S
Sarcelle
Guest
Yet this is what usually happens when someone approaches us in public transportation. Lewd proposals and polite refusals brings about more lewdness. In more extreme cases it accompanied by being physically groped.
- Status
C
chevalier
Guest
If it were so, there would be no objection for me to make. Person A would clearly be in the wrong. And let’s just say there is no disagreement between us about those situations, at all, because there’s simply nothing to disagree about.
Secondarily, though — and I reluctantly emphasize this but I feel I have to — being so grossly inept socially still shouldn’t be making that sort of person a social pariah that’s free game for Christians to torment verbally or through tone or body language because no holds barred because well, socially inept people are pariahs. It doesn’t work that way.
Next, on the basis of the examples we’ve discussed here I am finding it very hard to see how a polite, socially appropriate response is in fact initially offered and the switch to ‘more forceful’ is in fact a change delayed in time as opposed to closer to initial reaction, and not just more forceful in denying whatever the other person wants (which is, of course, everybody’s very good right) but rather open about having zero regard for that person, who has not yet done anything to deserve contempt and dehumanization for.
And that happens to jerks a lot but also to people who simply, legitimately, didn’t understand. It lies in human nature to see oneself as good at giving hints and others as poor at reading them as opposed to seeing miscommunication.
Yes, and at that point a smart, experienced and humble A on a well-controlled day will just go away. On some other day especially a less savvy A will react just like anyone who thinks his rights are being violated unfairly or he’s being insulted without having deserved it. That will be anything from asking for some sort of an explanation — of the rude manner rather than ‘contents’ of the response — at which point a certain A (I’ve decided to try this without inflammatory adjectives) may be incensed that her will that B disappear immediately is not being done, obviously, since he’s standing there with a stupid face asking some sot of questions. Who knows, B quite possibly wakes up in county jail with a relatively serious charge. Welcome to modern world and its values.
One additional source of confusion here lies in how women may be inclined to think how people are inclined to underestimate the intelligence and emotional intelligence of others, then they’re surprised that they didn’t manage to hide something, apparently. Or they act surprised that the recipient will latch onto a veiled insult, e.g. ‘hey, have you essentially just called me a big hair ape with the intelligence of a French fry?,’ etc. (in this surprised because it was ‘supposed’ to be picked up by the recipient but not commented on). This is what happens when people start playing games and trying to use or tweak the rules to their advantage — which happens on either side — as opposed to communicating more.
C
chevalier
Guest
I think my little scenario above answers that, but let’s perhaps give it more thought:
(1) Yes, a well-controlled A will just go away, which is of course going to be the best course of action but also to require a lot of humility from A — more than Bs realize, and quite probably more than Bs have — because it essentially means A walking away from being branded as an outcast, pariah etc. and possibly accused of something bad without stopping to offer a defence. Most humans don’t have this degree of humility or self-control from the get go (for example B doesn’t have it in this example) and have to learn it the hard way.
(2) A savvy A could walk away but not without a Miss Manners sort of comment regarding the uncalled for rudeness, but that, by definition, takes some savvy to even think about, let alone deliver gracefully under pressure. Most people in the younger generation don’t have either (not enough time spent with parents, grandparents not always around to teach the drill etc.).
(3) A lot of normal people will initially just stand there stupefied — obviously raising an incensed B’s question of why are you still here if I told you to go (and yes, I imply a superior/entitled attitude here in how B views other human beings and their obligation to comply with B’s instructions) — other As will immediately protest the manner and start arguing against it, essentially in the sense that neither is B, in all probability, any sort of a privileged person (more entitlement), nor is A some sort of outlaw or slave (less protection). In itself that would have nothing to do with challenging B’s decision but only the manner. However, B is obviously ikely to focus totally on B’s wishes not being granted immediately and without comment, which in B’s mind is something very wrong that shouldn’t be happening, so A will be misjudged. And Gender Wars™ will be perpetuated across the entire galaxy for another century to come, if A and B happened to be of opposing sexes.
