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]

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.)