An informal poll about attitudes - REVISED

[unixronin]

Caution:  May be inflammatory.

Just for the sake of possibly-morbid curiosity:  I direct you to this article that perspicuity pointed out to me elsewhere.  Please go and read it.  Particularly the beginning.

Now, please answer only one poll.  First up, asking my readers of the feminine persuasion here:

[Poll #1472271]

For my chromosomally heterogeneous readers, I offer the following alternate poll with your own seven eight choices:

[Poll #1472272]

My personal feeling is that if you regard every male as a probable rapist lacking only the opportunity, I want some way to know in advance, because if the very first thought that goes through a woman's head is, "Is that man going to try to rape me?", I don't even want to start a conversation.  I find the whole attitude insulting, to say the least.  It's way too high a disadvantage to start out having to first of all convince someone that you're not planning to rape or murder them, and if I knew in advance that I was going to be up against that, I'd move on immediately to talk to someone saner.  I don't know how people who approach the world with that kind of level of fear every day can even function, but I do believe that it's not my responsibility to walk on eggshells everywhere I go, just to avoid triggering someone else's paranoia.

(Heh.  I just discovered I have to answer both polls to be able to see the results of my own poll.  Pretty obviously, so does everyone else.  Please note I am RESUBMITTING to add a "Just show me the results" entry to each poll.  If you already voted, this means your vote will be lost.  Feel free to vote again.  We apologize for the confusion.)

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I am aware of my surroundings, evaluate body-language, am wary of strangers. But then, I scan rooftops and trees . . .

I think much of what she says represents common sense for both sexes. We taught it in the dojo.

[ariyanakylstram.livejournal.com]

hear hear.

all people, but especially those significantly larger than I (and that includes MOST men, as I am petite) are potential threats in the right situation. That's what any martial art teaches you. Know your surroundings. Know what your body language says about you. Know your out. Be prepared ...and be able to make your evaluation long before they're in range to hurt you, if at all possible.

also, consider where she's FROM. she's in New York. I've visited once, and I can tell you that compared to the relative comfort I feel in SF, NYC was a totally different place. I was very aware of how often I was being weighed and measured by the people around me. When I went over to Brooklyn (IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY) to go train at a circus warehouse, I promise you I was downright uncomfortable waiting outside until they let me in -- in jeans, a tshirt, and a backpack. I wasn't advertising.

If I were in the meat-market dating scene anywhere, I'd use her techniques, but ESPECIALLY in New York, of all the places I've visited. I've certainly used variations of them in the past.

So yeah, I think maybe she's going a bit far, but our situations are different, and at the end of the day, she has to do what makes her comfortable and able to live her life.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah. I hate NYC. The one time I was in NYC on foot, I could feel the crazy in the air. I don't go back to NYC if I can avoid it, and so far I've always been able to avoid it.

Potential threats, yes. But IMHO there's a difference between scanning for potential threats and assuming that everyone you meet is a threat until proven otherwise.

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militaryhumor/a/gunrules.htm)

You could do worse.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Point. :)

I do observe, though, that it's not necessarily the most functional way to approach having or developing a social life.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

haha! bastard! You beat me to it!

Personally, I felt insulted by her insinuation that men don't consistently feel a paranoia that we may be called to action at any time by the actions of random nutbags; indeed, it is the constant paranoid whinnyings of harridan's like her that remind all well-meaning males that they may be AT ANY TIME! (oh noess!) be called upon to defend women from our fellows.

It's that fine line between 'readiness' and 'paranoia': one is enabling and fulfilling, allowing people to live without fear, the other is just fear given a programmatic output.

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

How is that different? Isn't the first step of scanning for a potential threat to assume that everyone you meet is a threat until proven otherwise? Isn't it a process of elimination, not inclusion?

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

There are a great deal of different attitudes to this. What follows is mine. It works for me and has a good track record of working for me. Your mileage will probably vary.

Scanning for a potential threat is just like scanning for anything else. You first learn what traits tend to accompany what you’re looking for. You look for those traits. When you find things that hit those traits, you pay close attention to them and don’t allow them near you unless you’ve proven they’re not actually this thing you’re afraid of.

Consider, for instance, a soldier walking a patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan. They know suicide bombers exist. They also know the suicide bombers are typically young men from outside Iraq who are wearing unusually baggy clothing. If a young man with a Saudi accent wearing baggy clothes comes near to the soldier, the soldier will probably tell him to stand his ground and start disrobing. But if a young girl with a Sadr City accent approaches, the soldier will probably let her approach. After all, if he treats her like she's a threat, she might run off. If he treats her nicely, she might tell him where an ied is planted and thus save his life.

The same logic applies to scanning a crowd for threats. You need to know the clear warning signs, and you need to react quickly to them. You also need to be approachable by others, because 97% of people aren't sociopaths, and they're your best early warning system for when things are going wrong.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

hear hear on the 'other people are your best early warning system'.