(4) Deranged As will have all the more motivation to stay behind and start proving something. There is a technical mistake here being made by B actually, which prevents B from achieving B’s purpose using B’s chosen means: in giving A unnecessary grief or for example failing to resist the temptation to communicate superiority (which is always a can of worms) or condescension or contempt (which is rarely not met with a negative reaction), B actually makes the situation more and not less, dangerous for himself/herself by unnecessarily stimulating A’s anger or other negative emotions, as well as first of all giving A a reason to focus his/her mind on B (‘making it personal’).
This is not blaming B — like I said I’m totally opposed to giving people flak for failing to have perfect communication skills — but simply explaining how the technical error works here and what the consequences are of making it.
Even for purely practical reasons it would be much more expedient for B, while not showing weakness or leaving openings, to still treat A like a fellow human being, avoid gratuitous veiled insults, avoid dispensing with basic courtesy etc. Or, in other words, to refrain from treating A badly and taking it out on him/her.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Realistically, for me, it depends on the approach. If someone opens with “hey sexy, got a boyfriend?” or “hey baby what’s your number?”, the initial response is likely to be either completely ignoring them or a pretty forceful “not interested.” Because really, those aren’t appropriate things to say to a strange woman, and I’m trying to shut down the interaction as quickly as possible. If someone approaches me politely, they’ll get something like “I’d like to read please” with a smile, if I don’t want to talk that day. If someone continues, gets in my face, or otherwise behaves aggressively, they’re likely to get told to “get lost”, probably with some non-CAF language thrown in the mix.
I think you’re reading a lot of contempt into people’s responses that really isn’t warranted based on what people have actually said in this thread. And that’s what sets off a red flag for a lot of us - because a lot of guys who ultimately just don’t want to be told no will accuse a woman of being rude or contemptuous when she makes it clear - however clear as is necessary to the situation - that she’s not interested. That’s something a lot of us women have experienced, being told that we’re being rude or mean for saying no and meaning no, no matter how polite we are.
C
chevalier
Guest
Obviously we aren’t talking about those extreme situations, which are crimes in the process of being committed and not scenarios to discuss about communication between strangers, with a dating overtone or without.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I think what a lot of us are saying is that, in our experience, those aren’t extreme situations. When I was taking public transit, lewd proposals were more of a “as least once a week” type of situation. I was fortunately never groped or physically assaulted (although other women have been), but being followed or having men get in my face and yell at me for refusing to answer whether I had a boyfriend was not uncommon.
These are everyday realities for a lot of women.
X
Xantippe
Guest
- The situation looks like this:
I offer a polite no because I am not 100% certain that Steve is a safe person and allowing a man I don’t know well to walk me to my apartment door puts me in a vulnerable position.
Steve insists and won’t take accept my no.
NOW the red flags are waving and I am sure that Steve is not a safe person.
Had Steve not pressed, he could have preserved his reputation and perhaps eventually earned my trust, but by not accepting “no” in a small matter when I don’t know him well, he has demonstrated that he is likely not to accept a “no” in a situation where I can’t easily get rid of him. (In this initial situation, I can easily just refuse to walk home/call a friend/call a taxi/etc. But if I were alone with him–with him being the sort of guy who doesn’t believe that a woman’s “no” matters–I could easily wind up in a very bad situation.)
I’ve personally gratefully accepted A LOT of walks home from people I trusted and knew well.
It’s really important to demonstrate that you value people’s right to say “no.”
(Of course I understand that the amount of offering that people can politely do is culturally relative–in most of the US, it’s not a lot.)
- I think a lot of answers do need to be culturally and regionally specific, because the norms are different in different areas. There is no Official Human Etiquette, just local etiquette.
- Chevalier, you have reported repeatedly winding up with women being outraged and offended by your behavior. Maybe they’re not the ones behaving badly in these situations?
