definition–a rule-breaker, and hence automatically questionable. A guy who does that doesn’t have good manners.

1. I think a guy who is getting that kind of strongly negative response needs to do a little soul-searching and think about whether he doesn’t need to fine tune his approach. He may be making some pretty egregious social mistakes.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It could be the good old boy in me but I am in shock about how some people who cannot grasp social boundaries don’t get laid out. Big brothers, husbands, dads, etc. heck even a self assured woman with a wicked right ought to do the trick. Unless the point is to “pursue” the weak and vulnerable…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

Do you think that you are either poorly expressing your ideas.
Or that everyone who finds your approach on this subject odd are all just wrong?

 

[Xantippe]

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?

‘You had to be loud, firm, and assertive’ is tantamount to just saying you had to be rude. And the rationale justifying that was by far not sufficient. It’s a different face of the same societal problem that leads to cops shooting people just in case because they (cops) are not feeling perfectly safe.

How in blazes are women supposed to defend themselves if we aren’t even allowed to raise our voices when facing physical violence or sexual pressure or sexual coercion?

I have no idea how you envision this working.

The whole point is that people who are planning sexual assault do not crook their pinkies when they drink tea–one needs to be (at minimum) loud and assertive to back down a person who is larger and stronger and who has evil intentions.

Also, do you realize how many of the women you are talking to in this thread have been the victims of sexual assault? Rape is not at all theoretical to several of the women you are talking to. It’s really not kosher to give women who have been sexually assaulted a long list of ways they aren’t allowed to defend themselves.

 

[Xantippe]

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?

It’s never equal when the woman doesn’t see a man as her equal rather than a notch or two below (or five), as all too often tends to be the case. This is also the vibe I’m getting (and I’m not necessarily saying that I’m reading it correctly) from the responses in this thread. The responses rather clearly paint a picture in which a man is a lower species or lower race or social class at best, or that a woman is someone with more rights or fewer obligations than follows from the usual description of human. I realize this can’t be pleasant to hear, and I’m sorry for having to say this, but I can’t really see a sound, fair option of not saying it.

No disagreement there.

Well, by your analogy, one only gets to speak up during an actual sexual assault.

Great.

Nah, these are unisex rules. Women, don’t pester men on the bus! Don’t trap and corner male retail employees and don’t stalk them on Facebook!

 

[Bill_Martin]

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.

This does connect, somewhat, with the frequent idea that a man’s interest alone, especially social in the sense of possibly romantic but not yet there, demeans a woman, is beneath her etc. And that is not something easily received. Imagine yourself dealing with ‘mansplaining’, as in patronized simply because you are female. It’s a similar feeling to experience, also sort of perhaps like being of the wrong nationality or social class from the perspective of present company.

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?

‘You had to be loud, firm, and assertive’ is tantamount to just saying you had to be rude. And the rationale justifying that was by far not sufficient. It’s a different face of the same societal problem that leads to cops shooting people just in case because they (cops) are not feeling perfectly safe.

Approaching women on public transportation in the USA is seen as creepy and/or threatening by every socially functioning adult of both genders. I genuinely fail to see what’s so bad about a woman being blunt (or “rude” if you prefer). She has no escape and someone violating this social norm is automatically categorized as a threat.

Before approaching a woman, it is wise to ask “Will a reasonable woman interpret this as a sign that she will end up in my refrigerator and be the subject of a B-grade documentary 10 years from now?” and if the answer is “yes” or “maybe”, then leave her alone. Public transportation fits this perfectly.

 

[pianistclare]

I always find it odd that folks who think they know all about social cues and norms, and are told that their views are off" continue to argue their points, vehemently so, and yet…amazingly…have little or no luck on the playing field with no or very few serious prospects.
At least that’s what they claim.

 

[Rau]

Apologies for not being caught up with the thread, but I really have to object to the part I bolded.