I long ago realized that I just don't have the mental multitasking ability to process every last detail in my environment for meaning, but the people around me will pull a different subset of it, and pre-process it for me.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Actually, no, I don't see it that way. Unless threats outnumber non-threats, it is more efficient to identify the threats among the non-threat majority than to eliminate the non-threats. (And if threats even come close to matching the number of non-threats, you probably shouldn't go out at all — though there are exceptions to this rule. See below.)

Consider this reasoning for a moment:
1. I am very seldom attacked. Therefore the majority of people are not tangible threats.
2. Those people who are threats are therefore a minority that differs from the majority.
3. Since I cannot detect internal motivation, I have to go by behavior. But if the internal motivation of the actual threats is different from the majority, then their behavior may be as well. Therefore I may be able to identify them by their atypical behavior, which will stand out from the norm.
4. Not all atypical behaviors are harmful or threatening. Therefore when I detect someone behaving atypically, I must assess whether that behavior differs in a threatening way.

I probably cannot detect ALL threats this way, because some threats may not be identifiable by their actions. But if I have identified and avoided a number of visibly identifiable threats without encountering a non-identifiable threat, it is probably reasonable to infer that the number of non-identifiable threats is small compared to the number of identifiable threats, which is in turn small compared to the general population. Hence if I avoid the identifiable threats, I have in all probability avoided a large majority of all threats; and I cannot screen out the non-identifiable threats in the first place.

It doesn't always work, of course. Sometimes you DO run into an unidentifiable threat. The driver who left-turned into me across a divided expressway in 1999 was not in a turn lane, did not slow down, did not signal a turn, and in fact gave no visible indication whatsoever that she was about to turn until she turned. It being about twenty minutes after sundown, I could not see where she was looking. When the threat finally became apparent, I only had maybe a second and a half in which to react and evade, and that wasn't enough.

(I note, by the way, that this specific situation — a motorcyclist sharing the road with other traffic — is a case in which the population is inverted, and there are so many other drivers who are thoughtless, simply inattentive, or even actively malicious that the only prudent strategy is to consider ALL other vehicles on the road as potential threats. But in this case, it is not cost-effective to try to screen out the ones that are not threats; you simply avoid them all as though they were all threats, and continually form updated escape plans. A vehicle that turns out not to be a threat doesn't cost you anything.)

No strategy is perfect. But as long as the proportion of actual threats in the population is small, I find looking for the odd-ones-out that behave differently from the majority to be much more efficient — and much less mentally demanding — than screening every member of the majority to see that they really aren't threats. The greater the margin by which non-threats outnumber threats, the more efficient it is.

(This is why concealed carry has been found to be a more effective deterrent to crime than open carry, even when only a very small percentage of people carry. Criminals can easily identify the people who are carrying openly, and avoid them. But they can't easily identify the ones who carry concealed, and the more of those there are, the higher the risk of getting it wrong, even if the absolute number is still small. Criminals turn out to be very risk-averse. A National Institute of Justice study in the late 90s, surveyed about 2000 convicted felons in Federal prisons, of whom more than 90% stated that on one or more occasions, they had decided against committing a crime merely because they thought it was possible their intended victim might be armed.)

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

One thing to be said in the favor of our original Paranoid Woman -- talking to strangers *is* unusual behavior in our modern urban setting. If a stranger starts talking to me, my alert level goes up several notches.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Further comment -- we tend to gloss over the difference between "all strangers are dangerous" and "all men are rapists" in this kind of discussion.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

The human brain does a pretty good job of sorting out things that are "different" -- which means that 90% of that process of elimination happens without any conscious thought, even if you are aware of your surroundings and operating in "condition yellow." It's somewhat like driving the freeway, where you don't pay attention to the traffic going the other way until something unusual happens over there.

[ariyanakylstram.livejournal.com]

Hey, as a motorcyclist we're taught to assume every car is out to hit us until proven otherwise. How is it that much different?

Really?

I don't see you getting your hackles up at being a driver who is probably watched carefully by that bicyclist over there, or that motorcyclist over in that lane, or that mother with a stroller who wants to make sure you won't run her and her baby over.

It's part of what we do.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Hey, Wife is always surprised when I recognize a neighbor driving a car when we are out walking. As far as she is concerned, cars are threats. Threats don't contain neighbors waving "Hi" . . .

(I don't tell her that I mainly look at faces to try to judge the threat level.)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Partly, I know that the risk ratio of drivers who are simply inattentive or unobservant is more like one in two or one in three than, say, one in a hundred or a thousand. And in that situation, specific malice is not required — a moment's inattention is all it takes. You know that as well as I do. From the other side, when I'm driving a car and I see a cyclist or motorcyclist, I know he or she has due cause for caution, and I allow extra room. If at all possible, I won't pass a cyclist until I have room to swing wide, for example.

This doesn't — IMHO — really transfer to the question of rape/assault/robbery, because you don't just accidentally rape someone because your attention wandered for a moment. (Potential South Park treatments aside. "BAD cock! ...Sorry about that.")