I think it helps a lot to obey the social norms in one’s particular area. I think you may be violating a lot of your local norms without realizing it.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Extreme does not necessarily mean rare.
It is more common than you think. Of course for you it will be rare because you are not the target.
C
chevalier
Guest
Of course. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of talk except somebody who’s actually looking for it (and in a tonk rather, not in normal public space).
Of course they aren’t (and obviously no second thoughts about ‘non-CAF language’ being a much called for response; I’ve threatened other men with immediate physical violence for less). The other side of the coin is that those aren’t the only things someone could say to a stranger, or more likely a semi-stranger (total strangers is not the best scenario for most situations), when trying to strike a conversation.
Not at all. Firstly, I believe that contempt to actually be there — I have no other choice when the words actually suggest it are clear and there is no convincing argument regarding the intention other than flat denial, which is not very persuasive.
As for the red flag, I don’t intended to be rude and I apologise in advance for probably not managing to totally avoid it, but I don’t actually care. I know it’s not true, God knows it isn’t, a reasonable person as observer probably wouldn’t, and that’s pretty enough for me.
As for your final point, at this point I believe you’re choosing to directly contradict what I actually say and well, if it comes down to disbelief there’s probably little I can do about that. I’ve clearly said my issue is never with the ‘no’ per se — and I believe I’m more radical on this than you are, actually (there was that ‘some point’ vs 'every point offshoot a while ago in this discussion) — but always with:
(1) the gratuitous verbal abuse that is not necessary in the situation;
(2) the judgments formed about the man in the process.
Again, with apologies for not sounding particularly nice right at this moment, I can’t read the ‘no matter how polite’ from sample dialogue offered in this thread. Those examples are obviously nowhere near comparable to something like insulting someone’s mother, but they feel unnecessarily curt, icy etc. when considered as a possible response to something that wasn’t impolite (e.g. a polite invitation if unwelcome because the guy’s not attractive — and nobody says he’s got any right to a fighting chance or anything of the sort, just to be clear, only a right to not be treated like trash, especially not when not asking someone out but doing something like offering to walk a friend’s friend home for safety without first being asked to). I will insist there’s a fair amount of condescension vibe in the sense of it sounding like something that’s said to someone who doesn’t deserve basic respect or someone who is available for the speaker to e.g. order around. I do realize this likely comes from personal experience of having to deal with people whose standard of behaviour or speech are not exactly high, but still it sounds bad as a general way of talking about men who have done nothing specific to merit that sort of treatment or perception. And of that sort of thing there’s quite a lot here on CAF across the various threads on all sorts of subjects, which is something female posters also have commented on.
And I’m worried for people when I see it, because it obviously can’t be easy to form and keep healthy relationships when viewing the opposite sex with contempt, as less than fully human, whichever sex that happens to be (it’s both if you look at years on years of those threads). By extension, viewing one’s own sex as a bit more than human doesn’t automatically translate into viewing the other sex as less than human, but it won’t help either. This is not so much to dispute anyone’s preference or merits of it as to bring the consequences into the picture.
True.
X
Xantippe
Guest
- So, the person initially was told “no” in ways they didn’t understand, and now they’re being told “no” in a way they do understand but find rude.
- At least in the US, there would have to be a pretty serious altercation for a person to “wake up in the county jail.” They just don’t have room for every guy who verbally pesters women at bus stops.
- You seem to have an unusual amount of conflicts with people, and you describe a lot of trashy behavior from other people. As they say on a website I used to read, “aim higher.” If you spend more time with nice people, this won’t happen as much.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Groping is very common in crowded big city public transit.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Here’s the thing - a lot of guys will say they have no problem with no, but then will ignore a soft “no” and find a firmer “no” rude. Hence the suspicion: sometimes, there’s no magical place for a “no” that’s firm enough as to not lead to more arguing but soft enough to not be considered rude.