“No” does not require two people’s agreement. If Aunt Suzie offers me a slice of pie, I don’t need her permission to say no to it. If Trish invites me to a movie, I don’t need her permission to say no. If Steve offers to walk me to my apartment (and that idea creeps me out), I don’t need to get his permission to say no. If Bob from accounting makes a lewd suggestion, I don’t need permission from him to say no. Etc.

The bold part means no more or less than it says - which has nothing to do with suggesting one person needs another’s permission. Person A strikes up a conversation (or flirts) with person B. A and B each gauge the appropriate boundaries and limits, having regard to the circumstances (eg. friends/colleagues vs strangers, environment, etc) and feedback from the other. Hopefully, they seek a positive friendly interaction and outcome. We are not machines in the way we interact with other people. We may take a little time to mutually feel the other out. Its certainly not appropriate - in all circumstances - to close down the conversation with “No - this discussion is over!” We are civil and no harsher than necessary.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I always find it odd that folks who think they know all about social cues and norms, and are told that their views are off" continue to argue their points, vehemently so, and yet…amazingly…have little or no luck on the playing field with no or very few serious prospects.
At least that’s what they claim.

Yeah, what do the rest of us happily married people know!? Right?

 

[Rau]

?..Also, do you realize how many of the women you are talking to in this thread have been the victims of sexual assault? Rape is not at all theoretical to several of the women you are talking to.

Herein lies at least part of the disconnect. Men who would never dream of harassing or stalking (let alone raping) women talking about “interactions between men and women” with women who have experience of (and no doubt affected by) sexual assault. Each is making quite different assumptions about - has quite a different frame of reference for - the circumstances, personal risks, and likely intentions.

 

[AClaire11]

Thank you, Xantippe!

 

[pensmama87]

The bold part means no more or less than it says - which has nothing to do with suggesting one person needs another’s permission. Person A strikes up a conversation (or flirts) with person B. A and B each gauge the appropriate boundaries and limits, having regard to the circumstances (eg. friends/colleagues vs strangers, environment, etc) and feedback from the other. Hopefully, they seek a positive friendly interaction and outcome. We are not machines in the way we interact with other people. We may take a little time to mutually feel the other out. Its certainly not appropriate - in all circumstances - to close down the conversation with “No - this discussion is over!” We are civil and no harsher than necessary.

I think this is reasonable.

What many posters are objecting to is that frequently in these scenarios, A does NOT follow appropriate boundaries and ignores the polite, socially appropriate “no” initially offered by B. When B gets more forceful, out of necessity, A acts wounded and blames B for being “rude.”

Based on what I’ve seen in this thread, I would guess we’ve got several As who don’t understand that they’re being told “no” and thus are completely surprised and shocked when B feels the need to speak more plainly. Are there Bs who are outright hostile from the getgo? Sure, and yes, that’s inappropriate (and since A is a stranger, A doesn’t know why B is like that). But what are you going to do in those situations? A’s not in a position to get them to reconsider, and the attempt is just going to elicit more hostility (because now A’s really ignored the line there.) So let it drop and move on.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

This does connect, somewhat, with the frequent idea that a man’s interest alone, especially social in the sense of possibly romantic but not yet there, demeans a woman, is beneath her etc. And that is not something easily received. Imagine yourself dealing with ‘mansplaining’, as in patronized simply because you are female. It’s a similar feeling to experience, also sort of perhaps like being of the wrong nationality or social class from the perspective of present company.

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?

‘You had to be loud, firm, and assertive’ is tantamount to just saying you had to be rude. And the rationale justifying that was by far not sufficient. It’s a different face of the same societal problem that leads to cops shooting people just in case because they (cops) are not feeling perfectly safe.

Chevalier, what the other posters have been trying to tell you applies to men who have repeatedly ignored the more polite refusals. The type of men who show no respect for the personal boundaries of others.

