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

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Thank you for reminding me of that line.

If I am dangerous, then by definition it’s not safe to be in this space with me. Ergo her rule leads quite directly to no communication ever happening unless it’s on the woman’s explicit terms, which I find to be an unconscionably sexist policy.

I was wrong. She is not espousing a reasonable, if pushing the boundaries of reasonability, view: she is espousing an unreasonable view. unixronin, I’d like to change my vote if possible. I now concur with you and others that she is unhinged.

[lizzibabe.livejournal.com]

I agree that she is overly paranoid, but her crazy doesn't diminish some of her *very* good points. Men *must* read body language to realise when a woman might or might not welcome interaction. Women *must* realise that a man who refuses to hear "no" is bad-bad-runaway-from.

I read a *very* interesting book called The Gift of Fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_Fear) by Gavin De Becker which helps you learn to pay attention to the little signs that indicate your threat level is rising.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I agree that she is overly paranoid, but her crazy doesn't diminish some of her *very* good points. Men *must* read body language to realise when a woman might or might not welcome interaction. Women *must* realise that a man who refuses to hear "no" is bad-bad-runaway-from.

Both true. The applicability of the former is somewhat ... not diminished, but marred by the fact that it's often difficult for a man to correctly read a woman's body language, especially when she's unknowingly sending mixed messages — say, she's sending "I want you to admire", while thinking "but don't make any moves." There is no textbook for body language and other non-verbal communication; we all have to figure it out for ourselves.

(And, speaking here for a moment as a deep-into-the-range Aspie, it is very much harder for some of us than others. Sometimes all but impossibly hard.)

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

There is no textbook for body language and other non–verbal communication

I’ll agree with you and raise the stakes: there are no standards for this form of communication: not even standards for accuracy. How you choose to encode a subliminal message will depend on your particular neurology, your personal history, your culture, and whether you want to tell the truth.

Most of us have the experience of seeing a friend whose every signal is saying, “I’m fine,” and yet we go up to them anyway and say, “What’s wrong? You look like you could use a friend.” People lie with body language just as much as we lie with words.

So what this bullet point really says is, “You men need to, without knowing me, understand enough of myself, my culture and my history to understand the signals I’m sending; and, regardless of the signal I’m sending, you need to assume I’m being honest and forthright with you.”

Which is, if you’ll forgive me saying so, utter bullshit.

If she had amended that paragraph to a, “if I tell you to buzz off, then go away,” I would have no problem with it. But on reflection, the more I read it the more offended I am by it. It amounts to a giant special-pleading for women — a special-pleading which, I am convinced, the majority of women do not want.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Yes, but those points are almost^* trivial. Replace “men” and “women” with “people” and you’ve got something that we’re taught since kindergarten. “Don’t bother people who wish to be left alone, and be careful about people who are needling you when you want to be left alone because they’re not your friends,” is the kind of wisdom I can easily imagine Mrs. Lawton, my kindergarten teacher, imparting.

^* Unfortunately, common sense being what it is, sometimes even the trivial needs to be delivered emphatically and with great force.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That was precisely my point. She's thrown the baby out with the bathwater.