And going back to earlier in the thread, “I’d like to read please” isn’t a rude statement - it’s not treating a man with contempt to simply state that you aren’t interested in talking right now without apologizing for not wanting to talk. Of course it could be said rudely, but the statement itself isn’t rude, and I suspect that any man who would have a problem with that statement as it stands really ought to examine whether he’s actually not just upset that he got told no.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
This is where all of the disagreement is. You expect women to just know when they are safe and when they aren’t. But there is just no way to do so. All you can do is gauge your sense of safety, and go from there. When someone approaches inappropriately, won’t go away, won’t take no for an answer, or is violating very basic, common social norms, all you know is that they have no problem violating boundaries and you have to assume they aren’t safe.
Maybe it’s an incorrect assumption, but it when it’s feelings vs. health/safety/physical well-being, the latter wins every time.
This idea that you’re entitled to undying politeness because they should just know that despite being terribly awkward and inappropriate, you mean them no harm is insane. Hoosier Daddy is on to something here. My husband, stepfather, and big brother would all flip if they thought I was giving strange men the benefit of the doubt you’re asking for here, and the guy insisting that he deserves all of this blind trust would be at risk himself.
And if you want to talk about charity, where is the charity for the women who are being put in scary situations and told that they have to weakly and politely finagle their way out? Seriously, being told she’d like to read is too “rude” for you? After approaching her out of nowhere on a bus? Where is the understanding that the world is not a safe place and as a member of the smaller, weaker, and often sexually victimized sex, she might be afraid in this instances and feel the need to take steps to protect her safety?
For what it’s worth, DarkLight is much nicer than I am. After being told no and then ignored, I will shout at the top of my lungs “Get away from me!” If I feel unsafe, I want people to notice and turn, and I want the attention to encourage him to go away. After I had to call the police on a guy pestering me for a ride in a parking lot, the cop offered this as a tip. I’ve only ever had to use it once, but it works.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Why not spend more time with good people doing good things, rather than attempting to accost individual strange women who might or might not be good people? As you yourself have seen, that isn’t very productive. The rate of return on whatever it is you are doing sounds pretty lousy. It also sounds like it’s burning you out and making you hate women. There are practicing Catholic women in Poland who want to have a husband and a family–it’s just that the stuff you do is very unappealing (and even frightening) to nice women. (Even your “bush of roses” thing is going to be off-putting to a lot of nice women for a variety of reasons–I will explain in more detail if you want.)
It sounds like you have been trying to make overtures of friendship or intimacy with women you don’t know much about and that you don’t have anything in common with, while using very off-putting methods.
If I were you, I would go back to the drawing board and forget everything I thought I knew about dating and women. It isn’t working for you, so scrap it.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yes.
I’d add that it has never been the case that women were brought up to give every benefit of the doubt to men who are total strangers. All of our training is to give strange men a wide berth and to give strange men who are behaving inappropriately an even wider berth.
In fact, there are traditional English rules of etiquette that say that a woman is not supposed to talk to a man without an introduction. You’ll notice that this situation pops up in 19th century English novels–a young woman is desperate to meet a young man–but she can’t because she isn’t supposed to speak to him without being introduced by a third party. (I believe there’s a situation like that in Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey.)
I would not go that far (there are practicalities), but please bear in mind that the traditional default in Anglo-Saxon culture is that well-brought up women would not speak to strange men at all if she could help it.
(And this isn’t entirely a gender thing–you’ve probably heard the old joke about the two Englishmen on the desert island who never spoke to each other, because they’d never been properly introduced.)
S
Sarcelle
Guest
As for guys putting themselves at risk read below.
My cousin a teenager at the time was followed home by a strange man who just wouldn’t take no for an answer. He probably thought she lived alone as she did not have a ring on her finger. Well, he thought wrong. She lived with her parents as most high school students do. Anyway he ended up getting chased by my uncle wielding a very sharp katana.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yes.
Being willing to make a fuss and attract attention is often the only weapon we have, and we’re supposed to throw it away?
C
chevalier
Guest
Now I am sure that the whole ‘safe person’ category is damaged goods.