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

As I commented else-thread, she is emphasizing threats from *strangers*. In the real world, more women are raped or beaten or murdered by someone they know.

I also dislike and distrust NYC. And yet my sister has lived there, alone and I believe unmolested, for over forty years.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I hear you. To me, while the individual pieces of advice are sound up to a point (at least, the ones that aren't just insulting), I'm not certain her complete formula is followable. She seems to be pretty much stating that a man should not even look at or speak to a woman until and unless explicitly invited to. But y'know, most women won't. Ever. Our society has done too good a job of conditioning women that it's improper for them to make the first move ... any first move. And if one sex won't make the first move, and the other isn't allowed to ... well ... there's a problem.

I think she's approaching the problem from an unsound starting frame of mind, but which she thinks is perfectly reasonable. But it's not reasonable to approach life with the attitude that every male is a rapist until and unless proven otherwise, especially when she declares right up front that in her mind, no male can ever be proven not to be a rapist.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing that I pick up from this is that she is assuming her greatest threat comes from strangers. Statistics say otherwise.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I think that hearkens back in part to the point I made above about living in orange all the time causing you to misidentify and mis-prioritize threats. But there's also a point to be made there that you cannot accurately assess probable threats if you're starting out with a false set of assumptions about where they will come from.

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

or she's explaining how she decides whether or not to allow someone to become not-a-stranger?

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I did not read her as “stating that a man should not even look at or speak to a woman until and unless explicitly invited to.” I read her as saying, “if she’s giving clear don’t-bother-me signs, leave her alone.” I think that’s defensible advice.

It is not a binary choice of “welcoming” versus “forbidding.” There’s an in between stage.

Unfortunately, I’ve received phone calls from female friends which have gone something like, “I’m here at this bar and this jerk just won’t get the hint: can you show up and help me out?” I used to recommend to them they talk to the bouncers and let the bouncers explain things to the guy, but then I realized my friends were trying to (a) not ruin the guy’s night by having the bouncers take him aside in front of all of his friends, and (b) show me a small honor by making sure I knew that I was their go-to guy for trouble. Once I realized that, I stopped suggesting they talk to the bouncers. :)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

You are totally overlooking her third point, that "Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women's communication to you."

She goes on to give an example of a woman giving the message that she doe not want to be approached. Then, an example of an man making the first move, getting the message that the woman does not welcome the move, and respectfully backing off.

Finally, she gives the example of a woman signaling that she would welcome an approach on your part, and continuing to send signals during the conversation that your approach is welcome. I will quote from it, because it is important:

"On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off."

She is NOT stating that a man should not wait for a woman to make the first move -- she is stating that a man should respect what a woman is communicating, both verbally and nonverbally, and not impose where he is not wanted.

Frankly, that is excellent advice for anyone, male or female, when dealing with anyone else, male or female.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

She is NOT stating that a man should not wait for a woman to make the first move

Actually, yes, she is. Read it again.

The key point is the one where she says a male has to ask himself, "If I were dangerous, would she be safe in this space with me?" If that test fails, "it is not appropriate for the man to initiate communication". But that is an always-fail test because of how it's defined. If I am dangerous to you, which she says I must assume when deciding whether communication is appropriate, then by definition you are not safe in any space with me. It is an un-meetable standard. Automatic failure of the test is built into the definition of the test.

Try this analogy: "When deciding whether to buy something, first ask yourself: If I had no money, could I afford this?"

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

You are entirely ignoring the context of the quote. Here it is:

"Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited."

Context is important, both in text and in real-life encounters. Even if you were dangerous in general, i.e., a potential mugger or rapist, you would not be an immediate threat to me while standing in line at an amusement park, or in the break room at work during business hours, or in the supermarket produce department. If you were to approach me and I did not want to get to know you better, I would feel comfortable turning you away in a polite manner. I would easily be able to step away from you if you intruded on my space, and I would easily be able to summon help if you became creepy. I would not feel trapped and alone, hence I would not react out of panic.

However, if I am alone, or if my exit is blocked, or if I am in a crowded situation where I cannot move away from you, then I am not going to feel particularly comfortable or friendly towards you if you invade my space or gives me a creepy vibe.

Sure, if you are a homicidal maniac hell-bent on doing harm, then by definition I am not safe in any space with you.

I have been fortunate enough never to have encountered a homicidal maniac.

However, I have encountered purse snatchers, creepy guys, and strangers who have touched me inappropriately.

Try this analogy: "When deciding whether to buy jewelry, first ask yourself: If I were a petty thief, would a jeweler be safe with me in this space?" Sure, a jeweler knows that no matter how many locks and security cameras he has in his store, he is not going to be safe from a determined jewel thief. But he is a lot safer selling his diamonds there than in a dark alley, or while standing on a crowded subway, or in a deserted lobby late at night.

If a jeweler were carrying a suitcase full of diamonds through such a space, he certainly would not stop to transact a sale with a stranger who approaches him uninvited.