Most of the men I know usually ask women they are already familiar with from social networks. The element of familiarity is already there and even then the first date takes place in public gatherings such as a group of friends going out for dinner or picnic on a public beach together. At least this was the way in the US west coast. The presence of others would alleviate the awkwardness of first dates for both parties.

Approaching strangers on public transportation would not yield good results especially in the US northeast where I currently live. A harmless greeting to a stranger would more likely elicit a suspicious stare.

 

[chevalier]

“No” does not require two people’s agreement. If Aunt Suzie offers me a slice of pie, I don’t need her permission to say no to it.

You don’t, but you don’t have to be rude about it. It’s simply you declining a polite offer. It’s not some sort of categorical imperative that you must assert yourself and throw politeness and respect for Aunt Suzie out the window because otherwise you can’t feel satisfied you’ve asserted yourself enough.

If Trish invites me to a movie, I don’t need her permission to say no.

As above. I’m sure you’ll agree with that a polite person would make it something along the lines of: ‘Thank you, but I have other plans,’ ‘Sorry, I don’t like the director/lead,’ ‘Wish I could, but I’ve got work tonight,’ depending on what’s true. Just because you technically have the right to cut it to ‘Not interested’ doesn’t mean Trish deserves that from you.

If Steve offers to walk me to my apartment (and that idea creeps me out),

Then it looks like you’re creeped out by what was basic courtesy in our grandparents’ time. An orange flag flashing because of the day and age we live in, so you decline? Sure. But rash judgment is something completely different, as is the whole ‘creeping’ thing, which sound so very disdainful and cruel as a way of referring to a fellow human being — especially one who, depending on the details of the situation, and you need to consider that possibility when you judge his conduct — might well be offering it for your own protection or entertainment and actually might have nothing to do with any hope of . In making such a proposal he doesn’t become your property or some modern sort of servant for you to judge and castigate at will no matter how unfairly. Decline to your heart’s content, but the manner of it is something morality very much applies to.

I don’t need to get his permission to say no.

Yup. And you don’t have his permission to dispense with pleasantries and start thrashing him verbally, either.

If Bob from accounting makes a lewd suggestion, I don’t need permission from him to say no. Etc.

That’s a different situation. Key: ‘lewd’.

1. That kind of reasonably well-mannered guy is not both a) riding the subway or bus and

What we are (sort of) discussing was originally just one of the many examples of situations that could be judged either way depending on the facts.

b) bothering women on the bus and subway.

Says everything there is to say, and I commented on that already when similarly disdainful language popped up from other posters…

the Northeastern US is to leave strangers alone on transit. Anybody who violates that rule is–by definition–a rule-breaker, and hence automatically questionable.

We aren’t at Northeastern Answers.

A guy who does that doesn’t have good manners.

Says you.

1. I think a guy who is getting that kind of strongly negative response needs to do a little soul-searching and think about whether he doesn’t need to fine tune his approach.

This is not about my approach, it’s about consistently disdainful and contemptuous language in talking about men, coupled with arguments that no politeness or basic human respect applies.

He may be making some pretty egregious social mistakes.

A lot of men make those, so do a lot of women. In neither case does it give others the licence to treat them like trash.

 

[AClaire11]

I think this is reasonable.

What many posters are objecting to is that frequently in these scenarios, A does NOT follow appropriate boundaries and ignores the polite, socially appropriate “no” initially offered by B. When B gets more forceful, out of necessity, A acts wounded and blames B for being “rude.”

Based on what I’ve seen in this thread, I would guess we’ve got several As who don’t understand that they’re being told “no” and thus are completely surprised and shocked when B feels the need to speak more plainly. Are there Bs who are outright hostile from the getgo? Sure, and yes, that’s inappropriate (and since A is a stranger, A doesn’t know why B is like that). But what are you going to do in those situations? A’s not in a position to get them to reconsider, and the attempt is just going to elicit more hostility (because now A’s really ignored the line there.) So let it drop and move on.

Exactly! That’s all we’ve been saying.