On those facts one can’t be sure Steve is a safe person and while you don’t need (never did, anyway) any sort of justification whatsoever to just turn down his offer, certainty that he is unsafe would be an unwarranted as long as he didn’t actually start following you over your objections after you departed. Had he simply tried reasoning with you, perhaps asking once or twice more (which no doubt must have felt tedious on the receiving end), then it would be a jumped conclusion and ultimately injustice to the guy, completely separately from the problem of turning down his offer (which is not a problem to begin with because nobody disputes the fact that you have no obligation to accept and shouldn’t be guilt-tripped or pity-tripped into accepting, which would be toxic behaviour for Steve in most situations). The situation doubtless is complicated and not easy on you, but rash judgments do injustice to persons judged and are not exactly morally neutral either. Especially when it concerns a Steve who is concerned for your safety and not his chances of finding a girlfriend (and for all we know Steve may already have one and be happy with her, just not happy to see women walk alone and be assaulted).
I suppose as much, but if Steve actually was concerned for your safety and not his chances of finding a girlfriend, then he would have failed at that goal for having dropping the matter after the first round of declining, especially something to the tune of ‘wouldn’t like to be a burden’, which is admittedly a bit of a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ sort of situation.
You could very well run into a Steve that insisted in this way (a minute or two of arguing about it) out of concern for your safety or some notion of gallantry, but afterward didn’t seek your trust because of how the situation made him feel. A very likely scenario with a more traditional sort of guy, actually. A more traditional sort of guy, as opposed to more of a bully sort of guy, would still probably understand the sentiment due not to being blind to the statistics etc. but wouldn’t appreciate being treated like a criminal himself especially in a place and company where his reputation were somewhat known.
That’s actually what I do in those sort of situations anywy. Boringly reiterate the hazard and the importance of avoiding it, suggest a cab rather than actual company much of the time, pay for it if the money seems to be a problem like the bastard that I am, make sure the situation is safe. And since this is safety management and not comfort management, my comfort is the last thing that matters and if I get insulted in the process then I don’t really mind at all, but it obviously isn’t going to make seek the company of the person who did it, now is it. And I certainly have a good laugh at the sorts of things people may have thought. Oh well, enough with this silliness.
Yes, you could. But precautions are different from judgments. I don’t exactly blame you, of course, but I can’t say I think it’s fair on people.
For the record, in those facts he has not demonstrated that he is likely not to accept a no but rather that the likelihood may be larger than with the average person perhaps. And the cab issue didn’t pop up, so chances are he got no chance to give it a thought (a lot of decent people have rather uninspiring intelligence).
C
chevalier
Guest
I would beg to disagree. There is obviously something to accept but there’s very little in it to celebrate or otherwise make a show of. Personally, and obviously this is going to be subjective, I’m no big fan of taking the right to decline so far as to require the person declining to treat others badly just as a device for making a stronger point of it. Or as a sort of licence to be impolite about the manner of communicating one’s wishes just because the wish itself is a legit or a constitutional right.
That’s going to differ from state to state, urban vs rural communities etc. Just like in any other country or nation and perhaps more, there are Americans of all sorts of kinds. Americans can be as diverse as night and day.
Europe and America had pretty much standard etiquette several decades ago. It included not being rude or overly blunt without need, as well as making demands somewhat more palatable by adding please, thank you or sorry even when not strictly necessary, and obviously not being quick to accuse or insult people bar extreme circumstances. A lot of this isn’t even etiquette but basically charity or justice in ethical terms. Third wave of feminism (or whichever wave it is now) and modern individualism does a lot of damage by teaching women — and pretty much anybody in a modern society, just to a lesser degree — to ditch all of it and be brusque about what they want and except others to jump to fulfil it immediately and without question and while making a demonstration of proper, immediate and full compliance. It’s sad to watch, obviously from the perspective of someone who doesn’t care much for political correctness but cares much for traditional courtesy.
I’ve seen it either way in all sorts of places.
