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

[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.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

"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,

Crowded.

or in the break room at work during business hours,

Closed area.

or in the supermarket produce department.

Possibly both closed area AND crowded.

"Alone with a woman in most public places, [...] even a crowded one, [...]"
It's self-contradictory. She has not thought her arguments through for internal consistency. They are not consistent, and her stated requirements, as stated, are not fulfillable.

I'm not ignoring the context. On the contrary, I believe you are ignoring her subtext.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I think that I am much more familiar with her subtext than you are.

I have been in a crowded subway, standing and holding the strap, pressed up against someone who put his hand under my shirt. It was a startling experience. The training of "don't cause a scene in public" was strong. It took me more than a moment to overcome it, and I am someone who has no stage fright. A shy woman might not have said anything at all.

Again, look at the analogy to a jeweler with a briefcase full of diamond rings. When a stranger approaches him in his shop, or in another appropriate venue (at the home of a mutual friend, or at a jewelry exhibit), the jeweler will gladly open the case. On a lonely subway platform, the jeweler carrying a briefcase of diamond rings will not be so friendly.

My personal safety is more valuable to me than a box of diamonds!

(By the way, I have never been in a supermarket with a crowded and enclosed produce section -- but then, in the Midwest, supermarkets do tend to be well-lit and very spacious.)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Alaric, is it possible that you are so intent on proving the writer wrong, because it is difficult for you, as an Aspie, to pick up on the non-verbal messages women send you? Might it be that you resent being mistrusted because of this?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm quite certain I miss non-verbal communication, from all kinds of people. But what I resent here is the subtext I'm seeing from this writer that all men are dangerous until proven otherwise, and if the possibility exists that you might be thought dangerous by a woman then you should never under any circumstances try to open communication. "All men are probable rapists, until proven otherwise" is like "All blacks are probable drug dealers, until proven otherwise" or "All Chinese are probable thieves, until proven otherwise."

I've read the article. Several times. I agree that several of the points she makes are, by themselves, sound and reasonable advice. I'd go so far as to say they are, for the most part, pretty much common sense. But it's common sense that she doesn't seem to think men are capable of without her spelling it out for them. We're big, dumb, ignorant probable — not possible — rapists, every one of us, presumed guilty by default, and she doesn't seem to see beyond that. She doesn't appear to have any room in her world-view for the possibility that some random person on the street might not be just waiting for an opportunity to rape or murder her on a whim or in a moment of negligence.

That, at any rate, is how her column comes across to me. It says "This writer has stepped across the line from caution into paranoia."

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

It's not the best written article in the world, but she has done men a good turn--if they'll take it that way--by bringing up some things to maybe consider when evaluating whether they're going to make the chick they want to get to know like them, or feel threatened by them.

She's overdone it, yeah. But the dirty little secret about men and women's communication: you don't make any more sense to us than we do to you. You are baffling. Things we think are absolutely obvious, you somehow miss.

Okay, so you're a bright fellow, Mr. Reader. Although you might not describe yourself as Alan Alda kind of "sensitive," you have half a clue.

The guys who don't have half a clue do not know that they don't have half a clue, and they do need things spelled out for them like this, in words of one syllable. And some of them *may* listen. Maybe. And be maybe a tiny bit less clueless. Maybe.

So consider if you're a decent guy with half a clue who doesn't bug chicks who are pointedly ignoring you, then you aren't the intended audience.

(Of her admittedly clumsy and patronizing article.)