I didn’t. It nowhere says it was my behaviour, and it usually wasn’t, as I actually very rarely end up on the receiving end of those misunderstandings, except for heated discussions here at CAF where I point out how sweeping conclusions about a man’s intention or character are not okay or the manner of talking about that to him.
And it was not about them being outraged, it was about them feeling unbound by any standard of politeness when talking to a man rather than a fellow woman (or rather than a man talking to them). And this is precisely something that feminism is doing right now, in terms of attitude, and to some extent gender-neutral individualism as well.
And that’swhat I’ve also been on the receiving end of in real life, when it’s part of a general way of talking rather than individual treatment of me (I tend to get or good very good individual treatment from people who don’t have a specific reason to hate me), i.e. a trend for being rather unceremonious in W2M vs generally seeing more need for tactful restraint in M2M and certainly expecting more in M2W.
Nah, I’m pretty convinced they’re the ones behaving badly, though the guys in question in most cases are quite likely to have done something clumsy to partially provoke the behaviour, though that’s not always the case. At the end of the day it boils down to the sort of supremacy/superiority attitude, often in some connection with a combative attitude or angst that’s probably largely justified or excused by personal experience but obviously isn’t helpful or endearing. It also turns sensitive men some self-esteem or adjustment problems into insensitive men with a whole lot of problems. Or boys rather.
Not a chance. I tend to be familiar with them because of a past hobby interest in the subject. And for the sake of discussion, since it already started when I made the stupid and pregnant mistake of referring to my college exploits it referred to something that sounded rather extreme in terms of category of behaviour but was always courteously done and practically always received in the same way. It was also the very way I met the most courteous person I’ve ever had the pleasure to converse with, but that’s a story for a different day (I’ve got lots of those, and if you don’t shup me up in time they tend to spin and spin, so run for the hills when you hear it starting).
X
Xantippe
Guest
I can’t find the quote (SO much discussion), but I wanted to respond to something Chevalier said upthread about treating ALL men as criminals.
I’d like to correct that. It’s not treating ALL men as criminals to be cautious or cool toward strange men who try to strike up conversations or acquaintances in public.
Let’s say that 95-99% of men in public respect certain unwritten rules about not bothering strangers on transit, not interrupting a woman reading a book, not bothering a woman who is jogging with earbuds in, etc. Something like 95-99% of men are doing great.
The problem is when a good guy chooses to adopt the behavior of the 1-5% that bothers strange women in public and then gets all huffy when he gets treated like the 1-5% of badly behaved men with chilliness or BEL’s method of yelling at the guy to leave her alone. The thing is, if a good guy wants to be treated like a good guy, he needs to act more like a good guy, and less like the other kind.
Also, flipping this around, imagine that you have a 16-year-old daughter who is getting more and more independent and going more and more places by herself. What rules of behavior for dealing with men in public would you give her? Doesn’t “don’t talk to strange men” and “don’t give your contact information to people you don’t know well” sound fantastic?
I’d like to correct that. It’s not treating ALL men as criminals to be cautious or cool toward strange men who try to strike up conversations or acquaintances in public.
Let’s say that 95-99% of men in public respect certain unwritten rules about not bothering strangers on transit, not interrupting a woman reading a book, not bothering a woman who is jogging with earbuds in, etc. Something like 95-99% of men are doing great.
The problem is when a good guy chooses to adopt the behavior of the 1-5% that bothers strange women in public and then gets all huffy when he gets treated like the 1-5% of badly behaved men with chilliness or BEL’s method of yelling at the guy to leave her alone. The thing is, if a good guy wants to be treated like a good guy, he needs to act more like a good guy, and less like the other kind.
Also, flipping this around, imagine that you have a 16-year-old daughter who is getting more and more independent and going more and more places by herself. What rules of behavior for dealing with men in public would you give her? Doesn’t “don’t talk to strange men” and “don’t give your contact information to people you don’t know well” sound fantastic?
- Status